- I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday, July 23rd, 2026.
- We're going to take the role. Please call the roll. Smith. Here. Burrell. Here. Cosenco. Here. Throckmorton.
- Here. Did we have minutes that were distributed? I did not see them. Yes, I believe there were. Was
- it just for the last meeting? Yes.
- From the June 25th meeting June 25th is there a motion to approve the June 25th. Motion to approve June
- 25th. Second I have a second to call the roll. Burrell yes could think oh yes. Smith abstain. Throckmorton
- yes. All right. So what will.
- What we're going to do here is go through the reports resolutions and communications and from the staff.
- Do we have any at this moment? Just one. And it is in regards to the kind of technically the third petition
- that is on the agenda tonight or I'm sorry, the fourth petition that is on the agenda.
- I'm so sorry third rephrase that we have two cases on the expedited agenda And then at the beginning
- of the regular agenda, there is a petition for 716 South High Street So we have a notice from an adjacent
- property owner That the sign that is required to be placed on the property Was not visible from High
- Street at least 21 days prior to the hearing date so in the
- section of the code UDO that talks about defects in public notification requirements. It does talk about
- that appearance at any hearing on a petition or proposal in person or by representative shall waive
- any defect and notice unless the alleged
- defect is raised at the beginning of the hearing. So the adjacent property owner is simply notifying
- that at the beginning of the hearing that this defect did occur and does not, therefore, waive their
- rights. The petitioner did
- give us the affidavit stating that they did mail the public notice letters and did post a sign. So we
- are just simply relaying to the board that an adjacent property owner did not observe the required sign
- at least 21 days. An adjacent property owner didn't happen to observe it 21 days in advance. They did
- not observe the sign being placed prior, 21 days prior to the hearing.
- And has that resident, have they requested us to continue this because of that? They have not.
- It's certainly, I think, and we can ask legal if there's any recourse to that. If the board wants to
- hear from the adjacent property owner regarding a request for continuance, you certainly can. I think
- my question really goes around with the, you know, cause this is unusual to get this.
- Yeah, is to just say if the resident feels that they are somehow being denied their rights under our
- code, meaning that they want to assure they have three week notice. What would be the best way for us
- to proceed? I mean, we could continue to say, okay, the sign didn't go up, then we move it back.
- Or if the resident says, well, it wasn't posted 21 days in advance, but I don't feel that my rights
- were infringed upon. The resident is in the audience. So you're welcome to seek input from them. They're
- here in the audience? Yes. So what we could do is ask if they would be willing to let us hear the petition,
- even though they cited a variance from what they should be doing. Yes, they have stated that they observed
- a lack of the presence of the sign.
- Well, we have that right as a board to ask that then. If that person who observed it would like to come
- forward to the podium and let me swear them in, they could say, they could ask us to postpone it,
- I think. And that would be a valid reason because of the issue. Sure. Do you agree, Eric? Yes, unless
- Anadina has any... Are we violating any of our policies? Uh-oh. Are we?
- I think that's fine. We suggested Mr. Grockmore and you can ask the person who stated that they did
- not observe the signage to Discuss what they did or did not observe and then consider continuance BCA
- can consider that okay so the intent now is to make sure that we feel that the citizens of the city
- are afforded the rights under under our code so if that person would like to
- to come forward and discuss it and ask for us to continue it, that would be something we will consider.
- But if that person doesn't feel comfortable coming forward, then we'll consider that a silent agreement
- to move forward. Is that fair enough for the city? Okay, so we will entertain that during our reports,
- resolutions, communications now before we start to announce what the agenda is for tonight. Would anyone
- like to come forward and express a concern?
- and just state your name. Yeah, my name's Leo Pilachowski. And do you swear to tell the truth about
- the truth? Yes, I do. Okay, so we'll just have a conversation here. All I can say is that I didn't,
- I did not get the written notice of this until July 8th. On July 6th, one of my neighbors mentioned,
- asked me a question about the variance, and I said, I don't know anything about this.
- And on that day, I had actually accepted a job for this afternoon and this evening to be out of town.
- That's one of my plans. I accepted the job to do that. And I went over to the street, looked at the
- property on the morning of July 7th. There was no sign. And I took a picture. I took two pictures,
- in fact. I came back two days later on the
- 9th, I believe, and took a picture and the sign was there. So I don't know if the sign was blown away,
- but there was no sign on the property. And I do look at that property pretty much every day because
- I own the property just south of it on 720 South High Street. Now, as I told Jamie, I believe she was
- up here already, I wasn't planning on asking for this hearing to be postponed or do it by mentioning
- this item. But the fact that there's no notice here
- because Jamie said that I had to be here at the hearing if I wanted to present a change of the conditions.
- The staff couldn't do that since they sent the packet out already. So the only reason I have brought
- this up is because I don't want my appearance here to waive me bringing up any, not affect the variance
- condition, but affecting it,
- why I had to leave a job to come here, and that causes me a problem, and it may cause me a more problem.
- I don't want to waive being able to bring the fact that this notice was defective in why I accepted
- a job. So that's all I'm doing. I'm not asking you for continuance, because I'm already here, because
- Jamie told me that I had to come here if I wanted to present something. I apologize for taking so long.
- No, no, that's fine.
- Understand is that you have no objection to us hearing that petition in this evening, correct? And it
- has been entered into the record the conditions that you found which was the sign was not observable
- Yes, and I can freeze I can present the pictures for that if you if the staff would like I'll give them
- the pictures very good But that's what's important here is we want to make sure that we are hearing
- this concern and have addressed it I don't object to hearing
- Item tonight. Well, thank you for that. So we'll with that we will move forward then but thank you for
- taking the time to explain it to us All right. Now with that do we have any other communications? No,
- nothing from staff. Okay. Well in that case then let's go through the list of petitions. We have a few
- I believe to be continued and those are
- ZR-2026-070033 and that is pertaining to 530 South Washington Street for an administrative appeal of
- a notice of violation. That will be continued to August 27th, 2026. Also we have ZR-2026-050022 and
- ZR-2026-070035.
- and that is request at 412 East Wiley Street for conditional use, and that deals with a duplex at that
- facility, at that location, I'm sorry. So those are the two that we have for continuous. Are there any
- others that I'm overseeing, Eric? Nope, those two cases will be continued, and so we obviously have
- two cases for the expedited agenda, and then three cases on the regular agenda. And those shall be expedited
- agenda of 2026.06.32,
- And that's 2101 East Covenanter Drive and 1213 South High for conditional use we have the other expedited
- as 20 2606 29 and that is 120 South Wildland Street for a variance from the sign standards. Those are
- going to be our two expedited and then following that we will have petitions from 20 2606 25 which is
- 716 South High for a variance from the driveway width standards. We will have another the second
- The full petition is 2606-27 at 1219 West East Branch Road for a variance from the required sidewalk
- installation. And then we will finish tonight with ZR 2026-0630, and that's at 3430 West 3rd Street
- for a variance from sign standards. So with that, am I overlooking again anything else there? Okay,
- that is the order tonight. Let's go ahead with the expedited agenda.
- Item number ZR-2020606-0032, a request at 2101 East Cominenter Drive in 1213 South High Street
- for conditional use to allow development within the floodway and floodway fringe. May I have a staff
- report, please?
- Good evening, Joe Patterson, zoning and long range planner. As discussed, this is for 2101 East Covenanter
- Drive in 1213. Doesn't sound like the mic's on. Is the mic on? Yes, it is. Okay, maybe a little closer,
- I'm sorry. I'm having trouble. Thank you. Joe Patterson, zoning and long range planner. And this is
- for conditional use for development within the floodway and floodway fringe
- within the High Street multi-use path project and within a residential medium lot R2 zoning district.
- This is in the east central portion of the city. And as you can see, the affected parcels for
- this conditional use are on the east side of High Street, roughly between the intersection of East Covenanter
- and South Covenanter. This portion of the project covers a portion of the floodplain on these two parcels
- is part of a much larger project
- going from Arden Drive all the way north to 100. And as you can see, sorry, as you can see, this project
- does impact the east side of High Street. And as outlined in the staff report, there are numerous criteria
- that we have to consider both the general
- criteria as well as the additional criteria for conditional uses. But in addition, since this is within
- the floodplain, we have criteria for development within the floodplain. And as staff evaluated all those
- criteria, we found that none of, or excuse me, we found that all the criteria were met for this project.
- And therefore we recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings within the staff
- report, approve the conditional use with the condition that floodplain development permit and
- site development permits
- are approved prior to work commencing. Are we muting Google or Zoom? Just people are talking and it's
- gonna bleed. You were in and out for a little bit. I just wanna make sure we're muted. Thank you.
- All right. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
- Oh, that's it. Okay. All right All right is a petitioner present Come forward and state your name and
- elsewhere you went good evening Neil copper with the engineering department All right, do you affirm
- the testimony you are about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do you
- are the petitioner
- Okay. Just want to make sure I do want to explain to everybody that the way this will work is any petitioner
- has 20 minutes to present. They don't need to use that 20 minutes in full. They can withhold some of
- that after the board does a series of back and forth. You can use that at the end to address anything
- that comes up without restriction for the remainder of your 20 minutes. Does that make sense? With that,
- you are free to discuss and we'll start a timer.
- Thank you. Just real briefly add so this is a project that Is listed in the city's transportation plan
- not just in general, but actually specifically as a priority project And it's been prioritized through
- the Metropolitan Planning Organization to utilize federal funding it's also been voted on by City Council
- as part of a general obligation bond ordinance for the local match to support the federal funding that
- the project received and
- The project does a lot of really great things multi-use path traffic signal replacement storm water
- improvement crosswalk improvements. Tonight we're talking about a very actually small piece of the project
- that does touch the very beginning of the floodway and then that floodway continues east away from our project.
- In order to do this work, we require the conditional use approval as was discussed by Mr. Patterson.
- I'm happy to answer any questions you have about the project or its impacts, but that's all that I wanted
- to add. Thank you. Back to the board for questions or suggestions. All right. So we're to the public
- for comment that you can see.
- If there are any members of the public that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise
- hand function and we can recognize you and you'll have three minutes to speak. No one? There was one member
- who was chatting that wanted to speak about this. J.J. Long III, did you want to speak? You need, okay.
- Okay, can you hear me? Is it?
- Jill, what is the? The name disappeared. Hold on a second. Jennifer Long, you should be able to speak now.
- Can you hear me? Yes. Jennifer, will you state your first and last name? Jennifer Long. Do you swear
- that the testimony you're about to give is the truth of the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Can
- you still hear me? Yes, I can. OK.
- I know hold on hold on hold on Jennifer did you hear I need to see do you affirm the testimony you're
- about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I just need a yes. You can't hear
- me for some reason. Yeah, is that a yes. Yes. Okay, now you have five minutes please.
