WEBVTT 00:00:00.482 --> 00:00:10.421 - Good evening, welcome to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for Thursday, 27th. I'm going to call this 00:00:10.421 --> 00:00:19.977 - meeting to order. Thank you for joining us tonight. First thing up is we'll have a roll call. Here. 00:00:19.977 --> 00:00:29.534 - Shaday? Here. Smith? Here. Throckmorton? Here. And we have tonight five sets of minutes to approve. 00:00:29.666 --> 00:00:38.205 - Would you I'll just ask the board. Would you like to do it as one general motion? Would you like to 00:00:38.205 --> 00:00:47.085 - do each one? In other words, do we have any amendments to make to any of the minutes? If not, I'll take 00:00:47.085 --> 00:00:55.709 - a motion for all five to be approved Just abstain from Yeah, okay motion for approval minutes second 00:00:55.709 --> 00:00:57.758 - Okay, and call the roll 00:01:00.130 --> 00:01:15.171 - Yes today. Yes Smith Thorpe Morton. Yes Okay, I'm gonna list out the four Petitions that we'll be hearing 00:01:15.171 --> 00:01:29.502 - this evening in this order ZR 20 26 05 22 accompanied with ZR 20 26 07 35 and that is 412 East Wiley 00:01:29.634 --> 00:01:39.381 - conditional use The second petition we will hear will be ZR 20 2606 31 and that is concerning 210 Southwest 00:01:39.381 --> 00:01:48.677 - plex. It's a variance The third item is ZR 20 2607 33 at 530 South Washington and is an administrative 00:01:48.677 --> 00:01:58.334 - appeal And the last petition we will be hearing tonight will be ZR 20 2607 34 pertaining to 712 West third 00:01:58.594 --> 00:02:05.669 - It's a conditional use We have no petitions that will be continued tonight Before we get started. We 00:02:05.669 --> 00:02:12.743 - have a full house. I just want to make sure if anyone's not been here before Here's how things work. 00:02:12.743 --> 00:02:19.818 - So what we do is we get a report from the staff They present that to us It is expedited. It's a very 00:02:19.818 --> 00:02:25.982 - short presentation at that point. I then asked the petitioner petitioner representative 00:02:26.530 --> 00:02:33.478 - anyone else affiliated with the petitioner who would like to speak to come forward and They sign in 00:02:33.478 --> 00:02:40.635 - and what we do is we swear each one of them in they affirm to tell the truth We do that first and then 00:02:40.635 --> 00:02:47.653 - after that occurs it comes back to the board for any questions We have of that petitioner After that 00:02:47.653 --> 00:02:54.741 - if we have no further questions at that point it goes open to the public for statements and that will 00:02:54.741 --> 00:02:56.478 - be five minutes each and 00:02:56.642 --> 00:03:01.752 - And what I will ask you to do, if you'd like to speak, is you come to the podium, you sign in, and when 00:03:01.752 --> 00:03:06.911 - you're done signing in, I'll ask you, please state your name, and you'll state your name. At that point, 00:03:06.911 --> 00:03:12.120 - I will also swear you in, asking you to affirm that you'll tell the truth. And then you have five minutes 00:03:12.120 --> 00:03:17.033 - uninterrupted. You can make your statements, ask questions, et cetera. However, this board does not 00:03:17.033 --> 00:03:21.947 - interact with the public we listen to your points. This board may or may not choose to take some of 00:03:21.947 --> 00:03:25.534 - the points you make and then reinsert that into the discussion later on. 00:03:25.698 --> 00:03:31.477 - very clear about what it is that you think that you would like to have answers to, and we'll make a 00:03:31.477 --> 00:03:37.429 - determination of the best way to deal with that. But we do appreciate and welcome your comments. After 00:03:37.429 --> 00:03:43.265 - the public has spoken, then it will come back to the petitioner after the public comments to use the 00:03:43.265 --> 00:03:49.043 - remainder of the petitioner's time. The petitioner has a total of 20 minutes. They can use that the 00:03:49.043 --> 00:03:54.302 - first time they speak, all of it, and then they have none left, or they can use part of it 00:03:54.466 --> 00:04:02.188 - And then the remainder they can use at the second hearing of the petitioner Okay, so they will either 00:04:02.188 --> 00:04:09.758 - have one 20-minute session or will have two broken up over that 20 minutes the petitioner then gets 00:04:09.758 --> 00:04:17.328 - to speak uninterrupted at that second portion and then it's back to the board for us to either have 00:04:17.328 --> 00:04:23.006 - continued discussion or further or to present a motion that is essentially 00:04:23.586 --> 00:04:29.289 - the gist of what we're gonna do, and we do have policies of the respect within the chambers here, which 00:04:29.289 --> 00:04:34.827 - is we just ask you not to be chatting or talking, because I know it's hard for you to understand out 00:04:34.827 --> 00:04:40.584 - there, but we actually hear everything that comes this way, and sometimes it's difficult for us to hear, 00:04:40.584 --> 00:04:46.068 - so we just ask, please, to be polite and not have those discussions. If you do have a phone call or 00:04:46.068 --> 00:04:51.715 - something, we just ask you to step out. That's great. If you need to talk to someone, both of you step 00:04:51.715 --> 00:04:53.470 - out and have that conversation. 00:04:53.666 --> 00:05:01.542 - And that's completely fine. Don't feel bad about getting up and stepping out if you need to and with 00:05:01.542 --> 00:05:09.573 - that With that again, we welcome you. We have a few more coming in Get comfortable here we go. We have 00:05:09.573 --> 00:05:14.174 - our first Petition to be heard. May I have a staff report? 00:05:15.042 --> 00:05:21.917 - Yes, thank you very much, Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning planner. So this is the second public hearing 00:05:21.917 --> 00:05:28.592 - for the proposed duplex at 412 East Wiley Street. The petitioner is Mr. Kevin Spicer, and the first 00:05:28.592 --> 00:05:31.262 - hearing for this case was back in June. 00:05:31.618 --> 00:05:38.528 - and the BZA at that time chose to continue it. So since that meeting, the petitioner has made several 00:05:38.528 --> 00:05:45.303 - revisions to their plans, mostly having to do with the elevations and then also some changes to the 00:05:45.303 --> 00:05:52.078 - site plan with the access and the parking. And I'll get into that in more detail. So another change 00:05:52.078 --> 00:05:57.566 - is that they're now requesting two variances in addition to the conditional use. 00:05:57.762 --> 00:06:05.135 - And the two variances are from the maximum vehicle parking allowance and the vehicle parking location 00:06:05.135 --> 00:06:12.653 - and design standards. So the zoning district for this property is R3 residential small lot and duplexes 00:06:12.653 --> 00:06:20.026 - are conditional use in this zoning district. So that requires approval from the BZA. It also requires 00:06:20.026 --> 00:06:25.086 - that the use specific standards from UDO section 20.03.030B3 are met. 00:06:26.946 --> 00:06:34.000 - So this aerial map shows the location of the property. There is an unbuilt section of right of way for 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:41.123 - South Palmer Avenue along the West property line. And there's also a 12 foot platted alley to the south 00:06:41.123 --> 00:06:48.382 - of the property. The alley to the south is not currently improved. So the petitioner does have the option 00:06:48.382 --> 00:06:55.710 - to either improve that alley for access or to access the property via Wiley, having a drive cut off Wiley. 00:06:55.906 --> 00:07:01.875 - In their prior plan, that's what was shown in June, that they had a driveway off of Wiley. 00:07:01.875 --> 00:07:08.566 - With the new plan, the petitioner is planning to improve the alley to the south. And I will show that 00:07:08.566 --> 00:07:12.830 - plan here in a second. So just to give an overview of this site, 00:07:13.058 --> 00:07:19.912 - Currently on the 0.23 acre property there is a one story single family home and that's proposed to be 00:07:19.912 --> 00:07:26.632 - demolished for the new duplex. All of the surrounding properties are also zoned R3 and they contain 00:07:26.632 --> 00:07:33.352 - single family homes. The site is in the Bryant Park neighborhood and this petition was presented to 00:07:33.352 --> 00:07:40.408 - the Bryant Park and Elm Heights neighborhood associations on May 7th and that is one of the requirements 00:07:40.408 --> 00:07:42.558 - for the conditional use duplex. 00:07:42.658 --> 00:07:49.632 - The property is not designated as a historic site and not subject to any historic regulations. And the 00:07:49.632 --> 00:07:56.470 - city's senior environmental planner visited the site and determined that there is no close canopy on 00:07:56.470 --> 00:08:03.444 - the site. So the tree and forest preservation requirements do not apply in this case. There are street 00:08:03.444 --> 00:08:10.350 - trees required and those are shown on the plan along both Wiley Street to the north and Palmer Avenue 00:08:10.350 --> 00:08:11.230 - to the west. 00:08:13.154 --> 00:08:20.144 - So staff reviewed the use specific standards and we found that for this duplex, the use specific standards 00:08:20.144 --> 00:08:26.676 - are met. At the time of their application, the property owner did not have any notices of violation 00:08:26.676 --> 00:08:33.601 - on file with the planning department. The UDO's definition for family limits no more than three unrelated 00:08:33.601 --> 00:08:40.133 - adults to live together in each duplex unit in the R3 district. And each duplex unit has a separate 00:08:40.133 --> 00:08:42.942 - entrance facing Wiley Street to the north. 00:08:44.738 --> 00:08:52.256 - Based on feedback from the first public hearing, the petitioner made modifications to their elevation 00:08:52.256 --> 00:08:59.921 - drawings and I have the current elevation shown on the screen. So this house is one and a half stories. 00:08:59.921 --> 00:09:07.733 - The second floor is partially finished and it gives an appearance of a one story house from Wiley Street. 00:09:07.733 --> 00:09:11.934 - There are four design elements that the duplex must meet 00:09:12.034 --> 00:09:18.711 - and be similar in general shape, size, and design with the majority of existing structures on the same 00:09:18.711 --> 00:09:25.322 - block face. The four design standards that we evaluate per the UDO are roof pitch, front porch, width 00:09:25.322 --> 00:09:29.406 - and depth, front building setback, and vehicle parking access. 00:09:30.690 --> 00:09:38.310 - The UDO defines block face as the portion of a block adjacent and parallel to the abutting public street 00:09:38.310 --> 00:09:45.567 - and extending from one intersecting street to another. So for this location, the block face is from 00:09:45.567 --> 00:09:53.042 - South Dunn Street to the east and to South Grant Street to the west. The orientation of the roof lines 00:09:53.042 --> 00:09:58.558 - match the orientation of roof lines along the block face and run east-west. 00:09:59.010 --> 00:10:04.867 - The proposed roof pitch and orientation are similar to surrounding roof pitches along the block face. 00:10:04.867 --> 00:10:10.838 - This petition includes a front porch that is typical in terms of depth and width to other front porches 00:10:10.838 --> 00:10:16.752 - and covered entries in the area. The building is shown at the required 15-foot front build-to line and 00:10:16.752 --> 00:10:22.494 - matches the setback of the house to the west and the location of the existing residents on the lot. 00:10:23.010 --> 00:10:28.835 - The petitioner has modified the parking arrangement to remove the previously shown drive cut off Wiley, 00:10:28.835 --> 00:10:34.549 - and the revised plan includes a new parking area off the alley to the south, and the new parking area 00:10:34.549 --> 00:10:40.150 - will be accessed from a portion of the alley that will be improved in access from the existing stub 00:10:40.150 --> 00:10:40.766 - of Palmer. 00:10:43.810 --> 00:10:49.917 - The proposed duplex includes a total of six bedrooms, which is the maximum allowed. The property is 00:10:49.917 --> 00:10:56.452 - not within the 150-foot buffer limitation from other nearby duplexes, and the maximum number of 15 allowed 00:10:56.452 --> 00:10:58.590 - duplexes per year is not exceeded. 00:11:00.354 --> 00:11:08.014 - So now moving into the criteria and findings for conditional use permit, UDO section 20.06.040 D6B addresses 00:11:08.014 --> 00:11:15.394 - the general compliance criteria to ensure compliance with the UDO, other applicable regulations, utility 00:11:15.394 --> 00:11:22.421 - service and improvement standards, and prior approvals. As I previously described, the use specific 00:11:22.421 --> 00:11:28.606 - standards for a duplex within the R3 zoning district are met from the staff's analysis, 00:11:28.834 --> 00:11:35.153 - The petitioner attended the joint Brian Park and Elm Heights Neighborhood Association meetings and presented 00:11:35.153 --> 00:11:41.067 - the petition as required. There are no known other applicable regulations. Water service and sanitary 00:11:41.067 --> 00:11:47.270 - connection will be coordinated with City of Bloomington utilities and electric service will be coordinated 00:11:47.270 --> 00:11:53.300 - with Duke Energy. There is adequate capacity in the city's water and sewer system to serve the location 00:11:53.300 --> 00:11:56.894 - and there are no known prior land use approvals for the site. 00:11:58.594 --> 00:12:06.559 - The additional criteria applicable to conditional uses are in UDO 20.06.040 D6C. The first is consistency 00:12:06.559 --> 00:12:14.074 - with the comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. And this proposal is in line with the goals 00:12:14.074 --> 00:12:22.039 - of the comprehensive plan. In the future land use map, this area is identified as mixed urban residential 00:12:22.039 --> 00:12:23.166 - and policy 5.3 00:12:23.746 --> 00:12:30.717 - encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment across the city. As stated by City of Bloomington 00:12:30.717 --> 00:12:37.555 - Utilities, there's adequate water and sewer capacity in the city system to serve the proposed duplex. 00:12:37.555 --> 00:12:44.325 - On the site plan, new concrete walkways are shown to connect the proposed duplex to Wiley Street, so 00:12:44.325 --> 00:12:48.414 - that provides pedestrian connections as required by the UDO. 00:12:48.802 --> 00:12:55.360 - The new plan is showing a parking area off the alley along the south side of the property, which will 00:12:55.360 --> 00:13:01.918 - provide vehicle access to the site. There are no known regulated natural or scenic features that will 00:13:01.918 --> 00:13:08.862 - be impacted, no changes to trash and waste collection. In response to feedback received at the neighborhood 00:13:08.862 --> 00:13:15.934 - meeting, the petitioner revised the plan to include a six foot tall privacy fence on the east side of the lot 00:13:16.066 --> 00:13:23.420 - to help buffer the property from the adjacent use. And no phasing is proposed with the plan. So now 00:13:23.420 --> 00:13:30.994 - moving into the two variance requests, the petitioner, the first variance the petitioner is requesting 00:13:30.994 --> 00:13:38.716 - is from the maximum number of parking spaces. This is regulated by UDO section 20.04.060E, and it limits 00:13:38.716 --> 00:13:44.158 - the maximum number of parking spaces to four parking spaces for a duplex. 00:13:44.258 --> 00:13:53.489 - the petitioner is requesting to increase the maximum to five. The second variance is from UDO 20.04.060I2BII. 00:13:53.489 --> 00:14:02.048 - And this limits the parking area off an alley to 20 feet by 20 feet. And the petitioner is requesting 00:14:02.048 --> 00:14:07.838 - a variance to allow a 20 foot by 40 foot parking area off the alley. 00:14:09.858 --> 00:14:17.170 - So this is their current site plan that was submitted in the packet to the board. And it shows the improved 00:14:17.170 --> 00:14:24.143 - alley to the south with the 20 foot by 40 foot parking area for five parking spaces. I do want to make 00:14:24.143 --> 00:14:31.185 - a note to the board that for 90 degree parking, 90 degree angle parking, the minimum parking dimensions 00:14:31.185 --> 00:14:37.278 - are eight and a half feet by 16 feet. And this plan shows eight foot wide parking spaces. 00:14:37.410 --> 00:14:45.004 - So the petitioner is either required to get a minor modification to be approved by the planning director 00:14:45.004 --> 00:14:52.452 - to reduce the parking width from eight and a half feet to eight feet, or the board can add a condition 00:14:52.452 --> 00:15:00.046 - to increase the parking area to 42 and a half feet to accommodate the eight and a half foot wide parking 00:15:00.046 --> 00:15:01.854 - space width requirement. 00:15:02.562 --> 00:15:10.239 - And then I also want to correct that the impervious area for this proposal is actually 31.74%. The prior 00:15:10.239 --> 00:15:17.623 - plan had an impervious surface coverage of 44 and a half percent. So this is significantly less than 00:15:17.623 --> 00:15:25.007 - the original plan. And for the variance from the maximum vehicle parking allowed, staff did not find 00:15:25.007 --> 00:15:31.806 - that one additional parking space would have a significant impact on the community at large. 