WEBVTT 00:00:00.258 --> 00:00:08.115 - I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday, July 23rd, 2026. 00:00:08.115 --> 00:00:16.511 - We're going to take the role. Please call the roll. Smith. Here. Burrell. Here. Cosenco. Here. Throckmorton. 00:00:16.511 --> 00:00:24.214 - Here. Did we have minutes that were distributed? I did not see them. Yes, I believe there were. Was 00:00:24.214 --> 00:00:26.910 - it just for the last meeting? Yes. 00:00:27.970 --> 00:00:39.457 - From the June 25th meeting June 25th is there a motion to approve the June 25th. Motion to approve June 00:00:39.457 --> 00:00:51.276 - 25th. Second I have a second to call the roll. Burrell yes could think oh yes. Smith abstain. Throckmorton 00:00:51.276 --> 00:00:54.590 - yes. All right. So what will. 00:00:54.722 --> 00:01:02.964 - What we're going to do here is go through the reports resolutions and communications and from the staff. 00:01:02.964 --> 00:01:11.441 - Do we have any at this moment? Just one. And it is in regards to the kind of technically the third petition 00:01:11.441 --> 00:01:18.270 - that is on the agenda tonight or I'm sorry, the fourth petition that is on the agenda. 00:01:18.466 --> 00:01:26.229 - I'm so sorry third rephrase that we have two cases on the expedited agenda And then at the beginning 00:01:26.229 --> 00:01:34.376 - of the regular agenda, there is a petition for 716 South High Street So we have a notice from an adjacent 00:01:34.376 --> 00:01:42.138 - property owner That the sign that is required to be placed on the property Was not visible from High 00:01:42.138 --> 00:01:46.750 - Street at least 21 days prior to the hearing date so in the 00:01:46.882 --> 00:01:54.871 - section of the code UDO that talks about defects in public notification requirements. It does talk about 00:01:54.871 --> 00:02:02.479 - that appearance at any hearing on a petition or proposal in person or by representative shall waive 00:02:02.479 --> 00:02:05.598 - any defect and notice unless the alleged 00:02:05.698 --> 00:02:13.769 - defect is raised at the beginning of the hearing. So the adjacent property owner is simply notifying 00:02:13.769 --> 00:02:21.840 - that at the beginning of the hearing that this defect did occur and does not, therefore, waive their 00:02:21.840 --> 00:02:23.998 - rights. The petitioner did 00:02:24.482 --> 00:02:31.724 - give us the affidavit stating that they did mail the public notice letters and did post a sign. So we 00:02:31.724 --> 00:02:39.107 - are just simply relaying to the board that an adjacent property owner did not observe the required sign 00:02:39.107 --> 00:02:46.349 - at least 21 days. An adjacent property owner didn't happen to observe it 21 days in advance. They did 00:02:46.349 --> 00:02:51.390 - not observe the sign being placed prior, 21 days prior to the hearing. 00:02:51.490 --> 00:02:58.377 - And has that resident, have they requested us to continue this because of that? They have not. 00:02:58.377 --> 00:03:05.698 - It's certainly, I think, and we can ask legal if there's any recourse to that. If the board wants to 00:03:05.698 --> 00:03:13.092 - hear from the adjacent property owner regarding a request for continuance, you certainly can. I think 00:03:13.092 --> 00:03:19.326 - my question really goes around with the, you know, cause this is unusual to get this. 00:03:19.618 --> 00:03:25.887 - Yeah, is to just say if the resident feels that they are somehow being denied their rights under our 00:03:25.887 --> 00:03:32.218 - code, meaning that they want to assure they have three week notice. What would be the best way for us 00:03:32.218 --> 00:03:38.238 - to proceed? I mean, we could continue to say, okay, the sign didn't go up, then we move it back. 00:03:38.338 --> 00:03:44.737 - Or if the resident says, well, it wasn't posted 21 days in advance, but I don't feel that my rights 00:03:44.737 --> 00:03:51.456 - were infringed upon. The resident is in the audience. So you're welcome to seek input from them. They're 00:03:51.456 --> 00:03:58.367 - here in the audience? Yes. So what we could do is ask if they would be willing to let us hear the petition, 00:03:58.367 --> 00:04:05.214 - even though they cited a variance from what they should be doing. Yes, they have stated that they observed 00:04:05.214 --> 00:04:07.518 - a lack of the presence of the sign. 00:04:07.970 --> 00:04:15.209 - Well, we have that right as a board to ask that then. If that person who observed it would like to come 00:04:15.209 --> 00:04:22.030 - forward to the podium and let me swear them in, they could say, they could ask us to postpone it, 00:04:22.030 --> 00:04:29.130 - I think. And that would be a valid reason because of the issue. Sure. Do you agree, Eric? Yes, unless 00:04:29.130 --> 00:04:34.142 - Anadina has any... Are we violating any of our policies? Uh-oh. Are we? 00:04:34.626 --> 00:04:42.351 - I think that's fine. We suggested Mr. Grockmore and you can ask the person who stated that they did 00:04:42.351 --> 00:04:50.230 - not observe the signage to Discuss what they did or did not observe and then consider continuance BCA 00:04:50.230 --> 00:04:57.954 - can consider that okay so the intent now is to make sure that we feel that the citizens of the city 00:04:57.954 --> 00:05:03.902 - are afforded the rights under under our code so if that person would like to 00:05:04.162 --> 00:05:10.933 - to come forward and discuss it and ask for us to continue it, that would be something we will consider. 00:05:10.933 --> 00:05:17.704 - But if that person doesn't feel comfortable coming forward, then we'll consider that a silent agreement 00:05:17.704 --> 00:05:24.409 - to move forward. Is that fair enough for the city? Okay, so we will entertain that during our reports, 00:05:24.409 --> 00:05:31.245 - resolutions, communications now before we start to announce what the agenda is for tonight. Would anyone 00:05:31.245 --> 00:05:34.110 - like to come forward and express a concern? 00:05:38.178 --> 00:05:45.635 - and just state your name. Yeah, my name's Leo Pilachowski. And do you swear to tell the truth about 00:05:45.635 --> 00:05:53.093 - the truth? Yes, I do. Okay, so we'll just have a conversation here. All I can say is that I didn't, 00:05:53.093 --> 00:06:00.625 - I did not get the written notice of this until July 8th. On July 6th, one of my neighbors mentioned, 00:06:00.625 --> 00:06:07.038 - asked me a question about the variance, and I said, I don't know anything about this. 00:06:07.170 --> 00:06:14.114 - And on that day, I had actually accepted a job for this afternoon and this evening to be out of town. 00:06:14.114 --> 00:06:20.922 - That's one of my plans. I accepted the job to do that. And I went over to the street, looked at the 00:06:20.922 --> 00:06:27.662 - property on the morning of July 7th. There was no sign. And I took a picture. I took two pictures, 00:06:27.662 --> 00:06:30.590 - in fact. I came back two days later on the 00:06:31.362 --> 00:06:38.061 - 9th, I believe, and took a picture and the sign was there. So I don't know if the sign was blown away, 00:06:38.061 --> 00:06:44.565 - but there was no sign on the property. And I do look at that property pretty much every day because 00:06:44.565 --> 00:06:51.199 - I own the property just south of it on 720 South High Street. Now, as I told Jamie, I believe she was 00:06:51.199 --> 00:06:57.768 - up here already, I wasn't planning on asking for this hearing to be postponed or do it by mentioning 00:06:57.768 --> 00:07:01.150 - this item. But the fact that there's no notice here 00:07:01.858 --> 00:07:10.060 - because Jamie said that I had to be here at the hearing if I wanted to present a change of the conditions. 00:07:10.060 --> 00:07:17.803 - The staff couldn't do that since they sent the packet out already. So the only reason I have brought 00:07:17.803 --> 00:07:25.775 - this up is because I don't want my appearance here to waive me bringing up any, not affect the variance 00:07:25.775 --> 00:07:27.998 - condition, but affecting it, 00:07:28.322 --> 00:07:33.913 - why I had to leave a job to come here, and that causes me a problem, and it may cause me a more problem. 00:07:33.913 --> 00:07:39.238 - I don't want to waive being able to bring the fact that this notice was defective in why I accepted 00:07:39.238 --> 00:07:44.670 - a job. So that's all I'm doing. I'm not asking you for continuance, because I'm already here, because 00:07:44.670 --> 00:07:50.208 - Jamie told me that I had to come here if I wanted to present something. I apologize for taking so long. 00:07:50.208 --> 00:07:51.326 - No, no, that's fine. 00:07:51.682 --> 00:07:57.302 - Understand is that you have no objection to us hearing that petition in this evening, correct? And it 00:07:57.302 --> 00:08:02.868 - has been entered into the record the conditions that you found which was the sign was not observable 00:08:02.868 --> 00:08:08.598 - Yes, and I can freeze I can present the pictures for that if you if the staff would like I'll give them 00:08:08.598 --> 00:08:14.109 - the pictures very good But that's what's important here is we want to make sure that we are hearing 00:08:14.109 --> 00:08:17.470 - this concern and have addressed it I don't object to hearing 00:08:17.698 --> 00:08:24.052 - Item tonight. Well, thank you for that. So we'll with that we will move forward then but thank you for 00:08:24.052 --> 00:08:30.344 - taking the time to explain it to us All right. Now with that do we have any other communications? No, 00:08:30.344 --> 00:08:36.698 - nothing from staff. Okay. Well in that case then let's go through the list of petitions. We have a few 00:08:36.698 --> 00:08:39.166 - I believe to be continued and those are 00:08:40.418 --> 00:08:51.259 - ZR-2026-070033 and that is pertaining to 530 South Washington Street for an administrative appeal of 00:08:51.259 --> 00:09:01.993 - a notice of violation. That will be continued to August 27th, 2026. Also we have ZR-2026-050022 and 00:09:01.993 --> 00:09:03.710 - ZR-2026-070035. 00:09:03.906 --> 00:09:10.655 - and that is request at 412 East Wiley Street for conditional use, and that deals with a duplex at that 00:09:10.655 --> 00:09:17.405 - facility, at that location, I'm sorry. So those are the two that we have for continuous. Are there any 00:09:17.405 --> 00:09:23.958 - others that I'm overseeing, Eric? Nope, those two cases will be continued, and so we obviously have 00:09:23.958 --> 00:09:31.100 - two cases for the expedited agenda, and then three cases on the regular agenda. And those shall be expedited 00:09:31.100 --> 00:09:32.542 - agenda of 2026.06.32, 00:09:32.674 --> 00:09:40.315 - And that's 2101 East Covenanter Drive and 1213 South High for conditional use we have the other expedited 00:09:40.315 --> 00:09:47.668 - as 20 2606 29 and that is 120 South Wildland Street for a variance from the sign standards. Those are 00:09:47.668 --> 00:09:55.021 - going to be our two expedited and then following that we will have petitions from 20 2606 25 which is 00:09:55.021 --> 00:10:02.014 - 716 South High for a variance from the driveway width standards. We will have another the second 00:10:02.306 --> 00:10:10.298 - The full petition is 2606-27 at 1219 West East Branch Road for a variance from the required sidewalk 00:10:10.298 --> 00:10:18.210 - installation. And then we will finish tonight with ZR 2026-0630, and that's at 3430 West 3rd Street 00:10:18.210 --> 00:10:26.122 - for a variance from sign standards. So with that, am I overlooking again anything else there? Okay, 00:10:26.122 --> 00:10:31.582 - that is the order tonight. Let's go ahead with the expedited agenda. 00:10:31.810 --> 00:10:38.591 - Item number ZR-2020606-0032, a request at 2101 East Cominenter Drive in 1213 South High Street 00:10:38.591 --> 00:10:45.800 - for conditional use to allow development within the floodway and floodway fringe. May I have a staff 00:10:45.800 --> 00:10:46.942 - report, please? 00:11:00.290 --> 00:11:08.199 - Good evening, Joe Patterson, zoning and long range planner. As discussed, this is for 2101 East Covenanter 00:11:08.199 --> 00:11:15.885 - Drive in 1213. Doesn't sound like the mic's on. Is the mic on? Yes, it is. Okay, maybe a little closer, 00:11:15.885 --> 00:11:23.277 - I'm sorry. I'm having trouble. Thank you. Joe Patterson, zoning and long range planner. And this is 00:11:23.277 --> 00:11:28.894 - for conditional use for development within the floodway and floodway fringe 00:11:29.090 --> 00:11:35.888 - within the High Street multi-use path project and within a residential medium lot R2 zoning district. 00:11:35.888 --> 00:11:42.154 - This is in the east central portion of the city. And as you can see, the affected parcels for 00:11:42.154 --> 00:11:49.485 - this conditional use are on the east side of High Street, roughly between the intersection of East Covenanter 00:11:49.485 --> 00:11:56.550 - and South Covenanter. This portion of the project covers a portion of the floodplain on these two parcels 00:11:56.550 --> 00:11:58.750 - is part of a much larger project 00:11:59.426 --> 00:12:11.806 - going from Arden Drive all the way north to 100. And as you can see, sorry, as you can see, this project 00:12:11.806 --> 00:12:24.422 - does impact the east side of High Street. And as outlined in the staff report, there are numerous criteria 00:12:24.422 --> 00:12:29.374 - that we have to consider both the general 00:12:29.698 --> 00:12:35.432 - criteria as well as the additional criteria for conditional uses. But in addition, since this is within 00:12:35.432 --> 00:12:41.220 - the floodplain, we have criteria for development within the floodplain. And as staff evaluated all those 00:12:41.220 --> 00:12:47.009 - criteria, we found that none of, or excuse me, we found that all the criteria were met for this project. 00:12:47.009 --> 00:12:52.798 - And therefore we recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings within the staff 00:12:52.798 --> 00:12:57.980 - report, approve the conditional use with the condition that floodplain development permit and 00:12:57.980 --> 00:12:59.358 - site development permits 00:12:59.746 --> 00:13:09.646 - are approved prior to work commencing. Are we muting Google or Zoom? Just people are talking and it's 00:13:09.646 --> 00:13:19.157 - gonna bleed. You were in and out for a little bit. I just wanna make sure we're muted. Thank you. 00:13:19.157 --> 00:13:22.942 - All right. I'm sorry to interrupt you. 00:13:30.146 --> 00:13:39.562 - Oh, that's it. Okay. All right All right is a petitioner present Come forward and state your name and 00:13:39.562 --> 00:13:48.885 - elsewhere you went good evening Neil copper with the engineering department All right, do you affirm 00:13:48.885 --> 00:13:58.116 - the testimony you are about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do you 00:13:58.116 --> 00:13:59.870 - are the petitioner 00:14:00.610 --> 00:14:07.593 - Okay. Just want to make sure I do want to explain to everybody that the way this will work is any petitioner 00:14:07.593 --> 00:14:14.063 - has 20 minutes to present. They don't need to use that 20 minutes in full. They can withhold some of 00:14:14.063 --> 00:14:20.597 - that after the board does a series of back and forth. You can use that at the end to address anything 00:14:20.597 --> 00:14:27.323 - that comes up without restriction for the remainder of your 20 minutes. Does that make sense? With that, 00:14:27.323 --> 00:14:30.462 - you are free to discuss and we'll start a timer. 00:14:31.682 --> 00:14:37.869 - Thank you. Just real briefly add so this is a project that Is listed in the city's transportation plan 00:14:37.869 --> 00:14:44.055 - not just in general, but actually specifically as a priority project And it's been prioritized through 00:14:44.055 --> 00:14:50.422 - the Metropolitan Planning Organization to utilize federal funding it's also been voted on by City Council 00:14:50.422 --> 00:14:56.608 - as part of a general obligation bond ordinance for the local match to support the federal funding that 00:14:56.608 --> 00:14:58.110 - the project received and 00:14:58.306 --> 00:15:04.063 - The project does a lot of really great things multi-use path traffic signal replacement storm water 00:15:04.063 --> 00:15:10.222 - improvement crosswalk improvements. Tonight we're talking about a very actually small piece of the project 00:15:10.222 --> 00:15:16.670 - that does touch the very beginning of the floodway and then that floodway continues east away from our project. 00:15:16.770 --> 00:15:25.470 - In order to do this work, we require the conditional use approval as was discussed by Mr. Patterson. 00:15:25.470 --> 00:15:34.601 - I'm happy to answer any questions you have about the project or its impacts, but that's all that I wanted 00:15:34.601 --> 00:15:43.302 - to add. Thank you. Back to the board for questions or suggestions. All right. So we're to the public 00:15:43.302 --> 00:15:45.886 - for comment that you can see. 00:15:46.946 --> 00:16:00.159 - If there are any members of the public that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise 00:16:00.159 --> 00:16:14.014 - hand function and we can recognize you and you'll have three minutes to speak. No one? There was one member 00:16:15.202 --> 00:16:38.420 - who was chatting that wanted to speak about this. J.J. Long III, did you want to speak? You need, okay. 00:16:38.420 --> 00:16:45.118 - Okay, can you hear me? Is it? 00:16:45.410 --> 00:17:12.990 - Jill, what is the? The name disappeared. Hold on a second. Jennifer Long, you should be able to speak now. 00:17:21.698 --> 00:17:31.325 - Can you hear me? Yes. Jennifer, will you state your first and last name? Jennifer Long. Do you swear 00:17:31.325 --> 00:17:41.142 - that the testimony you're about to give is the truth of the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Can 00:17:41.142 --> 00:17:44.478 - you still hear me? Yes, I can. OK. 00:17:44.642 --> 00:17:54.298 - I know hold on hold on hold on Jennifer did you hear I need to see do you affirm the testimony you're 00:17:54.298 --> 00:18:04.144 - about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I just need a yes. You can't hear 00:18:04.144 --> 00:18:12.286 - me for some reason. Yeah, is that a yes. Yes. Okay, now you have five minutes please. 