- Three I'm sorry Joe three minutes. Oh, I'm sorry three minutes. We changed. Sorry old habits Can you
- hear me can you hear me yes, you may begin I
- had been met and I'm interested to know what all of that criteria is. I own and operate the 2101 East
- Covenager property near the High Street project that you're doing and you know as you know it's already
- located in a flood zone and there's been documented drainage challenges in the neighborhood. So while
- I support the overall
- and construction on, you know, flood depths, velocities and frequency of flooding that affects my property
- and, you know, other properties as well, as well as my rental bit. Approval on the following, that being
- a submission and public availability of a complete no rise certification and a supporting
- hydraulic hydrologic study by a licensed engineer demonstrating zero increase in base flood elevation
- and no adverse. Full engineering plans cross sections drainage calculations and mitigation measures,
- including any. You know improved improved stormwater infrastructure or anything like that.
- current flooding drainage issues would be great. And I guess construction best practices, erosion, sediment
- control, staging, and kind of how that's gonna, how all of that is gonna work together. My request just
- to kind of do some due diligence to make sure that
- We're not going to end up in deep water, so to speak. Can you hear me? Well, Jennifer, you are breaking
- up in and out. We're getting most of what you're saying. OK.
- And finally, I wanted and I can repeat any of that, but I also did want to see is there any chance,
- while you're doing this construction. That it could alter you know we're on the fringe of that floodplain
- is there any way it could alter the flood.
- Jennifer, does that conclude your comments? I'm chatting with them. I believe so, though. OK.
- I tell you what, you can continue to chat if she wants to use the remainder of her time, which is about a minute.
- We can come back to her. Is there anyone else in the public who'd like to address this petition? Either
- in chambers or online? Okay, there's nobody in chambers. Anyone online, Eric? If there is anybody else
- online, please use the raise hand function.
- And then the last question would be, did Jennifer feel that she conveyed everything or does she want
- to use the remainder of her public speaking time? Okay, can you hear me this way? Yes. Okay, perfect.
- Sorry, I have been trying to get a better connection and for some reason it wasn't working. So I just
- wanted to see if you guys, if you were able to hear. Unfortunately, Jennifer, your your signal or your
- connection keeps dropping out. We're only hearing about half of what you're saying. So can we write
- OK? I mean, I guess can I? I can type it to you. Would that work?
- Watch or email or I mean should I send you an email if you feel comfortable if you would send an email
- now and we'll give you two minutes to get that sent over to Is there an email link there Eric Yes, I'm
- sending her my email address now so we'll we'll stand by here for two minutes send that along to make
- sure that your comments are properly entered into the Thank you
- All right, I'm gonna send this right now. Okay, while you're doing that, we're gonna go on, but we will
- wait before we move on to the next item on the agenda, okay? Yes, I'm sorry. Can you tell me just verbally
- 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,
- it should be in the chat. Okay. All right, thank you.
- Go ahead and mute that then while that's happening and we'll wait to enter that into the minutes. Thank
- you everyone for your patience.
- I'm still waiting on the email. Certainly I could suggest that if the board wanted to have the petitioner
- address any of the comments that were kind of verbally expressed and then I can relay anything that
- maybe was missed in those comments. What we could do is, are you okay with that? Are we okay?
- I was a little hesitant, but yeah, that's okay with me. So let's go ahead and go back to petitioner
- while we're waiting. And then I'll just ask the petitioner for his patience because if there's anything
- else in the email that we want to bring up, we'll just add that. Okay. So is there anything you have
- about 19 minutes left? Do you have anything you'd like to, to state to the board before it's back to
- the board for action? Yes, it's Neil copper again.
- Just to state, I did receive an email this afternoon from Ms. Long that I think outlines the questions
- that she was asking. My kind of short answer is that we actually have done all the things that she's
- asking about. We have done that due diligence. We've been coordinating with the local floodplain
- administrator. We have done hydraulic analysis. We have a report from a licensed engineer. We have an
- approved no-rise certification.
- You know, we have erosion control requirements and a prohibition of staging in the flood. We have, I
- think everything that she's been asking about has been looked at and be happy to provide that if it
- would be beneficial. And any other comments for me before we go to the board? No. Okay, thank you. Eric,
- did you receive the email? I'm still waiting for it to come through. She did chat me and said that she sent it.
- So I'm just waiting for it to make its way through the internet. So before the board takes any action,
- we'll just wait to make sure that that's arrived.
- right next to it. So I know those.
- Nothing yet Eric. No nothing yet. She did a message in the chat just to ask that flooding will will
- there be any improvements as this with this project and not making things worse. Well what we'll what
- we'll do here is this which is public comments or public comments but they're not part of a debate.
- And so the public can ask the questions the petitioner can choose or not choose to answer those. In
- their allotted time, the BZA board members will make up their own mind as to how we will interpret that.
- But at this point, the member of the public has had ample opportunity to make comment. The petitioner
- has been given the opportunity to respond. So in lieu of waiting for this email, we will continue to
- move forward with our
- actions tonight. So we are back to the board for action which would be further discussion further questions
- to the board a petitioner or for a motion question for the petitioner is trying to answer what the was
- Miss Long has asked. So are is this going to improve the
- flood area or or not contribute or I mean where are you what is this construction gonna do I guess for
- the homeowners. Yeah so along the length of the project we are constructing many stormwater improvements
- putting in new stormwater infrastructure drain so one of the things that we heard most about during
- our public input process was that
- Some of the homes up and down high street some of them will flood there's a lot of water that goes,
- you know, from the road into their properties. So, we're installing improved stormwater infrastructure
- to to stop that flooding to those homes on the east side of high street that are getting kind of immediately
- flooded by those rains.
- That collection, we've been coordinating with CBU about, you know, water quality, water quantity, all
- those things, but ultimately, all that water eventually makes its way to the same place, to the same
- outlet, which is here into the east fork of Jackson Creek. And so all that water is still then flowing
- to the east beyond the limits of our project. So we are making improvements for the homes along High
- Street, many of them, particularly the east side of the street.
- But we do not expect to be improving, you know, making a change that would impact the floodway outside
- of our project downstream of the project. So we do have no rise certification. We're not expecting the,
- you know, the flood waters to go up after that. But we have not done so much that we would expect to
- be reducing the size of the floodplain downstream. Does that answer the question? Yes, thank you.
- Joe I did receive the email and I can read it in its entirety should should be very fast if
- that's comfortable for the board. Sure, please.
- Okay, my name is Jennifer Long and I own and operate an adjacent Airbnb property near High Street Corridor
- 2101 East Covenanter. My property is already located in a flood zone and there's been documented drainage
- challenges in our neighborhood. While I support the overall goals of the multi-use path for improved
- connectivity and active transportation, I am concerned about potential impacts from grading, filling,
- paving, drainage alteration, and construction on flood depths, velocity, and frequency affecting my
- property and rental
- business. I would like to respectfully request that the board condition any approval on the following
- submission and public availability of a complete no rise certification and supporting hydraulic hydrologic
- study by licensed engineer demonstrating zero increase in base flood elevation and no adverse impacts
- on adjacent properties. Fully engineering plans
- cross-sections, drainage calculations, and mitigation measures, including any compensatory storage or
- improved stormwater infrastructure being provided to adjacent owners upon request, specific measures
- to address and not worsen pre-current flooding drainage issues in the High Street Covenanter
- area, construction best practices, erosion, sediment control, staging that protect neighboring properties, and
- post-construction as-built certification confirming no rise occurred. Thank you for considering these
- requests to protect adjacent property owners while advancing this community project. Okay,
- and once again, the petition is under no obligation to answer those, but you do have a remainder of
- time due to the unusual back and forth on this. Would you like to use any of your remainder of time
- or are we going to allow the board to continue? I think, again, happy to answer any questions,
- but I don't. Very good.
- Any further questions from the board for the petitioner for the city or do we have a motion. Anything
- Leslie you can Chris do you have anything. No okay no. If there are no further questions for the border
- or for the petitioner do I have a motion.
- 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
- stated in the staff report about the flood development permit and site development permit approvals
- required prior to work commencing second Second any further discussion Seeing none I'll call the question Burrell
- Yes, because think oh, yes Smith Yes Throck Morton. Yes petition passes for oh, thank you for that We
- will move on to ZR 20 26 06 29 a request at 120 South Walnut Street for a variance from signed standards
- to allow for an off-premise sign Not to not require a sign beyond the tenant space for the use of financial
- institution. Do I have a staff report, please? I
- Yes, just give me one second to pull it up on the screen. Okay, Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning planner.
- This is a variance request from UDO section 20.04.100 J2C, which requires that wall signs for tenants
- within a multi-tenant building must be located on the tenants lease space
- And the petitioner for this case is fast signs for a new tenant merchant bank, and they're proposing
- to lease space on the first floor of the building at 120 South Walnut Street. The petitioner is proposing
- to install a new 13 square foot wall sign on the second floor of the building. And due to the location
- of the historic architectural elements and windows on the building, the proposed signage cannot be located
- on the tenants lease space on the first floor.
- So they're requesting a variance from that section of the UDO and staff found that the three variance
- criteria were met. The full findings are in the staff report and the department is recommending that
- the board adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with the condition that the approval
- allows for this tenant and future users of the space to place 13 square foot wall sign on this location
- of the building. And that concludes the staff presentation.
- Jamie, is the petitioner here this evening? Or online? Hi, I'm online. Okay, just state your first and
- last name and I'll swear you in. Layla Taylor. And do you affirm the testimony you are about to give
- us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Okay, and you heard earlier that
- you have 20 minutes. You don't need to use all of that now. You could reserve some
- to speak to any public comment after they're done and before the board takes action. You have 20 minutes.
- All right, great. Thank you so much and thanks Jamie for the summary. As you stated, this is a unique
- location and the sign is being placed on a historic building and the location where we would usually
- put the sign has a lot of decorative limestone where we're unable to
- install a sign without impacting the integrity of the historic building at this location. So what we're
- requesting is to put the sign a little bit higher where other signs at this location in the years past
- have been previously located. Yeah, that's that's pretty much the gist of the whole project. But if
- you do have any additional questions, I'm happy to answer them. And there's also representative from
- CFC in the council chambers as well, if we have anything that I cannot answer.
- Thank you. Would the representative from CFC like to continue with the petition statement? If not, please
- come forward if you'd like to. Okay. Then if you decide later, we'll swear you in when you come up.
- Okay. Thank you. With that, we are back to the board for any questions or comments about this before
- going to public comment. I have a question.
- Okay, and I'll just state that this is a pretty much a swap out because sign the sign has lived there
- for many times for other businesses. Correct.