00:15:32.738 --> 00:15:39.418 - While the maximum parking standards for this use were highly contested and vetted, one additional parking 00:15:39.418 --> 00:15:45.972 - space that otherwise meets the design standards of the property is not expected to have adverse impacts 00:15:45.972 --> 00:15:52.652 - on surrounding properties. For the third criteria, staff did not find any practical difficulties peculiar 00:15:52.652 --> 00:15:59.143 - to the property because the site can be developed with a duplex with a maximum of four spaces. For the 00:15:59.143 --> 00:16:01.790 - second variance from the vehicle parking, 00:16:02.210 --> 00:16:08.973 - location and design, staff found that this would be injurious to the community because it is a request 00:16:08.973 --> 00:16:15.868 - to double the size of the parking area permitted by the UDO. The purpose of limiting the size of allowed 00:16:15.868 --> 00:16:22.500 - parking off an alley is to manage vehicular access and doubling the size of the allowed parking area 00:16:22.500 --> 00:16:29.854 - can increase risks to pedestrians and future vehicle users in the event that the alley is expanded to the east. 00:16:30.946 --> 00:16:37.858 - Staff did not find any practical difficulties peculiar to the property that prevent the petitioner from 00:16:37.858 --> 00:16:44.770 - complying with the 20 foot by 20 foot parking pad as limited by the UDO. And this site can be developed 00:16:44.770 --> 00:16:51.417 - with a compliant driveway off Wiley as previously shown or a compliant parking pad via the alley to 00:16:51.417 --> 00:16:57.598 - the south. So on the screen, this is the prior plan that was presented to the board in June. 00:16:58.690 --> 00:17:05.810 - and then this is the current plan before you and I'm happy to flip back and forth if that's helpful. 00:17:05.810 --> 00:17:13.213 - These are the prior elevations that were presented to the board in June and then the petitioner modified 00:17:13.213 --> 00:17:20.474 - their plans to present these elevation drawings. The height to the peak of the duplex is 26 and a half 00:17:20.474 --> 00:17:23.294 - feet and that's compliant with the UDO. 00:17:24.962 --> 00:17:32.586 - And you can see the floor plan with the partially finished second story. This was the siding color submitted 00:17:32.586 --> 00:17:40.210 - by the petitioner. And then lastly, the department is recommending that the BZA adopt the proposed findings, 00:17:40.210 --> 00:17:47.274 - approve the conditional use request, and deny the variances with the following conditions. One, that 00:17:47.274 --> 00:17:52.030 - the conditional use is limited to the design approved by the board. 00:17:52.226 --> 00:18:01.726 - Two, a right of way permit is required prior to any work in the public right of way. And three, a privacy 00:18:01.726 --> 00:18:10.958 - fence is required along the east property line as requested by the neighbors. So with that, I am happy 00:18:10.958 --> 00:18:20.279 - to answer any questions. Thank you. Is the petitioner here? Will you be the only one speaking on behalf 00:18:20.279 --> 00:18:21.982 - of the petitioner? 00:18:31.522 --> 00:18:37.715 - State your name, please. Kevin Spicer. Kevin, do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the 00:18:37.715 --> 00:18:44.150 - whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. OK, and we'll start a timer. We have 20 minutes. Again, 00:18:44.150 --> 00:18:50.222 - just as a reminder, whatever time you don't use, you can retain for later. Thank you. Thank you. So 00:18:50.222 --> 00:18:56.475 - I think I'd like to start just by kind of recapping a little bit from a couple months ago. So in doing 00:18:56.475 --> 00:18:58.782 - so, a lot of the things that we heard 00:18:59.266 --> 00:19:09.991 - That the building that I you saw pictures of that we brought to you a couple months ago the neighbors 00:19:09.991 --> 00:19:19.454 - The the neighbors didn't feel that it looked like the other properties on that street and 00:19:19.842 --> 00:19:27.536 - Although let me remind you that there was another duplex a lot similar to this that was just approved 00:19:27.536 --> 00:19:35.607 - within the last couple years it was up the street real nice and a 500 block that was real somewhat similar 00:19:35.607 --> 00:19:43.225 - to what we proposed a couple months ago, but I heard I heard that and and and that was actually part 00:19:43.225 --> 00:19:46.846 - of the the condition for the condition from the 00:19:47.138 --> 00:19:55.034 - from this panel, from the BZA, was to make it look more like what was others on the street. 00:19:55.034 --> 00:20:03.960 - So with that, we did that. I brought that back to a story and a half, a rectangle style home that maybe 00:20:03.960 --> 00:20:12.542 - would look like the homes there that was built in the 50s. The other thing we heard a lot about was 00:20:12.642 --> 00:20:19.314 - the width of Wiley, it not being a really wide street. There's on-street parking on both sides, and 00:20:19.314 --> 00:20:26.386 - they felt when there's people parking on both sides, the street's narrow, it was hard to pass. I thought, 00:20:26.386 --> 00:20:33.258 - well, all right, we'll bring it in a different direction. So by bringing it in, Dodds and down Palmer, 00:20:33.258 --> 00:20:38.462 - there's only a couple driveway, there's only two driveway cuts off of Palmer, 00:20:38.594 --> 00:20:46.008 - onto would would be the south end of this property where the alley would be and You're right as you 00:20:46.008 --> 00:20:54.016 - heard by using the alley. It was only a 20 by 20 pad So my thought was was to try to put ask for a variance 00:20:54.016 --> 00:21:01.727 - to get an additional parking space so if I could bring my tenant back off the the back if you will keep 00:21:01.727 --> 00:21:03.358 - them off of Wiley and 00:21:03.586 --> 00:21:13.662 - Trying to be neighborly trying to use you know, hopefully then that way maybe there would be less Tenants 00:21:13.662 --> 00:21:23.167 - using that on-street parking. So that's the purpose for the The request for the the Variance and as 00:21:23.167 --> 00:21:32.862 - you can see I had plenty of percentage of in previous space, you know to do that so as we're going to 00:21:33.282 --> 00:21:39.793 - here, here after a bit, right? I tried to think, of course, I went back and I looked at all the other, 00:21:39.793 --> 00:21:46.557 - as you well know, you guys have approved a lot of them, other duplexes in town, whether Roosevelt, there's 00:21:46.557 --> 00:21:53.005 - a couple on Henderson, there's several on Woodburn, and I kept trying to go back and I even mentioned 00:21:53.005 --> 00:21:59.326 - last time, there's really no difference between Wiley Street and these other streets. These are all 00:21:59.458 --> 00:22:06.634 - Bloomington in town old streets Residential and some of them are now as we see her starting to be built 00:22:06.634 --> 00:22:13.741 - on but one of the things that kept coming back that was different between my project and all the other 00:22:13.741 --> 00:22:20.641 - projects that y'all have already approved was now we've got a couple council members that have come 00:22:20.641 --> 00:22:22.366 - out due to the crowd and 00:22:22.786 --> 00:22:30.710 - Have come out against this project in your packet last time. We had a letter from Piedmont Smith and 00:22:30.710 --> 00:22:38.633 - she had said in that letter where she had gone and at that point in time the director was Mr. Hittle 00:22:38.633 --> 00:22:46.792 - and met with him and told him all the problems that they had with Wiley and Of course forward that that 00:22:46.792 --> 00:22:50.558 - letter to you all but then even at that point I 00:22:52.770 --> 00:23:00.065 - The director Hiddle along with the planning staff they still had recommend approval and the reason of 00:23:00.065 --> 00:23:07.218 - course was is what we've just heard is that all of the others that unions have approved met the udo 00:23:07.218 --> 00:23:14.656 - standards just like this one, so now two months later We yet have a new director and into this director 00:23:14.656 --> 00:23:18.590 - along with the staff have also requested requested but 00:23:18.818 --> 00:23:26.681 - Suggested approval and it's just because it has met the udo Requirements again, just like all the other 00:23:26.681 --> 00:23:34.392 - ones from All the other units on different streets that have already been approved a lot of them have 00:23:34.392 --> 00:23:42.330 - been proved unanimously I went back and watched all those And then of course we had and I see mr. Ruff's 00:23:42.330 --> 00:23:46.110 - in the in the crowd and you know, you know, he is 00:23:46.498 --> 00:23:55.019 - He spoke a couple months ago and said that he fundamentally felt that the staff and the director was 00:23:55.019 --> 00:24:03.541 - wrong. And fundamentally, they're not wrong. Again, the council has given them a set of standards to 00:24:03.541 --> 00:24:12.231 - go by, and these projects, along with this project, met those UDO standards. So it's not fundamentally 00:24:12.231 --> 00:24:15.774 - wrong. It's now become a political issue. 00:24:16.226 --> 00:24:23.963 - And unfortunately these council members have now applied their political influence on you folks and 00:24:23.963 --> 00:24:31.778 - now in some of you folks were appointed by the by the City Council and I hate you know shame on them 00:24:31.778 --> 00:24:39.902 - for one and You know, I'm sorry that they've now put you in a position where you have to make a decision 00:24:39.902 --> 00:24:46.014 - Whether it's just another duplex on another street and or now if it's become a 00:24:46.466 --> 00:24:53.817 - Somewhat political and I hate that that that's that that's happened and it's obviously that it has So 00:24:53.817 --> 00:25:01.096 - I think with that I would I'm sure I'll come back with some other and I think the other thing when I 00:25:01.096 --> 00:25:08.447 - went back and and listened to all the remarks through the time and we're gonna hear him again tonight 00:25:08.447 --> 00:25:16.446 - and When I went back and listened to him and even even mr. Ruff's comments all of those comments could be used 00:25:16.674 --> 00:25:23.401 - for any other petition that's been in front of you. We're gonna hear all that, whether it's size or 00:25:23.401 --> 00:25:30.128 - location, or width of street, or it doesn't match, or it's gonna be a rental. All of those comments 00:25:30.128 --> 00:25:36.990 - fit any other petition that you've already seen, and you're gonna see in the future. I'm sure there's 00:25:36.990 --> 00:25:42.910 - gonna be more. But with that, I'll leave it at there, and I'll be glad to finish later. 00:25:47.106 --> 00:25:54.101 - Thank you Just quickly before we go back to the board. I had a question. Could you repeat the size of 00:25:54.101 --> 00:26:01.097 - the parking space? You said eight and a half feet wide by what? Yeah, the minimum is eight and a half 00:26:01.097 --> 00:26:07.955 - feet wide by 16 feet long and the petitioners plan is showing right now eight feet by 20 feet Thank 00:26:07.955 --> 00:26:15.019 - you, okay, we're back to the board for any questions of the petitioner or or of the council. I'm sorry 00:26:15.019 --> 00:26:16.734 - of the of the city staff 00:26:21.474 --> 00:26:33.269 - Just to be clear The petition is the right to do a curb cut off of Wiley and we asked him not to So 00:26:33.269 --> 00:26:45.773 - yes and no yes, they have the right to either have a curb cut off of Wiley, which is what they previously 00:26:45.773 --> 00:26:47.070 - showed and 00:26:47.202 --> 00:26:54.288 - They also have the option to improve the alley to the south. And they chose to revise their plan to 00:26:54.288 --> 00:27:01.515 - do that. So it was not staff saying one way or the other. It was a decision that they made. So he has 00:27:01.515 --> 00:27:08.601 - the option to do both. Yes, he can do one or the other for access purposes because the alley to the 00:27:08.601 --> 00:27:15.262 - south is not currently developed. If it was developed, the UDO would only allow alley access. 00:27:17.026 --> 00:27:22.676 - So if we hear from all these good people and parking is a major theme of hardship Your finding said 00:27:22.676 --> 00:27:28.326 - there's not a peculiar to the property to allow the variance for parking on the alley I Would think 00:27:28.326 --> 00:27:33.976 - there is because Wiley's an 18 foot wide road with no improvement So I just want to say that to all 00:27:33.976 --> 00:27:39.683 - you people going to talk give us some guidance on where your parking thoughts are because I think we 00:27:39.683 --> 00:27:45.502 - have leeway either way and I would assume the city's position is we don't want a curb cut on Wiley and 00:27:46.242 --> 00:27:52.817 - We'd prefer it not be there. Because we don't like curb cuts on streets. We don't like curb cuts across 00:27:52.817 --> 00:27:59.454 - sidewalks. Yeah, I mean, looking at the UDO, the UDO allows either if the alley to the south was already 00:27:59.454 --> 00:28:05.776 - developed, though, then the city would require the UDO would require that the alley to the south is 00:28:05.776 --> 00:28:12.351 - improved. So you may interpret that to be, you know, the city preferring alleys developed to the south. 00:28:12.351 --> 00:28:15.006 - But the UDO is pretty clear in this case. 00:28:15.650 --> 00:28:22.043 - What's the alley requirement these days? Is it gonna gravel, asphalt, is there a certain width to the 00:28:22.043 --> 00:28:28.561 - asphalt or gravel? Good question, and I did consult the engineering department on this, so I think they 00:28:28.561 --> 00:28:35.078 - would like to see the 12-foot alley completely developed, and right now it's only at nine feet. I think 00:28:35.078 --> 00:28:41.346 - their preference as well is that it's paved, but I don't think it's a requirement, so they could do 00:28:41.346 --> 00:28:44.542 - gravel or pavement, but that's between engineering 00:28:44.834 --> 00:28:54.096 - What about the parking spaces, gravel or concrete or asphalt? Is there a requirement? We have requirement 00:28:54.096 --> 00:29:03.096 - that it's paved on the private property. Just being clear. All right. Yep. We have any other questions 00:29:03.096 --> 00:29:11.834 - for the petitioner for the board? Anyone else? OK. So with that, we are now to public comment. Just 00:29:11.834 --> 00:29:14.718 - a show of hands, how many people 00:29:14.818 --> 00:29:22.529 - Plan to speak to this? Okay, all right, we should be fine. Otherwise, I'd have you all stand in line 00:29:22.529 --> 00:29:30.240 - and whatever. So we'll just go one at a time. Go ahead and sign in first. I was gonna say, Kevin did 00:29:30.240 --> 00:29:38.333 - not sign in. Do you want him to sign in ahead of me or does it matter? Yeah. All right, give me a moment, 00:29:38.333 --> 00:29:44.670 - please. And then when you're done signing in, just state your first and last name. 00:29:53.890 --> 00:30:00.090 - Julie von der Schmidt Julie do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole 00:30:00.090 --> 00:30:06.291 - truth and that's what the truth. I do you have five minutes Hi, I live at 421 East Wiley across from 00:30:06.291 --> 00:30:12.614 - 412 I'm here tonight to ask that you deny the conditional use request for the proposed duplex dwelling 00:30:12.614 --> 00:30:18.814 - while many in this room and throughout our community support sustainable affordable urban infill and 00:30:19.298 --> 00:30:27.501 - This specific proposal involves the demolition of an existing single-family home to construct a permanent 00:30:27.501 --> 00:30:35.472 - high-density rental structure with no viable path toward owner occupancy. This project is inconsistent 00:30:35.472 --> 00:30:43.210 - with several key standards established in the UDO. Section 20.02.020C, the unique mandate of the R3 00:30:43.210 --> 00:30:44.990 - district is to protect 00:30:45.186 --> 00:30:52.606 - and enhance the established residential neighborhoods by increasing the viability of owner-occupied 00:30:52.606 --> 00:31:00.099 - housing. This section explicitly discourages the conversion of existing housing stock. Demolishing a 00:31:00.099 --> 00:31:07.519 - functional single-family home to build a commercial rental duplex directly undermines the statutory 00:31:07.519 --> 00:31:11.006 - objective. Section 20.04.070, the UDO protects 00:31:11.106 --> 00:31:18.865 - core residential zones from being overshadowed by abrupt intensifications in land use. This project 00:31:18.865 --> 00:31:26.857 - conflicts with the transition rules meant to safeguard the physical integrity and scale of established 00:31:26.857 --> 00:31:34.616 - face blocks. Section 20.03.030. The petitioner will argue that this project checks every box of the 00:31:34.616 --> 00:31:36.478 - use specific standards. 00:31:36.738 --> 00:31:44.309 - However, technical compliance on paper does not translate to structural compatibility in reality. The 00:31:44.309 --> 00:31:52.102 - total square footage, massing and overall volume of the proposed building, completely dwarf the existing 00:31:52.102 --> 00:31:59.821 - single-family, single-story homes on the block face. Furthermore, utilizing the maximum of six bedrooms 00:31:59.821 --> 00:32:02.270 - is not an organic design choice. 