00:18:12.546 --> 00:18:28.681 - Three I'm sorry Joe three minutes. Oh, I'm sorry three minutes. We changed. Sorry old habits Can you 00:18:28.681 --> 00:18:35.870 - hear me can you hear me yes, you may begin I 00:18:44.738 --> 00:18:52.392 - had been met and I'm interested to know what all of that criteria is. I own and operate the 2101 East 00:18:52.392 --> 00:19:00.197 - Covenager property near the High Street project that you're doing and you know as you know it's already 00:19:00.197 --> 00:19:07.851 - located in a flood zone and there's been documented drainage challenges in the neighborhood. So while 00:19:07.851 --> 00:19:09.502 - I support the overall 00:19:19.490 --> 00:19:29.953 - and construction on, you know, flood depths, velocities and frequency of flooding that affects my property 00:19:29.953 --> 00:19:40.221 - and, you know, other properties as well, as well as my rental bit. Approval on the following, that being 00:19:40.221 --> 00:19:49.022 - a submission and public availability of a complete no rise certification and a supporting 00:19:49.538 --> 00:19:58.452 - hydraulic hydrologic study by a licensed engineer demonstrating zero increase in base flood elevation 00:19:58.452 --> 00:20:07.278 - and no adverse. Full engineering plans cross sections drainage calculations and mitigation measures, 00:20:07.278 --> 00:20:15.230 - including any. You know improved improved stormwater infrastructure or anything like that. 00:20:26.850 --> 00:20:38.859 - current flooding drainage issues would be great. And I guess construction best practices, erosion, sediment 00:20:38.859 --> 00:20:50.423 - control, staging, and kind of how that's gonna, how all of that is gonna work together. My request just 00:20:50.423 --> 00:20:56.094 - to kind of do some due diligence to make sure that 00:20:56.450 --> 00:21:14.076 - We're not going to end up in deep water, so to speak. Can you hear me? Well, Jennifer, you are breaking 00:21:14.076 --> 00:21:24.414 - up in and out. We're getting most of what you're saying. OK. 00:21:24.642 --> 00:21:29.755 - And finally, I wanted and I can repeat any of that, but I also did want to see is there any chance, 00:21:29.755 --> 00:21:35.175 - while you're doing this construction. That it could alter you know we're on the fringe of that floodplain 00:21:35.175 --> 00:21:37.374 - is there any way it could alter the flood. 00:22:00.034 --> 00:22:12.845 - Jennifer, does that conclude your comments? I'm chatting with them. I believe so, though. OK. 00:22:12.845 --> 00:22:28.382 - I tell you what, you can continue to chat if she wants to use the remainder of her time, which is about a minute. 00:22:28.546 --> 00:22:37.309 - We can come back to her. Is there anyone else in the public who'd like to address this petition? Either 00:22:37.309 --> 00:22:45.987 - in chambers or online? Okay, there's nobody in chambers. Anyone online, Eric? If there is anybody else 00:22:45.987 --> 00:22:49.694 - online, please use the raise hand function. 00:22:57.314 --> 00:23:10.049 - And then the last question would be, did Jennifer feel that she conveyed everything or does she want 00:23:10.049 --> 00:23:22.910 - to use the remainder of her public speaking time? Okay, can you hear me this way? Yes. Okay, perfect. 00:23:23.234 --> 00:23:31.468 - Sorry, I have been trying to get a better connection and for some reason it wasn't working. So I just 00:23:31.468 --> 00:23:39.782 - wanted to see if you guys, if you were able to hear. Unfortunately, Jennifer, your your signal or your 00:23:39.782 --> 00:23:47.854 - connection keeps dropping out. We're only hearing about half of what you're saying. So can we write 00:23:47.854 --> 00:23:53.182 - OK? I mean, I guess can I? I can type it to you. Would that work? 00:23:53.666 --> 00:24:01.072 - Watch or email or I mean should I send you an email if you feel comfortable if you would send an email 00:24:01.072 --> 00:24:08.478 - now and we'll give you two minutes to get that sent over to Is there an email link there Eric Yes, I'm 00:24:08.478 --> 00:24:15.812 - sending her my email address now so we'll we'll stand by here for two minutes send that along to make 00:24:15.812 --> 00:24:20.414 - sure that your comments are properly entered into the Thank you 00:24:20.930 --> 00:24:28.058 - All right, I'm gonna send this right now. Okay, while you're doing that, we're gonna go on, but we will 00:24:28.058 --> 00:24:35.391 - wait before we move on to the next item on the agenda, okay? Yes, I'm sorry. Can you tell me just verbally 00:24:35.391 --> 00:24:42.793 - real quick what the email is? I'm gonna send it right now, but I can't see it while I'm doing it. Jennifer, 00:24:42.793 --> 00:24:46.494 - it should be in the chat. Okay. All right, thank you. 00:24:49.794 --> 00:25:01.684 - Go ahead and mute that then while that's happening and we'll wait to enter that into the minutes. Thank 00:25:01.684 --> 00:25:05.342 - you everyone for your patience. 00:26:28.130 --> 00:26:37.163 - I'm still waiting on the email. Certainly I could suggest that if the board wanted to have the petitioner 00:26:37.163 --> 00:26:45.684 - address any of the comments that were kind of verbally expressed and then I can relay anything that 00:26:45.684 --> 00:26:53.694 - maybe was missed in those comments. What we could do is, are you okay with that? Are we okay? 00:26:55.202 --> 00:27:00.873 - I was a little hesitant, but yeah, that's okay with me. So let's go ahead and go back to petitioner 00:27:00.873 --> 00:27:06.771 - while we're waiting. And then I'll just ask the petitioner for his patience because if there's anything 00:27:06.771 --> 00:27:12.498 - else in the email that we want to bring up, we'll just add that. Okay. So is there anything you have 00:27:12.498 --> 00:27:18.226 - about 19 minutes left? Do you have anything you'd like to, to state to the board before it's back to 00:27:18.226 --> 00:27:21.118 - the board for action? Yes, it's Neil copper again. 00:27:21.250 --> 00:27:27.750 - Just to state, I did receive an email this afternoon from Ms. Long that I think outlines the questions 00:27:27.750 --> 00:27:34.124 - that she was asking. My kind of short answer is that we actually have done all the things that she's 00:27:34.124 --> 00:27:40.246 - asking about. We have done that due diligence. We've been coordinating with the local floodplain 00:27:40.246 --> 00:27:46.683 - administrator. We have done hydraulic analysis. We have a report from a licensed engineer. We have an 00:27:46.683 --> 00:27:48.702 - approved no-rise certification. 00:27:48.802 --> 00:27:56.031 - You know, we have erosion control requirements and a prohibition of staging in the flood. We have, I 00:27:56.031 --> 00:28:03.187 - think everything that she's been asking about has been looked at and be happy to provide that if it 00:28:03.187 --> 00:28:10.702 - would be beneficial. And any other comments for me before we go to the board? No. Okay, thank you. Eric, 00:28:10.702 --> 00:28:18.718 - did you receive the email? I'm still waiting for it to come through. She did chat me and said that she sent it. 00:28:19.042 --> 00:28:23.951 - So I'm just waiting for it to make its way through the internet. So before the board takes any action, 00:28:23.951 --> 00:28:26.334 - we'll just wait to make sure that that's arrived. 00:29:08.098 --> 00:29:11.806 - right next to it. So I know those. 00:29:44.418 --> 00:29:53.995 - Nothing yet Eric. No nothing yet. She did a message in the chat just to ask that flooding will will 00:29:53.995 --> 00:30:03.765 - there be any improvements as this with this project and not making things worse. Well what we'll what 00:30:03.765 --> 00:30:13.342 - we'll do here is this which is public comments or public comments but they're not part of a debate. 00:30:13.570 --> 00:30:20.520 - And so the public can ask the questions the petitioner can choose or not choose to answer those. In 00:30:20.520 --> 00:30:27.817 - their allotted time, the BZA board members will make up their own mind as to how we will interpret that. 00:30:27.817 --> 00:30:34.906 - But at this point, the member of the public has had ample opportunity to make comment. The petitioner 00:30:34.906 --> 00:30:41.925 - has been given the opportunity to respond. So in lieu of waiting for this email, we will continue to 00:30:41.925 --> 00:30:43.454 - move forward with our 00:30:43.554 --> 00:30:55.171 - actions tonight. So we are back to the board for action which would be further discussion further questions 00:30:55.171 --> 00:31:06.251 - to the board a petitioner or for a motion question for the petitioner is trying to answer what the was 00:31:06.251 --> 00:31:12.382 - Miss Long has asked. So are is this going to improve the 00:31:12.642 --> 00:31:20.399 - flood area or or not contribute or I mean where are you what is this construction gonna do I guess for 00:31:20.399 --> 00:31:28.306 - the homeowners. Yeah so along the length of the project we are constructing many stormwater improvements 00:31:28.306 --> 00:31:35.837 - putting in new stormwater infrastructure drain so one of the things that we heard most about during 00:31:35.837 --> 00:31:38.398 - our public input process was that 00:31:38.818 --> 00:31:45.360 - Some of the homes up and down high street some of them will flood there's a lot of water that goes, 00:31:45.360 --> 00:31:52.098 - you know, from the road into their properties. So, we're installing improved stormwater infrastructure 00:31:52.098 --> 00:31:59.228 - to to stop that flooding to those homes on the east side of high street that are getting kind of immediately 00:31:59.228 --> 00:32:00.798 - flooded by those rains. 00:32:01.090 --> 00:32:07.472 - That collection, we've been coordinating with CBU about, you know, water quality, water quantity, all 00:32:07.472 --> 00:32:13.791 - those things, but ultimately, all that water eventually makes its way to the same place, to the same 00:32:13.791 --> 00:32:20.235 - outlet, which is here into the east fork of Jackson Creek. And so all that water is still then flowing 00:32:20.235 --> 00:32:26.554 - to the east beyond the limits of our project. So we are making improvements for the homes along High 00:32:26.554 --> 00:32:30.558 - Street, many of them, particularly the east side of the street. 00:32:30.690 --> 00:32:38.109 - But we do not expect to be improving, you know, making a change that would impact the floodway outside 00:32:38.109 --> 00:32:45.600 - of our project downstream of the project. So we do have no rise certification. We're not expecting the, 00:32:45.600 --> 00:32:52.875 - you know, the flood waters to go up after that. But we have not done so much that we would expect to 00:32:52.875 --> 00:32:59.934 - be reducing the size of the floodplain downstream. Does that answer the question? Yes, thank you. 00:33:00.130 --> 00:33:06.121 - Joe I did receive the email and I can read it in its entirety should should be very fast if 00:33:06.121 --> 00:33:09.246 - that's comfortable for the board. Sure, please. 00:33:09.410 --> 00:33:15.392 - Okay, my name is Jennifer Long and I own and operate an adjacent Airbnb property near High Street Corridor 00:33:15.392 --> 00:33:21.318 - 2101 East Covenanter. My property is already located in a flood zone and there's been documented drainage 00:33:21.318 --> 00:33:26.965 - challenges in our neighborhood. While I support the overall goals of the multi-use path for improved 00:33:26.965 --> 00:33:32.667 - connectivity and active transportation, I am concerned about potential impacts from grading, filling, 00:33:32.667 --> 00:33:38.258 - paving, drainage alteration, and construction on flood depths, velocity, and frequency affecting my 00:33:38.258 --> 00:33:39.376 - property and rental 00:33:39.376 --> 00:33:46.053 - business. I would like to respectfully request that the board condition any approval on the following 00:33:46.053 --> 00:33:53.058 - submission and public availability of a complete no rise certification and supporting hydraulic hydrologic 00:33:53.058 --> 00:33:59.736 - study by licensed engineer demonstrating zero increase in base flood elevation and no adverse impacts 00:33:59.736 --> 00:34:02.878 - on adjacent properties. Fully engineering plans 00:34:03.010 --> 00:34:09.497 - cross-sections, drainage calculations, and mitigation measures, including any compensatory storage or 00:34:09.497 --> 00:34:15.920 - improved stormwater infrastructure being provided to adjacent owners upon request, specific measures 00:34:15.920 --> 00:34:21.835 - to address and not worsen pre-current flooding drainage issues in the High Street Covenanter 00:34:21.835 --> 00:34:28.894 - area, construction best practices, erosion, sediment control, staging that protect neighboring properties, and 00:34:29.090 --> 00:34:34.731 - post-construction as-built certification confirming no rise occurred. Thank you for considering these 00:34:34.731 --> 00:34:39.764 - requests to protect adjacent property owners while advancing this community project. Okay, 00:34:39.764 --> 00:34:45.294 - and once again, the petition is under no obligation to answer those, but you do have a remainder of 00:34:45.294 --> 00:34:50.825 - time due to the unusual back and forth on this. Would you like to use any of your remainder of time 00:34:50.825 --> 00:34:56.079 - or are we going to allow the board to continue? I think, again, happy to answer any questions, 00:34:56.079 --> 00:34:57.406 - but I don't. Very good. 00:34:57.794 --> 00:35:07.624 - Any further questions from the board for the petitioner for the city or do we have a motion. Anything 00:35:07.624 --> 00:35:17.646 - Leslie you can Chris do you have anything. No okay no. If there are no further questions for the border 00:35:17.646 --> 00:35:21.694 - or for the petitioner do I have a motion. 00:35:29.250 --> 00:35:39.157 - to approve the proposed findings in the staff report for ZR 2 0 2 6 dash 0 6 dash 0 0 3 2 with the conditions 00:35:39.157 --> 00:35:48.163 - stated in the staff report about the flood development permit and site development permit approvals 00:35:48.163 --> 00:35:58.430 - required prior to work commencing second Second any further discussion Seeing none I'll call the question Burrell 00:35:59.202 --> 00:36:06.724 - Yes, because think oh, yes Smith Yes Throck Morton. Yes petition passes for oh, thank you for that We 00:36:06.724 --> 00:36:14.468 - will move on to ZR 20 26 06 29 a request at 120 South Walnut Street for a variance from signed standards 00:36:14.468 --> 00:36:22.432 - to allow for an off-premise sign Not to not require a sign beyond the tenant space for the use of financial 00:36:22.432 --> 00:36:26.046 - institution. Do I have a staff report, please? I 00:36:27.938 --> 00:36:38.800 - Yes, just give me one second to pull it up on the screen. Okay, Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning planner. 00:36:38.800 --> 00:36:49.453 - This is a variance request from UDO section 20.04.100 J2C, which requires that wall signs for tenants 00:36:49.453 --> 00:36:57.182 - within a multi-tenant building must be located on the tenants lease space 00:36:58.914 --> 00:37:05.105 - And the petitioner for this case is fast signs for a new tenant merchant bank, and they're proposing 00:37:05.105 --> 00:37:11.603 - to lease space on the first floor of the building at 120 South Walnut Street. The petitioner is proposing 00:37:11.603 --> 00:37:17.918 - to install a new 13 square foot wall sign on the second floor of the building. And due to the location 00:37:17.918 --> 00:37:24.477 - of the historic architectural elements and windows on the building, the proposed signage cannot be located 00:37:24.477 --> 00:37:27.358 - on the tenants lease space on the first floor. 00:37:28.738 --> 00:37:34.783 - So they're requesting a variance from that section of the UDO and staff found that the three variance 00:37:34.783 --> 00:37:40.768 - criteria were met. The full findings are in the staff report and the department is recommending that 00:37:40.768 --> 00:37:46.695 - the board adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with the condition that the approval 00:37:46.695 --> 00:37:52.858 - allows for this tenant and future users of the space to place 13 square foot wall sign on this location 00:37:52.858 --> 00:37:56.414 - of the building. And that concludes the staff presentation. 00:37:56.706 --> 00:38:04.503 - Jamie, is the petitioner here this evening? Or online? Hi, I'm online. Okay, just state your first and 00:38:04.503 --> 00:38:12.149 - last name and I'll swear you in. Layla Taylor. And do you affirm the testimony you are about to give 00:38:12.149 --> 00:38:19.795 - us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay, and you heard earlier that 00:38:19.795 --> 00:38:26.078 - you have 20 minutes. You don't need to use all of that now. You could reserve some 00:38:26.242 --> 00:38:33.151 - to speak to any public comment after they're done and before the board takes action. You have 20 minutes. 00:38:33.151 --> 00:38:39.798 - All right, great. Thank you so much and thanks Jamie for the summary. As you stated, this is a unique 00:38:39.798 --> 00:38:46.381 - location and the sign is being placed on a historic building and the location where we would usually 00:38:46.381 --> 00:38:50.878 - put the sign has a lot of decorative limestone where we're unable to 00:38:51.010 --> 00:38:57.303 - install a sign without impacting the integrity of the historic building at this location. So what we're 00:38:57.303 --> 00:39:03.535 - requesting is to put the sign a little bit higher where other signs at this location in the years past 00:39:03.535 --> 00:39:09.586 - have been previously located. Yeah, that's that's pretty much the gist of the whole project. But if 00:39:09.586 --> 00:39:15.698 - you do have any additional questions, I'm happy to answer them. And there's also representative from 00:39:15.698 --> 00:39:20.478 - CFC in the council chambers as well, if we have anything that I cannot answer. 00:39:21.346 --> 00:39:30.081 - Thank you. Would the representative from CFC like to continue with the petition statement? If not, please 00:39:30.081 --> 00:39:38.321 - come forward if you'd like to. Okay. Then if you decide later, we'll swear you in when you come up. 00:39:38.321 --> 00:39:46.644 - Okay. Thank you. With that, we are back to the board for any questions or comments about this before 00:39:46.644 --> 00:39:50.270 - going to public comment. I have a question. 00:39:51.522 --> 00:39:58.356 - Okay, and I'll just state that this is a pretty much a swap out because sign the sign has lived there 00:39:58.356 --> 00:40:01.438 - for many times for other businesses. Correct. 