- Yes, there there have been tenants in the past that have had signage at this location Although we didn't
- find any previous variances approvals for the signage there. It had changed out over the years Yeah,
- I do appreciate the fact that fast signs came and asked for the permission because that's appropriate
- But this is essentially going to be going where other signs have lived for similar Tenants, so I just
- want to make that statement before we go to the public for comment Do we have anyone in the public would
- like to make comment on this? I'm sorry. I thought Chris said he did not sorry Chris. Go ahead
- You asked the same question I was going to ask, and if it was on the lower level, would it require a
- variance where the where the limestone lintel is? No, on the first floor of the building, a variance
- would not be required because that's part of the tenants lease space, but due to the historic architectural
- elements there, they can't they can't feasibly install the sign.
- on their tenant space. So that's why they're asking for the variance to put it on the second floor.
- And that's also consistent with signs that have been there in the past. If the sign has to change again,
- would they have to come back and get another variance or does this allow any 13 square foot sign to
- go there? This would allow any 13 square foot wall sign for this user and future users without having
- to come back to request a variance.
- Great, thank you. Yeah, Chris, that's on the page five of the recommendations, if you have that on that
- PowerPoint. I just have one screen and I can't flip back. Oh, you can't see it? Okay. Yeah, but that's
- a good question, but it is stated in there and it reads, this approval allows for this tenant and future
- users of this tenant space to place at 13 square feet of wall signage at this location. So it actually
- has to do with that particular tenant space.
- Does that help? Yes, thank you. Sure. Any other comments from? Okay, now we may go to the public. Is
- there anyone in the public who would like to address this petition? If so, come forward or raise your
- hand on the Zoom. I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay, and nobody in chambers?
- So with that, we'll go back to the petitioner to see if you have anything further you'd like to say,
- either for our person online or RCFC representative here. Would you like to make any comments here in
- chambers? Okay, any online? Would you like to comment? No, thank you. All set. Okay, with that, we're
- back to the board seeking a motion or further discussion.
- making motion to approve Z are twenty twenty six zero dash dash zero zero to nine With the with the
- condition that this approval allows for the tenant and future users of this tenant space to place 13
- square feet of wall signage at this location on the building Do I have a second second? any further
- discussion
- Chris. With that, I'll call the question. Burrell. Yes. Kucinko. Yes. Smith. Yes. Throckmorton. Yes.
- Passes 4-0. The petition is approved. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. You bet. All right. Now we're going
- to go on to the non-expedited petitions.
- is 2026-0625, a request at 716 South High Street for variances from the driveway width standards and
- impervious surface coverage. Do I have a staff report? Yes, thank you. Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning
- planner. So this is for the property at 716 South High Street. They're requesting two variances to install
- a new parking area in the front yard of their property. And the property owner and petitioner for this
- case is Carly Swift.
- And the first variance is from UDO section 20.04.050 C3BI, which limits the driveway width to 18 feet
- wide. And then the second variance request is from the impervious surface maximum, which is 40% for
- the R2 zoning district. This property is zoned residential medium lot, and the surrounding properties
- are also zoned R2 residential medium lot.
- The property is developed with a single-family home that has a driveway connecting to a detached garage
- in the rear yard, which you can see on the aerial map on the screen. And surrounding properties also
- have single-family homes in this neighborhood. So currently on the property, there's approximately 55%
- impervious surface coverage, so this exceeds the 40% maximum.
- And the petitioner is proposing to add a new parking area so that will increase the overall impervious
- surface coverage on the property. So they do need a variance to go forward with the project to add the
- parking area. The petitioner is proposing to widen the existing driveway which is roughly 10 feet wide
- to add a turnaround area and an additional off-street parking area. And the size of the proposed parking
- area is 30 feet by
- 22 feet or 660 square feet in the report. It did say 30 by 20 square feet or 30, yeah, 30 by 20 feet
- or 600 square feet. But after taking a closer look at the plans and confirming with the petitioner,
- it is proposed to be 30 by 22 feet or 660 square feet and that's to accommodate three off street parking spaces.
- There are other properties in the neighborhood that have turnaround and parking areas in the front of
- their homes. However, the other turnaround areas are not as large as what's proposed with this project.
- So the department has proposed a condition of approval to limit the size of the parking area to 20 feet
- by 20 feet. And we've also included a recommended condition of approval to include landscaping to serve
- as a visual
- buffer and limit the overall visual impact of the additional impervious surface and parking area. The
- purpose of the new parking area is to improve safe access to the property because it is difficult to
- turn back out onto South High Street. So staff found this will have a positive impact on the surrounding
- properties in the area.
- And the unique condition in this case is the narrow driveway configuration. There's insufficient space
- for vehicles to safely turn around on the property without utilizing the neighboring driveway to the
- north. And then for the impervious surface coverage variance, the proposed increase in impervious surface is
- is anticipated to be minimal and it will help to improve the safe and efficient movement of vehicles
- on and off the property. The proposed parking area will help to reduce potential conflicts between vehicular
- and pedestrian traffic in the area, so no adverse impacts to surrounding properties are found.
- And as I mentioned before, the unique condition is the narrow driveway that prevents the reasonable
- and safe use of the property. So the new parking and turnaround area is necessary to safely accommodate
- vehicles on the site. And the variance from the impervious surface maximum will relieve the practical
- difficulties in this case. The department is recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings
- and approve the petition with the two conditions in the staff report. The first recommended condition is that
- The overall parking area is limited to 20 feet by 20 feet in size and to accommodate a maximum of two
- parking spaces. And the second condition is that six shrubs are planted along the east side of the parking
- area parallel to High Street to serve as a visual buffer for the area. And I'm happy to answer any questions
- from the board. Thank you. There's a petitioner in.
- Step forward and state your first and last name, please. Hi, my name is Carly Swift and Do you affirm
- the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes Okay,
- you have again up to 20 minutes. You may begin. Okay. Thank you so yes, I bought this property in January
- of 2025 and We have just noticed the challenges of it being a very narrow driveway. So the driveway
- currently is about nine feet and they're
- Even though it has space in the back, there's no maneuvering to be able to turn around in our specific
- driveway. We always have to turn around in the neighboring to the north driveway. He's been very kind.
- But it does cause a challenge to drive back out on South High Street. It's extremely busy. There's a
- school across the street and a church that has a school across Ketta Corner from us. It just makes it...
- just very, very hard to maneuver. Being there, we've noticed other driveways that have had a lot of
- different changes, whether it's an entire front driveway, or sorry, front yard. There's concrete with
- stone. We've noticed all sorts of things, but after
- We've submitted this information. I just really feel like it's gonna create a safer environment for
- the entire neighborhood, as well as a safer ingress and outgress for us as well. There isn't any offsite
- parking in our specific area on High Street, which also makes it challenging to find any other parking
- in our area. The home is very beautiful, and we want to tastefully
- Accommodate the neighborhood as well as character once I received the information back from The board
- of it being 20 by 20. I did we did do another configuration Because we realized that that did seem to
- be quite large. And so the 22 by 20 would be 400 square feet where I really feel it we could do it as
- a 26 by 14 which actually would make it less at 364 square feet by making it
- Beautiful but also practical and safe for the neighborhood Thank you Thank you Back to the board for
- questions for the city staff or for the petitioner, please Chris You're muted
- now yes um this is specifically for impervious surface uh uh restrictions in our code right for r2 zone
- this is what we're discussing right yeah there are two variances so one of them is from the impervious
- surface coverage and with the r2 zone that's limited to 40 percent
- And it's estimated there's about 55% of impervious surface coverage already on the property. So with
- adding an additional parking area that would increase the impervious surface, so they would need a variance
- to go forward with that parking area. But also the second variance is from the driveway width. Width,
- yeah. This city is considering text diminishing the R2 zone for impervious surface. Do you recall what
- that discussion's about?
- Would this meet that new code requirement, just out of curiosity? So with the changes that we're proposing,
- this petition would not need a variance from impervious surface coverage if it moves forward with staff's
- recommendations, as I said, right now, yes. Okay, just curious. Also, the six shrubs, is there a code
- requirement for that?
- There's not a code requirement for that where that was coming from was a comparable Or comparable sections
- of the udio that talk about screening parking areas from public view So in our landscaping section for
- commercial or multifamily projects Whenever you have parking that is adjacent to a public street There's
- a screening requirement that basically works out to
- three shrubs for the width of a parking space which is about nine feet so this particular parking area
- would be about 20 feet wide so if you were to take that same ratio of three shrubs for every nine feet
- or so that equals about six feet so that covers the width of the parking area since this variance is
- requesting to have
- Driveway a width of a driveway area between the building and street that wouldn't typically be allowed
- screening that from public view would go towards One of the their view criteria, which is adverse impacts
- on adjacent property Parking in the front is certainly a visual impact So screening that with landscaping
- seemed an appropriate recommendation for a condition of approval Certainly that's up to the board if
- they don't feel that that's warranted. They don't have to incorporate that
- Okay, will this require a three-year surety to make sure the shrubs survive? There is not a surety bond
- or any bonding that would be required with this. Okay, and there would be no follow-up inspections?
- Not typically, unless somebody complained. Okay, and other places on High Street where the trail is
- going in, I know there are redesigning lots and allowing parking in the front of those houses and turnarounds.
- Will those be screened by the city when that work is done? I don't know what those plans look like or
- the impacts on the adjacent properties to be able to speak to that. Okay. I have a question for staff.
- For the size, that's 20 by 20, and the petitioner requested
- different size, so is it just the maximum of 20 by 20? I believe that your size was under that, correct?
- Okay. Yeah, so the petitioners, so where the 20 by 20 came from, in essence, was to allow for two cars
- in depth to be in front of the street. But like we mentioned, or the petitioner's essential
- version of this request is to allow for a turnaround area. So certainly there is a very lengthy driveway
- that allows for, you know, a considerable amount of cars here, you know, so to just accomplish the goal
- of allowing a turnaround area, you know, of space and width and depth for two cars was sufficient for
- that. So that's where we were coming from if they want to, you know,
- 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
- like that. Certainly we can work with that. But like I said, our recommendation was just to limit the
- parking to no more than two cars in depth. Okay. So that's the maximum. Well, I mean, that's what we
- felt would be the minimum relief necessary in order to allow for a turnaround. Okay. That makes sense.
- Thank you. So does- I just want to make- Go ahead, Chris.
- I don't know how to raise my hand here. Go ahead. I just want to make sure. So can we say maximum four
- square feet? Because I don't want someone to come out and measure dimensions, say you didn't put it
- in per the approval. Because right now it's saying 20 by 20. I think that that language had to be changed,
- so that was clear, don't you think, Eric? To say 40 square feet, what was it, 40 square feet, right? 400.