00:32:02.882 --> 00:32:11.144 - It is a calculated workaround meant to bypass the city's standard rental occupancy limits and maximize 00:32:11.144 --> 00:32:19.486 - the per bedroom profits Under section 20.0 6.0 5 OB the conditional use cannot simply exist in a vacuum 00:32:19.486 --> 00:32:25.502 - of technicalities The board must look at the physical reality this massive 00:32:25.986 --> 00:32:34.508 - out-of-scale footprint creates a severe architectural mismatch that fundamentally undermines the neighborhood 00:32:34.508 --> 00:32:42.489 - character criteria you are legally required to enforce. Bloomington's long-term economic viability and 00:32:42.489 --> 00:32:50.933 - stability relies heavily on our ability to retain career-focused individuals, including teachers, healthcare 00:32:50.933 --> 00:32:54.110 - workers, and early career entrepreneurs. 00:32:54.754 --> 00:33:02.351 - When permanent housing stock is converted into speculative investor driven rental properties, the opportunity 00:33:02.351 --> 00:33:09.464 - for local workforce home ownership shrinks. This trend drives up local land values through per bedroom 00:33:09.464 --> 00:33:16.508 - pricing models, effectively putting many local workers, young professionals and family units who wish 00:33:16.508 --> 00:33:22.654 - to establish permanent roots in Bloomington out of the market, whether they own or rent. 00:33:23.682 --> 00:33:30.511 - Because this petition fails to satisfy the neighborhood character criteria as described and defined 00:33:30.511 --> 00:33:37.612 - in the UDO, and also runs counter to the protective intent of the R3 zone, I respectfully ask the board 00:33:37.612 --> 00:33:44.646 - to uphold this ordinance and vote no. I thank you for your time, your service, and my ability to speak 00:33:44.646 --> 00:33:47.582 - here tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. 00:34:03.522 --> 00:34:08.588 - State your first and last name John Lawrence and John Do you affirm that the testimony you're about 00:34:08.588 --> 00:34:13.807 - to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you. You have five minutes. 00:34:13.807 --> 00:34:19.228 - Good evening again My name is John Lawrence and I'm here tonight to ask the board to deny this conditional 00:34:19.228 --> 00:34:24.497 - use petition. I Want to focus on something that the petitioner raised at the previous hearing and again 00:34:24.497 --> 00:34:29.614 - tonight He pointed to other duplexes that have been approved and essentially asked if those projects 00:34:29.614 --> 00:34:32.350 - were approved Why shouldn't this one be approved too? 00:34:33.634 --> 00:34:39.042 - Understand why someone would ask that question, but I think it misunderstands what a conditional use 00:34:39.042 --> 00:34:44.450 - is If the City Council had intended duplexes in this district to be automatically permitted It could 00:34:44.450 --> 00:34:50.018 - have made them a use by right. It did not Instead it specifically required each proposal to come before 00:34:50.018 --> 00:34:55.587 - this board for conditional use review that means the question before you is not simply have we approved 00:34:55.587 --> 00:34:57.086 - a duplex somewhere else and 00:34:57.218 --> 00:35:03.271 - The question is, should this particular duplex be approved at this particular location under the conditions 00:35:03.271 --> 00:35:08.987 - that exist here today? And those conditions can change. In fact, they have changed. Since some of the 00:35:08.987 --> 00:35:14.759 - earlier duplex decisions that have been discussed, another duplex has been approved just a block away. 00:35:14.759 --> 00:35:20.364 - That is now part of the existing condition of this neighborhood. I'm not suggesting that one duplex 00:35:20.364 --> 00:35:23.390 - automatically prevents another. That's not the point. 00:35:24.162 --> 00:35:29.431 - The point is that every approval changes the context in which the next application must be considered. 00:35:29.431 --> 00:35:34.598 - Density changes, the mix of housing changes, parking demand can change, the character of a block and 00:35:34.598 --> 00:35:40.021 - the surrounding blocks can change. That is precisely why conditional use review matters. If every earlier 00:35:40.021 --> 00:35:45.239 - approval effectively required the board to approve the next similar application, then conditional use 00:35:45.239 --> 00:35:50.508 - review would gradually become meaningless. The first approval would become an argument for the second, 00:35:50.508 --> 00:35:51.838 - the second for the third, 00:35:51.970 --> 00:35:57.582 - Eventually something that was deliberately made conditional would function almost like a use by right. 00:35:57.582 --> 00:36:03.302 - I Don't believe that is what the ordinance asks this board to do in fact the ordinance itself recognizes 00:36:03.302 --> 00:36:08.968 - that proximity between duplexes matter It establishes the buffer around an approved duplex for a period 00:36:08.968 --> 00:36:14.416 - of time So the idea that the surrounding development pattern matters is already built into the UDO. 00:36:14.416 --> 00:36:20.191 - I Also want to emphasize that there is nothing inconsistent about this board reaching different decisions 00:36:20.191 --> 00:36:21.662 - on different petitions and 00:36:22.850 --> 00:36:28.422 - Consistency means applying the same standards fairly. It does not mean reaching the same result when 00:36:28.422 --> 00:36:33.938 - the properties, designs, surroundings, and existing conditions are different. So I would ask you to 00:36:33.938 --> 00:36:39.455 - not view previous approvals as promises of future approvals. Please look at this application as the 00:36:39.455 --> 00:36:44.971 - conditional use process requires you to, on its own merits and its actual surroundings and in light 00:36:44.971 --> 00:36:50.598 - of the neighborhood that exists today. And under those conditions, we believe this petition should be 00:36:50.598 --> 00:36:51.646 - denied. Thank you. 00:36:58.626 --> 00:37:08.115 - Thank you, John. Cory Gerhart. And Cory, welcome. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give 00:37:08.115 --> 00:37:17.057 - is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have five minutes. 00:37:17.057 --> 00:37:25.086 - All right. I'm going to read straight from the page, so pardon the lack of eye contact. 00:37:25.730 --> 00:37:30.860 - I submitted a formal letter co-signed by 23 neighbors, including residents and landlords, outlining 00:37:30.860 --> 00:37:35.991 - how the original plan conflicts with the city's formally adopted policy. My points apply equally to 00:37:35.991 --> 00:37:41.173 - this version, and I respectfully request that you review that letter prior to voting. You'll find it 00:37:41.173 --> 00:37:46.303 - in tonight's packet. The file name starts with 412E Wiley and includes my name, Corey Gearhart. The 00:37:46.303 --> 00:37:51.793 - size and scale of the previous submission contributed to two board members voting against it. This revised 00:37:51.793 --> 00:37:55.230 - design is larger, both in total square footage and overall height. 00:37:55.490 --> 00:38:01.264 - It's nearly double the average square footage of the seven homes on the block face, and more than a 00:38:01.264 --> 00:38:07.096 - third larger than the single largest home among them. Small Lot R3 is fundamentally the least suited 00:38:07.096 --> 00:38:13.101 - zone for maximizing the six-bedroom duplex limit, and this stretch of East Wiley in particular presents 00:38:13.101 --> 00:38:18.991 - severe physical constraints. This is a pedestrian-heavy street that lacks sidewalks or even curbs, so 00:38:18.991 --> 00:38:22.686 - everyone shares the same blacktop, and that blacktop is narrow. 00:38:23.074 --> 00:38:28.569 - In fact, it's too narrow for cars to legally park on the street across from each other, as has been 00:38:28.569 --> 00:38:34.174 - confirmed by parking enforcement. So the actual usable parking capacity is roughly half of what staff 00:38:34.174 --> 00:38:39.779 - represented in the report. To be clear about that, parking is legally allowed on both sides of Wiley. 00:38:39.779 --> 00:38:45.384 - You cannot legally park two cars across from each other on Wiley. The staff report also presumes that 00:38:45.384 --> 00:38:50.494 - frontage parking along 412 will remain available specifically for the owner of this property 00:38:50.914 --> 00:38:56.972 - These are unreserved public spaces and as I've explained if a vehicle so much as parks across the street 00:38:56.972 --> 00:39:03.146 - from 412 the parking along it would no longer be usable the proposed on-site parking is frankly decorative 00:39:03.146 --> 00:39:08.915 - the parking area is difficult to access and then neither the alley nor the spaces meet udo minimums 00:39:08.915 --> 00:39:15.262 - for parking widths as Eric Grulick noted during a recent hearing regarding a very similar configuration quote 00:39:15.394 --> 00:39:20.492 - Having a nine-foot aisle to get into a typical perpendicular parking space, you just can't really do 00:39:20.492 --> 00:39:25.640 - that movement very easily at all. And again, these spaces are smaller than that typical. Once parked, 00:39:25.640 --> 00:39:30.738 - residents and their guests end up approximately 75 feet from the building's nearest entrance with no 00:39:30.738 --> 00:39:35.936 - walkway designated. Meanwhile, East Wiley Street sits just 15 feet from the front porch. Residents and 00:39:35.936 --> 00:39:40.983 - their guests will predictably default to street parking. Unfortunately, the by-right parking in the 00:39:40.983 --> 00:39:42.750 - previous plan was a little better. 00:39:42.946 --> 00:39:48.425 - We see from both the 300 block where six bedrooms were added to a divided lot and the very similar duplex 00:39:48.425 --> 00:39:53.749 - at 506 that residents and their guests will generally opt to park on the street or even the front lawn 00:39:53.749 --> 00:39:59.073 - rather than utilize the already limited number of on-site spaces no matter how accessible. Ultimately, 00:39:59.073 --> 00:40:04.190 - no on-site parking can solve the problem of East Wiley's insufficient width and lack of sidewalks. 00:40:04.962 --> 00:40:10.456 - Parking from the six-bedroom divided loud on the 300 block funnels everyone in the tight interactions 00:40:10.456 --> 00:40:15.842 - with motor vehicles and occasionally chokes off the flow of motor traffic entirely Parking from the 00:40:15.842 --> 00:40:21.444 - six-bedroom duplex at 506 has created an entire block that is one lane or less serving all of the forms 00:40:21.444 --> 00:40:27.046 - of foot and motor traffic you can imagine traveling in both directions and heading into or from a blind 00:40:27.046 --> 00:40:28.446 - turn from South Henderson 00:40:28.834 --> 00:40:33.980 - While opposing and when opposing motorists meet they usually have to either reverse down the entire 00:40:33.980 --> 00:40:39.280 - pedestrian heavy block or reverse into the Wiley Henderson intersection It is an absolute mess and one 00:40:39.280 --> 00:40:44.477 - that the city acknowledges but lacks the resources to address this project will worsen both of these 00:40:44.477 --> 00:40:49.778 - situations and likely replicate them on the 400 block which is already far more densely populated than 00:40:49.778 --> 00:40:53.534 - either of the adjacent blocks were before those buildings were added and 00:40:53.922 --> 00:40:59.288 - Now, staff has explained that any existing street is presumed adequate when they evaluate conditional 00:40:59.288 --> 00:41:04.811 - use recommendations, regardless of capacity or existing congestion. Planning has confirmed they wouldn't 00:41:04.811 --> 00:41:10.492 - hesitate to line the entirety of East Wiley from South Lincoln to South Henderson with six-bedroom duplexes 00:41:10.492 --> 00:41:15.805 - on every lot along both sides of the street while our narrow road remained as is. There is no limit. 00:41:15.805 --> 00:41:17.278 - That's what I've been told. 00:41:17.698 --> 00:41:26.160 - However, under the UDO this board not staff is tasked with determining whether both street and public 00:41:26.160 --> 00:41:34.456 - safety capacities exist to accommodate this proposed conditional use I ask you to recognize tonight 00:41:34.456 --> 00:41:41.342 - that they do not thank you for your time Thank you Hello, my name is Tatiana Moyer 00:41:59.138 --> 00:42:06.487 - Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 00:42:06.487 --> 00:42:13.837 - Thank you Members of the board I'm a resident of Bryant Park neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity 00:42:13.837 --> 00:42:21.186 - to speak I Respectfully ask that you deny the petitioners request I believe we need to preserve walkable 00:42:21.186 --> 00:42:26.366 - neighborhoods for permanent permanent residents whether renting or owning 00:42:27.330 --> 00:42:34.756 - This neighborhood is less than 10 minutes from downtown. We walk year round to the library, post office, 00:42:34.756 --> 00:42:41.828 - restaurants, theater, doctor's appointments, beeline trail, community events at Switchette Park and 00:42:41.828 --> 00:42:47.486 - more. Residents have chosen to live here because we can walk to so many places. 00:42:48.066 --> 00:42:55.830 - But every time a family home is replaced by a purpose-built student rental, we lose another opportunity 00:42:55.830 --> 00:43:03.520 - for permanent residents to live in this walkable neighborhood. These homes are a finite resource. Once 00:43:03.520 --> 00:43:11.060 - a single family home is demolished and replaced with a high-density student rental, that opportunity 00:43:11.060 --> 00:43:15.166 - for permanent residential housing is permanently lost. 00:43:16.162 --> 00:43:23.543 - Bloomington's comprehensive plan recognizes the importance of preserving neighborhood character and 00:43:23.543 --> 00:43:31.515 - stability minimizing the placement of displacement of working residents supporting affordable homeownership 00:43:31.515 --> 00:43:38.970 - and improving walkability and pedestrian pedestrian safety Approving this project moves us away from 00:43:38.970 --> 00:43:45.022 - those goals Wiley Street has no sidewalks children play here ride their bikes and 00:43:45.282 --> 00:43:52.475 - Young families walk with strollers and their dogs. Families bring their children to music lessons on 00:43:52.475 --> 00:44:00.024 - this block. Elderly residents walk in the street to visit neighbors, meet Uber drivers, and more. Because 00:44:00.024 --> 00:44:07.359 - we live so close to downtown, many residents walk rather than drive. Adding students is likely to mean 00:44:07.359 --> 00:44:11.774 - four or five additional vehicles on an already narrow street. 00:44:12.578 --> 00:44:20.492 - More parked cars mean less visibility, less room for two-way traffic and pedestrians being pushed further 00:44:20.492 --> 00:44:28.405 - into the roadway. These are not hypothetical concerns. Approximately one year ago, a very similar student 00:44:28.405 --> 00:44:36.020 - housing project was approved nearby. Residents warned that it would create additional street parking, 00:44:36.020 --> 00:44:41.246 - congestion and safety problems. Those concerns proved to be accurate. 00:44:41.602 --> 00:44:49.730 - The development, as well as several other properties throughout the neighborhood, have stackable off-street 00:44:49.730 --> 00:44:57.406 - parking, yet residents and their guests still park on the street in front of the properties. Vehicles 00:44:57.406 --> 00:45:05.459 - regularly line the roadway near the Wiley Henderson Corridor and the Wiley Lincoln intersections, reducing 00:45:05.459 --> 00:45:09.598 - visibility, creating hazardous conditions for drivers, 00:45:09.698 --> 00:45:18.224 - entering and leaving the neighborhood and for the pedestrians The board now has the benefit of real-world 00:45:18.224 --> 00:45:26.830 - evidence rather than speculation Approving another similar project would compound a problem we can already 00:45:26.830 --> 00:45:35.436 - see and this is why cumulative impact matters one project may seem small but each approval removes another 00:45:35.436 --> 00:45:38.814 - family home adds more student housing and 00:45:39.106 --> 00:45:46.320 - Increases parking demand and traffic and gradually changes the character of the entire neighborhood 00:45:46.320 --> 00:45:53.606 - The character of a neighborhood is not lost all at once. It changes one property at a time We should 00:45:53.606 --> 00:46:01.108 - be able to provide housing for students while also preserving established neighborhoods where permanent 00:46:01.108 --> 00:46:06.302 - residents can raise family families grow older and walk to downtown and 00:46:07.106 --> 00:46:14.393 - Those goals are not mutually exclusive, but they require us to be thoughtful about where high-density 00:46:14.393 --> 00:46:21.752 - student housing is placed. I ask the board to consider not only this individual proposal, but also the 00:46:21.752 --> 00:46:29.540 - precedent it sets for Welly Street and for similar neighborhoods throughout Bloomington. Based on everything 00:46:29.540 --> 00:46:34.398 - I have outlined, I respectfully ask that you deny this application. 