00:40:02.082 --> 00:40:07.077 - Yes, there there have been tenants in the past that have had signage at this location Although we didn't 00:40:07.077 --> 00:40:11.882 - find any previous variances approvals for the signage there. It had changed out over the years Yeah, 00:40:11.882 --> 00:40:16.735 - I do appreciate the fact that fast signs came and asked for the permission because that's appropriate 00:40:16.735 --> 00:40:21.587 - But this is essentially going to be going where other signs have lived for similar Tenants, so I just 00:40:21.587 --> 00:40:26.582 - want to make that statement before we go to the public for comment Do we have anyone in the public would 00:40:26.582 --> 00:40:31.102 - like to make comment on this? I'm sorry. I thought Chris said he did not sorry Chris. Go ahead 00:40:32.770 --> 00:40:39.259 - You asked the same question I was going to ask, and if it was on the lower level, would it require a 00:40:39.259 --> 00:40:45.748 - variance where the where the limestone lintel is? No, on the first floor of the building, a variance 00:40:45.748 --> 00:40:52.686 - would not be required because that's part of the tenants lease space, but due to the historic architectural 00:40:52.686 --> 00:40:56.862 - elements there, they can't they can't feasibly install the sign. 00:40:57.026 --> 00:41:03.158 - on their tenant space. So that's why they're asking for the variance to put it on the second floor. 00:41:03.158 --> 00:41:09.596 - And that's also consistent with signs that have been there in the past. If the sign has to change again, 00:41:09.596 --> 00:41:15.728 - would they have to come back and get another variance or does this allow any 13 square foot sign to 00:41:15.728 --> 00:41:21.983 - go there? This would allow any 13 square foot wall sign for this user and future users without having 00:41:21.983 --> 00:41:24.190 - to come back to request a variance. 00:41:25.090 --> 00:41:31.463 - Great, thank you. Yeah, Chris, that's on the page five of the recommendations, if you have that on that 00:41:31.463 --> 00:41:37.775 - PowerPoint. I just have one screen and I can't flip back. Oh, you can't see it? Okay. Yeah, but that's 00:41:37.775 --> 00:41:44.209 - a good question, but it is stated in there and it reads, this approval allows for this tenant and future 00:41:44.209 --> 00:41:50.520 - users of this tenant space to place at 13 square feet of wall signage at this location. So it actually 00:41:50.520 --> 00:41:53.278 - has to do with that particular tenant space. 00:41:55.074 --> 00:42:04.872 - Does that help? Yes, thank you. Sure. Any other comments from? Okay, now we may go to the public. Is 00:42:04.872 --> 00:42:14.766 - there anyone in the public who would like to address this petition? If so, come forward or raise your 00:42:14.766 --> 00:42:22.430 - hand on the Zoom. I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay, and nobody in chambers? 00:42:22.978 --> 00:42:29.646 - So with that, we'll go back to the petitioner to see if you have anything further you'd like to say, 00:42:29.646 --> 00:42:36.379 - either for our person online or RCFC representative here. Would you like to make any comments here in 00:42:36.379 --> 00:42:43.113 - chambers? Okay, any online? Would you like to comment? No, thank you. All set. Okay, with that, we're 00:42:43.113 --> 00:42:46.942 - back to the board seeking a motion or further discussion. 00:43:00.226 --> 00:43:09.568 - making motion to approve Z are twenty twenty six zero dash dash zero zero to nine With the with the 00:43:09.568 --> 00:43:19.004 - condition that this approval allows for the tenant and future users of this tenant space to place 13 00:43:19.004 --> 00:43:28.346 - square feet of wall signage at this location on the building Do I have a second second? any further 00:43:28.346 --> 00:43:29.374 - discussion 00:43:30.018 --> 00:43:42.027 - Chris. With that, I'll call the question. Burrell. Yes. Kucinko. Yes. Smith. Yes. Throckmorton. Yes. 00:43:42.027 --> 00:43:54.035 - Passes 4-0. The petition is approved. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. You bet. All right. Now we're going 00:43:54.035 --> 00:43:58.910 - to go on to the non-expedited petitions. 00:43:59.298 --> 00:44:06.178 - is 2026-0625, a request at 716 South High Street for variances from the driveway width standards and 00:44:06.178 --> 00:44:13.126 - impervious surface coverage. Do I have a staff report? Yes, thank you. Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning 00:44:13.126 --> 00:44:20.415 - planner. So this is for the property at 716 South High Street. They're requesting two variances to install 00:44:20.415 --> 00:44:27.431 - a new parking area in the front yard of their property. And the property owner and petitioner for this 00:44:27.431 --> 00:44:28.862 - case is Carly Swift. 00:44:29.410 --> 00:44:37.861 - And the first variance is from UDO section 20.04.050 C3BI, which limits the driveway width to 18 feet 00:44:37.861 --> 00:44:46.147 - wide. And then the second variance request is from the impervious surface maximum, which is 40% for 00:44:46.147 --> 00:44:54.598 - the R2 zoning district. This property is zoned residential medium lot, and the surrounding properties 00:44:54.598 --> 00:44:58.078 - are also zoned R2 residential medium lot. 00:44:58.530 --> 00:45:05.302 - The property is developed with a single-family home that has a driveway connecting to a detached garage 00:45:05.302 --> 00:45:11.878 - in the rear yard, which you can see on the aerial map on the screen. And surrounding properties also 00:45:11.878 --> 00:45:18.585 - have single-family homes in this neighborhood. So currently on the property, there's approximately 55% 00:45:18.585 --> 00:45:22.622 - impervious surface coverage, so this exceeds the 40% maximum. 00:45:22.818 --> 00:45:29.767 - And the petitioner is proposing to add a new parking area so that will increase the overall impervious 00:45:29.767 --> 00:45:36.716 - surface coverage on the property. So they do need a variance to go forward with the project to add the 00:45:36.716 --> 00:45:43.664 - parking area. The petitioner is proposing to widen the existing driveway which is roughly 10 feet wide 00:45:43.664 --> 00:45:50.748 - to add a turnaround area and an additional off-street parking area. And the size of the proposed parking 00:45:50.748 --> 00:45:52.030 - area is 30 feet by 00:45:52.610 --> 00:46:01.121 - 22 feet or 660 square feet in the report. It did say 30 by 20 square feet or 30, yeah, 30 by 20 feet 00:46:01.121 --> 00:46:09.548 - or 600 square feet. But after taking a closer look at the plans and confirming with the petitioner, 00:46:09.548 --> 00:46:19.070 - it is proposed to be 30 by 22 feet or 660 square feet and that's to accommodate three off street parking spaces. 00:46:20.930 --> 00:46:27.403 - There are other properties in the neighborhood that have turnaround and parking areas in the front of 00:46:27.403 --> 00:46:34.004 - their homes. However, the other turnaround areas are not as large as what's proposed with this project. 00:46:34.004 --> 00:46:40.604 - So the department has proposed a condition of approval to limit the size of the parking area to 20 feet 00:46:40.604 --> 00:46:47.204 - by 20 feet. And we've also included a recommended condition of approval to include landscaping to serve 00:46:47.204 --> 00:46:47.966 - as a visual 00:46:48.226 --> 00:46:54.930 - buffer and limit the overall visual impact of the additional impervious surface and parking area. The 00:46:54.930 --> 00:47:01.568 - purpose of the new parking area is to improve safe access to the property because it is difficult to 00:47:01.568 --> 00:47:08.469 - turn back out onto South High Street. So staff found this will have a positive impact on the surrounding 00:47:08.469 --> 00:47:10.046 - properties in the area. 00:47:11.170 --> 00:47:18.793 - And the unique condition in this case is the narrow driveway configuration. There's insufficient space 00:47:18.793 --> 00:47:26.267 - for vehicles to safely turn around on the property without utilizing the neighboring driveway to the 00:47:26.267 --> 00:47:34.334 - north. And then for the impervious surface coverage variance, the proposed increase in impervious surface is 00:47:34.818 --> 00:47:40.920 - is anticipated to be minimal and it will help to improve the safe and efficient movement of vehicles 00:47:40.920 --> 00:47:47.506 - on and off the property. The proposed parking area will help to reduce potential conflicts between vehicular 00:47:47.506 --> 00:47:53.246 - and pedestrian traffic in the area, so no adverse impacts to surrounding properties are found. 00:47:54.786 --> 00:48:00.523 - And as I mentioned before, the unique condition is the narrow driveway that prevents the reasonable 00:48:00.523 --> 00:48:06.489 - and safe use of the property. So the new parking and turnaround area is necessary to safely accommodate 00:48:06.489 --> 00:48:12.341 - vehicles on the site. And the variance from the impervious surface maximum will relieve the practical 00:48:12.341 --> 00:48:18.135 - difficulties in this case. The department is recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings 00:48:18.135 --> 00:48:24.446 - and approve the petition with the two conditions in the staff report. The first recommended condition is that 00:48:24.642 --> 00:48:31.398 - The overall parking area is limited to 20 feet by 20 feet in size and to accommodate a maximum of two 00:48:31.398 --> 00:48:38.486 - parking spaces. And the second condition is that six shrubs are planted along the east side of the parking 00:48:38.486 --> 00:48:45.706 - area parallel to High Street to serve as a visual buffer for the area. And I'm happy to answer any questions 00:48:45.706 --> 00:48:49.150 - from the board. Thank you. There's a petitioner in. 00:48:50.562 --> 00:48:57.285 - Step forward and state your first and last name, please. Hi, my name is Carly Swift and Do you affirm 00:48:57.285 --> 00:49:03.942 - the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes Okay, 00:49:03.942 --> 00:49:10.929 - you have again up to 20 minutes. You may begin. Okay. Thank you so yes, I bought this property in January 00:49:10.929 --> 00:49:17.520 - of 2025 and We have just noticed the challenges of it being a very narrow driveway. So the driveway 00:49:17.520 --> 00:49:20.222 - currently is about nine feet and they're 00:49:20.354 --> 00:49:26.769 - Even though it has space in the back, there's no maneuvering to be able to turn around in our specific 00:49:26.769 --> 00:49:33.184 - driveway. We always have to turn around in the neighboring to the north driveway. He's been very kind. 00:49:33.184 --> 00:49:39.474 - But it does cause a challenge to drive back out on South High Street. It's extremely busy. There's a 00:49:39.474 --> 00:49:46.014 - school across the street and a church that has a school across Ketta Corner from us. It just makes it... 00:49:46.978 --> 00:49:55.380 - just very, very hard to maneuver. Being there, we've noticed other driveways that have had a lot of 00:49:55.380 --> 00:50:03.949 - different changes, whether it's an entire front driveway, or sorry, front yard. There's concrete with 00:50:03.949 --> 00:50:08.318 - stone. We've noticed all sorts of things, but after 00:50:08.898 --> 00:50:16.628 - We've submitted this information. I just really feel like it's gonna create a safer environment for 00:50:16.628 --> 00:50:24.745 - the entire neighborhood, as well as a safer ingress and outgress for us as well. There isn't any offsite 00:50:24.745 --> 00:50:32.707 - parking in our specific area on High Street, which also makes it challenging to find any other parking 00:50:32.707 --> 00:50:37.886 - in our area. The home is very beautiful, and we want to tastefully 00:50:38.114 --> 00:50:45.740 - Accommodate the neighborhood as well as character once I received the information back from The board 00:50:45.740 --> 00:50:53.367 - of it being 20 by 20. I did we did do another configuration Because we realized that that did seem to 00:50:53.367 --> 00:51:00.993 - be quite large. And so the 22 by 20 would be 400 square feet where I really feel it we could do it as 00:51:00.993 --> 00:51:06.750 - a 26 by 14 which actually would make it less at 364 square feet by making it 00:51:07.106 --> 00:51:21.675 - Beautiful but also practical and safe for the neighborhood Thank you Thank you Back to the board for 00:51:21.675 --> 00:51:32.926 - questions for the city staff or for the petitioner, please Chris You're muted 00:51:46.594 --> 00:51:55.010 - now yes um this is specifically for impervious surface uh uh restrictions in our code right for r2 zone 00:51:55.010 --> 00:52:03.344 - this is what we're discussing right yeah there are two variances so one of them is from the impervious 00:52:03.344 --> 00:52:08.766 - surface coverage and with the r2 zone that's limited to 40 percent 00:52:08.898 --> 00:52:15.199 - And it's estimated there's about 55% of impervious surface coverage already on the property. So with 00:52:15.199 --> 00:52:21.937 - adding an additional parking area that would increase the impervious surface, so they would need a variance 00:52:21.937 --> 00:52:28.300 - to go forward with that parking area. But also the second variance is from the driveway width. Width, 00:52:28.300 --> 00:52:34.726 - yeah. This city is considering text diminishing the R2 zone for impervious surface. Do you recall what 00:52:34.726 --> 00:52:36.286 - that discussion's about? 00:52:37.026 --> 00:52:44.008 - Would this meet that new code requirement, just out of curiosity? So with the changes that we're proposing, 00:52:44.008 --> 00:52:50.861 - this petition would not need a variance from impervious surface coverage if it moves forward with staff's 00:52:50.861 --> 00:52:57.456 - recommendations, as I said, right now, yes. Okay, just curious. Also, the six shrubs, is there a code 00:52:57.456 --> 00:52:58.878 - requirement for that? 00:53:01.378 --> 00:53:08.495 - There's not a code requirement for that where that was coming from was a comparable Or comparable sections 00:53:08.495 --> 00:53:15.347 - of the udio that talk about screening parking areas from public view So in our landscaping section for 00:53:15.347 --> 00:53:22.331 - commercial or multifamily projects Whenever you have parking that is adjacent to a public street There's 00:53:22.331 --> 00:53:25.790 - a screening requirement that basically works out to 00:53:25.890 --> 00:53:32.349 - three shrubs for the width of a parking space which is about nine feet so this particular parking area 00:53:32.349 --> 00:53:38.809 - would be about 20 feet wide so if you were to take that same ratio of three shrubs for every nine feet 00:53:38.809 --> 00:53:45.142 - or so that equals about six feet so that covers the width of the parking area since this variance is 00:53:45.142 --> 00:53:46.334 - requesting to have 00:53:46.466 --> 00:53:52.554 - Driveway a width of a driveway area between the building and street that wouldn't typically be allowed 00:53:52.554 --> 00:53:58.819 - screening that from public view would go towards One of the their view criteria, which is adverse impacts 00:53:58.819 --> 00:54:05.084 - on adjacent property Parking in the front is certainly a visual impact So screening that with landscaping 00:54:05.084 --> 00:54:11.053 - seemed an appropriate recommendation for a condition of approval Certainly that's up to the board if 00:54:11.053 --> 00:54:15.486 - they don't feel that that's warranted. They don't have to incorporate that 00:54:16.770 --> 00:54:23.914 - Okay, will this require a three-year surety to make sure the shrubs survive? There is not a surety bond 00:54:23.914 --> 00:54:30.784 - or any bonding that would be required with this. Okay, and there would be no follow-up inspections? 00:54:30.784 --> 00:54:37.653 - Not typically, unless somebody complained. Okay, and other places on High Street where the trail is 00:54:37.653 --> 00:54:45.278 - going in, I know there are redesigning lots and allowing parking in the front of those houses and turnarounds. 00:54:45.410 --> 00:54:56.740 - Will those be screened by the city when that work is done? I don't know what those plans look like or 00:54:56.740 --> 00:55:08.181 - the impacts on the adjacent properties to be able to speak to that. Okay. I have a question for staff. 00:55:08.181 --> 00:55:14.846 - For the size, that's 20 by 20, and the petitioner requested 00:55:15.106 --> 00:55:23.404 - different size, so is it just the maximum of 20 by 20? I believe that your size was under that, correct? 00:55:23.404 --> 00:55:31.544 - Okay. Yeah, so the petitioners, so where the 20 by 20 came from, in essence, was to allow for two cars 00:55:31.544 --> 00:55:38.814 - in depth to be in front of the street. But like we mentioned, or the petitioner's essential 00:55:39.298 --> 00:55:45.168 - version of this request is to allow for a turnaround area. So certainly there is a very lengthy driveway 00:55:45.168 --> 00:55:50.982 - that allows for, you know, a considerable amount of cars here, you know, so to just accomplish the goal 00:55:50.982 --> 00:55:56.685 - of allowing a turnaround area, you know, of space and width and depth for two cars was sufficient for 00:55:56.685 --> 00:56:00.542 - that. So that's where we were coming from if they want to, you know, 00:56:01.026 --> 00:56:07.390 - limit or reduce the depth of it so that it's not 20 feet and it's, you know, 16 feet by 20 or something 00:56:07.390 --> 00:56:13.631 - like that. Certainly we can work with that. But like I said, our recommendation was just to limit the 00:56:13.631 --> 00:56:19.811 - parking to no more than two cars in depth. Okay. So that's the maximum. Well, I mean, that's what we 00:56:19.811 --> 00:56:26.113 - felt would be the minimum relief necessary in order to allow for a turnaround. Okay. That makes sense. 00:56:26.113 --> 00:56:29.662 - Thank you. So does- I just want to make- Go ahead, Chris. 00:56:30.306 --> 00:56:37.721 - I don't know how to raise my hand here. Go ahead. I just want to make sure. So can we say maximum four 00:56:37.721 --> 00:56:44.920 - square feet? Because I don't want someone to come out and measure dimensions, say you didn't put it 00:56:44.920 --> 00:56:52.623 - in per the approval. Because right now it's saying 20 by 20. I think that that language had to be changed, 00:56:52.623 --> 00:57:00.254 - so that was clear, don't you think, Eric? To say 40 square feet, what was it, 40 square feet, right? 400. 