- 400 square feet 20 by 20 could be in any configuration or because right now it reads that it has to
- be a 20 by 20 So just to clarify the original request from the petitioner was roughly to have for three
- parking spaces which was about 30 feet by 20 or 22 feet so 600 to 660 square feet was the original request and
- Based on their comment this evening, they seem open to reducing that to being 14 by 26 feet for 364
- square feet total. The staff recommendation was that it's limited to 20 feet by 20 feet or 400 square
- feet, but the petitioner is also
- said they are they are open to having 14 by 26 feet essentially to answer Chris's question would be
- we would be able to stipulate that with more specific language in a motion without any problem with
- the city correct. It can just be. It can be 400 or less. 400 square feet of ice in any configuration.
- Yes, that answer your question Chris. Yes, that's I want to hear the dimensioning and make sure we just
- have square footage.
- Well, I mean, you know, so from staff's perspective, like I said, we were trying to limit it to no more
- than two cars and width. So, you know, a 26 foot width would allow for three cars. So that's, I mean,
- just from staff's perspective, certainly the board can proceed with whatever motion they want, but that
- was our concern was, you know, limiting it to two cars and width. So what you're saying is the width
- is important?
- Yes, the the width is important. You know a 26 foot wide space would allow for three cars Well, we're
- running numbers on that could could you put up your slide three on the presentation just so I can see
- the Because then it would only be 15 feet deep. So the cars gonna have parking the grass No, they would
- hang into the driveway
- Okay. Yeah, that picture, yeah. Chris, do you have more questions yet? No. Okay, I'm just gonna run
- through a couple things I wanna make sure I understand. I'm looking at a garage on the upper left, is
- that correct? Or is that, that's a garage? Yeah, it's a detached garage in the backyard. Detached garage,
- okay. The driver goes there and then it flares and goes into the garage, all right.
- Want to understand this because the high street issue It does code allow but require a turnaround or
- require you to provide room for a turnaround on on this street classification No on arterial rows. It
- does I'm talking about this street. Yep. No, it does not So it doesn't require us to provide a turnaround
- correct. Okay, so that's the first thing and the reason I asked is because many of us have Driveways
- that we back out of on the street, but I understand we're talking about high street. All right, so now I
- If you leave that up, I just wanted to ask a couple questions about slide eight, which stated, although
- the property includes a two-car garage, the narrow driveway configuration requires vehicles to back
- out and heavily travel street. Agreed. There's insufficient space to safely turn vehicles around on
- the property without utilizing the neighboring driveway to the north. Understood. These practical
- difficulties are peculiar to the property in question in the development standard variance. I don't
- think it's peculiar to have a situation that
- nearly everyone in the city has. So I'm questioning the city as to why you would say it's peculiar.
- We're not required by code to provide a turnaround, nor do many people in this city have a turnaround.
- So what was the rationale for saying that it is a peculiar situation?
- Yep, so the peculiarity in this situation was that there isn't room on the property to do a turnaround.
- Certainly it's not required. But you know, when you look at it from a safety perspective of backing
- out on the street, we can certainly see that there is a safety concern with that.
- And having a turnaround on a property is a reasonable concern Although it's not a requirement. Certainly.
- This is something that the board can evaluate and we evaluated in our Review as well. There are other
- properties along High Street that do have these turnarounds in the front And so this property based
- on where the building I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. So based on the where this building is it doesn't allow
- for a turnaround to be constructed on the property at all
- So it would have to be done in some capacity in the back, but where the existing buildings are doesn't
- allow for that opportunity So those were the peculiar conditions that we found Okay, but I do want to
- be clear that it's that code doesn't require it All right so the variance is asking for something that
- 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
- that occurs in
- probably a very high percentage of homes. That's why I'm asking why it makes it a peculiar. To me, it
- was interesting that the city came up with the idea that it was a peculiar situation to not
- have a turnaround. It is a safety issue, but I just wondered why you came up with that. And you were
- saying that it was strictly because of safety that you called that out, so that they would need a space
- to turn around before reaching the street. That was the reason for the peculiar.
- So with that, then the next question is if you have two cars parked in that garage, which I assume from
- looking at it, that that's a two car garage? Yeah, I think so, it is two cars. Did the city look at
- it or? I think that was mentioned in the petitioner's statement that it accommodates two cars. So if
- the two cars are parked in there and I see a flare, I wanna understand before granting a variance to code,
- What prevents either car from turning around in that space because I see one car that's almost at a
- 45 degree angle So how did the how did the city arrive at the decision they needed more space And again,
- they're already over impervious. Yep So so based on that arrangement in the back and turning movements,
- you know, there it's not possible to I mean you could certainly do like a five-point turn and
- Turn around a vehicle in that space but petitioners came forward with a request to have a small turn
- around on the front of the property And so as as I mentioned, you know, we've reviewed it based on the
- criteria and it did seem to be a reasonable request It was not out of character with the area as I mentioned
- the certainly peculiar conditions in terms of there is no place a very limited space for
- We did not ask for full engineering, turning movement diagrams to prove that, but just anecdotally looking
- at it, it's very difficult, very challenging to see how to turn around without encroaching on the adjacent
- property. And so that's where staff was approaching this. Okay, so then that leads me to the next question,
- which is, again, if both cars are parked in the garage, is it possible, because again of the impervious
- surface overage,
- Right isn't it possible to add a much smaller bump out to what exists rather than creating another 400
- square feet possibly as much as 400 square feet of surface to the city, isn't it possible to have Just
- a smaller yard width as opposed to making allowances for three cars or two cars Yes, you could you could
- certainly go smaller than then what would a size like that be for a bump out for a car? And what I'm
- talking about is width of a car
- Deep enough for them to do a simple one-point turn a one one space would certainly be adequate You know
- a 9 by 18 Turnaround would be enough to get a car in there and do that simple movement and that could
- reasonably be added to the back I mean you're talking about adding 400 square feet. So Reason would
- would take me to the belief that you could do smaller. I
- Think that turning movements would be a lot tighter in the the back. I Mean you can certainly possibly
- pave the entire area in that back and get the same Area ish, you know would take out some of that usable
- space that they've Where was the 400 square feet possibly gonna go? So that's going in the front Right
- in front of that tree. I'm sorry in front of the tree. I
- In the area where that tree is. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So again there if they're if they back out To where
- that car is in the upper right and there was a smaller Turnaround specifically for a single car turnaround.
- 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
- then asking for that since they're already over the impervious? I
- Certainly that is that is something you know, like I said the 20 by 20 gives that a little bit more
- comfort space for that turn around It's certainly possible in a 9 by 18 to do the same movement Well,
- I'm just looking for the city rationale for us to grant the variance. Why would we not ask for something
- smaller? Why would why would we ask for something out large? That's a large space and it's gonna increase
- the It's gonna increase. What was it concrete or blacktop there? I
- Believe asphalt is so that's a lot of surface area. I mean, I'm just trying I'm struggling with understanding
- why you need the space to turn simultaneously three cars around when what you're really talking about
- is backing out of a driveway and Having a space to turn around and get onto the street safely And can
- it not be done with a smaller surface area and why did the city say? We're gonna grant as much as 400
- square feet. I just want to understand that Sure, so the 20 by 20 certainly makes those turning movements easier
- You know, having just the one space, you know, could probably make that a four point turn and make it
- a little bit harder or encroach into the adjacent property. And I said we didn't see engineering turning
- turning movements for this. So, you know, we just look at when when you have a parking stall, for instance,
- in a typical
- parking lot, you know, it's an 18 foot wide aisle in order to be able to get in and out of that and
- do that turning movement. So having a nine foot wide aisle to get into a typical perpendicular parking
- space, you just can't really do that movement very easily at all. So having a two car wide, a 20 by
- 20 pad makes that movement a lot more realistic. Certainly you don't need three cars wide.
- in order to just be able to turn around a car on their property. So that's why we were not recommending
- full approval of what the petitioner is coming forward, but a 20 by 20 pad gives you that adequate room
- for that turning movement. And if we did this, why would we not ask for them to put in pavers or whatever
- it is that water could drain? Certainly that is absolutely something that the board could require as
- well. I mean, I'm asking why the city doesn't. I mean, they're already over.
- So why isn't that part of this? That you've presented to us. I think we did not evaluate possible bump
- out in the back of the property the petitioner was interested in adding the the area the front parking
- area in the front of the property which is Consistent with some other properties in the neighborhood.
- So the city's analysis was that 30 feet by 20 feet was a
- too large for three parking spaces. We still are trying to accommodate the petitioner's need to have
- a safe turnaround area, and it's similar to other properties on that street, but we were recommending
- that it's reduced just to limit the overall impervious surface. Okay, but what about my question? Which
- is why did we not ask for it to be impervious? To be honest, we did not think of that aspect.
- Okay, so but we're looking at other parts of the code writing up a Finding I'm just I'm struggling with
- trying to understand why the size how come we don't care about suddenly the whether it's impervious
- or not So that's I'm just trying to understand because this seems to me I'm sorry, but it seems to me
- is not well thought out this petition Nor the staff report. I mean, I don't agree with this. I don't
- agree that you know, it's just oh, let's just slap some concrete in the front make it really huge and
- and be done with it because they're living on a high traffic street. That's why I'm a little confused
- by it. I mean, I think in the least, I would have expected there to be a requirement for there to be
- drainage and not put more concrete there, because you said they're at 55%. Yeah, that was the estimate.
- Yeah. Yep. And it's supposed to be at what? The current limit is 40% for R2. That's what I thought you said.
- What would the percentages be if we put a 400 square foot down? How much over would they be? Well, they
- would still be over. It'd still be over, but what percentage? I'd say probably four percentage points
- maybe. I'm sorry? Probably four percentage points. Four additional? Yeah. Okay. All right. I just want
- to get all this put together in my head, so thank you for that. I have a question. My question is for
- the petitioner. What is the purpose?
- Other than turning around, obviously you're going to have people parking there. Is this for you,
- your family? I mean, why did you want three spaces instead of two to begin with? Yes, absolutely. Well,
- we hadn't considered two just based upon other homes along High Street. Several of them have this type
- of existence. And in speaking with people, it does
- seem to have a much easier in and out, as well as the narrow driveway that goes to the back. It is nine
- feet. And so the configuration when people have to get in and out of the house, you have to maneuver
- and move. Again, talking with other neighbors that have a lot of the majority have parking in the front,
- it just makes it
- easier for mobility and as well as safety, leaving the homes on High Street. High Street is extremely
- busy. Our house is at 716 South High Street. And when you move towards First Street, there's a hill
- that comes up also that makes it challenging to see who's coming in that direction also. Just the overall
- parking is challenging. And again, we don't have any off-site parking, except I know at First Street
- and in High, but I don't
- People don't typically park there. It makes it challenging. So the purpose would be for parking as well
- if people are visiting you. Absolutely. There's nowhere else to park in the neighborhood. We have a
- house two doors down that just put in a beautiful concrete parking lot in the front of their home. And
- it just makes it easier for the mobility for them to get in and out and their parents to come visit them.