00:46:34.690 --> 00:46:44.237 - Please help us preserve this neighborhood as a walkable Neighborhood for residents while allowing student 00:46:44.237 --> 00:46:53.243 - housing in locations where that density and use are appropriate Thank you for your time and careful 00:46:53.243 --> 00:47:02.429 - consideration Thank you Joe real quick. We do have one person online who I told you we get to next so 00:47:02.429 --> 00:47:03.870 - we can get Eric 00:47:04.546 --> 00:47:14.962 - Can I please ask you to wait just for a moment? Can I sign in? Go ahead and sign in, yes. Who do we 00:47:14.962 --> 00:47:25.795 - have online? Eric. Good evening, can you hear me? Eric, if you hear me, state your first and last name. 00:47:25.795 --> 00:47:32.670 - Do you hear me? No. I can't hear him. You do not hear me. I will. 00:47:32.770 --> 00:47:39.138 - I will rejoin the meeting you do not hear me. I can hear you now state your first and last name Okay, 00:47:39.138 --> 00:47:45.507 - good evening. My name is Derek host Eric Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the 00:47:45.507 --> 00:47:51.937 - truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I? Do all right you have up to five minutes Thank you, 00:47:51.937 --> 00:47:57.182 - I appreciate your consideration in allowing me to offer this comment this evening I 00:47:57.986 --> 00:48:05.969 - We've reached a tipping point in Bloomington's approach to development, especially in core neighborhoods. 00:48:05.969 --> 00:48:14.178 - As Mr. Lawrence indicated, context matters. Cumulative effects matter. Replacing modest, naturally occurring 00:48:14.178 --> 00:48:21.182 - affordable homes with larger, higher rent duplexes increases occupancy and vehicle activity. 00:48:21.730 --> 00:48:29.272 - It also introduces new pedestrian and traffic conflicts, increases demand for parking, and places additional 00:48:29.272 --> 00:48:36.607 - burdens on aging streets, many without sidewalks, stormwater systems, utilities, and other infrastructure 00:48:36.607 --> 00:48:43.527 - in Bloomington's core neighborhoods. One project may appear incremental, repeated parcel by parcel, 00:48:43.527 --> 00:48:45.118 - however, these changes 00:48:45.250 --> 00:48:51.777 - fundamentally alter the stability, affordability, and physical character of established residential 00:48:51.777 --> 00:48:58.303 - areas. We must now therefore temper the way we evaluate these conditional use projects and consider 00:48:58.303 --> 00:49:04.961 - the context. Housing policies, zoning, and regulations should not simply potentiate the production of 00:49:04.961 --> 00:49:11.422 - more market rate units on the assumption that any increase in unit count is inherently beneficial. 00:49:12.642 --> 00:49:19.282 - We must also ask what housing is being lost, what housing is being created, who can actually afford 00:49:19.282 --> 00:49:25.988 - that housing, what infrastructure consequences follow, and whether the change advances the long-term 00:49:25.988 --> 00:49:30.238 - stability and welfare of the surrounding residential community. 00:49:32.290 --> 00:49:39.168 - A modest existing home that is affordable to a working household that has a real housing value that 00:49:39.168 --> 00:49:46.252 - is not captured simply by comparing the number of units before and after development or redevelopment, 00:49:46.252 --> 00:49:53.336 - excuse me. Demolishing that home and replacing it with a substantially more expensive income producing 00:49:53.336 --> 00:49:59.870 - asset may increase density while simultaneously reducing meaningful affordability. Bloomington 00:50:00.098 --> 00:50:07.738 - does not simply need more housing. Bloomington needs more homes. Ideally those homes would be owner 00:50:07.738 --> 00:50:15.683 - occupied. Bloomington should place greater weight on preserving stable residential areas and protecting 00:50:15.683 --> 00:50:20.190 - truly affordable and naturally occurring affordable homes. 00:50:20.482 --> 00:50:27.359 - Development should serve the community rather than treating every residential parcel primarily as an 00:50:27.359 --> 00:50:34.712 - opportunity for maximum asset appreciation and rental yield. I would turn your attention to the development 00:50:34.712 --> 00:50:41.657 - that has occurred on North Jefferson over the last year and a half. There are parcels there that once 00:50:41.657 --> 00:50:48.670 - on what's existed, NOAAs, Naturally Occurring Affordable Homes, priced in the area of 250 to $300,000, 00:50:50.402 --> 00:51:01.020 - Now there are 10 bedroom duplexes, two of which have been put on the market for approximately $1.5 million 00:51:01.020 --> 00:51:11.240 - a piece. The duplex up the street on Wiley was built on a vacant parcel purchased for $145,000 and was 00:51:11.240 --> 00:51:19.774 - sold a year later for approximately $680,000. We are not creating affordable housing. 00:51:20.898 --> 00:51:29.769 - And I ask that you consider that in your conditional use deliberation of this petition. Thank you. 00:51:29.769 --> 00:51:38.909 - Thank you. Just state your first and last name, please. My name is Jeff von der Schmidt. And Jeff, do 00:51:38.909 --> 00:51:48.139 - you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 00:51:48.139 --> 00:51:49.662 - I do. Thank you. 00:51:50.914 --> 00:51:59.010 - Good evening. I live across the street from 412. My parents were the original owners of our house from 00:51:59.010 --> 00:52:07.028 - 1954 until I purchased it in 1991. I believe Bryan Park is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in 00:52:07.028 --> 00:52:15.595 - the entire city in which to live and raise a family. The UDO provides three grounds to deny this conditional 00:52:15.595 --> 00:52:17.246 - use. Size and scale. 00:52:18.530 --> 00:52:26.808 - This duplex is at the absolute limit of what is permitted by the UDO in an R3 zone. At 2,996 square 00:52:26.808 --> 00:52:35.168 - feet, rather than being reduced in size as was recommended by the board members at the June hearing, 00:52:35.168 --> 00:52:43.611 - it is 66 feet larger, would be nearly 30 feet in height, positioned over 25 feet closer to the street 00:52:43.611 --> 00:52:45.598 - than the adjacent home. 00:52:46.914 --> 00:52:59.069 - It more than doubles the square footage of five of the seven houses on the block face. It is 886 square 00:52:59.069 --> 00:53:11.341 - feet or 43% larger than the next largest house on the block face. It is 1,880 square feet or 169% larger 00:53:11.341 --> 00:53:15.198 - than the house to be demolished. 00:53:16.482 --> 00:53:23.764 - It would add an additional four bedrooms on a street that has seen 12 new bedrooms constructed over 00:53:23.764 --> 00:53:31.701 - the past several years Along with the added traffic parking and safety issues. These have brought Demolition 00:53:31.701 --> 00:53:38.546 - of existing housing stock specifically and only in our three zoning The UDO states demolition 00:53:38.546 --> 00:53:46.046 - of single-family homes converting to a higher intensity use is to be discouraged unlike previous Wiley 00:53:46.946 --> 00:53:54.362 - Developments which were built on vacant property this plan for calls for demolition of an existing 00:53:54.362 --> 00:54:02.303 - single-family home Construction constructing a six-bedroom six-bathroom commercial apartment home renting 00:54:02.303 --> 00:54:10.244 - for a thousand dollars a bedroom and demolishing a $1,400 a month two-bedroom house this furthers neither 00:54:10.244 --> 00:54:15.038 - affordability nor future owner occupancy in a core neighborhood 00:54:16.674 --> 00:54:25.023 - inadequate infrastructure Between Lincoln and Henderson Wiley has no sidewalks The actual pavement width 00:54:25.023 --> 00:54:33.134 - leaves a significant portion of the 40-foot right-of-way unpaved pedestrians walk in the travel lanes 00:54:33.134 --> 00:54:41.245 - after construction of the duplex at 506 510 in effect Wiley has become one lane between Henderson and 00:54:41.245 --> 00:54:43.710 - done forcing cars on Wiley and 00:54:44.354 --> 00:54:51.725 - Turning on Wiley to back out into Henderson or vehicles going east to reverse pass done. So on truck 00:54:51.725 --> 00:54:59.095 - coming traffic can clear Between our house and 412 Pavement width is 22 and a half feet or less than 00:54:59.095 --> 00:55:06.539 - 60% of the right away You cannot park cars across from each other This plan shows on-site parking for 00:55:06.539 --> 00:55:13.982 - five vehicles entering the property from the south via 12 foot wide alley from the Palmer Avenue stub 00:55:14.562 --> 00:55:21.748 - There is no sidewalk or path from the parking spaces to the duplex triggering concerns. They would be 00:55:21.748 --> 00:55:28.793 - ornamental and not used Staff recommends denying the parking variance if denied, but the duplex use 00:55:28.793 --> 00:55:35.838 - is granted It leaves parking which is the neighbors primary concern not addressed in a public forum 00:55:37.026 --> 00:55:43.514 - In any case, some residents and guests will have to park on this already narrow street, intensifying 00:55:43.514 --> 00:55:50.067 - parking pressure in the middle of the block, resulting in a new area that becomes a safety hazard for 00:55:50.067 --> 00:55:56.812 - pedestrians and cyclists on both Wiley and Palmer. If, as stated by planning staff, Palmer is considered 00:55:56.812 --> 00:56:01.758 - a greenway and is designated as a multi-use pass on the transportation plan, 00:56:02.466 --> 00:56:09.816 - Reducing traffic visibility where it intersects Wiley is counterintuitive Eventually the city will have 00:56:09.816 --> 00:56:17.377 - to address safety concerns at that intersection for these three reasons I urge you to deny the conditional 00:56:17.377 --> 00:56:24.656 - use for this duplex and Real quickly. Can I have a show of hands of people that are here in opposition 00:56:24.656 --> 00:56:31.582 - to this petition in person and online? Thank you, thank you for your time and attention Thank you 00:56:32.194 --> 00:57:01.598 - And Dave as you sign in just give me a moment before I swear you in I State your first and last name 00:57:03.266 --> 00:57:09.264 - Dave Rallo And Dave do you affirm to the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth 00:57:09.264 --> 00:57:15.204 - and nothing but the truth Yes, I do. Okay. Thank you. You have five minutes. Thank you Good evening 00:57:15.204 --> 00:57:21.321 - board members and thank you for your service to the community I'm Dave Rallo City Council district for 00:57:21.321 --> 00:57:27.379 - I was serving on the City Council when up zoning plexing was adopted I didn't support the legislation 00:57:27.379 --> 00:57:30.942 - at the time as I was afraid of the investment incentive and 00:57:31.202 --> 00:57:37.507 - purchasing homes in neighborhoods near campus and converting them to rentals, adversely changing the 00:57:37.507 --> 00:57:44.187 - character of our neighborhoods. This fear has proven correct. Homes that might be currently owner-occupied 00:57:44.187 --> 00:57:50.617 - or might return to owner-occupancy have been turned into apartments by plexing. It has worked contrary 00:57:50.617 --> 00:57:57.235 - to owner-occupancy. Furthermore, some houses that have been rentals have been expanded such that although 00:57:57.235 --> 00:58:00.606 - they now have more rooms, they are now more expensive 00:58:01.154 --> 00:58:08.620 - than those previously occupying the house. I note that the market rate for these rooms may range from 00:58:08.620 --> 00:58:16.012 - $1,000 to $1,200 per room, when typically they would previously have ranged from $400 to $500. So it 00:58:16.012 --> 00:58:23.990 - has worked contrary to affordability. Although flexing was adopted in part on the grounds of owner occupancy 00:58:23.990 --> 00:58:29.406 - and on part on the grounds of affordability, neither has passed the test. 00:58:31.074 --> 00:58:37.781 - Anticipating these and other impacts on the community several of us on the council sponsored amendments 00:58:37.781 --> 00:58:43.714 - in order to mitigate These impacts on our neighborhoods and thus send it to you the BZA for 00:58:43.714 --> 00:58:50.808 - your determination These included requiring the proposed structure to adhere to the context and compatibility 00:58:50.808 --> 00:58:57.256 - with the adjacent homes within the block face These amendments were adopted by the City Council for 00:58:57.256 --> 00:59:00.094 - design our municipal code requires that the 00:59:00.514 --> 00:59:07.748 - The following design quoting the following design elements of the duplex dwelling shall be similar in 00:59:07.748 --> 00:59:14.839 - general shape size and design with a majority of existing single-family or duplex structures on the 00:59:14.839 --> 00:59:22.144 - same block face on which it is located and Then number one roof pitch number two front porch width and 00:59:22.144 --> 00:59:25.406 - depth number three front building setback and 00:59:25.506 --> 00:59:32.999 - vehicle parking number four. I want to make clear that as a sponsor, I was a sponsor of this code that 00:59:32.999 --> 00:59:40.347 - our intent and the other sponsors who are co-sponsors was primarily general shape, size, and design. 00:59:40.347 --> 00:59:47.621 - The other elements are important too, but the size, shape, and design must be considered primary in 00:59:47.621 --> 00:59:52.350 - your review. This proposal is out of scale for the neighborhood. 00:59:52.898 --> 01:00:00.403 - It is larger than any other structure on the block face and over twice as large as five of the seven 01:00:00.403 --> 01:00:08.354 - houses on that block face. The code is being misinterpreted and this concerns me. I understand in previous 01:00:08.354 --> 01:00:15.785 - petitions brought before you, the BZA, the definition of block face was stated incorrectly for your 01:00:15.785 --> 01:00:22.398 - determination. That was a finding by our counsel attorney reviewing the BZA transcripts. 01:00:23.010 --> 01:00:30.660 - bcad videos Although block face is correctly interpreted this evening to maintain that this position 01:00:30.660 --> 01:00:38.311 - is in compliance is Incorrect. It is not compliant in size relative to other structures on the block 01:00:38.311 --> 01:00:44.446 - face I urge you to follow the code and the vote against this petition. Thank you 01:01:09.922 --> 01:01:17.435 - State your first and last name You may and also the ending of that also bends by itself if that'll help 01:01:17.435 --> 01:01:24.732 - a little bit. Oh, thank you very much. Absolutely Much okay first and last name Jan Sorby Jan Do you 01:01:24.732 --> 01:01:31.812 - affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 01:01:31.812 --> 01:01:39.614 - I do. Thank you Good evening. I want to focus on one basic question tonight Do you have enough information? 01:01:39.970 --> 01:01:48.219 - to decide whether this duplex meets the requirements of the ordinance. Duplexes are conditional use. 01:01:48.219 --> 01:01:56.549 - That means they must meet the regular zoning rules plus additional standards written specifically for 01:01:56.549 --> 01:02:05.124 - duplexes. Those standards require certain design elements to be similar, as you heard before, in general 01:02:05.124 --> 01:02:07.166 - shape, size, and design. 01:02:07.458 --> 01:02:16.196 - to the majority of the existing houses or duplexes on the same block face. There are seven existing 01:02:16.196 --> 01:02:25.109 - houses on this block face. The staff report never tells you that, or how big those houses are, or how 01:02:25.109 --> 01:02:34.110 - many stories those houses have. So how can you determine what the majority look like? The revised roof 01:02:34.242 --> 01:02:42.588 - is a good example of how this comparison should work. The ridge now runs in the same direction as all 01:02:42.588 --> 01:02:51.098 - seven houses. That's an improvement, and it's important, as it helps the shape and design of the duplex 01:02:51.098 --> 01:02:59.608 - fit the block face. But why isn't the same comparison being applied to size? The ordinance says, shape, 01:02:59.608 --> 01:03:03.454 - size, and design. All three must have meaning. 01:03:04.546 --> 01:03:13.372 - This duplex is more than twice the size of five of the seven houses on that block face. Five out of 01:03:13.372 --> 01:03:22.639 - seven, that's a clear majority. That said, how does staff reach a finding that this much larger building 01:03:22.639 --> 01:03:31.730 - is similar in size? Front Step Back raises a similar question. As planned, the duplex meets the zoning 01:03:31.730 --> 01:03:33.054 - build-to line. 01:03:34.050 --> 01:03:42.526 - But front setback is one of the additional requirements. So you must ask, if the building is set at 01:03:42.526 --> 01:03:51.425 - the required build-to line, will this much larger building maintain the established line of houses along 01:03:51.425 --> 01:04:01.342 - the street, or will it stick out in front? The staff report does not give you that comparison. And finally, parking. 01:04:02.402 --> 01:04:11.157 - Six of the seven houses have front access parking. Six of seven. The seventh is a corner lot with parking 01:04:11.157 --> 01:04:19.499 - access on the side street. The duplex has rear parking. I'm not saying whether front or rear parking 01:04:19.499 --> 01:04:28.171 - is better. I'm asking, how is rear access parking similar to the majority of the six of the seven houses 01:04:28.171 --> 01:04:30.814 - that have front access parking? 