00:57:00.418 --> 00:57:08.645 - 400 square feet 20 by 20 could be in any configuration or because right now it reads that it has to 00:57:08.645 --> 00:57:17.202 - be a 20 by 20 So just to clarify the original request from the petitioner was roughly to have for three 00:57:17.202 --> 00:57:26.334 - parking spaces which was about 30 feet by 20 or 22 feet so 600 to 660 square feet was the original request and 00:57:26.786 --> 00:57:36.030 - Based on their comment this evening, they seem open to reducing that to being 14 by 26 feet for 364 00:57:36.030 --> 00:57:45.459 - square feet total. The staff recommendation was that it's limited to 20 feet by 20 feet or 400 square 00:57:45.459 --> 00:57:48.510 - feet, but the petitioner is also 00:57:49.154 --> 00:57:55.411 - said they are they are open to having 14 by 26 feet essentially to answer Chris's question would be 00:57:55.411 --> 00:58:01.667 - we would be able to stipulate that with more specific language in a motion without any problem with 00:58:01.667 --> 00:58:08.049 - the city correct. It can just be. It can be 400 or less. 400 square feet of ice in any configuration. 00:58:08.049 --> 00:58:14.556 - Yes, that answer your question Chris. Yes, that's I want to hear the dimensioning and make sure we just 00:58:14.556 --> 00:58:15.870 - have square footage. 00:58:16.738 --> 00:58:23.487 - Well, I mean, you know, so from staff's perspective, like I said, we were trying to limit it to no more 00:58:23.487 --> 00:58:30.106 - than two cars and width. So, you know, a 26 foot width would allow for three cars. So that's, I mean, 00:58:30.106 --> 00:58:36.855 - just from staff's perspective, certainly the board can proceed with whatever motion they want, but that 00:58:36.855 --> 00:58:43.409 - was our concern was, you know, limiting it to two cars and width. So what you're saying is the width 00:58:43.409 --> 00:58:44.318 - is important? 00:58:45.058 --> 00:58:53.843 - Yes, the the width is important. You know a 26 foot wide space would allow for three cars Well, we're 00:58:53.843 --> 00:59:02.628 - running numbers on that could could you put up your slide three on the presentation just so I can see 00:59:02.628 --> 00:59:11.585 - the Because then it would only be 15 feet deep. So the cars gonna have parking the grass No, they would 00:59:11.585 --> 00:59:13.566 - hang into the driveway 00:59:17.026 --> 00:59:24.282 - Okay. Yeah, that picture, yeah. Chris, do you have more questions yet? No. Okay, I'm just gonna run 00:59:24.282 --> 00:59:31.683 - through a couple things I wanna make sure I understand. I'm looking at a garage on the upper left, is 00:59:31.683 --> 00:59:39.375 - that correct? Or is that, that's a garage? Yeah, it's a detached garage in the backyard. Detached garage, 00:59:39.375 --> 00:59:45.470 - okay. The driver goes there and then it flares and goes into the garage, all right. 00:59:45.698 --> 00:59:51.421 - Want to understand this because the high street issue It does code allow but require a turnaround or 00:59:51.421 --> 00:59:57.200 - require you to provide room for a turnaround on on this street classification No on arterial rows. It 00:59:57.200 --> 01:00:03.206 - does I'm talking about this street. Yep. No, it does not So it doesn't require us to provide a turnaround 01:00:03.206 --> 01:00:08.929 - correct. Okay, so that's the first thing and the reason I asked is because many of us have Driveways 01:00:08.929 --> 01:00:14.878 - that we back out of on the street, but I understand we're talking about high street. All right, so now I 01:00:15.138 --> 01:00:20.808 - If you leave that up, I just wanted to ask a couple questions about slide eight, which stated, although 01:00:20.808 --> 01:00:26.259 - the property includes a two-car garage, the narrow driveway configuration requires vehicles to back 01:00:26.259 --> 01:00:31.711 - out and heavily travel street. Agreed. There's insufficient space to safely turn vehicles around on 01:00:31.711 --> 01:00:37.053 - the property without utilizing the neighboring driveway to the north. Understood. These practical 01:00:37.053 --> 01:00:42.505 - difficulties are peculiar to the property in question in the development standard variance. I don't 01:00:42.505 --> 01:00:44.958 - think it's peculiar to have a situation that 01:00:45.154 --> 01:00:51.846 - nearly everyone in the city has. So I'm questioning the city as to why you would say it's peculiar. 01:00:51.846 --> 01:00:58.738 - We're not required by code to provide a turnaround, nor do many people in this city have a turnaround. 01:00:58.738 --> 01:01:03.422 - So what was the rationale for saying that it is a peculiar situation? 01:01:03.618 --> 01:01:08.958 - Yep, so the peculiarity in this situation was that there isn't room on the property to do a turnaround. 01:01:08.958 --> 01:01:14.092 - Certainly it's not required. But you know, when you look at it from a safety perspective of backing 01:01:14.092 --> 01:01:18.302 - out on the street, we can certainly see that there is a safety concern with that. 01:01:18.370 --> 01:01:24.980 - And having a turnaround on a property is a reasonable concern Although it's not a requirement. Certainly. 01:01:24.980 --> 01:01:31.341 - This is something that the board can evaluate and we evaluated in our Review as well. There are other 01:01:31.341 --> 01:01:37.577 - properties along High Street that do have these turnarounds in the front And so this property based 01:01:37.577 --> 01:01:44.125 - on where the building I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. So based on the where this building is it doesn't allow 01:01:44.125 --> 01:01:47.742 - for a turnaround to be constructed on the property at all 01:01:47.970 --> 01:01:54.446 - So it would have to be done in some capacity in the back, but where the existing buildings are doesn't 01:01:54.446 --> 01:02:00.859 - allow for that opportunity So those were the peculiar conditions that we found Okay, but I do want to 01:02:00.859 --> 01:02:07.335 - be clear that it's that code doesn't require it All right so the variance is asking for something that 01:02:07.335 --> 01:02:13.999 - that we're under no obligation to give and that's why I was at and because it's and it's it's a situation 01:02:13.999 --> 01:02:14.942 - that occurs in 01:02:16.322 --> 01:02:21.938 - probably a very high percentage of homes. That's why I'm asking why it makes it a peculiar. To me, it 01:02:21.938 --> 01:02:27.003 - was interesting that the city came up with the idea that it was a peculiar situation to not 01:02:27.003 --> 01:02:32.564 - have a turnaround. It is a safety issue, but I just wondered why you came up with that. And you were 01:02:32.564 --> 01:02:38.290 - saying that it was strictly because of safety that you called that out, so that they would need a space 01:02:38.290 --> 01:02:42.750 - to turn around before reaching the street. That was the reason for the peculiar. 01:02:43.010 --> 01:02:50.028 - So with that, then the next question is if you have two cars parked in that garage, which I assume from 01:02:50.028 --> 01:02:56.777 - looking at it, that that's a two car garage? Yeah, I think so, it is two cars. Did the city look at 01:02:56.777 --> 01:03:03.593 - it or? I think that was mentioned in the petitioner's statement that it accommodates two cars. So if 01:03:03.593 --> 01:03:10.814 - the two cars are parked in there and I see a flare, I wanna understand before granting a variance to code, 01:03:11.266 --> 01:03:18.126 - What prevents either car from turning around in that space because I see one car that's almost at a 01:03:18.126 --> 01:03:25.328 - 45 degree angle So how did the how did the city arrive at the decision they needed more space And again, 01:03:25.328 --> 01:03:32.462 - they're already over impervious. Yep So so based on that arrangement in the back and turning movements, 01:03:32.462 --> 01:03:38.910 - you know, there it's not possible to I mean you could certainly do like a five-point turn and 01:03:39.714 --> 01:03:44.939 - Turn around a vehicle in that space but petitioners came forward with a request to have a small turn 01:03:44.939 --> 01:03:50.267 - around on the front of the property And so as as I mentioned, you know, we've reviewed it based on the 01:03:50.267 --> 01:03:55.906 - criteria and it did seem to be a reasonable request It was not out of character with the area as I mentioned 01:03:55.906 --> 01:04:00.510 - the certainly peculiar conditions in terms of there is no place a very limited space for 01:04:00.610 --> 01:04:07.843 - We did not ask for full engineering, turning movement diagrams to prove that, but just anecdotally looking 01:04:07.843 --> 01:04:15.077 - at it, it's very difficult, very challenging to see how to turn around without encroaching on the adjacent 01:04:15.077 --> 01:04:22.378 - property. And so that's where staff was approaching this. Okay, so then that leads me to the next question, 01:04:22.378 --> 01:04:29.409 - which is, again, if both cars are parked in the garage, is it possible, because again of the impervious 01:04:29.409 --> 01:04:30.558 - surface overage, 01:04:30.818 --> 01:04:37.520 - Right isn't it possible to add a much smaller bump out to what exists rather than creating another 400 01:04:37.520 --> 01:04:44.223 - square feet possibly as much as 400 square feet of surface to the city, isn't it possible to have Just 01:04:44.223 --> 01:04:51.055 - a smaller yard width as opposed to making allowances for three cars or two cars Yes, you could you could 01:04:51.055 --> 01:04:57.628 - certainly go smaller than then what would a size like that be for a bump out for a car? And what I'm 01:04:57.628 --> 01:04:59.710 - talking about is width of a car 01:05:00.162 --> 01:05:07.431 - Deep enough for them to do a simple one-point turn a one one space would certainly be adequate You know 01:05:07.431 --> 01:05:14.560 - a 9 by 18 Turnaround would be enough to get a car in there and do that simple movement and that could 01:05:14.560 --> 01:05:21.550 - reasonably be added to the back I mean you're talking about adding 400 square feet. So Reason would 01:05:21.550 --> 01:05:25.534 - would take me to the belief that you could do smaller. I 01:05:27.938 --> 01:05:35.899 - Think that turning movements would be a lot tighter in the the back. I Mean you can certainly possibly 01:05:35.899 --> 01:05:44.015 - pave the entire area in that back and get the same Area ish, you know would take out some of that usable 01:05:44.015 --> 01:05:51.976 - space that they've Where was the 400 square feet possibly gonna go? So that's going in the front Right 01:05:51.976 --> 01:05:56.382 - in front of that tree. I'm sorry in front of the tree. I 01:05:56.994 --> 01:06:02.802 - In the area where that tree is. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So again there if they're if they back out To where 01:06:02.802 --> 01:06:09.012 - that car is in the upper right and there was a smaller Turnaround specifically for a single car turnaround. 01:06:09.012 --> 01:06:14.763 - What would the size of that be 9 by 16? 9 by 16 9 by 18 something like that. Yeah So why are we not 01:06:14.763 --> 01:06:18.558 - then asking for that since they're already over the impervious? I 01:06:19.106 --> 01:06:24.519 - Certainly that is that is something you know, like I said the 20 by 20 gives that a little bit more 01:06:24.519 --> 01:06:30.039 - comfort space for that turn around It's certainly possible in a 9 by 18 to do the same movement Well, 01:06:30.039 --> 01:06:35.722 - I'm just looking for the city rationale for us to grant the variance. Why would we not ask for something 01:06:35.722 --> 01:06:41.460 - smaller? Why would why would we ask for something out large? That's a large space and it's gonna increase 01:06:41.460 --> 01:06:45.086 - the It's gonna increase. What was it concrete or blacktop there? I 01:06:46.402 --> 01:06:52.510 - Believe asphalt is so that's a lot of surface area. I mean, I'm just trying I'm struggling with understanding 01:06:52.510 --> 01:06:58.173 - why you need the space to turn simultaneously three cars around when what you're really talking about 01:06:58.173 --> 01:07:03.836 - is backing out of a driveway and Having a space to turn around and get onto the street safely And can 01:07:03.836 --> 01:07:09.500 - it not be done with a smaller surface area and why did the city say? We're gonna grant as much as 400 01:07:09.500 --> 01:07:15.774 - square feet. I just want to understand that Sure, so the 20 by 20 certainly makes those turning movements easier 01:07:15.970 --> 01:07:21.740 - You know, having just the one space, you know, could probably make that a four point turn and make it 01:07:21.740 --> 01:07:27.681 - a little bit harder or encroach into the adjacent property. And I said we didn't see engineering turning 01:07:27.681 --> 01:07:33.791 - turning movements for this. So, you know, we just look at when when you have a parking stall, for instance, 01:07:33.791 --> 01:07:34.526 - in a typical 01:07:35.010 --> 01:07:40.670 - parking lot, you know, it's an 18 foot wide aisle in order to be able to get in and out of that and 01:07:40.670 --> 01:07:46.500 - do that turning movement. So having a nine foot wide aisle to get into a typical perpendicular parking 01:07:46.500 --> 01:07:52.159 - space, you just can't really do that movement very easily at all. So having a two car wide, a 20 by 01:07:52.159 --> 01:07:57.310 - 20 pad makes that movement a lot more realistic. Certainly you don't need three cars wide. 01:07:57.442 --> 01:08:03.610 - in order to just be able to turn around a car on their property. So that's why we were not recommending 01:08:03.610 --> 01:08:09.778 - full approval of what the petitioner is coming forward, but a 20 by 20 pad gives you that adequate room 01:08:09.778 --> 01:08:16.065 - for that turning movement. And if we did this, why would we not ask for them to put in pavers or whatever 01:08:16.065 --> 01:08:22.055 - it is that water could drain? Certainly that is absolutely something that the board could require as 01:08:22.055 --> 01:08:26.622 - well. I mean, I'm asking why the city doesn't. I mean, they're already over. 01:08:26.754 --> 01:08:33.462 - So why isn't that part of this? That you've presented to us. I think we did not evaluate possible bump 01:08:33.462 --> 01:08:40.171 - out in the back of the property the petitioner was interested in adding the the area the front parking 01:08:40.171 --> 01:08:46.814 - area in the front of the property which is Consistent with some other properties in the neighborhood. 01:08:46.814 --> 01:08:50.526 - So the city's analysis was that 30 feet by 20 feet was a 01:08:50.786 --> 01:08:58.232 - too large for three parking spaces. We still are trying to accommodate the petitioner's need to have 01:08:58.232 --> 01:09:05.752 - a safe turnaround area, and it's similar to other properties on that street, but we were recommending 01:09:05.752 --> 01:09:13.420 - that it's reduced just to limit the overall impervious surface. Okay, but what about my question? Which 01:09:13.420 --> 01:09:20.350 - is why did we not ask for it to be impervious? To be honest, we did not think of that aspect. 01:09:20.546 --> 01:09:26.397 - Okay, so but we're looking at other parts of the code writing up a Finding I'm just I'm struggling with 01:09:26.397 --> 01:09:32.023 - trying to understand why the size how come we don't care about suddenly the whether it's impervious 01:09:32.023 --> 01:09:37.761 - or not So that's I'm just trying to understand because this seems to me I'm sorry, but it seems to me 01:09:37.761 --> 01:09:43.444 - is not well thought out this petition Nor the staff report. I mean, I don't agree with this. I don't 01:09:43.444 --> 01:09:49.182 - agree that you know, it's just oh, let's just slap some concrete in the front make it really huge and 01:09:49.474 --> 01:09:56.809 - and be done with it because they're living on a high traffic street. That's why I'm a little confused 01:09:56.809 --> 01:10:04.072 - by it. I mean, I think in the least, I would have expected there to be a requirement for there to be 01:10:04.072 --> 01:10:11.551 - drainage and not put more concrete there, because you said they're at 55%. Yeah, that was the estimate. 01:10:11.551 --> 01:10:19.390 - Yeah. Yep. And it's supposed to be at what? The current limit is 40% for R2. That's what I thought you said. 01:10:19.522 --> 01:10:26.341 - What would the percentages be if we put a 400 square foot down? How much over would they be? Well, they 01:10:26.341 --> 01:10:33.028 - would still be over. It'd still be over, but what percentage? I'd say probably four percentage points 01:10:33.028 --> 01:10:39.781 - maybe. I'm sorry? Probably four percentage points. Four additional? Yeah. Okay. All right. I just want 01:10:39.781 --> 01:10:46.468 - to get all this put together in my head, so thank you for that. I have a question. My question is for 01:10:46.468 --> 01:10:48.894 - the petitioner. What is the purpose? 