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.