01:04:32.546 --> 01:04:41.096 - In fact, elsewhere in the report, staff itself says the proposed 40-foot drive cut access is not comparable 01:04:41.096 --> 01:04:49.093 - with the vehicle access in the surrounding properties. Tonight, all I'm doing is asking you to apply 01:04:49.093 --> 01:04:57.327 - the requirements council adopted, and that requires an actual comparison with the majority of the house 01:04:57.327 --> 01:04:58.910 - on this block face. 01:05:00.290 --> 01:05:09.648 - So now, I'm back to my original question. Do you have enough information for these findings yourself? 01:05:09.648 --> 01:05:18.548 - Staff gave you their conclusions, but where's the data? Where's the information that allows you, 01:05:18.548 --> 01:05:26.622 - as a BZA, to independently reach those conclusions? I don't believe it's in the report. 01:05:27.202 --> 01:05:35.467 - And without that information, I don't believe you can make the findings required to approve this conditional 01:05:35.467 --> 01:05:40.926 - use. So I ask you to vote no on this proposal. Thank you for your time. 01:05:56.866 --> 01:06:09.104 - Jane st. John For 33 years I have lived at 408 East Wiley the house immediately to the west of the proposed 01:06:09.104 --> 01:06:20.662 - structure My father here tonight lives across the street and my daughter lives nearby, too I also own 01:06:20.662 --> 01:06:25.534 - two rental properties in this neighborhood 01:06:27.202 --> 01:06:35.015 - Have always valued the vibrant balance of full-time and part-time residents here and I want to be clear 01:06:35.015 --> 01:06:42.603 - that I strongly favor increased density in my neighborhood My neighbors and I have spent significant 01:06:42.603 --> 01:06:50.491 - time documenting for this meeting Why the specific proposal is inappropriate for this specific location? 01:06:50.491 --> 01:06:54.398 - I have signed on to their letters about parking and 01:06:54.690 --> 01:07:02.515 - infrastructure and the disproportionate physical scale and I know you've heard this before but 43% larger 01:07:02.515 --> 01:07:10.267 - than the current largest house on the block face of this proposed building I Would like to offer further 01:07:10.267 --> 01:07:17.502 - context regarding our current density and the potential impact of this project the city block and 01:07:18.050 --> 01:07:24.976 - where we live between Lincoln and Henderson, which includes the block face we've been talking about, 01:07:24.976 --> 01:07:31.970 - has already seen a significant increase in population over the past eight years. The second and third 01:07:31.970 --> 01:07:38.828 - lots on the north side of Wiley on our block grew from one resident to nine through the addition of 01:07:38.828 --> 01:07:44.862 - a house and a carriage house by a rental developer on what was a vacant lot and a half. 01:07:45.986 --> 01:07:53.485 - Formerly owner occupied house across the street from the new house and carriage house is now a rental 01:07:53.485 --> 01:08:01.057 - Two former rentals and one owner occupied home on this block have transitioned into short-term rentals 01:08:01.057 --> 01:08:08.556 - as Airbnb's Most notably as you've heard many times the blue duplex at 506 510 added six residents to 01:08:08.556 --> 01:08:15.614 - a previously vacant space Consequently this one blocks population has increased by 13 residents 01:08:16.418 --> 01:08:23.892 - We have accommodated and are familiar with density its effects and how to navigate them further I would 01:08:23.892 --> 01:08:31.293 - point out that all of this density has occurred and more certainly could occur without demolishing any 01:08:31.293 --> 01:08:38.982 - existing houses all the while as we know the pressure to approve projects like this duplex has intensified 01:08:38.982 --> 01:08:43.294 - a landlord who purchased property years ago myself included 01:08:43.778 --> 01:08:51.368 - sees a massive financial opportunity in replacing modest homes with high density structures that can 01:08:51.368 --> 01:08:59.409 - command triple the rent. The proximity to campus makes these lots exceptionally attractive. This financial 01:08:59.409 --> 01:09:06.924 - potential has driven lot values to a premium. Vacant lots or those with small disposable houses are 01:09:06.924 --> 01:09:13.086 - highly sought after. For example, the lot which became the blue duplex at 506-510 01:09:13.378 --> 01:09:21.189 - East Wiley sold within hours of Hitting the market after the owner could not reach an agreement with 01:09:21.189 --> 01:09:29.232 - the city for the design of the single-family house She wanted to build there It has been suggested that 01:09:29.232 --> 01:09:36.966 - because a large single-family home could legally be built on this lot by right Larger even than the 01:09:36.966 --> 01:09:42.302 - duplex we should be happy about this duplex proposal on the contrary 01:09:42.690 --> 01:09:49.884 - We would welcome a large single-family residence Such a home would likely place far less demand on our 01:09:49.884 --> 01:09:57.008 - parking and infrastructure than the intensive use proposed by the developer I urged the board to deny 01:09:57.008 --> 01:10:04.062 - all parts of this request the environmental and infrastructure consequences the removal of trees and 01:10:04.802 --> 01:10:12.236 - However, they're designated and the addition of significant pavement that won't even accommodate parking 01:10:12.236 --> 01:10:19.670 - for three additional residents Does not make sense on this lot While each project is viewed in isolation 01:10:19.670 --> 01:10:27.175 - and for good reason Let's also consider the aggregate impact of these projects this structures monolithic 01:10:27.175 --> 01:10:32.414 - presence especially since it would sit at the pinch point of a street and 01:10:32.706 --> 01:10:42.338 - which has no curbs or sidewalks, will fundamentally alter the character of a block and of a neighborhood 01:10:42.338 --> 01:10:51.603 - that has taken decades to establish. I respectfully urge you to reject all aspects of this proposal. 01:10:51.603 --> 01:11:00.318 - Thank you for your service on this board and for your time and consideration today. Thank you. 01:11:12.226 --> 01:11:18.586 - Good evening. State your first and last name, please. Kim Vint. Kim, do you affirm the testimony you're 01:11:18.586 --> 01:11:24.824 - about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Good evening. Thank you. 01:11:24.824 --> 01:11:31.061 - What's for the greater good? Our municipal code itself has some ideas. In fact, these are some of the 01:11:31.061 --> 01:11:37.238 - guidelines that our appeals board have to follow. Protect the character and stability of residential 01:11:37.238 --> 01:11:39.806 - areas. To protect the scale and character 01:11:40.098 --> 01:11:49.197 - of existing development from the encroachment of incompatible uses, restrict the location and intensity 01:11:49.197 --> 01:11:58.209 - use of buildings, culminate the need for student housing while minimizing the negative impacts of that 01:11:58.209 --> 01:12:07.046 - housing on residential neighborhoods. Encourage the provision of affordable housing. This is a small 01:12:07.046 --> 01:12:09.758 - block, not even a full street, 01:12:10.626 --> 01:12:19.175 - that has at most five bungalow homes on each side. What is best, if we can't prevent the demolition, 01:12:19.175 --> 01:12:27.640 - is to have a reduction in the size of the request. A one-story, two-bedroom per unit, this would be 01:12:27.640 --> 01:12:36.189 - an alignment with the uto to quote, compatible with the surrounding pattern. Creating a driveway pad 01:12:36.189 --> 01:12:37.374 - in the front, 01:12:38.978 --> 01:12:47.002 - We're all acutely aware the street's not wide enough to support additional development, as those letters 01:12:47.002 --> 01:12:54.949 - specifically stated. The east and west entry points on this block are at best one-lane roads. You can't 01:12:54.949 --> 01:13:02.590 - really turn on them anymore. A redesign for affordability is another you-do-goal. This would add to 01:13:02.590 --> 01:13:07.710 - the housing stock for our workforce. This is for the greater good. 01:13:09.954 --> 01:13:19.760 - As a citizenship, what's our true goal? What are we really here for? Increasing density with affordability 01:13:19.760 --> 01:13:29.017 - or increasing density with profit alone? Duplex zoning in a college town disproportionately benefits 01:13:29.017 --> 01:13:39.006 - the developer without our firm oversight. Who are we? What's your goals be as stewards of this neighborhood? 01:13:40.482 --> 01:13:49.622 - Every single decision the appeals board makes is mutually exclusive from any other decision that's already 01:13:49.622 --> 01:13:58.334 - made. Decisions are based on a specific situation. What is best for the greater good? This tiny block 01:13:58.334 --> 01:14:06.961 - cannot sustain more. Who wins in this denial? We all do. Kevin, even you. When I ask you why here in 01:14:06.961 --> 01:14:09.182 - this little neighborhood, 01:14:09.442 --> 01:14:25.100 - You kind of laughed. You said, well, I'm going to do it to all my properties. So you still win, Kevin. 01:14:25.100 --> 01:14:38.174 - This is our only option. We live here. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Marcus Moyer. 01:14:39.938 --> 01:14:48.528 - Do you affirm that's testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the 01:14:48.528 --> 01:14:57.458 - truth I do. Thank you My next-door neighbor has asked me to read in to the record a statement That she's 01:14:57.458 --> 01:15:06.814 - written because she has to be at work right now My name is Jodi Atkins and I live at 401 East Dodd Street and 01:15:08.258 --> 01:15:14.620 - I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed duplex development on Wiley Street. I believe 01:15:14.620 --> 01:15:21.043 - this structure is out of character with the design and architectural elements that make the neighborhood 01:15:21.043 --> 01:15:27.466 - such a beloved community. Beyond its appearance, I'm concerned that the development will have an adverse 01:15:27.466 --> 01:15:33.950 - impact on the safety, accessibility, and quality of life that residents have come to expect in this area. 01:15:35.266 --> 01:15:41.898 - In my view, this project does not promote affordable housing or sustainable living. Rather, it is likely 01:15:41.898 --> 01:15:48.404 - to attract college students who can afford higher rents in a newly constructed residence located close 01:15:48.404 --> 01:15:55.226 - to campus. As a result, increased traffic, parking congestion, and overall density are significant concerns 01:15:55.226 --> 01:16:02.048 - for neighborhood residents, including children, pet owners, and elderly individuals. I also have a personal 01:16:02.048 --> 01:16:04.638 - concern regarding access to my property. 01:16:05.570 --> 01:16:12.012 - My driveway and garage are located behind my home and are accessible only via the alley alley West of 01:16:12.012 --> 01:16:18.643 - the dead end of Palmer Street This alley runs along the length of my backyard and serves two other homes 01:16:18.643 --> 01:16:25.211 - as well The only access point is the area where Palmer Avenue ends. I'm worried that vehicles belonging 01:16:25.211 --> 01:16:31.590 - to duplex occupants or visitors Could block this access preventing me and my neighbors from reaching 01:16:31.590 --> 01:16:34.558 - our garages or moving our vehicles when needed 01:16:35.554 --> 01:16:42.957 - Respectfully asked that you consider the concerns of the residents who call this neighborhood home Please 01:16:42.957 --> 01:16:49.940 - weigh the long-term impacts this development may have on the character safety and livability of the 01:16:49.940 --> 01:16:57.622 - Ryan Park neighborhood and and and please Do not approve this proposal. Thank you for your time consideration 01:16:57.622 --> 01:17:04.606 - and service to our community and then very very briefly I Did want to address mr. Spicer's comments 01:17:05.282 --> 01:17:12.960 - That it's unfortunate. This has become political I Don't find it political. I think it's very fortunate. 01:17:12.960 --> 01:17:19.102 - We have community members who actually care and are here So thank you for your time 01:17:36.002 --> 01:17:42.495 - I'm Susan Bright. And Susan, do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the whole truth and 01:17:42.495 --> 01:17:49.245 - nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have five minutes. I've been a resident of this neighborhood 01:17:49.245 --> 01:17:55.867 - for over 25 years, just living on Lincoln, just south of Wiley. I believe the key difference with this 01:17:55.867 --> 01:18:02.810 - location versus Kevin's other references is that this duplex is on a narrow street with no curb, sidewalks, 01:18:02.810 --> 01:18:03.774 - or bike lanes. 01:18:04.514 --> 01:18:10.804 - Secondly, the other two structures that have been recently built on this section of Wiley have already 01:18:10.804 --> 01:18:16.911 - proven that the residents and their visitors park on the street Given with what the staff said they 01:18:16.911 --> 01:18:23.446 - are looking out for the safety of pedestrians and vehicles Who on this board is looking out for bicyclists 01:18:23.446 --> 01:18:29.797 - when they approve developments that reduce the amount of pavement for us to ride our bicycles I believe 01:18:29.797 --> 01:18:33.278 - that this duplex is approved. You will continue to teach 01:18:33.474 --> 01:18:49.863 - Decrease the safety of bicyclists and that there are safer areas in Bloomington. We can develop Dense 01:18:49.863 --> 01:19:02.718 - housing. I deny this project and thank you for listening I'm doing it right now 01:19:17.378 --> 01:19:28.010 - Well, first of all, I since the developer brought my name up several times for getting involved I don't 01:19:28.010 --> 01:19:38.335 - think he meant it as a compliment or in a positive way, but I take it in a positive way because I am 01:19:38.335 --> 01:19:46.718 - a council representative What do I represent? I represent the people that live in 01:19:47.106 --> 01:19:56.235 - in the parts in our community. And the community, this part of the community clearly feels very strongly 01:19:56.235 --> 01:20:05.277 - that this is wrong. And so, I'm actually honored to have the opportunity to represent. That being said, 01:20:05.277 --> 01:20:15.102 - I just want to get a little more technical because, you know, you might wonder or people might wonder, well, how 01:20:15.746 --> 01:20:23.890 - How is it that staff recommendations is so at odds with what? Neighborhood members say those who've 01:20:23.890 --> 01:20:32.360 - researched the code a lot of those residents are very well versed on what the code says it directs what 01:20:32.360 --> 01:20:40.505 - the requirements are and how It can conflict with what? Some elected officials who were involved in 01:20:40.505 --> 01:20:45.310 - the process Councilman Rallo earlier explained his role in 01:20:45.602 --> 01:20:51.816 - Actually developing the legislation and so that's what I want to talk about for just a moment So just 01:20:51.816 --> 01:20:58.090 - today I got a memo that that I had asked for from our counsel attorney So just today I got a memo from 01:20:58.090 --> 01:21:04.365 - our counsel attorney This is why I didn't have an opportunity to really share it widely. So Councilman 01:21:04.365 --> 01:21:10.579 - Piedmont Smith Sarah didn't really have a chance. I literally got this late late in the day but it It 01:21:10.579 --> 01:21:14.782 - says I'll just quote from it the plain language of the city's UDO is 01:21:15.362 --> 01:21:24.895 - Supports that the factors that are to be considered under code general shape size design roof pitch 01:21:24.895 --> 01:21:34.618 - front porch width in depth setback parking excess are all comparisons now, I Think that the potential 01:21:34.618 --> 01:21:43.102 - for just Different interpretation comes from the idea. I believe that the staff has that 01:21:44.898 --> 01:21:57.904 - as opposed to the developers of the the code language that general size general size shape and design 01:21:57.904 --> 01:22:11.166 - refers to front porch roof pitch parking access I would assert that that's what's wrong. I'm not saying 01:22:11.650 --> 01:22:20.228 - The staff is not fresh staff can't doesn't know what's right or wrong. It's a very different understanding 01:22:20.228 --> 01:22:28.405 - From what I believe and from what councilman Barallo explained a few minutes ago the intent was which 01:22:28.405 --> 01:22:36.983 - is to ensure compatibility and if you think about if we just apply general size and design and and massing 01:22:36.983 --> 01:22:40.190 - and shape to these smaller features and 01:22:41.410 --> 01:22:49.914 - It to me it makes no sense Having a you know a structure that doesn't fit generally at all in terms 01:22:49.914 --> 01:22:58.503 - of massing size and shape and design for the neighborhood but the small porch and the roof pitch are 01:22:58.503 --> 01:23:07.347 - making compatible so I think We're probably going to see very soon on council and initiative to clarify 01:23:07.347 --> 01:23:10.238 - this and change code language and 01:23:10.626 --> 01:23:18.821 - to clarify this potential different interpretation that this language, unfortunately, seems to be able 01:23:18.821 --> 01:23:26.777 - to allow for. And I would say, though, to this board and to everybody, anyone who's an advocate for 01:23:26.777 --> 01:23:35.211 - higher density and plexing, of which I am, I realize there are needs and demands and benefits from higher 01:23:35.211 --> 01:23:40.382 - density and plexing where it fits in and where it's appropriate. 