01:10:49.154 --> 01:10:56.637 - Other than turning around, obviously you're going to have people parking there. Is this for you, 01:10:56.637 --> 01:11:04.661 - your family? I mean, why did you want three spaces instead of two to begin with? Yes, absolutely. Well, 01:11:04.661 --> 01:11:12.607 - we hadn't considered two just based upon other homes along High Street. Several of them have this type 01:11:12.607 --> 01:11:16.542 - of existence. And in speaking with people, it does 01:11:16.994 --> 01:11:25.715 - seem to have a much easier in and out, as well as the narrow driveway that goes to the back. It is nine 01:11:25.715 --> 01:11:34.184 - feet. And so the configuration when people have to get in and out of the house, you have to maneuver 01:11:34.184 --> 01:11:42.988 - and move. Again, talking with other neighbors that have a lot of the majority have parking in the front, 01:11:42.988 --> 01:11:44.414 - it just makes it 01:11:44.866 --> 01:11:51.859 - easier for mobility and as well as safety, leaving the homes on High Street. High Street is extremely 01:11:51.859 --> 01:11:58.716 - busy. Our house is at 716 South High Street. And when you move towards First Street, there's a hill 01:11:58.716 --> 01:12:05.983 - that comes up also that makes it challenging to see who's coming in that direction also. Just the overall 01:12:05.983 --> 01:12:12.908 - parking is challenging. And again, we don't have any off-site parking, except I know at First Street 01:12:12.908 --> 01:12:14.622 - and in High, but I don't 01:12:16.098 --> 01:12:23.059 - People don't typically park there. It makes it challenging. So the purpose would be for parking as well 01:12:23.059 --> 01:12:29.753 - if people are visiting you. Absolutely. There's nowhere else to park in the neighborhood. We have a 01:12:29.753 --> 01:12:36.647 - house two doors down that just put in a beautiful concrete parking lot in the front of their home. And 01:12:36.647 --> 01:12:43.742 - it just makes it easier for the mobility for them to get in and out and their parents to come visit them. 01:12:44.546 --> 01:12:54.942 - this tight area makes it nearly impossible. If there was a fence between our two driveways, my neighbor 01:12:54.942 --> 01:13:04.338 - and I, there is no way that anybody can maneuver out of there from one car to the next. Okay, 01:13:04.338 --> 01:13:12.734 - thank you. Thank you. Chris, any question? Wait, can you hear me? Wait, I do, okay. 01:13:13.538 --> 01:13:20.463 - driveway width, give me the definition of driveway. Because we're doing a variance in driveway because 01:13:20.463 --> 01:13:27.389 - we're adding a turnaround to the driveway. Yep. So what the UDO says is that the driveway width within 01:13:27.389 --> 01:13:34.314 - the building setback shall not be wider than 18 feet. And so that's measured as a path that you travel 01:13:34.314 --> 01:13:40.702 - on. So as you go along the driveway here, a turnaround area would then make the width of that. 01:13:40.834 --> 01:13:46.465 - The nine feet or ten feet that it is now plus that additional depth So it would in essence be close 01:13:46.465 --> 01:13:52.095 - to 30 feet or something like that So the driveway width would exceed that 18 feet and so that's why 01:13:52.095 --> 01:13:57.895 - they need that variance And we're calling this a driveway because we're considering it as a turnaround 01:13:57.895 --> 01:14:03.863 - as opposed to a parking space I mean there there is no for single-family. There is no difference driveway 01:14:03.863 --> 01:14:06.622 - and park and parking area are the same thing and 01:14:16.866 --> 01:14:28.568 - Anything else No Any other questions for the petitioner for the staff They remind me do we do public 01:14:28.568 --> 01:14:30.654 - comment on this I 01:14:31.202 --> 01:14:37.017 - Yes, three three minutes for any members of the public, but did we or have we have not okay? I thought 01:14:37.017 --> 01:14:42.720 - we were still I thought we were still in front of that I just I've lost track Okay, let's let's take 01:14:42.720 --> 01:14:48.365 - a moment and see if there's anyone here from the public and in chambers Who'd like to speak to this 01:14:48.365 --> 01:14:54.011 - petition or anyone online if you are online, please raise use the raise hand function Come forward, 01:14:54.011 --> 01:14:58.302 - please. We have someone in chambers come forward and you sign in please and 01:14:59.074 --> 01:15:08.817 - and then give me your first and last name. You're already sworn in, I think. Did I already swear him 01:15:08.817 --> 01:15:18.754 - in? No. Mr. Goudge wants to see my thumb drive. I hope I can find it again. Let me put something down. 01:15:18.754 --> 01:15:24.542 - I'm sorry, I thought that they had, but they weren't there. 01:15:35.106 --> 01:16:03.230 - All right, but since I did not swear you in the earlier exchange that we had state your first and last name and 01:16:03.842 --> 01:16:20.424 - Let me just sign this before I start. Yeah, I'll wait. Thank you. I should put my glasses on and I can 01:16:20.424 --> 01:16:23.966 - see what I'm writing. 01:16:33.570 --> 01:16:40.343 - Okay. First and last name? Yeah, my name is Leo Pilachowski. And Leo, do you affirm the testimony you're 01:16:40.343 --> 01:16:46.923 - about to give us, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do so again. All right, you have three 01:16:46.923 --> 01:16:53.825 - minutes. I'll try to my best. Okay, I live just, I own the building, the house just south of the property, 01:16:53.825 --> 01:16:57.566 - and I live across 1st Street also, and a new house there. 01:16:57.890 --> 01:17:03.572 - First of all, I'm here tonight because mainly there's a really poor site plan, and I know that 01:17:03.572 --> 01:17:09.673 - non-professionals can do that. But it would have been nice to see the location of the parking and the 01:17:09.673 --> 01:17:15.893 - shrubs that are gonna be required. You should know, this is a student rental. The petitioner here, it's 01:17:15.893 --> 01:17:21.993 - her son that lives there with other tenants, not the petitioner. And right now, one of the owners has 01:17:21.993 --> 01:17:23.070 - told me that they 01:17:23.170 --> 01:17:30.657 - after the addition of two bedrooms this summer, there'll be five bedrooms total, okay? And the driveway 01:17:30.657 --> 01:17:37.928 - there is often filled with cars, okay? This variance, I think, would be good in that respect because 01:17:37.928 --> 01:17:45.271 - it will allow less cars everywhere in that driveway and everything like that. So I'm not gonna oppose 01:17:45.271 --> 01:17:52.542 - the variance, okay, at all. But I do want one condition changed because I think it's very important. 01:17:53.314 --> 01:18:00.670 - Okay. We already, you can see from the diagram, I mean from the picture that the staff showed, that 01:18:00.670 --> 01:18:08.099 - cars can park in that driveway and they block the vision from First Street north on High Street. You 01:18:08.099 --> 01:18:15.969 - really can't see very well. It's already very poor because of the topology. The vision clearance triangle, 01:18:15.969 --> 01:18:21.854 - which I hope you can see right now, can you bring up that yet? Okay, the first, 01:18:26.050 --> 01:18:33.929 - And if he's waiting, you can toll my time, thank you. Okay, so that's the second one. That's the second 01:18:33.929 --> 01:18:41.505 - one that's shown, that's the thing. The vision clearance triangle, the one that's, the line, vision 01:18:41.505 --> 01:18:49.308 - clearance line is the one that's, there's two lines there, the one below. If you'll see it, excuse me, 01:18:49.308 --> 01:18:53.854 - the one above, if you'll see the shrub there, if the shrub, 01:18:54.018 --> 01:19:01.110 - planted on the property line, which is allowed, it will block that vision clearance by about a half 01:19:01.110 --> 01:19:08.202 - a foot or so. Okay, vision clearance, and that's the minimal clearance. If you take the recommended 01:19:08.202 --> 01:19:15.365 - clearance, that whole thing is completely blocked if the shrub's there. I have suggested a change to 01:19:15.365 --> 01:19:20.542 - the condition, number two, that the shrubs be planted at least five feet 01:19:20.962 --> 01:19:29.343 - inside the property line. That will allow a mature shrub, when it grows, and that line is a mature shrub, 01:19:29.343 --> 01:19:37.486 - and I use the shrubs in the code, UDO, not to block the sight line. That's a very poor sight line, and 01:19:37.486 --> 01:19:45.946 - there already has been accidents there. So you can see the PDFs. And the recommended one, which is higher, 01:19:45.946 --> 01:19:49.662 - is because then you don't block the crosswalk, 01:19:50.242 --> 01:19:59.310 - when you're looking to turn out, and that's why most communities use the recommended one as practical. 01:19:59.310 --> 01:20:08.377 - The staff told me I had to be here to make this amendment change, and so I'm here now. I tried to talk 01:20:08.377 --> 01:20:17.181 - to the property owner. I tried to send an email already. Yeah, three minutes. They get five minutes 01:20:17.181 --> 01:20:19.294 - for the regular agenda. 01:20:19.426 --> 01:20:24.686 - I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. See, that's good. Okay, that's what my stopwatch said. Okay, 01:20:24.686 --> 01:20:30.054 - really fast. Okay, so the staff said I had to be here tonight, that's why I'm here. I tried to talk 01:20:30.054 --> 01:20:35.529 - to the property owner that's present here tonight and she didn't want to speak with me. I sent her an 01:20:35.529 --> 01:20:41.111 - email at the address and she doesn't answer, so that's why I'm here tonight. I'm not really happy about 01:20:41.111 --> 01:20:46.479 - that and that's why I did the thing at the beginning. But if you do grant this variance, please ask 01:20:46.479 --> 01:20:48.894 - for the shrubs to be five feet back from the 01:20:49.026 --> 01:20:55.056 - from the property line so that the mature shrubs will not block the vision line. And I've presented 01:20:55.056 --> 01:21:01.327 - another picture that you don't see that has the real long-term thing. Two things I'll say, the property 01:21:01.327 --> 01:21:07.477 - here is clay, I built a house on the south, I know about that, it's completely impervious, or I would 01:21:07.477 --> 01:21:13.628 - have made my driveway with impervious pavers. So the drainage is a problem, putting impervious pavers 01:21:13.628 --> 01:21:15.678 - there is probably not gonna help. 01:21:15.906 --> 01:21:26.110 - The impervious service area and I kept my impervious service as small as possible. Okay, and Eric told 01:21:26.110 --> 01:21:36.116 - me that the staff could not present my change either. So that's why I'm here tonight. Thank you very 01:21:36.116 --> 01:21:45.726 - much for your time Thank you, and this is questions All right Any other comments from the public 01:21:45.890 --> 01:21:58.276 - Online If there is anybody online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you I'm not 01:21:58.276 --> 01:22:10.783 - seeing anybody else online Okay with that we are back to the petitioner. You have 17 minutes to address 01:22:10.783 --> 01:22:14.270 - us to use at your discretion 01:22:17.922 --> 01:22:25.711 - First of all, I probably won't need 17 minutes. Just again, based upon where the house is located and 01:22:25.711 --> 01:22:33.500 - the minimal amount of space that there is for the driveway and us having to turn into our neighboring 01:22:33.500 --> 01:22:41.136 - yard, neighboring driveway, it just makes it nearly impossible. If someone were to come out to High 01:22:41.136 --> 01:22:47.550 - Street and truly take a look at the homes all up and down High Street, you will see 01:22:48.226 --> 01:22:58.957 - several parking spots or turnarounds that are in most of the homes on High Street. It makes sense. It's 01:22:58.957 --> 01:23:09.688 - visually appealing. It's safe. Mr. Pilachowski, he does have a house that's next door to mine, but it's 01:23:09.688 --> 01:23:13.918 - been an abandoned house up until he just 01:23:14.050 --> 01:23:22.578 - purchased it 10 years ago, or sorry, it was abandoned for 10 years, I understand. It's uninhabitable. 01:23:22.578 --> 01:23:31.105 - So I know that there's a few different parking areas on the abandoned type of house. But there's also 01:23:31.105 --> 01:23:39.549 - parking over on 1st Street as well. There's other areas that neighboring parties can park. But this, 01:23:39.549 --> 01:23:43.646 - again, sorry, he just makes me a little nervous. 01:23:43.874 --> 01:23:53.473 - This just, once again, it's just to improve safety and backing in and out. And I just hope that it is 01:23:53.473 --> 01:24:03.073 - taken into consideration just like several of the other homes on South High Street that seems to make 01:24:03.073 --> 01:24:11.166 - sense for our neighbors as well. Thank you. Back to the board for further discussion. 01:24:13.218 --> 01:24:21.711 - Any other questions of staff for the petitioner? Chris? So before motion, I mean, I'll address, I did 01:24:21.711 --> 01:24:30.205 - look up and down the street, and there's not many having the turnaround. There are some that have it, 01:24:30.205 --> 01:24:38.615 - but it's certainly not consistent up and down the street. The thing is, it is a high traffic street, 01:24:38.615 --> 01:24:39.614 - absolutely. 01:24:39.842 --> 01:24:48.247 - I do think that there is issues of public safety. I think what I'm objecting to is the breadth to which 01:24:48.247 --> 01:24:56.410 - you're asking us to grant variance, and the city's recommending this. So that's why I was addressing 01:24:56.410 --> 01:25:04.573 - the city. So you're asking us for very big variance, 400 square feet, and not asking for there to be 01:25:04.573 --> 01:25:06.270 - a permeable surface. 01:25:07.234 --> 01:25:14.288 - I think that's a wrong way to go. I can't support that. I'll vote no if it stands as it is. I do think, 01:25:14.288 --> 01:25:21.070 - however, if there were changes made, which was to restrict the size of the pad in the front that we 01:25:21.070 --> 01:25:28.124 - would allow and looking at other properties along that road, there are many that have the smaller size. 01:25:28.124 --> 01:25:34.567 - They don't have a large turnaround pad in the front. They have a width of a car, which is what 01:25:34.567 --> 01:25:36.670 - I'm advocating, with permeable 01:25:36.962 --> 01:25:43.185 - Addition there instead of extending even more impervious So that's kind of where I'm at on this board. 01:25:43.185 --> 01:25:49.347 - I just need I Need to express. I just don't think we need to go this far in order to address concerns 01:25:49.347 --> 01:25:55.569 - of public safety I understand that people want to park there, but if it's a situation Where people are 01:25:55.569 --> 01:26:01.732 - coming there there are space there are places that can be parked They're not as convenient as 15 feet 01:26:01.732 --> 01:26:05.598 - to the front door, but there are places that can be parked so I 01:26:06.786 --> 01:26:13.556 - That's my comment, so if it stands as is, if we get a motion that states to go as recommended by the 01:26:13.556 --> 01:26:20.461 - city, I'll vote no. Any other comments before a motion is made? And certainly if a motion is made with 01:26:20.461 --> 01:26:27.365 - amendments to address my concerns, I'd be happy to vote yes, because I do think that there is a public 01:26:27.365 --> 01:26:34.270 - safety concern, and I think that's the overriding concern. I'm not even concerned about the shrubbery. 01:26:40.162 --> 01:26:48.962 - Well, I'll start with the motion just to see what happened. So I will entertain a motion to recommend 01:26:48.962 --> 01:26:57.676 - what the proposed findings were in the staff report with the conditions stated that the parking area 01:26:57.676 --> 01:27:06.477 - is limited in size of 20 by 20 for two parking spaces and six shrubs are required along the east side 01:27:06.477 --> 01:27:10.014 - of the parking area. Do I have a second? 01:27:16.418 --> 01:27:22.908 - see none do I have sorry say it Chris says question someone planned commission I've never done BCA on 01:27:22.908 --> 01:27:29.398 - this side of the table she's made a recommendation and plan commission we do friendly amendments with 01:27:29.398 --> 01:27:35.760 - the second and then we can we request an amendment to the to the to the motion how does what's this 01:27:35.760 --> 01:27:42.314 - normally what we do is if there's no second especially we just say that there was no second the motion 01:27:42.314 --> 01:27:44.350 - dies a new motion could be made 01:27:44.706 --> 01:27:51.149 - I'm sorry, no second was made, so it dies because it's not a motion. Okay, so if I second this, can 01:27:51.149 --> 01:27:57.720 - we then we make an amendment to the motion? We do that in planning commission. No, no, we don't do it 01:27:57.720 --> 01:28:04.163 - that way. So that's why before a second's made, we can certainly discuss it, but the easiest way is 01:28:04.163 --> 01:28:10.606 - to not make a second, let the motion not go forward and then make a new motion. So does anyone like 01:28:10.606 --> 01:28:13.054 - to, would anyone like to second this? 01:28:13.890 --> 01:28:20.364 - The other option Chris because you're asking is we could have a second we could take a vote. It could 01:28:20.364 --> 01:28:27.155 - be a two to tie or It could be a two to tie and then we would go for a new motion. I believe we're allowed 01:28:27.155 --> 01:28:33.438 - correct if it's tied You have to do a new motion if it's tied with the only four people yeah, Lynn 01:28:33.634 --> 01:28:39.606 - Lynn Coyne, interim director. I want to address the motion, amended motion, whatever. Well, let me swear 01:28:39.606 --> 01:28:45.293 - you in. Do you swear, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth 01:28:45.293 --> 01:28:51.094 - and nothing but the truth, Mr. Coyne? Yes. Thank you. First time that's ever applied to Robert's rule 01:28:51.094 --> 01:28:57.009 - of order. If you make a motion, you second the motion, the motion's on the table. You can make a motion 01:28:57.009 --> 01:29:01.502 - to amend that motion, but you must then vote on the motion to amend the motion 01:29:02.306 --> 01:29:08.142 - And then that becomes the new motion. Do you see what I'm saying? There's a motion, you amend it, the 01:29:08.142 --> 01:29:13.863 - motion becomes, has amended the original motion. Then you vote on that. So. And that's how we do it 01:29:13.863 --> 01:29:19.584 - in plan commission. That's what I was asking. That's how Robert's Rules of Order would handle that. 01:29:19.584 --> 01:29:25.534 - Yeah. Okay, I just wanted to throw that in there. Yeah, I understand. And I think for clarity and ease, 01:29:26.274 --> 01:29:32.391 - we kind of move forward a little differently. It's not necessarily Robert's Rules of Order, but I get 01:29:32.391 --> 01:29:38.449 - that. So we still, I think, get to the same end, but it's a little more understandable, I think, for 01:29:38.449 --> 01:29:44.506 - the public and for us, frankly. So if there's no second, then the motion isn't gonna go forward, and 01:29:44.506 --> 01:29:50.804 - then we would entertain a new motion. So there was no second unless someone is now going to step forward 01:29:50.804 --> 01:29:55.422 - and second it. Chris, will you second it? Okay, so in that case, the motion, 01:29:55.746 --> 01:30:05.392 - is in seconded so I will seek a new motion or further discussion. Thank you. I can make motion please. 01:30:05.392 --> 01:30:14.851 - I move approval of the 2 variances with staff findings excluding the shrubbery. And limiting the pad 01:30:14.851 --> 01:30:22.718 - to the I believe that 360 square foot the petitioner stated should be agreeable to. 01:30:28.514 --> 01:30:35.313 - Before you finish the motion, will you entertain an amendment before seconds made? We have I guess we 01:30:35.313 --> 01:30:42.312 - have a discussion about that either way. I don't care. Yeah That could that additional size be permeable 01:30:42.312 --> 01:30:49.244 - required to be permeable The reason I don't agree with that is because as a civil engineer that doesn't 01:30:49.244 --> 01:30:56.243 - work in our in our in our dirt it just doesn't work and then they have to be properly maintained because 01:30:56.243 --> 01:30:57.310 - the gravel just 01:30:57.762 --> 01:31:09.341 - They don't drain. All right. Do I have a second? Question for you before we second. Yeah, Chris. When 01:31:09.341 --> 01:31:21.487 - you do 340, the city is asking a maximum of two parking spaces. So when you change that, are you changing? 