- this tight area makes it nearly impossible. If there was a fence between our two driveways, my neighbor
- and I, there is no way that anybody can maneuver out of there from one car to the next. Okay,
- thank you. Thank you. Chris, any question? Wait, can you hear me? Wait, I do, okay.
- driveway width, give me the definition of driveway. Because we're doing a variance in driveway because
- we're adding a turnaround to the driveway. Yep. So what the UDO says is that the driveway width within
- the building setback shall not be wider than 18 feet. And so that's measured as a path that you travel
- on. So as you go along the driveway here, a turnaround area would then make the width of that.
- The nine feet or ten feet that it is now plus that additional depth So it would in essence be close
- to 30 feet or something like that So the driveway width would exceed that 18 feet and so that's why
- they need that variance And we're calling this a driveway because we're considering it as a turnaround
- as opposed to a parking space I mean there there is no for single-family. There is no difference driveway
- and park and parking area are the same thing and
- Anything else No Any other questions for the petitioner for the staff They remind me do we do public
- comment on this I
- Yes, three three minutes for any members of the public, but did we or have we have not okay? I thought
- we were still I thought we were still in front of that I just I've lost track Okay, let's let's take
- a moment and see if there's anyone here from the public and in chambers Who'd like to speak to this
- petition or anyone online if you are online, please raise use the raise hand function Come forward,
- please. We have someone in chambers come forward and you sign in please and
- and then give me your first and last name. You're already sworn in, I think. Did I already swear him
- in? No. Mr. Goudge wants to see my thumb drive. I hope I can find it again. Let me put something down.
- I'm sorry, I thought that they had, but they weren't there.
- All right, but since I did not swear you in the earlier exchange that we had state your first and last name and
- Let me just sign this before I start. Yeah, I'll wait. Thank you. I should put my glasses on and I can
- see what I'm writing.
- Okay. First and last name? Yeah, my name is Leo Pilachowski. And Leo, do you affirm the testimony you're
- about to give us, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do so again. All right, you have three
- minutes. I'll try to my best. Okay, I live just, I own the building, the house just south of the property,
- and I live across 1st Street also, and a new house there.
- First of all, I'm here tonight because mainly there's a really poor site plan, and I know that
- non-professionals can do that. But it would have been nice to see the location of the parking and the
- shrubs that are gonna be required. You should know, this is a student rental. The petitioner here, it's
- her son that lives there with other tenants, not the petitioner. And right now, one of the owners has
- told me that they
- after the addition of two bedrooms this summer, there'll be five bedrooms total, okay? And the driveway
- there is often filled with cars, okay? This variance, I think, would be good in that respect because
- it will allow less cars everywhere in that driveway and everything like that. So I'm not gonna oppose
- the variance, okay, at all. But I do want one condition changed because I think it's very important.
- Okay. We already, you can see from the diagram, I mean from the picture that the staff showed, that
- cars can park in that driveway and they block the vision from First Street north on High Street. You
- really can't see very well. It's already very poor because of the topology. The vision clearance triangle,
- which I hope you can see right now, can you bring up that yet? Okay, the first,
- And if he's waiting, you can toll my time, thank you. Okay, so that's the second one. That's the second
- one that's shown, that's the thing. The vision clearance triangle, the one that's, the line, vision
- clearance line is the one that's, there's two lines there, the one below. If you'll see it, excuse me,
- the one above, if you'll see the shrub there, if the shrub,
- planted on the property line, which is allowed, it will block that vision clearance by about a half
- a foot or so. Okay, vision clearance, and that's the minimal clearance. If you take the recommended
- clearance, that whole thing is completely blocked if the shrub's there. I have suggested a change to
- the condition, number two, that the shrubs be planted at least five feet
- inside the property line. That will allow a mature shrub, when it grows, and that line is a mature shrub,
- and I use the shrubs in the code, UDO, not to block the sight line. That's a very poor sight line, and
- there already has been accidents there. So you can see the PDFs. And the recommended one, which is higher,
- is because then you don't block the crosswalk,
- when you're looking to turn out, and that's why most communities use the recommended one as practical.
- The staff told me I had to be here to make this amendment change, and so I'm here now. I tried to talk
- to the property owner. I tried to send an email already. Yeah, three minutes. They get five minutes
- for the regular agenda.
- I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. See, that's good. Okay, that's what my stopwatch said. Okay,
- really fast. Okay, so the staff said I had to be here tonight, that's why I'm here. I tried to talk
- to the property owner that's present here tonight and she didn't want to speak with me. I sent her an
- email at the address and she doesn't answer, so that's why I'm here tonight. I'm not really happy about
- that and that's why I did the thing at the beginning. But if you do grant this variance, please ask
- for the shrubs to be five feet back from the
- from the property line so that the mature shrubs will not block the vision line. And I've presented
- another picture that you don't see that has the real long-term thing. Two things I'll say, the property
- here is clay, I built a house on the south, I know about that, it's completely impervious, or I would
- have made my driveway with impervious pavers. So the drainage is a problem, putting impervious pavers
- there is probably not gonna help.
- The impervious service area and I kept my impervious service as small as possible. Okay, and Eric told
- me that the staff could not present my change either. So that's why I'm here tonight. Thank you very
- much for your time Thank you, and this is questions All right Any other comments from the public
- Online If there is anybody online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you I'm not
- seeing anybody else online Okay with that we are back to the petitioner. You have 17 minutes to address
- us to use at your discretion
- First of all, I probably won't need 17 minutes. Just again, based upon where the house is located and
- the minimal amount of space that there is for the driveway and us having to turn into our neighboring
- yard, neighboring driveway, it just makes it nearly impossible. If someone were to come out to High
- Street and truly take a look at the homes all up and down High Street, you will see
- several parking spots or turnarounds that are in most of the homes on High Street. It makes sense. It's
- visually appealing. It's safe. Mr. Pilachowski, he does have a house that's next door to mine, but it's
- been an abandoned house up until he just
- purchased it 10 years ago, or sorry, it was abandoned for 10 years, I understand. It's uninhabitable.
- So I know that there's a few different parking areas on the abandoned type of house. But there's also
- parking over on 1st Street as well. There's other areas that neighboring parties can park. But this,
- again, sorry, he just makes me a little nervous.
- This just, once again, it's just to improve safety and backing in and out. And I just hope that it is
- taken into consideration just like several of the other homes on South High Street that seems to make
- sense for our neighbors as well. Thank you. Back to the board for further discussion.
- Any other questions of staff for the petitioner? Chris? So before motion, I mean, I'll address, I did
- look up and down the street, and there's not many having the turnaround. There are some that have it,
- but it's certainly not consistent up and down the street. The thing is, it is a high traffic street,
- absolutely.
- I do think that there is issues of public safety. I think what I'm objecting to is the breadth to which
- you're asking us to grant variance, and the city's recommending this. So that's why I was addressing
- the city. So you're asking us for very big variance, 400 square feet, and not asking for there to be
- a permeable surface.
- 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,
- however, if there were changes made, which was to restrict the size of the pad in the front that we
- would allow and looking at other properties along that road, there are many that have the smaller size.
- They don't have a large turnaround pad in the front. They have a width of a car, which is what
- I'm advocating, with permeable
- Addition there instead of extending even more impervious So that's kind of where I'm at on this board.
- I just need I Need to express. I just don't think we need to go this far in order to address concerns
- of public safety I understand that people want to park there, but if it's a situation Where people are
- coming there there are space there are places that can be parked They're not as convenient as 15 feet
- to the front door, but there are places that can be parked so I
- That's my comment, so if it stands as is, if we get a motion that states to go as recommended by the
- city, I'll vote no. Any other comments before a motion is made? And certainly if a motion is made with
- amendments to address my concerns, I'd be happy to vote yes, because I do think that there is a public
- safety concern, and I think that's the overriding concern. I'm not even concerned about the shrubbery.
- Well, I'll start with the motion just to see what happened. So I will entertain a motion to recommend
- what the proposed findings were in the staff report with the conditions stated that the parking area
- is limited in size of 20 by 20 for two parking spaces and six shrubs are required along the east side
- of the parking area. Do I have a second?
- see none do I have sorry say it Chris says question someone planned commission I've never done BCA on
- this side of the table she's made a recommendation and plan commission we do friendly amendments with
- the second and then we can we request an amendment to the to the to the motion how does what's this
- normally what we do is if there's no second especially we just say that there was no second the motion
- dies a new motion could be made
- I'm sorry, no second was made, so it dies because it's not a motion. Okay, so if I second this, can
- we then we make an amendment to the motion? We do that in planning commission. No, no, we don't do it
- that way. So that's why before a second's made, we can certainly discuss it, but the easiest way is
- to not make a second, let the motion not go forward and then make a new motion. So does anyone like
- to, would anyone like to second this?
- The other option Chris because you're asking is we could have a second we could take a vote. It could
- 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
- correct if it's tied You have to do a new motion if it's tied with the only four people yeah, Lynn
- Lynn Coyne, interim director. I want to address the motion, amended motion, whatever. Well, let me swear
- you in. Do you swear, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth, Mr. Coyne? Yes. Thank you. First time that's ever applied to Robert's rule
- of order. If you make a motion, you second the motion, the motion's on the table. You can make a motion
- to amend that motion, but you must then vote on the motion to amend the motion
- And then that becomes the new motion. Do you see what I'm saying? There's a motion, you amend it, the
- motion becomes, has amended the original motion. Then you vote on that. So. And that's how we do it
- in plan commission. That's what I was asking. That's how Robert's Rules of Order would handle that.
- Yeah. Okay, I just wanted to throw that in there. Yeah, I understand. And I think for clarity and ease,
- we kind of move forward a little differently. It's not necessarily Robert's Rules of Order, but I get
- that. So we still, I think, get to the same end, but it's a little more understandable, I think, for
- the public and for us, frankly. So if there's no second, then the motion isn't gonna go forward, and
- then we would entertain a new motion. So there was no second unless someone is now going to step forward
- and second it. Chris, will you second it? Okay, so in that case, the motion,
- is in seconded so I will seek a new motion or further discussion. Thank you. I can make motion please.
- I move approval of the 2 variances with staff findings excluding the shrubbery. And limiting the pad
- to the I believe that 360 square foot the petitioner stated should be agreeable to.
- Before you finish the motion, will you entertain an amendment before seconds made? We have I guess we
- have a discussion about that either way. I don't care. Yeah That could that additional size be permeable
- required to be permeable The reason I don't agree with that is because as a civil engineer that doesn't
- work in our in our in our dirt it just doesn't work and then they have to be properly maintained because
- the gravel just
- They don't drain. All right. Do I have a second? Question for you before we second. Yeah, Chris. When
- you do 340, the city is asking a maximum of two parking spaces. So when you change that, are you changing?