01:23:41.090 --> 01:23:50.548 - if you want The density and the flexing to be supported generally And you want the city to make progress 01:23:50.548 --> 01:23:59.737 - in Enabling those things that you make a decision that gives the community confidence Confidence that 01:23:59.737 --> 01:24:08.925 - this can be done right and be done in a way that doesn't undermine the livability in the character of 01:24:08.925 --> 01:24:10.366 - their cherished 01:24:10.498 --> 01:24:16.711 - heavily invested in neighborhoods where they've built their lives and I invested much of what they have 01:24:16.711 --> 01:24:22.745 - So I would just ask you to keep that in mind To build support in the future for doing this the right 01:24:22.745 --> 01:24:28.958 - way and you have an opportunity to hear to To make a decision on things consistent with that. Thank you 01:25:00.770 --> 01:25:09.365 - Isabel do you I'm sorry go ahead say Isabel Piedmont Smith and do you affirm that the testimony you're 01:25:09.365 --> 01:25:17.877 - about to give us truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you as well I Think that 01:25:17.877 --> 01:25:26.305 - a lot of the arguments made tonight are very well thought out and very well researched and I am very 01:25:26.305 --> 01:25:27.390 - impressed by 01:25:27.490 --> 01:25:36.043 - by people who have done their homework and also seem to have collaborated so that the different arguments 01:25:36.043 --> 01:25:44.435 - can be brought forth by different speakers. I was trying to get down earlier today, what are the actual 01:25:44.435 --> 01:25:52.747 - problems that the neighbors are facing? And bicycle and pedestrian safety is already a problem on this 01:25:52.747 --> 01:25:55.006 - street because it is narrow 01:25:55.874 --> 01:26:04.567 - There are no parking signs, so people do park on either side, both side of the street. Technically, 01:26:04.567 --> 01:26:13.520 - they're supposed to leave 12-foot travel lane, but nobody knows that. I mean, I didn't know that until 01:26:13.520 --> 01:26:22.213 - somebody pointed it out in code. So that's already a problem that people who walk and bike down the 01:26:22.213 --> 01:26:25.342 - street experience. Related to that, 01:26:25.570 --> 01:26:34.183 - There's concern about emergency vehicles getting to their destination quickly, especially in the block 01:26:34.183 --> 01:26:42.628 - with the other duplex closer to Henderson, which is 15 feet of pavement, 15 feet, and people park on 01:26:42.628 --> 01:26:51.826 - one side. They have enough common sense to not park on both sides there, but they park on one side regularly. 01:26:51.826 --> 01:26:55.422 - And Henderson, of course, is a main artery 01:26:55.586 --> 01:27:05.761 - emergency vehicles would use. So I think that these problems would be exacerbated by this duplex. And 01:27:05.761 --> 01:27:16.035 - unlike my colleagues who spoke earlier, oh, I didn't say it. I'm on the city council. I represent this 01:27:16.035 --> 01:27:24.414 - district, district one. Unlike my two colleagues, I was in favor of allowing plexes 01:27:25.314 --> 01:27:34.882 - in residential, traditionally single-family neighborhoods. I think in this case, the nature of this 01:27:34.882 --> 01:27:44.641 - street means that this will be injurious to the public health and safety if you allow this particular 01:27:44.641 --> 01:27:55.166 - duplex because they're not gonna park behind the building. They're not gonna park 75 foot away from the door. 01:27:55.522 --> 01:28:03.947 - The people who live there probably will have cars. Not guaranteed. But certainly, given that there are 01:28:03.947 --> 01:28:12.290 - six units, it's highly likely there'll be more cars than in the current configuration. And the street 01:28:12.290 --> 01:28:20.470 - just can't handle more on-street parking. I've spoken with engineering about this. I might be going 01:28:20.470 --> 01:28:25.214 - to the Transportation Commission about this issue because 01:28:25.570 --> 01:28:34.589 - We really need some no parking signs. There's no sidewalk, no curb, as you've heard. So it's really 01:28:34.589 --> 01:28:43.698 - not even safe the way it is, and I think it would just be exacerbated. So I hope that this is one of 01:28:43.698 --> 01:28:53.438 - the things you can legally consider, so I hope that you keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. 01:29:11.394 --> 01:29:18.956 - My name's Alan shirts Alan Alan. Yes Alan. Do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the 01:29:18.956 --> 01:29:27.122 - truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but of course, thank you so I'm just I have some questions 01:29:27.122 --> 01:29:34.911 - and I just didn't know how to quite put them into words or just how to do this but some of the imaging 01:29:34.911 --> 01:29:38.238 - that I saw earlier seemed to imply that the 01:29:38.818 --> 01:29:47.667 - Roof line where I would say gables would face west and east and then there was another View of the house 01:29:47.667 --> 01:29:56.432 - that seemed to say the roof line would or the gables would face north and south and I just I don't know 01:29:56.432 --> 01:30:05.112 - I felt like it they were kind of conflicting and I don't know if it's because one image was an earlier 01:30:05.112 --> 01:30:08.062 - Scenario and then there was like a 01:30:08.674 --> 01:30:15.900 - So so I guess I'm just kind of like saying All the rest of the houses on that street seem to have gables 01:30:15.900 --> 01:30:22.850 - that if they do have gables That they face the west and the east and just I mean, maybe it's nothing 01:30:22.850 --> 01:30:29.801 - too particular, but if we are talking about making things similar or And then I'm gonna stop because 01:30:29.801 --> 01:30:36.958 - I don't know if I get an answer tonight or not I don't know how this all works, but thank you Thank you 01:30:50.658 --> 01:31:02.128 - If there is anybody else online they would like to speak please use the raise hand function I'm not 01:31:02.128 --> 01:31:13.828 - seeing anybody else online anyone else in chambers like to speak to this Okay with that we're back to 01:31:13.828 --> 01:31:19.678 - our petitioner yes you have 13 minutes left please 01:31:20.098 --> 01:31:25.631 - Now this will be the remainder of petitioners time in which he can speak to anything and everything 01:31:25.631 --> 01:31:31.274 - At the end of that time. We will then go to questions from the board There will be no more statements 01:31:31.274 --> 01:31:33.598 - from the petitioner after this. Thank you 01:31:54.306 --> 01:31:59.704 - Before you begin I do want to clarify because there's certain about the statement there There'll be 01:31:59.704 --> 01:32:05.427 - no more statements from the petitioner, but he will be asked to respond to questions Thank you. Go ahead. 01:32:05.427 --> 01:32:10.987 - I'm sorry. What'd you say? I was just clarifying you have 13 minutes in which you can have a statement 01:32:10.987 --> 01:32:16.493 - Response to anything and everything at the end of that period petitioner will not be able to make any 01:32:16.493 --> 01:32:21.406 - further statements He will however be able to respond to any questions from the board. Hmm 01:32:22.466 --> 01:32:29.422 - Understand good. Thanks. Well, as I just said a moment ago and I was up here everything you're gonna 01:32:29.422 --> 01:32:36.515 - hear tonight You could apply to all the other units that you've already approved and I was I mean, I'm 01:32:36.515 --> 01:32:43.471 - exactly right We talked about the width of the street, you know I drove down Roosevelt the other day 01:32:43.471 --> 01:32:46.846 - and it is a narrow street with on-street parking 01:32:46.946 --> 01:32:55.001 - I know there's been multiple units there. We talked about it being political I do we now have you know 01:32:55.001 --> 01:33:03.055 - again three council members here Given your their view to you, which is fine But just a few months ago 01:33:03.055 --> 01:33:11.345 - the council made changes to the UDO and as far as I can tell they didn't make any change on the reduction 01:33:11.345 --> 01:33:14.942 - of bedrooms on the reduction of bathrooms and 01:33:15.266 --> 01:33:23.981 - or on the reduction of the in previous area. The in previous area is what is gonna determine what the 01:33:23.981 --> 01:33:32.526 - square foot is. There's nothing in the UDO that talks about square feet. It talks about in previous 01:33:32.526 --> 01:33:41.156 - area. And so that, of course, we're allowed 45%. I think they said earlier I'm down to around 31%. I 01:33:41.156 --> 01:33:44.574 - made changes to the building to be more 01:33:45.058 --> 01:33:52.597 - To meet the block face So, I mean I feel like I have I have done those things and again I just want 01:33:52.597 --> 01:34:00.287 - to repeat that everything we've heard tonight could could be used could have been used for any duplex 01:34:00.287 --> 01:34:02.398 - that have been approved and 01:34:02.882 --> 01:34:10.340 - And you and could be used for any more do but there'll be more duplexes come through Size is a big thing 01:34:10.340 --> 01:34:17.513 - and how much bigger it is, but it's per unit We have to remember every you know, I hear that plexing 01:34:17.513 --> 01:34:24.190 - is okay and in people approve that well these units are no more than 1500 square feet each or 01:34:24.290 --> 01:34:34.628 - which is about the same size as the homes on that street. So we talk about the size of the unit. Remember, 01:34:34.628 --> 01:34:44.483 - there's two units there. So per unit, those are average size of the houses through there. And so then 01:34:44.483 --> 01:34:53.758 - again, what I hear is maybe, well, I go back to what they didn't, if they wanna change the UDO, 01:34:54.210 --> 01:35:00.944 - And make and make what we've seen being built in Bloomington like this and yes, it is It's a college 01:35:00.944 --> 01:35:07.745 - town, right? And so, you know, we are gonna try to build to you know to to what is allowed and that's 01:35:07.745 --> 01:35:14.680 - what we're doing But if the council doesn't want that then man, we need to change the UDO If you change 01:35:14.680 --> 01:35:19.614 - the UDO, then I don't have to come up here and get whatever, you know, so 01:35:20.162 --> 01:35:28.269 - Think if the UDO needs to be changed, it should have been changed before he got here again. I don't 01:35:28.269 --> 01:35:36.700 - feel that my My duplex is any different than the ones that have already been approved with that. I hope 01:35:36.700 --> 01:35:45.131 - Hope for your approval. Thank you Thank you with that we're back we go to the board for either a motion 01:35:45.131 --> 01:35:49.022 - or continued discussion we can ask questions to 01:35:49.250 --> 01:35:55.756 - The city or to the petitioner I might encourage you to actually maybe take the front chair here. Just 01:35:55.756 --> 01:36:02.326 - I'm sure if we have any questions, so Please Ryan. Well first as a renter of 22 years and Probably the 01:36:02.326 --> 01:36:08.769 - only renter on this board I have plenty of opinions on on how this should go and I wish I could stay 01:36:08.769 --> 01:36:15.211 - here for this vote but consciously I cannot do so because I have a conflict of interest and I've got 01:36:15.211 --> 01:36:19.230 - to recuse myself as I'm a renter of Mr. Spicer's stepdaughters 01:36:19.490 --> 01:36:29.758 - So I cannot consciously vote on this so I'm gonna recuse myself from my this vote and step aside at 01:36:29.758 --> 01:36:40.026 - this time Thank you And back to the board do we have any questions of the petitioner of the staff I 01:36:40.026 --> 01:36:48.446 - Have a question for the petitioner Mr. Spicer when I look at the at the site plan 01:36:48.610 --> 01:36:57.825 - And I see the five proposed parking spots that you have. Are you going to put a sidewalk or is there 01:36:57.825 --> 01:37:05.854 - a way from how are your renters going to walk with their groceries back to their place? 01:37:06.562 --> 01:37:13.549 - Sure, you're right. They need to have a way to get there. It wasn't required So it wasn't put on the 01:37:13.549 --> 01:37:20.535 - it wasn't put on the plan and I and I will make one quick change They talked about the eight and the 01:37:20.535 --> 01:37:28.145 - eight and a half I thought when we did the eight foot width parking I had to be within the setback boundaries 01:37:28.145 --> 01:37:33.886 - And so they do have a new drawing. It was drawn up today. I do have enough room to 01:37:34.210 --> 01:37:42.396 - Actually widen that 40-foot to make those eight and a half foot spaces. So with that but I don't have 01:37:42.396 --> 01:37:51.064 - any issue of Putting in sidewalks from the parking area to the units and again, I have plenty of impervious 01:37:51.064 --> 01:37:59.251 - space to accomplish that Okay on sidewalks, I guess I'll ask the city then Is he going to be required 01:37:59.251 --> 01:38:02.782 - to put a sidewalk in front of the building? 01:38:04.738 --> 01:38:11.914 - No, it's not a requirement because there are no existing sidewalks connecting on either side right now. 01:38:11.914 --> 01:38:19.298 - So that's the only time that the sidewalk requirement is triggered if there's already an existing sidewalk 01:38:19.298 --> 01:38:26.888 - to connect to, which is not the case with this one. My last question to Mr. Spicer. Sorry, I just remembered. 01:38:26.888 --> 01:38:31.166 - What is the surface you're going to use to improve the alley? 01:38:31.842 --> 01:38:44.822 - It would be it would be blacktop in the parking area will be concrete. Okay. Thank you Can city put 01:38:44.822 --> 01:38:50.014 - up slide eight from your presentation I 01:39:04.642 --> 01:39:11.623 - I said slide eight? Yeah, that's it. For the petitioner. My understanding then is looking at the current 01:39:11.623 --> 01:39:18.470 - elevation's top image, what is facing us will be facing the street. I want to make sure. Wiley Street, 01:39:18.470 --> 01:39:25.185 - yeah. Yeah, that'll be the facing. No. Sorry. You have the front porch there. It'll face the street. 01:39:25.185 --> 01:39:31.966 - Yeah. And there'll be side doors that are shown on both those elevations. Yeah. Okay. Now, can you go 01:39:31.966 --> 01:39:32.830 - to slide 10? 01:39:35.170 --> 01:39:41.462 - Okay, this is I think for the city's is that yellow line meant to represent kind of a general setback 01:39:41.462 --> 01:39:47.630 - Is that roughly around the 15 or is that just what was that for again? Great question. No, it's not 01:39:47.630 --> 01:39:53.983 - to represent a setback It's just to show the the length of the block face So the block face is ranging 01:39:53.983 --> 01:40:00.213 - from done on the east to grant on the west And for the petitioner, what's the current setback of 412 01:40:00.213 --> 01:40:04.222 - that we're looking at in this photo? What's the current setback? 01:40:04.930 --> 01:40:15.079 - How far back is 412 currently sitting? I Don't know that exactly I can answer it's it's roughly 15 feet. 01:40:15.079 --> 01:40:24.842 - Okay, that's so Essentially the the new will will sit on the same will be in line with what's there. 01:40:24.842 --> 01:40:27.838 - Okay, that was my question I'm 01:40:28.642 --> 01:40:34.267 - About again the park we had that whole discussion at the last time about the parking and we were talking 01:40:34.267 --> 01:40:39.946 - about what's the best way to To use the off off-street parking. So I'm just trying to get my head wrapped 01:40:39.946 --> 01:40:45.357 - around How you're gonna get five cars in that little space if it if it's I mean you can't if it's if 01:40:45.357 --> 01:40:50.767 - it follows the code Which is 20 by 20, correct for the city. It's 20 by 20 is what's allowed Yes, so 01:40:50.767 --> 01:40:56.446 - he improves the alley. It's limited to 20 by 20. So that would probably limit it to two spaces, right? So 01:40:56.738 --> 01:41:04.403 - What would that do if we weren't? Providing a variance on that 20 by 20 It'll just put that much more 01:41:04.403 --> 01:41:11.992 - pressure on the on the on-street parking I mean, I mean that's the whole purpose of me doing this is 01:41:11.992 --> 01:41:19.506 - trying to alleviate some of my tenants using the on-street parking by putting by adding five spaces 01:41:19.506 --> 01:41:23.038 - in the back having my tenants use the back and 01:41:23.170 --> 01:41:30.190 - Use Wiley Street less we heard how narrow Wiley Street was and in and not even though they're able to 01:41:30.190 --> 01:41:37.072 - use the on-street parking like everybody can But if I can keep my five in the back, that'll be less 01:41:37.072 --> 01:41:44.092 - people using that so I did that a purposely Trying to make it a better scenario for the neighborhood. 01:41:44.092 --> 01:41:50.974 - I Have a question for the staff Do we have a count of how many duplexes we've approved this year? I 01:41:52.738 --> 01:42:02.785 - I think it's three, so this might be the fourth. And remind me what the maximum is we're allowed? 15 01:42:02.785 --> 01:42:12.733 - is the maximum. Okay, so we've approved three this year, or we've approved the conditional use. Any 01:42:12.733 --> 01:42:16.414 - further questions? Is that a no? No. 01:42:21.730 --> 01:42:24.670 - All right, with no further discussion then, I would entertain a motion. 