01:31:21.487 --> 01:31:27.390 - You want to add no more than 20 feet wide? Correct. 01:31:28.802 --> 01:31:37.202 - Yes. Yes. I'm good with that. Limit the width of it along the driveway and then put a maximum square 01:31:37.202 --> 01:31:45.603 - footage on it. Does that work? I think it would be helpful to restate what the proposal is. Yes, can 01:31:45.603 --> 01:31:54.585 - you restate that whole thing? I can restate. I move approval to two variances for the variance for driveway 01:31:54.585 --> 01:31:58.494 - width and the variance for impervious surface. 01:31:58.626 --> 01:32:08.409 - for the driveway with a maximum of 20 foot width along the driveway and no more than 360 square feet 01:32:08.409 --> 01:32:18.386 - of impervious surface and no shrubbery. I think I would also add a maximum of two parking spaces. That 01:32:18.386 --> 01:32:23.326 - would limit it to a maximum of two parking spaces. 01:32:29.314 --> 01:32:35.906 - So we have a, if there's no further discussion, we have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, 01:32:35.906 --> 01:32:42.563 - any further discussion? All right, well, I still think that that's too large. I don't think it needs 01:32:42.563 --> 01:32:49.287 - to be that large. It needs to be big enough for one car to turn around, not two cars to park. I think 01:32:49.287 --> 01:32:56.142 - that's too much, that we're giving up too much and it's, so I'll vote no on this when it comes in front 01:32:56.142 --> 01:32:57.790 - of the board for a vote. 01:32:58.370 --> 01:33:13.280 - I mean, I would be receptive to a smaller size, just in case it's a tie or voted down. Any other discussion? 01:33:13.280 --> 01:33:28.190 - No. Chris? Leslie? No. OK, I'll call the question. Burrell? Yes. Kosenko? Yes. Smith? Yes. Throckmorton? No. 01:33:29.026 --> 01:33:39.485 - Petition is approved three to one and it has a revised language Okay with that we'll go to the next 01:33:39.485 --> 01:33:50.257 - petition And that is going to be 20 26 0 6 27 requested 12 19 West East Branch Road for variances from 01:33:50.257 --> 01:33:58.206 - the required sidewalk installation and build to line requirement for use of 01:33:58.690 --> 01:34:04.990 - of a dwelling single-family detached. Can I have a staff report, please? All right, thank you very much. 01:34:04.990 --> 01:34:11.050 - Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning planner. So the petitioner for this case is Value Built Construction, 01:34:11.050 --> 01:34:17.350 - and they're requesting two variances for the installation of a new single-family home, and this property 01:34:17.350 --> 01:34:23.710 - is on a corner lot that is currently vacant. The zoning for the property is residential small lot R3, and 01:34:23.906 --> 01:34:31.140 - The two frontages, there is Larkspur to the west and East Branch to the north. On the screen you can 01:34:31.140 --> 01:34:38.661 - see the site plan that was submitted by the petitioner. And since there is an existing sidewalk adjacent 01:34:38.661 --> 01:34:46.110 - to the property along Larkspur Lane, a new sidewalk is required along both frontages of the corner lot. 01:34:46.690 --> 01:34:52.727 - These streets are classified as neighborhood residential streets and that requires a minimum six foot 01:34:52.727 --> 01:34:58.763 - wide sidewalk and five foot wide tree plot with street trees. The second variance request is from the 01:34:58.763 --> 01:35:04.741 - 15 foot front build to line requirement and this applies to the frontage on West East branch road to 01:35:04.741 --> 01:35:10.955 - the north. There is an existing utility line and utility easement that runs through the northwest corner 01:35:10.955 --> 01:35:11.902 - of the property 01:35:12.098 --> 01:35:19.212 - and this prevents the house from being placed at the required 15 foot build to line along East Branch 01:35:19.212 --> 01:35:26.465 - Road. The petitioner is proposing to develop the property with a new 1000 square foot ranch style home. 01:35:26.465 --> 01:35:33.649 - As you can see on the site plan, the proposed front setback along West East Branch Road is 23.24 feet. 01:35:33.649 --> 01:35:37.694 - So this requires a variance from the front build to line. 01:35:39.490 --> 01:35:45.128 - The granting of the variance from the sidewalk requirement is expected to be injurious to the general 01:35:45.128 --> 01:35:51.097 - welfare of the community because it will not promote connectivity. Extending the sidewalk from the existing 01:35:51.097 --> 01:35:56.845 - sidewalk stub will increase safety and pedestrian connectivity within the neighborhood. And the purpose 01:35:56.845 --> 01:36:02.538 - of the required sidewalk installation is to accomplish connectivity throughout the community and these 01:36:02.538 --> 01:36:06.462 - goals will not be achieved with the approval of the sidewalk variance. 01:36:07.266 --> 01:36:14.564 - For the third criteria and the recently amended UDO, there is an option for payment in lieu of pedestrian 01:36:14.564 --> 01:36:21.725 - construction. So that provides an alternative to sidewalk installation with a public benefit in return. 01:36:21.725 --> 01:36:28.886 - And staff did not find that there's any unique condition to the property that prevents the installation 01:36:28.886 --> 01:36:35.358 - of the sidewalk. And then for the second variance from the build to line requirement for the, 01:36:35.714 --> 01:36:41.915 - With the existing water main on the north side of the property, this is the unique condition in this 01:36:41.915 --> 01:36:48.177 - case. City of Bloomington Utilities has a requirement that structures cannot be placed within 10 feet 01:36:48.177 --> 01:36:54.868 - of the water main. So increasing the front building setback along East Branch Road will allow the petitioner 01:36:54.868 --> 01:37:01.314 - to develop the property with a new home while meeting CBU's separation requirement. Adjoining properties 01:37:01.314 --> 01:37:05.182 - on these streets are not set back at the 15-foot build-to line 01:37:05.346 --> 01:37:11.403 - and have similar front setbacks to what the petitioner is proposing along West East Branch Road. And 01:37:11.403 --> 01:37:17.459 - it is not possible for the petitioner to comply with the UDO's 15 foot build to line requirement and 01:37:17.459 --> 01:37:23.456 - CBU's water main setback requirement. So the variance will afford the petitioner the minimum relief 01:37:23.456 --> 01:37:27.294 - necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties in this case. 01:37:29.282 --> 01:37:34.822 - The department recommends that the board adopt the proposed findings, approve the variance from the 01:37:34.822 --> 01:37:40.473 - bill to line requirement and deny the variance request from the required sidewalk installation. There 01:37:40.473 --> 01:37:46.345 - are two conditions in the staff report. The first condition states that unless otherwise approved through 01:37:46.345 --> 01:37:51.996 - the payment in lieu process, a six foot wide sidewalk is required along both properties frontages and 01:37:51.996 --> 01:37:57.536 - then the second condition addresses the street tree requirement in the EDL. And I'm happy to answer 01:37:57.536 --> 01:37:59.198 - any questions from the board. 01:38:05.026 --> 01:38:12.011 - Thank you. As the petitioner present. Hi, my name is Sable Byers. I'm here on behalf of Value Built 01:38:12.011 --> 01:38:19.205 - Construction. Okay, and do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth 01:38:19.205 --> 01:38:23.326 - and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, you have 20 minutes. 01:38:25.218 --> 01:38:32.697 - I think the only thing we wanted to add to Jamie's presentation is a concern with the pay in lieu of 01:38:32.697 --> 01:38:40.251 - installing the sidewalk. It's our understanding that that committee is not meeting in August for some 01:38:40.251 --> 01:38:47.730 - reason. So the next available meeting for that is not until September 28. So it's a really long time 01:38:47.730 --> 01:38:50.174 - to wait for that to be resolved. 01:38:50.626 --> 01:39:00.620 - So that is the only other thing we wanted to bring to everyone's attention in taking the waiver request 01:39:00.620 --> 01:39:10.326 - into consideration. Anything further? I guess I will say one more thing. It is my understanding that 01:39:10.326 --> 01:39:18.686 - they cannot build anything at all on this property without the build to line variants. 01:39:19.234 --> 01:39:25.304 - So the house is already very small at 1,000 square feet, but there is not a single plan that can fit 01:39:25.304 --> 01:39:31.375 - on that lot without the variance, which is why it's being requested. But that's all, happy to answer 01:39:31.375 --> 01:39:37.385 - any questions. Okay, you'll have 19 minutes when we come back to use at your discretion. We're back 01:39:37.385 --> 01:39:43.516 - to the board for any questions of the petitioner or the city staff. Let's start with Chris. Chris, do 01:39:43.516 --> 01:39:44.958 - you have any questions? 01:39:48.930 --> 01:40:01.840 - You're muted again. Sorry, I only have one screen. You go with somebody else first. Very good. Any comments 01:40:01.840 --> 01:40:14.630 - for the. This is just a question for the just for clarification for for the staff. So we do have a payment 01:40:14.630 --> 01:40:18.814 - in loop process now for sidewalks. 01:40:19.810 --> 01:40:27.675 - Yes, that was approved earlier this year by City Council in May of this year with the department's annual 01:40:27.675 --> 01:40:35.169 - amendments So explain that though. Is that that must be requested by Must they petition for it or is 01:40:35.169 --> 01:40:42.811 - it an at will they can just say I'm gonna do it So I guess I want to clarify, you know, so the payment 01:40:42.811 --> 01:40:43.998 - in lieu is just 01:40:44.322 --> 01:40:50.757 - Third option here. So, you know the first option, you know what they are requesting is a variance So 01:40:50.757 --> 01:40:57.128 - we don't have determinate sidewalk variances anymore So a variance request for it for any nature is 01:40:57.128 --> 01:41:03.817 - just based on the three criteria And so as as we mentioned the staff report We did not find any peculiar 01:41:03.817 --> 01:41:10.252 - conditions about the property that don't allow for a sidewalk to be installed period second there is 01:41:10.252 --> 01:41:13.310 - a different form of relief if the variance is a 01:41:13.762 --> 01:41:20.298 - denied, that is the payment in lieu process that allows for the Transportation Commission to also offer 01:41:20.298 --> 01:41:26.583 - an additional path of relief that does evaluate some of the criteria that were formerly part of the 01:41:26.583 --> 01:41:33.119 - determinate sidewalk variance criteria. So they can then choose to go to the Transportation Commission, 01:41:33.119 --> 01:41:39.530 - have them evaluate whether or not it is a candidate for the payment in lieu option, for one frontage, 01:41:39.530 --> 01:41:41.918 - both frontages, whatever they choose. 01:41:42.114 --> 01:41:48.921 - And so that is another option. And then obviously the third option is they install the required sidewalk. 01:41:48.921 --> 01:41:55.471 - So I just wanted to make that distinction. We in our staff report are not saying deny this because we 01:41:55.471 --> 01:42:01.700 - want them to use the payment in lieu. We're denying it because of the variance criteria, period. 01:42:01.700 --> 01:42:08.122 - In addition, there is another path as well. But that is not a specific factor. But I just wanted to 01:42:08.122 --> 01:42:09.278 - be clear on that. 01:42:13.154 --> 01:42:19.278 - And as far as the bill to line, you know, you're you're advocating that we grant that variance. Yes, 01:42:19.278 --> 01:42:25.401 - certainly. As we said in the staff report, you know, due to the location of the water line, there is 01:42:25.401 --> 01:42:31.586 - not a it is not possible to construct to the bill to line given the location of the water line. Yeah. 01:42:31.586 --> 01:42:37.831 - Excellent. I just want to make sure it's clear what we're talking about the sidewalk. So, okay. Chris, 01:42:37.831 --> 01:42:42.014 - did you have any questions? Yeah. Yeah, I think the bill to minus is 01:42:42.722 --> 01:42:49.497 - something we have to give them because we need this house built. With regard to the sidewalk variance, 01:42:49.497 --> 01:42:56.141 - what's the width of the sidewalk to the property made to the south? Is it five feet? The one that it 01:42:56.141 --> 01:43:02.983 - connects to? Yeah. It looks like it's the old forefoot, is that right? The one at 1224? Yeah, whatever, 01:43:02.983 --> 01:43:09.758 - just the south. Yeah, the one along the main road there. Yeah, it looks like it's a four or five foot. 01:43:11.490 --> 01:43:17.547 - Well, I was assuming was five. So I was thinking, um, we now have a new rule for six. Is there room 01:43:17.547 --> 01:43:23.847 - for the six foot sidewalk? Um, yeah, it looks like there's, uh, probably at least 15 feet from the edge 01:43:23.847 --> 01:43:29.904 - of the pavement to the right of way long. And this, they don't have to do five foot tree plot, five 01:43:29.904 --> 01:43:36.022 - foot sidewalk or anything like that. Do they, they can put that sidewalk in line with where the rest 01:43:36.022 --> 01:43:38.142 - of the sidewalks neighborhood are. 01:43:38.818 --> 01:43:45.587 - Well, so the transportation plan would require a tree plot and then the sidewalk at the back end. There 01:43:45.587 --> 01:43:52.160 - is a path in the UDO that allows for an adjustment to line up the sidewalk with the existing, but we 01:43:52.160 --> 01:43:58.733 - would have to evaluate that separately. Certainly in a lot of these situations what we see and would 01:43:58.733 --> 01:44:01.662 - probably prefer is that the sidewalk on this 01:44:01.922 --> 01:44:08.344 - Would jog back into the property so that it's over. It looks like a water line that is in that area 01:44:08.344 --> 01:44:14.958 - so that we can have it an actual tree plot with street trees in it. You say there's a water line right 01:44:14.958 --> 01:44:21.444 - off the back curve. Yeah, looks like if you look at the site plan along the West property line along 01:44:21.444 --> 01:44:29.022 - Larkspur. You can see an electric line and a water line that moves through that area. So the ideal situation would be 01:44:29.218 --> 01:44:34.908 - the sidewalk would go over that water line so that you can have street trees so that if you look at 01:44:34.908 --> 01:44:40.598 - the site plan where they have street trees that's in the tree plot so we would obviously want those 01:44:40.598 --> 01:44:46.573 - to maintain be maintained and then the sidewalk would go up against the the backside of the right-of-way 01:44:46.573 --> 01:44:52.548 - line so yeah I'm sorry I can't look at two screens I'm sorry my traveling are there already street trees 01:44:52.548 --> 01:44:58.750 - along that road there are not street trees but they are showing the required street trees on their site plan 01:44:59.042 --> 01:45:05.425 - We can we can put that well not on that property Eric, but it's the one to the south Oh on the one to 01:45:05.425 --> 01:45:12.059 - the south There's one on the corner for sure of green tree and lakes per right. Yes It looks like there's 01:45:12.059 --> 01:45:18.629 - at least one there and there may be another one right between the two properties. I think Chris It isn't 01:45:18.629 --> 01:45:25.200 - a restriction for street treated in 10 feet of utility or is that just sewer? Yeah, so there are setback 01:45:25.200 --> 01:45:28.830 - requirements from water and sewer lines and gas lines and 01:45:28.930 --> 01:45:35.032 - trees. So that's why I was saying, you know, where they've got the street trees does appear to be compliant 01:45:35.032 --> 01:45:40.909 - with that separation requirement from the water line. I can put this here. So if we denied the sidewalk 01:45:40.909 --> 01:45:46.729 - variance, they'd have to put a jog on a five foot sidewalk, wide it to six feet, five or some feet off 01:45:46.729 --> 01:45:52.492 - the back of curb, whatever the rule is today and wrap their whole site with that. Is that what they'd 01:45:52.492 --> 01:45:53.566 - be required to do? 01:45:54.274 --> 01:46:01.338 - They would be required to install street trees in the tree plot and have a sidewalk Most likely along 01:46:01.338 --> 01:46:08.818 - the backside with some sort of a jog or taper to it. I Think in the past too that we've had this discussion 01:46:08.818 --> 01:46:15.813 - in there and involved a flare to flare from the old sidewalk to the new essentially it would grow in 01:46:15.813 --> 01:46:17.822 - a somewhat aesthetic way and 01:46:23.170 --> 01:46:30.974 - Yeah, so we would work with the engineering department on something that met our standards to merge 01:46:30.974 --> 01:46:38.856 - the two. But is that right, Eric? We've done that. I mean, we've had this discussion. Yes. Yeah, OK. 01:46:38.856 --> 01:46:46.659 - OK. But let's follow Chris's questioning, though. Would we have the ability to say that we want the 01:46:46.659 --> 01:46:51.966 - sidewalk along Larkspur to match the width, at least to the corner? 01:46:52.130 --> 01:47:01.911 - No, no, so the petition that what is before you is simply request to not require sidewalk at all The 01:47:01.911 --> 01:47:11.692 - location is up to the transportation plan and any relief that might be allowed within the UDO. Okay. 01:47:11.692 --> 01:47:17.502 - Thank you Denied that denied the non exist no sidewalks and 01:47:18.434 --> 01:47:25.311 - They will have to put sidewalks, but they will have to sit with the Transportation department to figure 01:47:25.311 --> 01:47:31.990 - out where this is gonna go and how wide and how it would match with the neighbor and where would the 01:47:31.990 --> 01:47:38.603 - trees go because of all the All the drain. I mean the water main and everything else Yes, so if you 01:47:38.603 --> 01:47:45.216 - deny the variance request from the sidewalk then they would have you know two choices at that point 01:47:45.216 --> 01:47:46.142 - one is seek a 01:47:46.306 --> 01:47:54.376 - additional relief through the payment in lieu or to install the sidewalk and we would work with them 01:47:54.376 --> 01:48:02.445 - to work on the location of the sidewalk that would be in compliance with the transportation plan and 01:48:02.445 --> 01:48:10.515 - allow for street trees with the tree plot. Okay. Are there any further questions before we go to the 01:48:10.515 --> 01:48:14.590 - public? I have a question for the petitioner. Yes. 01:48:17.090 --> 01:48:26.349 - So you would prefer that there's no payment in lieu because you said of time, is it a timing issue? 