- You want to add no more than 20 feet wide? Correct.
- Yes. Yes. I'm good with that. Limit the width of it along the driveway and then put a maximum square
- footage on it. Does that work? I think it would be helpful to restate what the proposal is. Yes, can
- you restate that whole thing? I can restate. I move approval to two variances for the variance for driveway
- width and the variance for impervious surface.
- for the driveway with a maximum of 20 foot width along the driveway and no more than 360 square feet
- of impervious surface and no shrubbery. I think I would also add a maximum of two parking spaces. That
- would limit it to a maximum of two parking spaces.
- So we have a, if there's no further discussion, we have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Okay,
- any further discussion? All right, well, I still think that that's too large. I don't think it needs
- to be that large. It needs to be big enough for one car to turn around, not two cars to park. I think
- 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
- of the board for a vote.
- I mean, I would be receptive to a smaller size, just in case it's a tie or voted down. Any other discussion?
- No. Chris? Leslie? No. OK, I'll call the question. Burrell? Yes. Kosenko? Yes. Smith? Yes. Throckmorton? No.
- Petition is approved three to one and it has a revised language Okay with that we'll go to the next
- petition And that is going to be 20 26 0 6 27 requested 12 19 West East Branch Road for variances from
- the required sidewalk installation and build to line requirement for use of
- of a dwelling single-family detached. Can I have a staff report, please? All right, thank you very much.
- Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning planner. So the petitioner for this case is Value Built Construction,
- and they're requesting two variances for the installation of a new single-family home, and this property
- is on a corner lot that is currently vacant. The zoning for the property is residential small lot R3, and
- The two frontages, there is Larkspur to the west and East Branch to the north. On the screen you can
- see the site plan that was submitted by the petitioner. And since there is an existing sidewalk adjacent
- to the property along Larkspur Lane, a new sidewalk is required along both frontages of the corner lot.
- These streets are classified as neighborhood residential streets and that requires a minimum six foot
- wide sidewalk and five foot wide tree plot with street trees. The second variance request is from the
- 15 foot front build to line requirement and this applies to the frontage on West East branch road to
- the north. There is an existing utility line and utility easement that runs through the northwest corner
- of the property
- and this prevents the house from being placed at the required 15 foot build to line along East Branch
- Road. The petitioner is proposing to develop the property with a new 1000 square foot ranch style home.
- As you can see on the site plan, the proposed front setback along West East Branch Road is 23.24 feet.
- So this requires a variance from the front build to line.
- The granting of the variance from the sidewalk requirement is expected to be injurious to the general
- welfare of the community because it will not promote connectivity. Extending the sidewalk from the existing
- sidewalk stub will increase safety and pedestrian connectivity within the neighborhood. And the purpose
- of the required sidewalk installation is to accomplish connectivity throughout the community and these
- goals will not be achieved with the approval of the sidewalk variance.
- For the third criteria and the recently amended UDO, there is an option for payment in lieu of pedestrian
- construction. So that provides an alternative to sidewalk installation with a public benefit in return.
- And staff did not find that there's any unique condition to the property that prevents the installation
- of the sidewalk. And then for the second variance from the build to line requirement for the,
- With the existing water main on the north side of the property, this is the unique condition in this
- case. City of Bloomington Utilities has a requirement that structures cannot be placed within 10 feet
- of the water main. So increasing the front building setback along East Branch Road will allow the petitioner
- to develop the property with a new home while meeting CBU's separation requirement. Adjoining properties
- on these streets are not set back at the 15-foot build-to line
- and have similar front setbacks to what the petitioner is proposing along West East Branch Road. And
- it is not possible for the petitioner to comply with the UDO's 15 foot build to line requirement and
- CBU's water main setback requirement. So the variance will afford the petitioner the minimum relief
- necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties in this case.
- The department recommends that the board adopt the proposed findings, approve the variance from the
- bill to line requirement and deny the variance request from the required sidewalk installation. There
- are two conditions in the staff report. The first condition states that unless otherwise approved through
- the payment in lieu process, a six foot wide sidewalk is required along both properties frontages and
- then the second condition addresses the street tree requirement in the EDL. And I'm happy to answer
- any questions from the board.
- Thank you. As the petitioner present. Hi, my name is Sable Byers. I'm here on behalf of Value Built
- Construction. Okay, and do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, you have 20 minutes.
- I think the only thing we wanted to add to Jamie's presentation is a concern with the pay in lieu of
- installing the sidewalk. It's our understanding that that committee is not meeting in August for some
- reason. So the next available meeting for that is not until September 28. So it's a really long time
- to wait for that to be resolved.
- So that is the only other thing we wanted to bring to everyone's attention in taking the waiver request
- into consideration. Anything further? I guess I will say one more thing. It is my understanding that
- they cannot build anything at all on this property without the build to line variants.
- So the house is already very small at 1,000 square feet, but there is not a single plan that can fit
- on that lot without the variance, which is why it's being requested. But that's all, happy to answer
- any questions. Okay, you'll have 19 minutes when we come back to use at your discretion. We're back
- to the board for any questions of the petitioner or the city staff. Let's start with Chris. Chris, do
- you have any questions?
- You're muted again. Sorry, I only have one screen. You go with somebody else first. Very good. Any comments
- for the. This is just a question for the just for clarification for for the staff. So we do have a payment
- in loop process now for sidewalks.
- Yes, that was approved earlier this year by City Council in May of this year with the department's annual
- amendments So explain that though. Is that that must be requested by Must they petition for it or is
- 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
- in lieu is just
- Third option here. So, you know the first option, you know what they are requesting is a variance So
- we don't have determinate sidewalk variances anymore So a variance request for it for any nature is
- just based on the three criteria And so as as we mentioned the staff report We did not find any peculiar
- conditions about the property that don't allow for a sidewalk to be installed period second there is
- a different form of relief if the variance is a
- denied, that is the payment in lieu process that allows for the Transportation Commission to also offer
- an additional path of relief that does evaluate some of the criteria that were formerly part of the
- determinate sidewalk variance criteria. So they can then choose to go to the Transportation Commission,
- have them evaluate whether or not it is a candidate for the payment in lieu option, for one frontage,
- both frontages, whatever they choose.
- And so that is another option. And then obviously the third option is they install the required sidewalk.
- So I just wanted to make that distinction. We in our staff report are not saying deny this because we
- want them to use the payment in lieu. We're denying it because of the variance criteria, period.
- In addition, there is another path as well. But that is not a specific factor. But I just wanted to
- be clear on that.
- And as far as the bill to line, you know, you're you're advocating that we grant that variance. Yes,
- certainly. As we said in the staff report, you know, due to the location of the water line, there is
- not a it is not possible to construct to the bill to line given the location of the water line. Yeah.
- Excellent. I just want to make sure it's clear what we're talking about the sidewalk. So, okay. Chris,
- did you have any questions? Yeah. Yeah, I think the bill to minus is
- something we have to give them because we need this house built. With regard to the sidewalk variance,
- what's the width of the sidewalk to the property made to the south? Is it five feet? The one that it
- connects to? Yeah. It looks like it's the old forefoot, is that right? The one at 1224? Yeah, whatever,
- just the south. Yeah, the one along the main road there. Yeah, it looks like it's a four or five foot.
- Well, I was assuming was five. So I was thinking, um, we now have a new rule for six. Is there room
- for the six foot sidewalk? Um, yeah, it looks like there's, uh, probably at least 15 feet from the edge
- of the pavement to the right of way long. And this, they don't have to do five foot tree plot, five
- foot sidewalk or anything like that. Do they, they can put that sidewalk in line with where the rest
- of the sidewalks neighborhood are.
- Well, so the transportation plan would require a tree plot and then the sidewalk at the back end. There
- is a path in the UDO that allows for an adjustment to line up the sidewalk with the existing, but we
- would have to evaluate that separately. Certainly in a lot of these situations what we see and would
- probably prefer is that the sidewalk on this
- Would jog back into the property so that it's over. It looks like a water line that is in that area
- so that we can have it an actual tree plot with street trees in it. You say there's a water line right
- off the back curve. Yeah, looks like if you look at the site plan along the West property line along
- Larkspur. You can see an electric line and a water line that moves through that area. So the ideal situation would be
- the sidewalk would go over that water line so that you can have street trees so that if you look at
- the site plan where they have street trees that's in the tree plot so we would obviously want those
- to maintain be maintained and then the sidewalk would go up against the the backside of the right-of-way
- line so yeah I'm sorry I can't look at two screens I'm sorry my traveling are there already street trees
- along that road there are not street trees but they are showing the required street trees on their site plan
- 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
- the south There's one on the corner for sure of green tree and lakes per right. Yes It looks like there's
- at least one there and there may be another one right between the two properties. I think Chris It isn't
- a restriction for street treated in 10 feet of utility or is that just sewer? Yeah, so there are setback
- requirements from water and sewer lines and gas lines and
- trees. So that's why I was saying, you know, where they've got the street trees does appear to be compliant
- with that separation requirement from the water line. I can put this here. So if we denied the sidewalk
- variance, they'd have to put a jog on a five foot sidewalk, wide it to six feet, five or some feet off
- the back of curb, whatever the rule is today and wrap their whole site with that. Is that what they'd
- be required to do?
- They would be required to install street trees in the tree plot and have a sidewalk Most likely along
- the backside with some sort of a jog or taper to it. I Think in the past too that we've had this discussion
- in there and involved a flare to flare from the old sidewalk to the new essentially it would grow in
- a somewhat aesthetic way and
- Yeah, so we would work with the engineering department on something that met our standards to merge
- the two. But is that right, Eric? We've done that. I mean, we've had this discussion. Yes. Yeah, OK.
- OK. But let's follow Chris's questioning, though. Would we have the ability to say that we want the
- sidewalk along Larkspur to match the width, at least to the corner?
- No, no, so the petition that what is before you is simply request to not require sidewalk at all The
- location is up to the transportation plan and any relief that might be allowed within the UDO. Okay.
- Thank you Denied that denied the non exist no sidewalks and
- They will have to put sidewalks, but they will have to sit with the Transportation department to figure
- out where this is gonna go and how wide and how it would match with the neighbor and where would the
- trees go because of all the All the drain. I mean the water main and everything else Yes, so if you
- deny the variance request from the sidewalk then they would have you know two choices at that point
- one is seek a
- additional relief through the payment in lieu or to install the sidewalk and we would work with them
- to work on the location of the sidewalk that would be in compliance with the transportation plan and
- allow for street trees with the tree plot. Okay. Are there any further questions before we go to the
- public? I have a question for the petitioner. Yes.
- So you would prefer that there's no payment in lieu because you said of time, is it a timing issue?