01:43:32.482 --> 01:43:38.809 - I'll make a recommendation for BZ adopt the proposed findings approved condition use request and neither 01:43:38.809 --> 01:43:45.077 - variance request per case is er 20 26 0 5 0 0 2 2 with the following conditions Commission use approval 01:43:45.077 --> 01:43:51.344 - is limited design shown and discussed in the packet right away use permit is required Prior to any work 01:43:51.344 --> 01:43:58.334 - in public right away per the submitted site plan a six foot tall a big fence required along these property line and 01:44:03.554 --> 01:44:11.429 - Motion in front of the board for votes taken. Is there any further discussion or anything else you'd 01:44:11.429 --> 01:44:19.615 - like to say before we take a vote? So I will ask Chris since it's your motion I'm inclined at the moment 01:44:19.615 --> 01:44:27.646 - unless I'm swayed to vote against the motion, which is I am finding there to be compelling reasons for 01:44:27.746 --> 01:44:34.407 - Primarily with the size of the street and with the parking I'm concerned even with the five spaces. 01:44:34.407 --> 01:44:41.335 - It's not going to be enough for The duplex is there and they're still going to put end up on the street 01:44:41.335 --> 01:44:48.396 - And I'm taking into account too that even though it's not 150 feet It's still rather close to that duplex 01:44:48.396 --> 01:44:55.457 - on 500 and we are trying to keep them separated a bit and I just wonder if it falls within the The spirit 01:44:55.457 --> 01:44:56.190 - of the UDO 01:44:58.050 --> 01:45:04.832 - I'm also struggling with a bit with the size. Although I do think that this is much smaller than what 01:45:04.832 --> 01:45:11.615 - we saw before so that I can live with but What would be the rationale for me to change that boat? I'm 01:45:11.615 --> 01:45:18.264 - just I'm curious Well, I kind of want the parking but there was no compelling argument today to say 01:45:18.264 --> 01:45:24.980 - that everybody really wanted didn't want it there's concerns about pedestrians in the alleys concern 01:45:24.980 --> 01:45:26.110 - of bicycling and 01:45:26.402 --> 01:45:31.986 - All of that I think there should be parking behind us best for improving that alley. Yeah, I just don't 01:45:31.986 --> 01:45:37.570 - think it's not it's enough That's yeah, I think even with what we're giving them that concern And we're 01:45:37.570 --> 01:45:42.939 - gonna give them 40 feet, right? We're gonna give them the 20 by 40, right? We're not wait a minute. 01:45:42.939 --> 01:45:48.522 - Yeah, the 20 by 20 is what they'd imp with based on the recommendation based on my recommendation Yeah, 01:45:48.522 --> 01:45:53.086 - okay, they're gonna get the 20 by 20. So it'll be three spaces Roughly roughly. Okay 01:45:57.986 --> 01:46:06.420 - I'm sorry from staff perspective. I just want to clarify The 20 by 20 pattern would really only allow 01:46:06.420 --> 01:46:15.102 - for two spaces. Yeah Well, that's right because it's eight and a half wide that's 17 feet But the motion 01:46:15.102 --> 01:46:24.446 - you have is for is for the 20 by 20 Yeah, absolutely more discussion before yes before we call for the staff and 01:46:28.546 --> 01:46:39.074 - Can we call a peculiar reason that the parking that this is a very narrow street with Volume was parking 01:46:39.074 --> 01:46:49.301 - so we can approve the parking in the back because this is a peculiar situation with this lot I'd vote 01:46:49.301 --> 01:46:57.022 - for it Yeah, I would be I would be cautious about citing the existing street 01:46:57.154 --> 01:47:04.193 - as the peculiar condition for the lot In that the street can obviously be widened the petitioner could 01:47:04.193 --> 01:47:11.232 - add Asphalt and create additional on-street parking You know, I think it's also important to note that 01:47:11.232 --> 01:47:18.203 - while the street is 20 feet wide that that 20 feet is compliant with the transportation plan So while 01:47:18.203 --> 01:47:25.310 - it wouldn't allow for on-street parking in the current 20-foot width you could add that so I would just 01:47:25.986 --> 01:47:32.596 - Cautious perhaps about using the width of the existing asphalt of the street as a condition You just 01:47:32.596 --> 01:47:39.140 - confused me. So it's 20 feet wide. Yes on that 20 feet wide Are they allowed to park on one side of 01:47:39.140 --> 01:47:45.880 - the street on a 20 foot wide street? It is it's codified right now that you can park on on either side 01:47:45.880 --> 01:47:53.406 - of the street Although nobody is doing that now. I don't I don't think so in order to legitimately establish those 01:47:53.538 --> 01:48:01.338 - Street parking. I think they would have to add on asphalt in order to Legitimately meet other requirements 01:48:01.338 --> 01:48:09.356 - title 15. I thought we saw pictures that there were cars I think the discussion was is There's no restriction 01:48:09.356 --> 01:48:16.791 - on parking on the street, but legally you can't park across from somebody on that street So there are 01:48:16.791 --> 01:48:18.686 - some properties that have 01:48:18.914 --> 01:48:24.733 - Improved some spaces along there. You have to park on an improved surface So there are one maybe two 01:48:24.733 --> 01:48:30.610 - properties along here that have created some Off-street parking areas that are improved that you know 01:48:30.610 --> 01:48:36.372 - parking enforcement wouldn't ticket But given how there aren't improved spaces along Wiley I have a 01:48:36.372 --> 01:48:42.191 - feeling that although it's codified that you could technically do it we'd want to check with parking 01:48:42.191 --> 01:48:47.838 - enforcement and engineering to see you know if somebody could legitimately park on the street and 01:48:48.290 --> 01:48:54.977 - So you've seen that the petitioner could widen the street in front of his property in order to allow 01:48:54.977 --> 01:49:01.730 - for property? Yes. I think to keep it simple, if I could just make a statement about the variance, if 01:49:01.730 --> 01:49:08.483 - we can tie it to the property, that's probably the simplest way to do it. So when we're talking about 01:49:08.483 --> 01:49:15.500 - the street, if that's a peculiar condition to the variance, that's off the property. So I think we should 01:49:15.500 --> 01:49:17.950 - really focus on the actual property. 01:49:18.082 --> 01:49:26.477 - Is my thinking so even with the 40 foot wide still only going to be four spaces If the board has a condition 01:49:26.477 --> 01:49:34.564 - that it's 42 and a half feet wide that would allow for five parking spaces and That would meet the eight 01:49:34.564 --> 01:49:42.421 - and a half foot minimum that the you do has for parking space width But there's an alternate he could 01:49:42.421 --> 01:49:47.966 - go out in front after this hearing Come back to you and allow and build 01:49:48.098 --> 01:49:54.046 - Improve the front of it for on-street parking It's not before us today Wiley you're saying he could 01:49:54.046 --> 01:50:00.232 - improve the parking on Wiley and have on-street parking on Wiley Yes, he could do that, you know, there 01:50:00.232 --> 01:50:06.596 - are a number of options that could be pursued They could go back to the driveway that was shown previously 01:50:06.596 --> 01:50:12.663 - that went along the west side of the house They could do the 20 by 20 pad in the back. They could add 01:50:12.663 --> 01:50:15.518 - parking asphalt within the right-of-way now and 01:50:15.746 --> 01:50:23.354 - and create those dedicated off-street spaces. So I think the answer for parking is that he has other 01:50:23.354 --> 01:50:31.038 - options rather than a variance. And it's hard to tie a variance to a lot. It's peculiar to a lot when 01:50:31.038 --> 01:50:38.948 - there's other options available. What's the length of that lot along the street? Just to clarify, you're 01:50:38.948 --> 01:50:43.166 - asking the width of the lot? The width of the lot, yes. 01:50:47.618 --> 01:50:56.193 - It's about 65 feet wide. Could you please divide that by 18? About three spaces wide So three spaces 01:50:56.193 --> 01:51:04.767 - so even if he had the two spaces by code in the back and he improved the street he would actually be 01:51:04.767 --> 01:51:13.257 - creating five spaces I honestly don't have enough information about about how the on-street parking 01:51:13.257 --> 01:51:17.502 - Yeah, yeah, so that's that's one thing Chris that 01:51:17.890 --> 01:51:32.480 - Makes sense. Can you show the previous? site plan with the Curb cut in parking, please. That's a slide 01:51:32.480 --> 01:51:45.086 - It may be seven try yeah, it is seven slide seven on the presentation No, it's not there 01:51:46.210 --> 01:51:56.641 - It's on the other document. It's on the it's on the present Were you asking for the prior site plan 01:51:56.641 --> 01:52:07.177 - we were okay, I think that's what you're looking for. That's the previous one there. Yeah And that's 01:52:07.177 --> 01:52:14.270 - the one that we had the site the drive coming down the side and the 01:52:16.610 --> 01:52:29.664 - Spaces in the back With this plan no, he's close he's at forty four and a half percent the maximum is 01:52:29.664 --> 01:52:43.742 - forty five percent So compared to the new plan, it's much higher, but it's not over the maximum The new plans 01:52:43.906 --> 01:52:52.978 - Yeah, the current plan is at 31% So then the other question I had for you on a different matter is do 01:52:52.978 --> 01:53:02.228 - we have the heights of the other houses on that block I Do not have those offhand. I think most of them 01:53:02.228 --> 01:53:11.389 - are one story, but there may be a couple two stories I don't know what would a typical one story house 01:53:11.389 --> 01:53:12.990 - height be roughly 01:53:14.306 --> 01:53:22.672 - Well, so typical one story you're probably looking at about 25 feet Ish, you know from ground to the 01:53:22.672 --> 01:53:30.955 - top of the peak of the roof typical For a one-story house. Yeah, and this this one my understanding 01:53:30.955 --> 01:53:38.078 - is going to be just a tad over 26 Yes to the peak. It's about 26 and a half feet Yeah 01:53:44.834 --> 01:53:56.800 - So those were just some of the questions I wanted to bring up. No, you're not allowed, sorry. We can, 01:53:56.800 --> 01:54:08.649 - however, ask you questions, Kevin, but no more statements. So do you want me to call the question on 01:54:08.649 --> 01:54:14.750 - that motion or do you want to rescind it and change 01:54:15.554 --> 01:54:24.730 - Only asked because of this Go to the 20 is provided by code then he can work with the city to improve 01:54:24.730 --> 01:54:34.085 - the front There are different things you can do he's paying for improvements either way Just not before 01:54:34.085 --> 01:54:43.171 - us from staff's perspective it might be helpful if it's something that the board is open to is to to 01:54:43.171 --> 01:54:45.150 - give an allowance and 01:54:45.250 --> 01:54:54.039 - Either way for a driveway or for the 20 by 20 pad if you want to give flexibility to the petitioner 01:54:54.039 --> 01:55:03.444 - as they explore options It would be helpful to clarify certainly in your motion or you can add a condition 01:55:03.444 --> 01:55:12.408 - of approval To allow either scenario if that's something the board is amicable to Are you gonna stick 01:55:12.408 --> 01:55:14.430 - with the 20 by 40 well 01:55:14.562 --> 01:55:23.492 - I'll just amend to say or the driver with the parking is shown on the first plan You know, I think you 01:55:23.492 --> 01:55:32.422 - know, we're we're pretty close to Essentially it being a by right aren't we I mean the conditional use 01:55:32.422 --> 01:55:41.438 - if we can't find That it violates the conditions You know, it's under it's under the impervious surface 01:55:41.634 --> 01:55:49.032 - The height penalty, I mean, it's almost the same height as the other homes on that block. The front 01:55:49.032 --> 01:55:56.652 - build line is exactly where it is. The occupancy is within limits. The bedrooms are within limits. The 01:55:56.652 --> 01:56:04.346 - street facing entrances are met. The question was the neighborhood design harmony. That's the principle 01:56:04.346 --> 01:56:09.598 - one on which we could find a basis to not approve the conditional use. 01:56:10.402 --> 01:56:18.928 - Have we heard any compelling argument for a neighborhood design based on the redesign? He's presented 01:56:18.928 --> 01:56:27.287 - to us. Do we feel that it falls within the design? Harmoniously with the neighborhood. I'm assuming 01:56:27.287 --> 01:56:35.897 - from your motion that you feel that way So I'm just kind of plowing through what we're allowed and not 01:56:35.897 --> 01:56:39.742 - allowed to do We're under the approved annual 01:56:39.938 --> 01:56:56.476 - duplex cap, way under by 12. There was the 150 foot buffer zone to another duplex, and this has not 01:56:56.476 --> 01:57:05.406 - been subdivided. If you leave it as is at this point, 01:57:06.050 --> 01:57:15.341 - What if we add a condition at the end a condition that the developer will work with the city to create 01:57:15.341 --> 01:57:25.083 - other possible parking conditions. I mean is he allowed by you know to I like I like the amendment allowing 01:57:25.083 --> 01:57:34.104 - the drive and the rear yard parking because it's what's before us and we can see it. So I would say 01:57:34.104 --> 01:57:35.998 - same recommendation. 01:57:36.578 --> 01:57:44.266 - with the addition that the 20 by top 20 slot or do the Wiley cut, bring the driveway back and put the 01:57:44.266 --> 01:57:51.653 - spaces behind it. One or the other. Our primary concern with that one was. How about a site plan? 01:57:51.653 --> 01:57:59.190 - I'm sorry. Well, it was more the site plan. It was more the size of the home, right? What does that 01:57:59.190 --> 01:58:04.542 - do? What does that? He can do that. Can you fit? Yeah, he can do that. 01:58:05.122 --> 01:58:25.771 - But it was the whole it was the design of the home that was concerned If you can't sign yourself to 01:58:25.771 --> 01:58:31.966 - that one specific block Sorry 01:58:33.954 --> 01:58:43.083 - She's showing me figures of what the square footage is of the homes on that block. I Looked at every 01:58:43.083 --> 01:58:52.393 - square footage of every home on the block in their footprint This one is smaller than four of them no, 01:58:52.393 --> 01:59:01.342 - that's These are combined some of them are combined So it's it is larger, but not extremely larger 01:59:02.274 --> 01:59:14.541 - And this specific black alley found one bigger Well, so we can go back to we have a motion then and 01:59:14.541 --> 01:59:28.158 - that motion was essentially to approve the city recommendation And that would be conditional uses approved and 01:59:28.674 --> 01:59:36.515 - Denied the variance approved the conditional use and add one that if he wants to do the driveway with 01:59:36.515 --> 01:59:44.280 - the rear parking that's on that's an option you can choose Yeah, I'm amending it to add the driveway 01:59:44.280 --> 01:59:52.044 - and rear parking if he's just so chooses okay, so let's let's withdraw so we've made an amendment to 01:59:52.044 --> 01:59:57.118 - the the motion that's before us I Need a second on that I believe 01:59:58.306 --> 02:00:09.470 - Just for staffs clarity, can you restate the moment with the condition of approval? Yeah You read it Wake up 02:00:20.322 --> 02:00:25.341 - I recommend the BZ adopt the proposed findings approved the conditional use request and then I denied 02:00:25.341 --> 02:00:30.655 - the variance request for cases er Twenty twenty six oh five zero zero two two with the following conditions 02:00:30.655 --> 02:00:35.575 - the conditional use approval is limited design shown and discussed in the packet a right-of-way use 02:00:35.575 --> 02:00:40.643 - permit is required prior to any work in the public right-of-way for the submitted site plan a six foot 02:00:40.643 --> 02:00:45.760 - tall opaque fence required on East property line and number four writing this one if so if the petition 02:00:45.760 --> 02:00:49.598 - so chooses he can do the drive cut driveway and rear parking off of Wiley and 02:00:49.698 --> 02:01:07.198 - In lieu of the alley parking. The second. Yes I second. Okay. Just give me a minute. 02:02:00.930 --> 02:02:14.240 - All right. Well, we can call the question Burrell yes Smith yes, it's Rock Morton. No Petition the condition 02:02:14.240 --> 02:02:26.206 - of use petition passes I'm sorry Joe. Did you vote? No. Yeah, I Didn't make the motion I voted no 02:02:30.274 --> 02:02:44.909 - Sorry, there were two yeses and one no two to one We have a quorum don't we see one we need three unanimous 02:02:44.909 --> 02:02:55.614 - votes. Yeah Let's look at a different motion then Yeah Oh, we we need our Ryan 02:03:51.618 --> 02:04:01.209 - Go back to the board. I'll make a motion that the department, that the BZA adopted proposed findings 02:04:01.209 --> 02:04:10.706 - approved the conditional use request and denied the variance request for case ZR2 2026-05-0022 with 02:04:10.706 --> 02:04:21.342 - the following conditions, the one, two, three conditions as stated in the packet. And I'll add a condition that 02:04:23.074 --> 02:04:34.871 - that the petitioner will work with the city to add parking spaces to improve the road adding parking 02:04:34.871 --> 02:04:40.478 - spaces in the front as many as it fits my code. 02:04:45.538 --> 02:04:52.069 - Might be helpful from Staff's perspective to hear from the petitioner if that's something that they 02:04:52.069 --> 02:04:58.599 - want Certainly, we're always happy to work with the petitioner. We want to hear from them if that's 02:04:58.599 --> 02:05:05.391 - something that they want to pursue Kevin could you come forward and address that specific point, please 02:05:05.391 --> 02:05:10.942 - Absolutely, I'll be more than happy to work with the staff to add more spaces on the 02:05:11.362 --> 02:05:26.704 - Wiley I earlier didn't know that that was a possibility to Add blacktop and make that happen. So absolutely. 