01:48:26.349 --> 01:48:36.349 - Yes, so the next meeting for the payment in lieu of program is not until September 28th. So if the variance 01:48:36.349 --> 01:48:44.126 - gets denied and we want to seek that route, we are just stuck until September 28th. 01:48:45.154 --> 01:48:51.449 - Because they don't meet in August, and I'm not sure why something that important would skip a month 01:48:51.449 --> 01:48:57.995 - of meeting. I would also like to point out there. I'm sorry, but are there plans to build the structure 01:48:57.995 --> 01:49:04.604 - in the sidewalk before then? Well, they would like to build it as soon as possible, but they can't until 01:49:04.604 --> 01:49:11.214 - we get through all of this. No, I'm sorry. I meant, is it feasible to get that far into the construction 01:49:11.214 --> 01:49:12.158 - in two months? 01:49:13.378 --> 01:49:20.999 - to the sidewalk. Their build time? Well, I don't think they can start building until the sidewalk situation 01:49:20.999 --> 01:49:28.197 - is resolved. Okay. I don't think they can get a building permit for the structure without that. Well, 01:49:28.197 --> 01:49:35.324 - if we said that we denied the sidewalk variance, they could still get a building permit. Correct. So 01:49:35.324 --> 01:49:41.886 - they would submit a building permit showing the sidewalk being installed and then they could 01:49:41.986 --> 01:49:47.491 - Pursue a relief through any other relief any other method and whatever time frame they want So I want 01:49:47.491 --> 01:49:53.050 - to run out that reasoning my what I'm trying to see is is it reasonable for me to think that if we did 01:49:53.050 --> 01:49:58.770 - deny if we denied that variance for the sidewalk there would still be plenty of time for them to Approach 01:49:58.770 --> 01:50:04.329 - the meeting on in September to sure because the sidewalk is probably not going to be constructed first 01:50:04.329 --> 01:50:06.110 - in the construction it's usually 01:50:06.466 --> 01:50:12.454 - Last well, I mean, so this would be a component that would be required to be installed prior to occupancy 01:50:12.454 --> 01:50:18.160 - So as some point before they're able to utilize it the sidewalk either would have to be installed or 01:50:18.160 --> 01:50:23.922 - they seek relief through The payment in lieu so they could push the construction of the sidewalk back 01:50:23.922 --> 01:50:29.854 - until after September sure Okay, so it is feasible then for us to deny it and they still have they would 01:50:29.854 --> 01:50:34.430 - still have an opportunity to To address this in other avenues. Yes. Thank you. I 01:50:36.482 --> 01:50:43.237 - Can I make a comment or direct away? Go ahead, Flavia. I'm done. Thank you. Okay. Chris, do you have 01:50:43.237 --> 01:50:50.059 - anything before we go to the public? Is this a question time or a comment time? Well, this is back to 01:50:50.059 --> 01:50:57.081 - the board for any questions that we have. You can make comments, but it's primarily questions to clarify 01:50:57.081 --> 01:51:03.903 - before we go to the public. No, I don't have any questions to clarify now. I think the petitioner has 01:51:03.903 --> 01:51:06.110 - something else they want to add. 01:51:06.210 --> 01:51:12.003 - All right, well, in that case, Leslie, do you have anything? Leslie? Okay, well, let's go to the public 01:51:12.003 --> 01:51:17.740 - then for a comment. Is there anyone? Please come forward, and you'll sign your name on the form there, 01:51:17.740 --> 01:51:20.414 - and then you'll state your first and last name. 01:51:42.466 --> 01:51:49.489 - First and last name, please Pamela hurt. Do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth 01:51:49.489 --> 01:51:56.512 - the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes Okay, you have up to three minutes. Okay. I'm sorry five 01:51:56.512 --> 01:52:03.264 - minutes Joe. Oh You got me stuck on that. I'm sorry five minutes. Thank you, Eric Okay, I feel like 01:52:03.264 --> 01:52:08.734 - I'm in a mighty python skit so yes five minutes Okay, the house proposed will be 01:52:09.474 --> 01:52:18.157 - Directly indirectly kind of set back a little between me and my my neighboring house on the corner of 01:52:18.157 --> 01:52:26.670 - Larkspur and Green Tree Lane Not sure how far the setback lines will be too close to the property I 01:52:26.670 --> 01:52:35.523 - know we have AT&T lines there. We have a a box we have the Electrical box that is right behind my house 01:52:35.523 --> 01:52:37.566 - that will run I suspect 01:52:37.730 --> 01:52:47.539 - what they need down there as well, possibly. My concern is where that comes in, how they will address 01:52:47.539 --> 01:52:54.366 - if they have to go with these lines, if they have to move these lines. 01:52:55.394 --> 01:53:02.870 - Are they too close to the neighbor's house? Even on the end of the street at Clarksboro and Green Tree 01:53:02.870 --> 01:53:10.128 - is a little bit closer. They have a shed behind there will be a little bit closer than what I am to 01:53:10.128 --> 01:53:17.750 - him as far as the distance from down there to back behind it. I figured there could be a flood potential 01:53:17.750 --> 01:53:23.774 - with the grade of my downhill on the yard, possibly down into that low lying area. 01:53:23.970 --> 01:53:32.216 - which is a very flat area where the woman that owns the house next to that, owned that flat land, had 01:53:32.216 --> 01:53:40.461 - a daycare. So that is pretty far downhill from my property line, which I have a little hill there for 01:53:40.461 --> 01:53:48.869 - runoff. So that was one of the things that I wanted to address. And what the intention of the home was, 01:53:48.869 --> 01:53:52.830 - is it rental or is it a bought-in home for sale? 01:53:53.858 --> 01:54:02.834 - for a family or renters. We have Larkspur, which is full of homes that are only rental homes, pretty 01:54:02.834 --> 01:54:11.900 - much with students and whatnot that are in those homes. There's a lot of car noise, music banging all 01:54:11.900 --> 01:54:21.854 - night long. I don't know what will be added to that or not added to that. Who knows? So that was some concerns. 01:54:22.018 --> 01:54:31.252 - was thinking about and whether those would be addressed, what the intention for the home was, if family 01:54:31.252 --> 01:54:40.486 - dwelling or not, and the noise from their end. So that was just why I wanted to come in and just figure 01:54:40.486 --> 01:54:49.543 - that sort of thing out. And also I had mentioned the sidewalk not going down all the way back on that 01:54:49.543 --> 01:54:51.230 - end there as well. 01:54:51.938 --> 01:55:00.549 - And is it already confirmed that they can build on there on this lot? That's about all I have. Well, 01:55:00.549 --> 01:55:09.245 - thank you. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else in chambers who would like to speak to 01:55:09.245 --> 01:55:17.856 - this petition? If not, is there anyone online? Please use the raise hand function on zoom. And thank 01:55:17.856 --> 01:55:19.902 - you. You may be seated. 01:55:23.234 --> 01:55:32.609 - There is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function 01:55:32.609 --> 01:55:41.983 - Or send a message via chat we can recognize you I'm not seeing anybody seeing none We are back to the 01:55:41.983 --> 01:55:51.358 - petitioner for the remainder of your 19 minutes to use how if you would like Thank you in response to 01:55:52.354 --> 01:56:00.048 - the lady that just spoke. I think my only response to that is value belt sells their homes, usually 01:56:00.048 --> 01:56:07.896 - to people intending to occupy it themselves. But what that purchaser does with it, we don't know. The 01:56:07.896 --> 01:56:15.590 - only thing I want to make sure everyone knows is there is not a sidewalk on East Branch Road. So if 01:56:15.590 --> 01:56:21.438 - we put a sidewalk on that side of the lot, it does not connect to anything. 01:56:21.698 --> 01:56:28.899 - but there is on Larkspur. So I think, you know, if we did it on Larkspur, but not East Branch, that 01:56:28.899 --> 01:56:36.172 - also makes more sense than installing both sides, but that's all. Okay. With that, we're back to the 01:56:36.172 --> 01:56:43.734 - board for, we can have a discussion or comment. I'll start with a comment. I'll address that last point, 01:56:43.734 --> 01:56:46.686 - which is along East Branch to the north. 01:56:47.042 --> 01:56:54.266 - There is a sidewalk, so actually the addition of the sidewalk along East Branch would face the one across 01:56:54.266 --> 01:57:01.080 - the street, which would allow much easier access to go around the corner along the sidewalk on East 01:57:01.080 --> 01:57:08.099 - Branch to cross the street to the other sidewalk and then proceed because there is no direct spur from 01:57:08.099 --> 01:57:14.846 - Larkspur on the south side of Branch to Larkspur on the north side of Branch, if that makes sense. 01:57:15.298 --> 01:57:21.715 - I can't agree with that reasoning from the petitioner. Any other comments? Also, we would be happy to 01:57:21.715 --> 01:57:28.007 - entertain a motion at this time if there is not further questions or discussion. Chris, do you have 01:57:28.007 --> 01:57:34.361 - something? Yeah, I wanna clarify something. So the house is gonna front East Branch, right, which is 01:57:34.361 --> 01:57:40.778 - the cul-de-sac street? Yes. Okay, and Larkspur is the one that has the sidewalk directly to the south 01:57:40.778 --> 01:57:43.358 - along the west line, and it crosses over 01:57:43.522 --> 01:57:50.316 - East branch where there's a sidewalk on the north side of that street also. Correct. Correct. And then 01:57:50.316 --> 01:57:57.177 - it appears from the GIS that there's a sidewalk in front of the house across the street on East branch. 01:57:57.177 --> 01:58:03.905 - Correct. Did I get that right? Yeah, that's what I was addressing. There is the sidewalk there, 1214. 01:58:03.905 --> 01:58:10.238 - Yeah, okay. So I, in the past, I've asked for these, well, determinate variances from sidewalk. 01:58:10.370 --> 01:58:15.505 - Because as an engineer, I don't like forcing new infrastructure requirements build neighborhoods. And 01:58:15.505 --> 01:58:20.740 - in this instance, I think we have to require a sidewalk on Larkspur. I'm frustrated that it has to meet 01:58:20.740 --> 01:58:25.774 - these new requirements. It can't match the existing layout of the neighborhood, but we can't really 01:58:25.774 --> 01:58:30.859 - address that today. The one on East Branch doesn't concern me as much. There's a sidewalk across the 01:58:30.859 --> 01:58:36.044 - street, but this one, up the cul-de-sac, they're never going to get built. And then with regard to the 01:58:36.044 --> 01:58:40.222 - other variance requests, I think we have to do it. It's a 1,000 square foot house. 01:58:40.386 --> 01:58:47.722 - this lot is an old old lot the requirements are different than they are now and they're doing the best 01:58:47.722 --> 01:58:54.915 - they can I think that we have to do so that's that's my thoughts. Okay do we have any other comments 01:58:54.915 --> 01:59:02.750 - or questions and we again we could present questions to the petitioner or the staff. Give me one second here. 01:59:13.058 --> 01:59:22.595 - If we don't have any further comments or questions for petition or for the staff or any other comments 01:59:22.595 --> 01:59:32.132 - to the Amongst ourselves in general. I will entertain a motion And while you're formulating your idea, 01:59:32.132 --> 01:59:41.854 - I think that the recommendation from city seems to be right on I think it makes a lot of sense now Chris 01:59:42.466 --> 01:59:51.037 - there could be an argument made not to build that sidewalk along the cul-de-sac. It's just that it's 01:59:51.037 --> 01:59:59.694 - gonna face another sidewalk, so it does kinda make a little bit of... So I can go either way on that. 01:59:59.694 --> 02:00:08.690 - I'm with you. And I do think the size of the lot is real tight. However, I think that the city's proposal 02:00:08.690 --> 02:00:12.254 - here is really good and well thought out. 02:00:13.058 --> 02:00:23.162 - and make a motion for ZR 2026-06-0027. And the motion is to adopt the proposed findings and approve 02:00:23.162 --> 02:00:33.570 - the variance request for the build two line requirement and deny the variance request for the required 02:00:33.570 --> 02:00:38.622 - sidewalk installation in the following condition. 02:00:39.266 --> 02:00:47.029 - Condition number one, unless otherwise approved through the payment in lieu process, six foot wide concrete 02:00:47.029 --> 02:00:54.433 - sidewalk is required along both property frontages. Condition two, street trees, not more than 30 feet 02:00:54.433 --> 02:01:01.406 - from center are required along both property frontages per UDO requirements. Do I have a second? 02:01:08.162 --> 02:01:17.727 - I have a motion and a second to any further discussion, Chris? Anyone? I'll call the question. Burrell? 02:01:17.727 --> 02:01:27.384 - Yes. Kosinko? Yes. Smith? Yes. Throckmorton? Yes. The petition is denied. Well, it's granted. I'm sorry. 02:01:27.384 --> 02:01:34.558 - The request is denied, so but the petition is passed as presented. Thank you. 02:01:36.770 --> 02:01:45.200 - Let me get to the next one. This is 2026-06-0030, a request at 3430 West 3rd Street for a variance from 02:01:45.200 --> 02:01:53.710 - sign standards that apply to drive through in the mixed use corridor. Can I have a staff report, please? 02:01:53.710 --> 02:02:02.302 - Certainly, while I'm pulling up the presentation, I will say that I am Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner. 02:02:41.634 --> 02:02:50.084 - So this petition is a request for a variance from the sign standards that apply to drive-through uses 02:02:50.084 --> 02:02:59.197 - in the mixed use corridor MC zoning district. The property is 3430 West 3rd Street. It contains approximately 02:02:59.197 --> 02:03:08.062 - 1.87 acres on the north side of West 3rd Street between Gates Drive and Liberty Drive. It's been developed 02:03:08.162 --> 02:03:14.790 - as a drive-through vehicle wash use. The current zoning is mixed-use corridor, MC, and the comprehensive 02:03:14.790 --> 02:03:21.228 - plan is designated as part of a regional activity center, and the existing use is vehicle wash, which 02:03:21.228 --> 02:03:27.541 - is also the proposed use. It's proposed to be the same. The surrounding properties are also located 02:03:27.541 --> 02:03:34.042 - in the MC zoning district, and they've been developed with a variety of automobile-oriented commercial 02:03:34.042 --> 02:03:36.062 - uses and other commercial uses. 02:03:36.514 --> 02:03:43.201 - So the petitioner has applied for sign, which there's a rendering of it that it's in the packet that's 02:03:43.201 --> 02:03:50.018 - up there on the screen. It would be a new freestanding sign with an electronic message center, otherwise 02:03:50.018 --> 02:03:56.640 - known as a digital screen, for the existing drive-through lane. The proposed sign height is 71 inches 02:03:56.640 --> 02:04:03.262 - tall, the sign face area is 20 square feet, and the digital screen covers 100% of the sign face area. 02:04:06.626 --> 02:04:15.742 - So the UDO contains signage allowances for drive-through uses in a group of zoning districts, which 02:04:15.742 --> 02:04:24.859 - include MC, and those standards include that the maximum height for a sign under 20.04.100 J6C, I'm 02:04:24.859 --> 02:04:34.157 - gonna be referring to that as 6C, if necessary, the maximum sign height for that type of sign is five 02:04:34.157 --> 02:04:36.254 - feet, but the proposed 02:04:36.482 --> 02:04:49.114 - Sign is five feet, 11 inches, a little tall. Then there's also a maximum sign face area of 12 feet under 02:04:49.114 --> 02:04:57.054 - 6C. And the proposed sign has a sign face area of 20 square feet. 02:05:02.114 --> 02:05:12.312 - So the sign type under 6C is allowed to be 100% electronic reader board, which is what's proposed, so 02:05:12.312 --> 02:05:23.011 - that part of it is compliant. Going to the criteria, the staff has recommended findings, proposed findings 02:05:23.011 --> 02:05:27.710 - in the staff report, just summarize them here. 02:05:29.154 --> 02:05:35.419 - for the first criteria that it will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, and welfare. 02:05:35.419 --> 02:05:41.872 - The proposed finding is that the sign will have minimal impact, it'll face inward on the property, and 02:05:41.872 --> 02:05:48.326 - the visible rear of the sign will have minimal impact on the streetscape, aesthetic environment of the 02:05:48.326 --> 02:05:54.904 - city, or sign clutter. For the second criterion, proposed finding is that the sign will have substantial 02:05:54.904 --> 02:05:57.598 - adverse impacts on neighboring properties, 02:05:57.698 --> 02:06:03.577 - by allowing the petitioner's property to install larger or more numerous signage than other properties 02:06:03.577 --> 02:06:09.741 - would be allowed to install without any difference in the practical difficulties faced by those properties. 02:06:09.741 --> 02:06:15.677 - And for the third criterion, the proposed finding is that strict application of the UDO will not result 02:06:15.677 --> 02:06:21.556 - in practical difficulties in the use of the property. To the extent that the strict application of the 02:06:21.556 --> 02:06:22.526 - terms of the UDO 02:06:23.138 --> 02:06:28.472 - do not align with the petitioner's goals for the use of the property, this misalignment is not related 02:06:28.472 --> 02:06:33.650 - to any peculiar aspect of the property. The UDO contains allowances for drive-through signs similar 02:06:33.650 --> 02:06:38.881 - to the petitioner's desired sign, including allowances for drive-through signs that are 100% digital 02:06:38.881 --> 02:06:44.111 - screen. The petitioner could revise the proposed sign to comply with the UDO standards for this sign 02:06:44.111 --> 02:06:48.254 - type, which does not result in practical difficulty in the use of the property. 