- Yes, so the next meeting for the payment in lieu of program is not until September 28th. So if the variance
- gets denied and we want to seek that route, we are just stuck until September 28th.
- Because they don't meet in August, and I'm not sure why something that important would skip a month
- of meeting. I would also like to point out there. I'm sorry, but are there plans to build the structure
- in the sidewalk before then? Well, they would like to build it as soon as possible, but they can't until
- we get through all of this. No, I'm sorry. I meant, is it feasible to get that far into the construction
- in two months?
- to the sidewalk. Their build time? Well, I don't think they can start building until the sidewalk situation
- is resolved. Okay. I don't think they can get a building permit for the structure without that. Well,
- if we said that we denied the sidewalk variance, they could still get a building permit. Correct. So
- they would submit a building permit showing the sidewalk being installed and then they could
- Pursue a relief through any other relief any other method and whatever time frame they want So I want
- to run out that reasoning my what I'm trying to see is is it reasonable for me to think that if we did
- deny if we denied that variance for the sidewalk there would still be plenty of time for them to Approach
- the meeting on in September to sure because the sidewalk is probably not going to be constructed first
- in the construction it's usually
- Last well, I mean, so this would be a component that would be required to be installed prior to occupancy
- So as some point before they're able to utilize it the sidewalk either would have to be installed or
- they seek relief through The payment in lieu so they could push the construction of the sidewalk back
- until after September sure Okay, so it is feasible then for us to deny it and they still have they would
- still have an opportunity to To address this in other avenues. Yes. Thank you. I
- Can I make a comment or direct away? Go ahead, Flavia. I'm done. Thank you. Okay. Chris, do you have
- anything before we go to the public? Is this a question time or a comment time? Well, this is back to
- the board for any questions that we have. You can make comments, but it's primarily questions to clarify
- before we go to the public. No, I don't have any questions to clarify now. I think the petitioner has
- something else they want to add.
- All right, well, in that case, Leslie, do you have anything? Leslie? Okay, well, let's go to the public
- then for a comment. Is there anyone? Please come forward, and you'll sign your name on the form there,
- and then you'll state your first and last name.
- First and last name, please Pamela hurt. Do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth
- the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes Okay, you have up to three minutes. Okay. I'm sorry five
- minutes Joe. Oh You got me stuck on that. I'm sorry five minutes. Thank you, Eric Okay, I feel like
- I'm in a mighty python skit so yes five minutes Okay, the house proposed will be
- Directly indirectly kind of set back a little between me and my my neighboring house on the corner of
- Larkspur and Green Tree Lane Not sure how far the setback lines will be too close to the property I
- know we have AT&T lines there. We have a a box we have the Electrical box that is right behind my house
- that will run I suspect
- what they need down there as well, possibly. My concern is where that comes in, how they will address
- if they have to go with these lines, if they have to move these lines.
- Are they too close to the neighbor's house? Even on the end of the street at Clarksboro and Green Tree
- is a little bit closer. They have a shed behind there will be a little bit closer than what I am to
- him as far as the distance from down there to back behind it. I figured there could be a flood potential
- with the grade of my downhill on the yard, possibly down into that low lying area.
- which is a very flat area where the woman that owns the house next to that, owned that flat land, had
- a daycare. So that is pretty far downhill from my property line, which I have a little hill there for
- runoff. So that was one of the things that I wanted to address. And what the intention of the home was,
- is it rental or is it a bought-in home for sale?
- for a family or renters. We have Larkspur, which is full of homes that are only rental homes, pretty
- much with students and whatnot that are in those homes. There's a lot of car noise, music banging all
- night long. I don't know what will be added to that or not added to that. Who knows? So that was some concerns.
- was thinking about and whether those would be addressed, what the intention for the home was, if family
- dwelling or not, and the noise from their end. So that was just why I wanted to come in and just figure
- that sort of thing out. And also I had mentioned the sidewalk not going down all the way back on that
- end there as well.
- And is it already confirmed that they can build on there on this lot? That's about all I have. Well,
- thank you. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else in chambers who would like to speak to
- this petition? If not, is there anyone online? Please use the raise hand function on zoom. And thank
- you. You may be seated.
- There is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function
- Or send a message via chat we can recognize you I'm not seeing anybody seeing none We are back to the
- petitioner for the remainder of your 19 minutes to use how if you would like Thank you in response to
- the lady that just spoke. I think my only response to that is value belt sells their homes, usually
- to people intending to occupy it themselves. But what that purchaser does with it, we don't know. The
- only thing I want to make sure everyone knows is there is not a sidewalk on East Branch Road. So if
- we put a sidewalk on that side of the lot, it does not connect to anything.
- but there is on Larkspur. So I think, you know, if we did it on Larkspur, but not East Branch, that
- also makes more sense than installing both sides, but that's all. Okay. With that, we're back to the
- board for, we can have a discussion or comment. I'll start with a comment. I'll address that last point,
- which is along East Branch to the north.
- There is a sidewalk, so actually the addition of the sidewalk along East Branch would face the one across
- the street, which would allow much easier access to go around the corner along the sidewalk on East
- Branch to cross the street to the other sidewalk and then proceed because there is no direct spur from
- Larkspur on the south side of Branch to Larkspur on the north side of Branch, if that makes sense.
- I can't agree with that reasoning from the petitioner. Any other comments? Also, we would be happy to
- entertain a motion at this time if there is not further questions or discussion. Chris, do you have
- something? Yeah, I wanna clarify something. So the house is gonna front East Branch, right, which is
- the cul-de-sac street? Yes. Okay, and Larkspur is the one that has the sidewalk directly to the south
- along the west line, and it crosses over
- East branch where there's a sidewalk on the north side of that street also. Correct. Correct. And then
- it appears from the GIS that there's a sidewalk in front of the house across the street on East branch.
- Correct. Did I get that right? Yeah, that's what I was addressing. There is the sidewalk there, 1214.
- Yeah, okay. So I, in the past, I've asked for these, well, determinate variances from sidewalk.
- Because as an engineer, I don't like forcing new infrastructure requirements build neighborhoods. And
- in this instance, I think we have to require a sidewalk on Larkspur. I'm frustrated that it has to meet
- these new requirements. It can't match the existing layout of the neighborhood, but we can't really
- address that today. The one on East Branch doesn't concern me as much. There's a sidewalk across the
- street, but this one, up the cul-de-sac, they're never going to get built. And then with regard to the
- other variance requests, I think we have to do it. It's a 1,000 square foot house.
- this lot is an old old lot the requirements are different than they are now and they're doing the best
- they can I think that we have to do so that's that's my thoughts. Okay do we have any other comments
- or questions and we again we could present questions to the petitioner or the staff. Give me one second here.
- If we don't have any further comments or questions for petition or for the staff or any other comments
- to the Amongst ourselves in general. I will entertain a motion And while you're formulating your idea,
- I think that the recommendation from city seems to be right on I think it makes a lot of sense now Chris
- there could be an argument made not to build that sidewalk along the cul-de-sac. It's just that it's
- gonna face another sidewalk, so it does kinda make a little bit of... So I can go either way on that.
- I'm with you. And I do think the size of the lot is real tight. However, I think that the city's proposal
- here is really good and well thought out.
- and make a motion for ZR 2026-06-0027. And the motion is to adopt the proposed findings and approve
- the variance request for the build two line requirement and deny the variance request for the required
- sidewalk installation in the following condition.
- Condition number one, unless otherwise approved through the payment in lieu process, six foot wide concrete
- sidewalk is required along both property frontages. Condition two, street trees, not more than 30 feet
- from center are required along both property frontages per UDO requirements. Do I have a second?
- I have a motion and a second to any further discussion, Chris? Anyone? I'll call the question. Burrell?
- Yes. Kosinko? Yes. Smith? Yes. Throckmorton? Yes. The petition is denied. Well, it's granted. I'm sorry.
- The request is denied, so but the petition is passed as presented. Thank you.
- Let me get to the next one. This is 2026-06-0030, a request at 3430 West 3rd Street for a variance from
- sign standards that apply to drive through in the mixed use corridor. Can I have a staff report, please?
- Certainly, while I'm pulling up the presentation, I will say that I am Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner.
- So this petition is a request for a variance from the sign standards that apply to drive-through uses
- in the mixed use corridor MC zoning district. The property is 3430 West 3rd Street. It contains approximately
- 1.87 acres on the north side of West 3rd Street between Gates Drive and Liberty Drive. It's been developed
- as a drive-through vehicle wash use. The current zoning is mixed-use corridor, MC, and the comprehensive
- plan is designated as part of a regional activity center, and the existing use is vehicle wash, which
- is also the proposed use. It's proposed to be the same. The surrounding properties are also located
- in the MC zoning district, and they've been developed with a variety of automobile-oriented commercial
- uses and other commercial uses.
- So the petitioner has applied for sign, which there's a rendering of it that it's in the packet that's
- up there on the screen. It would be a new freestanding sign with an electronic message center, otherwise
- known as a digital screen, for the existing drive-through lane. The proposed sign height is 71 inches
- tall, the sign face area is 20 square feet, and the digital screen covers 100% of the sign face area.
- So the UDO contains signage allowances for drive-through uses in a group of zoning districts, which
- include MC, and those standards include that the maximum height for a sign under 20.04.100 J6C, I'm
- gonna be referring to that as 6C, if necessary, the maximum sign height for that type of sign is five
- feet, but the proposed
- Sign is five feet, 11 inches, a little tall. Then there's also a maximum sign face area of 12 feet under
- 6C. And the proposed sign has a sign face area of 20 square feet.
- So the sign type under 6C is allowed to be 100% electronic reader board, which is what's proposed, so
- that part of it is compliant. Going to the criteria, the staff has recommended findings, proposed findings
- in the staff report, just summarize them here.
- for the first criteria that it will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, and welfare.
- The proposed finding is that the sign will have minimal impact, it'll face inward on the property, and
- the visible rear of the sign will have minimal impact on the streetscape, aesthetic environment of the
- city, or sign clutter. For the second criterion, proposed finding is that the sign will have substantial
- adverse impacts on neighboring properties,
- by allowing the petitioner's property to install larger or more numerous signage than other properties
- would be allowed to install without any difference in the practical difficulties faced by those properties.
- And for the third criterion, the proposed finding is that strict application of the UDO will not result
- in practical difficulties in the use of the property. To the extent that the strict application of the
- terms of the UDO
- do not align with the petitioner's goals for the use of the property, this misalignment is not related
- to any peculiar aspect of the property. The UDO contains allowances for drive-through signs similar
- to the petitioner's desired sign, including allowances for drive-through signs that are 100% digital
- screen. The petitioner could revise the proposed sign to comply with the UDO standards for this sign
- type, which does not result in practical difficulty in the use of the property.