02:06:48.930 --> 02:06:55.585 - I do wanna mention some of you who've been on the board for a while may recall two variances, two different 02:06:55.585 --> 02:07:01.809 - variance cases for Starbucks locations on the west side for a similar type of sign. At that, and the 02:07:01.809 --> 02:07:08.033 - board approved both of those and those new Starbucks locations do have drive-through signs with 100% 02:07:08.033 --> 02:07:14.196 - digital screen. What's different is at the time there was no provision in the code for this type of 02:07:14.196 --> 02:07:16.414 - sign. There was no 6C. 6C was added 02:07:16.898 --> 02:07:24.104 - in recognition that this is a normal type of sign to have with the drive-through and to get up to speed 02:07:24.104 --> 02:07:31.311 - with where industry standard is. So with this petition is materially different from those because there 02:07:31.311 --> 02:07:38.448 - is an allowed UDO sign type that this sign could fit into. It just doesn't quite match the dimensional 02:07:38.448 --> 02:07:41.150 - characteristics. So the recommendation 02:07:42.402 --> 02:07:49.352 - The department is considered feasible alternatives the goals of the petitioner on the goals of the city 02:07:49.352 --> 02:07:56.235 - and reaching the recommendation which is that the BZA adopt the proposed findings for the petition and 02:07:56.235 --> 02:08:02.917 - it's cut off at the bottom of the screen but and deny the requested variance. Thank you. Thank you. 02:08:02.917 --> 02:08:09.667 - Is the petitioner and chambers are online? Yes, we are online. Okay, state your first and last name. 02:08:09.667 --> 02:08:11.070 - Christina Blackwell. 02:08:11.586 --> 02:08:17.412 - And do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 02:08:17.412 --> 02:08:23.239 - the truth? I do. All right. You have up to 20 minutes. And you know the rules. You can save some of 02:08:23.239 --> 02:08:29.182 - that and use it before the board takes any action. OK. Thank you so much. Hello, all. I apologize. We 02:08:29.182 --> 02:08:35.066 - are not there in person. We are based out of Indy. So I had kids this evening in accommodations with 02:08:35.066 --> 02:08:39.902 - sports. So on a little bit later than planned. But my name is Christina Blackwell. 02:08:40.258 --> 02:08:46.415 - and I'm representing Christina or representing crew car wash regarding petition as presented off of 02:08:46.415 --> 02:08:52.572 - 3430 West third street. We are requesting a development standards variance to allow a drive through 02:08:52.572 --> 02:08:59.282 - sign that includes an electronic message center larger than what is currently permitted under the ordinance. 02:08:59.282 --> 02:09:05.439 - We understand the staff has the recommended denial of this request and we would like to address the 02:09:05.439 --> 02:09:07.902 - concerned outlined in the staff report. 02:09:08.642 --> 02:09:14.608 - Before discussing the sign itself, I would like to know that crew car washes a committed complying is 02:09:14.608 --> 02:09:20.983 - committed to comply with the city's regulations governing electronic message centers. Any messages displayed 02:09:20.983 --> 02:09:27.007 - on this sign will remain static for at least what they have asked 20 seconds and the sign will utilize 02:09:27.007 --> 02:09:32.972 - will not utilize flashing scrolling animation or rapid messages that have like transitions throughout 02:09:32.972 --> 02:09:34.142 - the entire message. 02:09:36.546 --> 02:09:43.235 - Crew does intend to operate the sign in full compliance with all applicable messaging and timing requirements 02:09:43.235 --> 02:09:49.621 - established by the city. We are also willing to go down to the five foot height that has been requested. 02:09:49.621 --> 02:09:55.885 - First, the proposed sign is not intended to function as a traditional advertising sign directed toward 02:09:55.885 --> 02:10:01.662 - the public roadway as mentioned. It is located within the drive-through lane and is designated 02:10:02.114 --> 02:10:08.348 - or is and is designed specifically to communicate with customers who are already on site and actively 02:10:08.348 --> 02:10:14.765 - using the facility. The sign faces inward toward the drive through operation rather than outward towards 02:10:14.765 --> 02:10:20.937 - West Third Street. As recognized in the staff report, the sign is expected to have minimal impact on 02:10:20.937 --> 02:10:27.354 - the surrounding streetscape and adjacent properties. Second, the sign serves as an important operational 02:10:27.354 --> 02:10:29.310 - purpose. It primarily functions 02:10:29.666 --> 02:10:37.390 - as a menu and customer communication tool. For individuals already on the property, the electronic message 02:10:37.390 --> 02:10:44.825 - center allows Crew Car Wash to clearly display wash package information, membership options, available 02:10:44.825 --> 02:10:52.259 - wash selections, customer guidance, and operational instructions throughout the drive-through process. 02:10:52.259 --> 02:10:59.550 - This sign helps ensure customers can easily review and understand their options from their vehicles. 02:10:59.842 --> 02:11:06.694 - which at times are further away than just being right up on it. They have multiple lines throughout, 02:11:06.694 --> 02:11:13.682 - like on a busy day, sunny day, they have multiple lines. So we want them to be able to see it from far 02:11:13.682 --> 02:11:20.535 - away. So that's the size restriction that we're asking for it to be a bit larger. In turn, this will 02:11:20.535 --> 02:11:27.726 - be able to create a safer, more efficient and more customer experience. Finally, the requested dimensions 02:11:27.726 --> 02:11:29.694 - are not intended to increase 02:11:29.826 --> 02:11:35.890 - advertising ability, oh my gosh, I'm so sorry, visibility. The sign size is a standard design element 02:11:35.890 --> 02:11:42.013 - used consistently throughout the crew car wash locations and has proven effective in ensuring messages 02:11:42.013 --> 02:11:48.493 - remain legible to customers viewing the sign from their vehicles while progressing through the drive-through 02:11:48.493 --> 02:11:54.675 - lane. The additional display area allows information to be communicated clearly, safely and efficiently 02:11:54.675 --> 02:11:58.718 - without creating additional visual impact on the surrounding areas. 02:11:59.554 --> 02:12:07.337 - and businesses for these reasons we truly. And we respectfully request approval of the variance and 02:12:07.337 --> 02:12:15.432 - we thank you for your consideration. Thank you. You'll have just over 16 minutes to remain to use this. 02:12:15.432 --> 02:12:23.682 - You choose before any actions taken by the board. So back to the board for any questions or clarification 02:12:23.682 --> 02:12:26.718 - from staff or petitioner. So on slide. 02:12:28.482 --> 02:12:39.478 - Okay, so slide six is the UDO requirement of five feet. Slide seven is 71 inches, so five feet 11, which 02:12:39.478 --> 02:12:49.950 - now the petitioner's saying they can go down. What's the width requirement that's not listed in the 02:12:49.950 --> 02:12:58.014 - sheet? Yeah, the, let's see if I can pull up the slide again. So there's no, 02:13:00.194 --> 02:13:07.605 - There's no direct regulation of the width, but there is a regulation of the sign face area. Um, so one 02:13:07.605 --> 02:13:14.872 - distinction is the height is the full height of the entire structure, which could be taller than the 02:13:14.872 --> 02:13:22.499 - actual sign area. But then the, the sign area, um, is there's a limit on how big that is. So what they're 02:13:22.499 --> 02:13:29.406 - proposing is 60 inches wide. So, uh, five feet wide by 48 inches tall. So four feet tall. Okay. 02:13:29.602 --> 02:13:41.805 - which is larger than the 12-foot allowed under 6C. Does that make sense? It does. I have a question 02:13:41.805 --> 02:13:54.373 - about the staff exhibit number five. It's that 2016 document that Eric signed. The previous sign? Yes. 02:13:54.373 --> 02:13:57.790 - Let's just talk about that. 02:13:58.146 --> 02:14:04.891 - a sign that shows up on five, which is a similar design. Did this sign actually end up on the property 02:14:04.891 --> 02:14:11.504 - already? I believe all the signs that were in that permit are on the property, but let me find which 02:14:11.504 --> 02:14:18.118 - sign you're talking about exactly. Okay, as you look, it's that page five on, what document is this? 02:14:18.118 --> 02:14:24.732 - It's the Planning and Transportation Department Certificate of Zoning Compliance document that has a 02:14:24.732 --> 02:14:26.238 - number of pages in it. 02:14:26.498 --> 02:14:33.027 - the initial request in 2016. And I guess my question is twofold, which is one is, is that sign currently 02:14:33.027 --> 02:14:39.431 - there? Because I know that the current one's electronic. The one that they're asking for is electronic 02:14:39.431 --> 02:14:45.836 - so that the imagery would change. This one has the same imagery on the proposal. This was a standalone 02:14:45.836 --> 02:14:52.178 - fixed sign that talks about ultimate works choose to car wash, et cetera. One, was that sign actually 02:14:52.178 --> 02:14:55.038 - built? And then it shows it in a much smaller 02:14:55.618 --> 02:15:04.541 - Dimension 61 by roughly 49 plus the stand So I would I would ask the petitioner to confirm my Information 02:15:04.541 --> 02:15:13.211 - is that sign number five does exist and it is currently fulfilling the allowance in 6a Okay, so to the 02:15:13.211 --> 02:15:20.030 - petitioner then that sign currently exists the one that was approved in 2016 and 02:15:21.026 --> 02:15:27.396 - That sign was approved in 2016, but has since been removed. So that that sign is now correct. We are 02:15:27.396 --> 02:15:33.828 - looking to like replace that sign with the sign that was removed. OK, and that sign was a fixed sign. 02:15:33.828 --> 02:15:40.324 - It was an electronic message board, correct? Correct, yeah, and there was multiple changes on the sign 02:15:40.324 --> 02:15:46.630 - that were needed because of menu options and etc. So that's why they would prefer to go the digital 02:15:46.630 --> 02:15:49.342 - route. Understood because because of menu. 02:15:49.474 --> 02:15:57.915 - Yeah, okay, understood. Any other questions before we go to the public? There's more than one crew car 02:15:57.915 --> 02:16:05.454 - wash in this town, so are there differences in the dimensions of the signs between the two? 02:16:05.454 --> 02:16:13.977 - I would have to, so this crew car wash predates the more recent one. The more recent one has an address 02:16:13.977 --> 02:16:18.238 - on Pete Ellis Drive at Pete Ellis and Third Street. 02:16:18.434 --> 02:16:28.998 - I do know that we issued a sign permit so that all the signage that's at the east side one is compliant. 02:16:28.998 --> 02:16:39.058 - I would have to go look at the permit to see exactly what the dimensions of their sign were for 6C, 02:16:39.058 --> 02:16:47.710 - but it was compliant on that one. Chris, do you have any questions? Not at this time. 02:16:48.514 --> 02:16:56.463 - With no other questions or comments from the staff, I mean from the board, we're gonna go to the public 02:16:56.463 --> 02:17:04.182 - for comment. Before we go back to the petitioner, is there anyone in chambers who'd like to speak to 02:17:04.182 --> 02:17:12.207 - this? I see none. Anyone online? If so, please use the raise hand function to make yourself known. Okay. 02:17:12.207 --> 02:17:18.398 - I'm not seeing anybody online. With that then, we will go back to the petitioner 02:17:19.138 --> 02:17:26.980 - I think you may have started to speak. You have 16 minutes to address any questions, concerns, or any 02:17:26.980 --> 02:17:34.668 - other information you'd like to provide. All right, thank you so much. So I had mentioned, or I was 02:17:34.668 --> 02:17:42.510 - trying to mention earlier, their other site in Bloomington, it was not feasible to be able to put one 02:17:42.510 --> 02:17:45.662 - of these digital signs at that location. 02:17:46.178 --> 02:17:52.378 - So they do not have one of the digital signs there because they didn't have the same loop for the menu 02:17:52.378 --> 02:17:58.518 - opportunity that the existing location had. If we could have, we definitely would have requested that 02:17:58.518 --> 02:18:05.139 - as an option. And then as we've discussed, this sign is not intended to function as a traditional advertising 02:18:05.139 --> 02:18:11.218 - display. So it is an operational tool designed for the menu for customers to understand what they're 02:18:11.218 --> 02:18:16.094 - doing while they go through the line and really just speed up the entire process 02:18:16.482 --> 02:18:23.431 - crew car wash is their motto is clean fast friendly. So at the end of the day, they don't want to have 02:18:23.431 --> 02:18:30.177 - to keep switching out faces on the old time like they did decide to remove. They would like to have 02:18:30.177 --> 02:18:37.194 - a digital display to be able to change pricing, be able to show unlimited pricing, anything that's best 02:18:37.194 --> 02:18:43.198 - for their practice. So I really appreciate everybody's time today and thank you so much. 02:18:48.962 --> 02:19:04.130 - Thank you. It's back to the board for action, either a motion or further discussion. Any questions, 02:19:04.130 --> 02:19:17.022 - comments? None from Chris, anyone? With that, I'll entertain a motion. I just have a 02:19:17.794 --> 02:19:26.828 - Question I know a little farther down the road, but can I ask this question? Oh, yes, this is for staff. 02:19:26.828 --> 02:19:35.604 - So I Like the mentions so I'm just trying to figure out that what we're talking about. Are we talking 02:19:35.604 --> 02:19:44.379 - about 11 inches? The dip for the height That they're going over 11 inches for the height and also the 02:19:44.379 --> 02:19:46.014 - the sign face area 02:19:46.850 --> 02:19:54.365 - the sign face area, so there's no, but we have no width, correct, requirement. Right, yeah, I mean, 02:19:54.365 --> 02:20:01.955 - there is a total sign face area, so they can have it be an inch tall and however many feet wide they 02:20:01.955 --> 02:20:09.469 - want, it'd be a weird sign. And I think the petitioner already spoke that they wouldn't mind making 02:20:09.469 --> 02:20:12.926 - five feet tall, so if they make it five feet, 02:20:13.058 --> 02:20:20.723 - can you calculate what is our total area of face? It would be up to their sign design, right? So if 02:20:20.723 --> 02:20:28.466 - they did that by shrinking the sign face area, we could calculate that, but they could also do it by 02:20:28.466 --> 02:20:36.361 - just shrinking the base at the bottom and keeping the sign face area the same. But if the question is, 02:20:36.361 --> 02:20:42.110 - if you also shrunk the sign face area by 11 inches, then that would be 30, 02:20:43.330 --> 02:20:51.745 - If the question is, so if they make a compliance sign that is five feet tall and you're allowed 12 square 02:20:51.745 --> 02:20:59.923 - feet, the width would be 2.4 feet. Was that a question or was it a different question? Instead of four 02:20:59.923 --> 02:21:08.020 - feet, they are proposing four feet. Yeah, so if they wanted to keep the five feet and stay within the 02:21:08.020 --> 02:21:13.022 - 12 square foot allowance, the maximum width would be 2.4 feet. 02:21:17.250 --> 02:21:23.340 - Okay so they are losing. I mean also obviously they can change the height you know there's any ways 02:21:23.340 --> 02:21:29.431 - that they can adjust the sign you know to fall within those two parameters of the maximum height of 02:21:29.431 --> 02:21:35.521 - five feet and the maximum size of 12 square feet you know they can they can adjust anything as long 02:21:35.521 --> 02:21:37.470 - as they don't exceed those two. 02:21:52.258 --> 02:21:58.975 - I just see is there any difference because this signage is not it's for the public, but it's actually 02:21:58.975 --> 02:22:05.692 - for the customer that is using the drive-through. So it's not facing the road is the the requirements 02:22:05.692 --> 02:22:12.738 - we have for signs that are facing a road and they would advertising. No, so the video doesn't distinguish, 02:22:12.738 --> 02:22:19.389 - you know, what is the intent of a sign? You know, we can only regulate what it you know, what is the 02:22:19.389 --> 02:22:20.574 - size of the sign? 02:22:20.674 --> 02:22:27.385 - and how many of those signs. Where you put it on the property is kind of up to you. So as Gabriel mentioned, 02:22:27.385 --> 02:22:33.849 - we updated the UDO two years ago to allow for an additional signs for drive-through facilities. Whatever 02:22:33.849 --> 02:22:40.252 - they want to put on the sign, that's up to them. We can't regulate that. But the UDO fully contemplates 02:22:40.252 --> 02:22:43.454 - these types of signs. There is an allowance for it. 02:22:43.554 --> 02:22:52.017 - And so there's nothing unique about this property that prevents them from meeting that. They just wanna 02:22:52.017 --> 02:23:00.480 - have something that's more totally understandable. Something that's bigger, okay. All right, thank you. 02:23:00.480 --> 02:23:08.861 - Any other comments or questions from the board before we take action? Chris? If no further discussion, 02:23:08.861 --> 02:23:10.814 - I'd entertain a motion. 02:23:27.810 --> 02:23:42.026 - Make a motion for ZR 2026-06-0030. The motion is that the department recommends that the board's zoning 02:23:42.026 --> 02:23:56.926 - appeals adopt the proposed findings for petition and deny the request of variance. We have a second. Second. 02:23:58.242 --> 02:24:09.599 - Further discussion. Okay, you can hear me Chris any further discussion to the motion Call the question 02:24:09.599 --> 02:24:20.736 - Burrell. Yes, could Cinco No Smith yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes All right, the petitioners request has 02:24:20.736 --> 02:24:25.918 - been denied the motion passes three to one and 02:24:28.290 --> 02:24:35.695 - Do I see any further business in front of the board? No, nothing from staff. Wait a minute, I thought 02:24:35.695 --> 02:24:43.609 - I might have a question for you. I'll send it to you by email. There were a couple things I was questioning. 02:24:43.609 --> 02:24:51.087 - It was a follow-up to stuff we've done in the past, just to see where things stood. So with that, then 02:24:51.087 --> 02:24:55.806 - I'll let you know that the Board of Zoning Appeals is adjourned.