- I do wanna mention some of you who've been on the board for a while may recall two variances, two different
- variance cases for Starbucks locations on the west side for a similar type of sign. At that, and the
- board approved both of those and those new Starbucks locations do have drive-through signs with 100%
- digital screen. What's different is at the time there was no provision in the code for this type of
- sign. There was no 6C. 6C was added
- in recognition that this is a normal type of sign to have with the drive-through and to get up to speed
- with where industry standard is. So with this petition is materially different from those because there
- is an allowed UDO sign type that this sign could fit into. It just doesn't quite match the dimensional
- characteristics. So the recommendation
- The department is considered feasible alternatives the goals of the petitioner on the goals of the city
- and reaching the recommendation which is that the BZA adopt the proposed findings for the petition and
- it's cut off at the bottom of the screen but and deny the requested variance. Thank you. Thank you.
- Is the petitioner and chambers are online? Yes, we are online. Okay, state your first and last name.
- Christina Blackwell.
- And do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
- the truth? I do. All right. You have up to 20 minutes. And you know the rules. You can save some of
- that and use it before the board takes any action. OK. Thank you so much. Hello, all. I apologize. We
- are not there in person. We are based out of Indy. So I had kids this evening in accommodations with
- sports. So on a little bit later than planned. But my name is Christina Blackwell.
- and I'm representing Christina or representing crew car wash regarding petition as presented off of
- 3430 West third street. We are requesting a development standards variance to allow a drive through
- sign that includes an electronic message center larger than what is currently permitted under the ordinance.
- We understand the staff has the recommended denial of this request and we would like to address the
- concerned outlined in the staff report.
- Before discussing the sign itself, I would like to know that crew car washes a committed complying is
- committed to comply with the city's regulations governing electronic message centers. Any messages displayed
- on this sign will remain static for at least what they have asked 20 seconds and the sign will utilize
- will not utilize flashing scrolling animation or rapid messages that have like transitions throughout
- the entire message.
- Crew does intend to operate the sign in full compliance with all applicable messaging and timing requirements
- established by the city. We are also willing to go down to the five foot height that has been requested.
- First, the proposed sign is not intended to function as a traditional advertising sign directed toward
- the public roadway as mentioned. It is located within the drive-through lane and is designated
- or is and is designed specifically to communicate with customers who are already on site and actively
- using the facility. The sign faces inward toward the drive through operation rather than outward towards
- West Third Street. As recognized in the staff report, the sign is expected to have minimal impact on
- the surrounding streetscape and adjacent properties. Second, the sign serves as an important operational
- purpose. It primarily functions
- as a menu and customer communication tool. For individuals already on the property, the electronic message
- center allows Crew Car Wash to clearly display wash package information, membership options, available
- wash selections, customer guidance, and operational instructions throughout the drive-through process.
- This sign helps ensure customers can easily review and understand their options from their vehicles.
- which at times are further away than just being right up on it. They have multiple lines throughout,
- like on a busy day, sunny day, they have multiple lines. So we want them to be able to see it from far
- away. So that's the size restriction that we're asking for it to be a bit larger. In turn, this will
- be able to create a safer, more efficient and more customer experience. Finally, the requested dimensions
- are not intended to increase
- advertising ability, oh my gosh, I'm so sorry, visibility. The sign size is a standard design element
- used consistently throughout the crew car wash locations and has proven effective in ensuring messages
- remain legible to customers viewing the sign from their vehicles while progressing through the drive-through
- lane. The additional display area allows information to be communicated clearly, safely and efficiently
- without creating additional visual impact on the surrounding areas.
- and businesses for these reasons we truly. And we respectfully request approval of the variance and
- we thank you for your consideration. Thank you. You'll have just over 16 minutes to remain to use this.
- You choose before any actions taken by the board. So back to the board for any questions or clarification
- from staff or petitioner. So on slide.
- Okay, so slide six is the UDO requirement of five feet. Slide seven is 71 inches, so five feet 11, which
- now the petitioner's saying they can go down. What's the width requirement that's not listed in the
- sheet? Yeah, the, let's see if I can pull up the slide again. So there's no,
- There's no direct regulation of the width, but there is a regulation of the sign face area. Um, so one
- distinction is the height is the full height of the entire structure, which could be taller than the
- actual sign area. But then the, the sign area, um, is there's a limit on how big that is. So what they're
- proposing is 60 inches wide. So, uh, five feet wide by 48 inches tall. So four feet tall. Okay.
- which is larger than the 12-foot allowed under 6C. Does that make sense? It does. I have a question
- about the staff exhibit number five. It's that 2016 document that Eric signed. The previous sign? Yes.
- Let's just talk about that.
- a sign that shows up on five, which is a similar design. Did this sign actually end up on the property
- already? I believe all the signs that were in that permit are on the property, but let me find which
- sign you're talking about exactly. Okay, as you look, it's that page five on, what document is this?
- It's the Planning and Transportation Department Certificate of Zoning Compliance document that has a
- number of pages in it.
- the initial request in 2016. And I guess my question is twofold, which is one is, is that sign currently
- there? Because I know that the current one's electronic. The one that they're asking for is electronic
- so that the imagery would change. This one has the same imagery on the proposal. This was a standalone
- fixed sign that talks about ultimate works choose to car wash, et cetera. One, was that sign actually
- built? And then it shows it in a much smaller
- Dimension 61 by roughly 49 plus the stand So I would I would ask the petitioner to confirm my Information
- is that sign number five does exist and it is currently fulfilling the allowance in 6a Okay, so to the
- petitioner then that sign currently exists the one that was approved in 2016 and
- That sign was approved in 2016, but has since been removed. So that that sign is now correct. We are
- looking to like replace that sign with the sign that was removed. OK, and that sign was a fixed sign.
- It was an electronic message board, correct? Correct, yeah, and there was multiple changes on the sign
- that were needed because of menu options and etc. So that's why they would prefer to go the digital
- route. Understood because because of menu.
- Yeah, okay, understood. Any other questions before we go to the public? There's more than one crew car
- wash in this town, so are there differences in the dimensions of the signs between the two?
- I would have to, so this crew car wash predates the more recent one. The more recent one has an address
- on Pete Ellis Drive at Pete Ellis and Third Street.
- I do know that we issued a sign permit so that all the signage that's at the east side one is compliant.
- I would have to go look at the permit to see exactly what the dimensions of their sign were for 6C,
- but it was compliant on that one. Chris, do you have any questions? Not at this time.
- With no other questions or comments from the staff, I mean from the board, we're gonna go to the public
- for comment. Before we go back to the petitioner, is there anyone in chambers who'd like to speak to
- this? I see none. Anyone online? If so, please use the raise hand function to make yourself known. Okay.
- I'm not seeing anybody online. With that then, we will go back to the petitioner
- I think you may have started to speak. You have 16 minutes to address any questions, concerns, or any
- other information you'd like to provide. All right, thank you so much. So I had mentioned, or I was
- trying to mention earlier, their other site in Bloomington, it was not feasible to be able to put one
- of these digital signs at that location.
- So they do not have one of the digital signs there because they didn't have the same loop for the menu
- opportunity that the existing location had. If we could have, we definitely would have requested that
- as an option. And then as we've discussed, this sign is not intended to function as a traditional advertising
- display. So it is an operational tool designed for the menu for customers to understand what they're
- doing while they go through the line and really just speed up the entire process
- crew car wash is their motto is clean fast friendly. So at the end of the day, they don't want to have
- to keep switching out faces on the old time like they did decide to remove. They would like to have
- a digital display to be able to change pricing, be able to show unlimited pricing, anything that's best
- for their practice. So I really appreciate everybody's time today and thank you so much.
- Thank you. It's back to the board for action, either a motion or further discussion. Any questions,
- comments? None from Chris, anyone? With that, I'll entertain a motion. I just have a
- Question I know a little farther down the road, but can I ask this question? Oh, yes, this is for staff.
- So I Like the mentions so I'm just trying to figure out that what we're talking about. Are we talking
- about 11 inches? The dip for the height That they're going over 11 inches for the height and also the
- the sign face area
- the sign face area, so there's no, but we have no width, correct, requirement. Right, yeah, I mean,
- there is a total sign face area, so they can have it be an inch tall and however many feet wide they
- want, it'd be a weird sign. And I think the petitioner already spoke that they wouldn't mind making
- five feet tall, so if they make it five feet,
- can you calculate what is our total area of face? It would be up to their sign design, right? So if
- they did that by shrinking the sign face area, we could calculate that, but they could also do it by
- just shrinking the base at the bottom and keeping the sign face area the same. But if the question is,
- if you also shrunk the sign face area by 11 inches, then that would be 30,
- If the question is, so if they make a compliance sign that is five feet tall and you're allowed 12 square
- feet, the width would be 2.4 feet. Was that a question or was it a different question? Instead of four
- feet, they are proposing four feet. Yeah, so if they wanted to keep the five feet and stay within the
- 12 square foot allowance, the maximum width would be 2.4 feet.
- Okay so they are losing. I mean also obviously they can change the height you know there's any ways
- that they can adjust the sign you know to fall within those two parameters of the maximum height of
- five feet and the maximum size of 12 square feet you know they can they can adjust anything as long
- as they don't exceed those two.
- I just see is there any difference because this signage is not it's for the public, but it's actually
- for the customer that is using the drive-through. So it's not facing the road is the the requirements
- we have for signs that are facing a road and they would advertising. No, so the video doesn't distinguish,
- you know, what is the intent of a sign? You know, we can only regulate what it you know, what is the
- size of the sign?
- and how many of those signs. Where you put it on the property is kind of up to you. So as Gabriel mentioned,
- we updated the UDO two years ago to allow for an additional signs for drive-through facilities. Whatever
- they want to put on the sign, that's up to them. We can't regulate that. But the UDO fully contemplates
- these types of signs. There is an allowance for it.
- And so there's nothing unique about this property that prevents them from meeting that. They just wanna
- have something that's more totally understandable. Something that's bigger, okay. All right, thank you.
- Any other comments or questions from the board before we take action? Chris? If no further discussion,
- I'd entertain a motion.
- Make a motion for ZR 2026-06-0030. The motion is that the department recommends that the board's zoning
- appeals adopt the proposed findings for petition and deny the request of variance. We have a second. Second.
- Further discussion. Okay, you can hear me Chris any further discussion to the motion Call the question
- Burrell. Yes, could Cinco No Smith yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes All right, the petitioners request has
- been denied the motion passes three to one and
- Do I see any further business in front of the board? No, nothing from staff. Wait a minute, I thought
- I might have a question for you. I'll send it to you by email. There were a couple things I was questioning.
- It was a follow-up to stuff we've done in the past, just to see where things stood. So with that, then
- I'll let you know that the Board of Zoning Appeals is adjourned.