02:05:26.704 --> 02:05:39.934 - Thank you Second okay All right So aside from the Single issue of a disagreement whether this 02:05:40.034 --> 02:05:48.200 - property fits within a neighborhood design harmony, the petitioner has met all the requirements of the 02:05:48.200 --> 02:05:56.445 - conditional use. Is that correct? And your opinion is it does meet the harmony? The design requirements 02:05:56.445 --> 02:06:04.374 - are very subjective. The design requirements are very subjective. So I'm not going to tell you what 02:06:04.374 --> 02:06:08.734 - to think. I think it meets it. That's why I voted yes. 02:06:09.986 --> 02:06:17.113 - You think it meets it because of the size or the Chiefly, I think the new plans worse than the old plan 02:06:17.113 --> 02:06:23.967 - like the other architecture a lot better but in our town that doesn't seem to matter we do a lot of 02:06:23.967 --> 02:06:31.094 - ugly stuff to meet code I Don't disagree that with you on the terms of what I'm looking at. Yeah, we're 02:06:31.094 --> 02:06:33.150 - not here to discuss that well 02:06:33.730 --> 02:06:45.692 - It does meet the fabric of this street of being that's that is the question. Does it do you think it 02:06:45.692 --> 02:06:57.654 - meets the front porch? We don't have an architectural purview at this point To follow up on that the 02:06:57.654 --> 02:07:03.102 - we do have some purview in the design harmony 02:07:04.546 --> 02:07:12.591 - Resemble the architecture and style of the majority existing single-family homes And I feel like that 02:07:12.591 --> 02:07:20.478 - was meant for bungalows Yeah, this is just 50,000. Yeah, and I understand what you're saying in the 02:07:20.478 --> 02:07:28.681 - previous again. Could you put up slide 28 for us to? It's a To me that and again, I just I've gone down 02:07:28.681 --> 02:07:33.886 - the street. I've looked at all the homes So for me that's where I 02:07:34.114 --> 02:07:40.578 - Coming back to them just not I just don't feel comfortable Giving a yes vote to this because I just 02:07:40.578 --> 02:07:47.237 - I think it While it meets all of the other Technical restrictions, this is what we saw before and then 02:07:47.237 --> 02:07:54.089 - go to the next slide, please This is what I'm looking at now and that does not feel like the other homes. 02:07:54.089 --> 02:08:00.747 - I'm looking at that's my problem That's my biggest problem and it's very difficult for me to vote. Yes 02:08:00.747 --> 02:08:02.622 - for this because of that and 02:08:03.266 --> 02:08:09.383 - Not because of the size, the height is right, the setback's correct. But when you look at all the other 02:08:09.383 --> 02:08:15.323 - homes down that street, this doesn't, if it's going to be a duplex, it's gonna fit the spirit of the 02:08:15.323 --> 02:08:21.264 - code, it doesn't look right. The one, go back to the one before. That's the one we liked, we thought 02:08:21.264 --> 02:08:27.440 - we were gonna get something that was comparable that would fit within the. But it can't do that. I know, 02:08:27.440 --> 02:08:33.086 - we can't do that size. It can't do that elevation. But the next slide, that doesn't look right. 02:08:33.602 --> 02:08:42.297 - Can't support that design That's what that's what I know. That's what's along the street. Well, I've 02:08:42.297 --> 02:08:51.164 - looked up another street in there Yeah, this doesn't it's subjective. Yeah And I'm using my subjective 02:08:51.164 --> 02:09:00.032 - Opinion here to say I I don't think that does a service to to the look of that street So that's that's 02:09:00.032 --> 02:09:02.270 - why I'm having difficulty 02:09:03.362 --> 02:09:12.225 - Look at the house next door and it is a limestone House that Doesn't have the same character as the 02:09:12.225 --> 02:09:21.266 - one we're looking at a Couple of houses down it has a It has a peak two different peaks that are much 02:09:21.266 --> 02:09:30.218 - more along the lines of the of the one he presented initially nothing like this flat-faced more of a 02:09:30.218 --> 02:09:31.902 - barn structure and 02:09:32.546 --> 02:09:40.592 - Then of course you get to the new the home on the corner and the new duplex and they also have a much 02:09:40.592 --> 02:09:48.559 - more buried front They're split So this is this is what I'm looking at the the homes on this street. 02:09:48.559 --> 02:09:56.684 - Don't look like this If you brought me something else that it looked right I Could vote for it because 02:09:56.684 --> 02:10:01.022 - everything else he's done is within is within code and 02:10:01.858 --> 02:10:08.425 - of the conditional use. But I do think that it's it's not a nice direction to go if we're trying to 02:10:08.425 --> 02:10:15.124 - maintain the look. And I'm also looking across the street too. So you want to continue and ask him to 02:10:15.124 --> 02:10:22.283 - do better architecture. Well we did before. I mean I hate to do it because I understand the costs associated 02:10:22.283 --> 02:10:29.310 - with being a developer. I get it. Well it knows the same thing. I know. Or worse. I know. I don't like it. 02:10:29.666 --> 02:10:37.027 - but it is also an issue of trying to maintain it. I mean, again, two houses down across the street, 02:10:37.027 --> 02:10:44.682 - it has a peak. It doesn't have a flat roof like this. So I think if we're going to ask the neighborhood 02:10:44.682 --> 02:10:52.189 - to accept a building, I mean, even the one next to it has a peak with a porch, but it's not flat like 02:10:52.189 --> 02:10:59.550 - this. I don't think that fits subjectively. It is subjective. I think what he was trying to do here 02:10:59.650 --> 02:11:06.666 - And maybe you didn't translate. He's trying to reproduce what is there now. Take a look at the house 02:11:06.666 --> 02:11:13.890 - that he has. Well, I see that. Yeah. Because he's going with the red and white before. But look at that 02:11:13.890 --> 02:11:21.184 - and look at the house. It has a peek over the door. It has a setback on the side. It's got two setbacks. 02:11:21.184 --> 02:11:28.894 - And this is a flat faced looks like a barn. I'm sorry, Kevin. I'm sorry to say that, but it looks like a barn. 02:11:29.378 --> 02:11:36.081 - And I just don't think it I see that I mean I agree if he if he had a structure like that I'd love it 02:11:36.081 --> 02:11:42.652 - look like a house Subjectively, would you allow a two-story house? Just real quickly make sure that 02:11:42.652 --> 02:11:49.289 - all the members of the board have their mics turned on and are speaking into the mic Sorry, I'm just 02:11:49.289 --> 02:11:55.927 - trying to give Kevin some guidance here if you're gonna ask me if it was a two-story building what I 02:11:55.927 --> 02:11:57.438 - I think that if it was 02:11:57.570 --> 02:12:04.879 - What would the height of that be close to 35? It's within right for him to do that And it also is not 02:12:04.879 --> 02:12:12.189 - different than the one that's down the street. The one that's down the street is two-story block away 02:12:12.189 --> 02:12:19.355 - So At least that building has the design elements of what's currently in their neighborhood Would I 02:12:19.355 --> 02:12:27.166 - approve I mean I would have approved the other one if it was the argument was that the Facebook is just from 02:12:27.874 --> 02:12:35.728 - From that slide, you know, it's it's smaller that that house is not included that that duplex is not 02:12:35.728 --> 02:12:43.505 - included. I thought the initial The initial project looked much more like that. I mean it would fit 02:12:43.505 --> 02:12:51.359 - with the Yeah, go back to the other slide, please that I Mean that's that's too big but we've talked 02:12:51.359 --> 02:12:56.958 - about making it smaller but it had some of the same design elements and 02:12:57.730 --> 02:13:04.440 - See along the street. Well, let's say what that's 80 square foot smaller than the other one. It's how 02:13:04.440 --> 02:13:11.347 - many it's like 80 square foot smaller than the other one I was glad for the continuous last time because 02:13:11.347 --> 02:13:18.122 - I was concerned about that drive going around the back and trying to make sure that that worked so But 02:13:18.122 --> 02:13:23.582 - this this design is what I'm struggling with so I'm that's where I'm at so if if I 02:13:27.106 --> 02:13:32.803 - If we voted down, what's what's the petitioners option? When can he come back? So I believe that they 02:13:32.803 --> 02:13:38.500 - have six months to come back if something is denied he can't come back before six months. Yes How did 02:13:38.500 --> 02:13:44.198 - we do it so I can come back without a substantial change, you know, obviously the board the board can 02:13:44.198 --> 02:13:49.895 - vote to put it back on the agenda if they feel that there has been a Substantial change from what was 02:13:49.895 --> 02:13:55.536 - previously. Yeah. Well, I mean we actually have the right we could probably bypass the six months if 02:13:55.536 --> 02:13:56.318 - we want a bit 02:13:56.546 --> 02:14:06.494 - Would we also just withdraw the this particular most Could we just withdraw this particular motion and 02:14:06.494 --> 02:14:16.248 - ask for continuance asking I mean the vote the board can vote to continue it. Yeah, we sure can I Go 02:14:16.248 --> 02:14:22.622 - yes for that So we could speed it along I Withdraw my motion Okay 02:14:22.850 --> 02:14:28.441 - So again, obviously with a continuance, it would be very helpful for the petitioner You know just to 02:14:28.441 --> 02:14:34.032 - hear clear guidance from the board if there's direction that you want them to my clear guidance is I 02:14:34.032 --> 02:14:39.678 - Don't yet think that this matches the street. So I don't think that looks right. It looks like a barn 02:14:40.034 --> 02:14:46.510 - I think we need to give him clear guidelines. What is the street? Is it from Anderson all the way down 02:14:46.510 --> 02:14:52.798 - or is it just from dogs? The block face is clear from the code in terms of what the board should be 02:14:52.798 --> 02:14:59.337 - looking at it and what our review is I'm looking at I'm just looking at that block street and even that 02:14:59.337 --> 02:15:05.624 - blocks be I still see peaks All right. What I what I don't see is flat all of them have some design 02:15:05.624 --> 02:15:08.894 - distinction that makes it look more like a home and 02:15:11.490 --> 02:15:18.578 - I can tell you Kevin if you look up and down both sides of the street for Four kind of input on what 02:15:18.578 --> 02:15:25.596 - I'm talking about There are there are peaks and there are setbacks across the face of that building 02:15:25.596 --> 02:15:32.824 - and I think if you you know that makes it for me something that's much easier to To agree to this this 02:15:32.824 --> 02:15:40.053 - building that's that you currently have in front of me I don't think that that meets the spirit of the 02:15:40.053 --> 02:15:41.246 - neighborhood and 02:15:43.234 --> 02:15:49.286 - Now with that I also think it's an opportunity to rethink and talk to the city about what to do about 02:15:49.286 --> 02:15:55.694 - the parking Because frankly I have an issue with providing a 40-foot wide in the back Although I understand 02:15:55.694 --> 02:16:01.984 - that this is probably a good idea based on the fact that it's often undeveloped alley So that's something 02:16:01.984 --> 02:16:07.977 - I can I could probably get behind if we have the right design for the house But you may want to look 02:16:07.977 --> 02:16:11.774 - at extending anyway to create a safer street along that area if 02:16:11.938 --> 02:16:18.627 - You as a builder would like to do that, but that's not going to prevent me from voting Okay for the 02:16:18.627 --> 02:16:25.182 - variance on the 20 by 40 in the future Sure glad since I made a statement to you about the design 02:16:27.906 --> 02:16:33.100 - The only reason why I changed this building to begin with is because when we was here two months ago, 02:16:33.100 --> 02:16:38.345 - the neighbors didn't like the way it looked and said it didn't fit. So I thought, well, okay, I'll try 02:16:38.345 --> 02:16:43.641 - to make something fit, and all the other houses are more rectangle. I don't have a bit of problem going 02:16:43.641 --> 02:16:48.937 - back, and I heard what Chris said underneath his breath. The last one was better looking than this one. 02:16:48.937 --> 02:16:54.131 - I totally agree. When I was here two months ago, the neighbors didn't like it and said it didn't fit. 02:16:54.131 --> 02:16:56.830 - There's too many cuts and notches, and you're right. 02:16:57.218 --> 02:17:03.470 - This house is a little larger than house last time. We always heard last time. Oh, it's too big. It's 02:17:03.470 --> 02:17:09.661 - too big Well, it's smaller than the others that have been It's smaller than the others that one have 02:17:09.661 --> 02:17:15.791 - been approved and two it was still less than the in previous Space so it met those requirements. Do 02:17:15.791 --> 02:17:21.982 - I have a problem building the other one? Absolutely not It wasn't due to money. I was trying to move 02:17:22.594 --> 02:17:29.772 - the neighborhood to make the neighbors happy and so I thought well we'll go back with a Rectangle style 02:17:29.772 --> 02:17:36.881 - home make it a story and a half instead of a two-story So I think that the previous design was better. 02:17:36.881 --> 02:17:44.058 - I Think my biggest issue with that one was the drive and the Parking in the back that was I think where 02:17:44.058 --> 02:17:50.270 - my conflict said but we continued in any way but I don't I like the idea of improving the 02:17:50.658 --> 02:17:57.971 - The alleyway and putting the spaces in the back. I like that off of Off of the other alley So I think 02:17:57.971 --> 02:18:05.571 - that's nice because it's it's out of the way. It's off the street And a 20 by 40 is certainly reasonable. 02:18:05.571 --> 02:18:13.027 - So so yeah, I just think it needs a If this to go back and be more along the lines of what he presented 02:18:13.027 --> 02:18:19.838 - initially and I have no problem with the two-story So long as it fits within the code under 35 02:18:20.482 --> 02:18:30.772 - We have to see an elevation So do you do we want to vote for continuance and heaven I'm sorry. Oh Did 02:18:30.772 --> 02:18:41.163 - you do be a second? Yeah. All right. I'll call the question I'm sorry. So who? And Chris seconded flow 02:18:41.163 --> 02:18:50.142 - you had a motion to continue Chris seconded Burrell yes Smith yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes 02:18:52.706 --> 02:19:03.657 - We're gonna take a five-minute break All right, thank you for that quick break I appreciate that and 02:19:03.657 --> 02:19:14.499 - we're gonna move on now Okay, that was uh, so that happened We're gonna do ZR 20 2606 31 Pertaining 02:19:14.499 --> 02:19:21.438 - to the variance at 210 Southwest plex me. I have a staff report 02:19:22.626 --> 02:19:30.711 - Yes, as mentioned this is a request at 210 Southwest Plex Avenue from Wheeler Mission for a variance 02:19:30.711 --> 02:19:39.036 - from minimum required sidewalk width For the use supportive housing large in the mixed-use medium-scale 02:19:39.036 --> 02:19:42.558 - zoning district. So this property is at 201 02:19:42.658 --> 02:19:49.998 - Southwest plex it came forward with a series of several approvals one was a rezoning petition inevitably 02:19:49.998 --> 02:19:57.198 - then followed up with a conditional use request to allow for the building to be used for Some expanded 02:19:57.198 --> 02:20:04.189 - services for supportive housing So they received that those approvals and then a site plan was also 02:20:04.189 --> 02:20:11.249 - issued for the property as part of those approvals that were site improvements that were required on 02:20:11.249 --> 02:20:12.158 - the site and 02:20:12.514 --> 02:20:19.242 - And a site plan that was improved with those one of the improvements was the replacement of the sidewalk 02:20:19.242 --> 02:20:25.715 - along Westplex It was determined not to be in functional condition. There were many panels that were 02:20:25.715 --> 02:20:32.315 - broken and Just failing so there was a site plan as I approved that I mentioned that showed that being 02:20:32.315 --> 02:20:34.750 - replaced with a six-foot sidewalk and 02:20:34.978 --> 02:20:41.769 - as required and so the petitioners did all the majority of all the improvements on there and they Are 02:20:41.769 --> 02:20:48.826 - coming to the end of the required improvements and are working on the sidewalk request is sidewalk aspect 02:20:48.826 --> 02:20:55.817 - and decided to come forward with a request to Allow a five-foot sidewalk rather than a six-foot sidewalk 02:20:55.817 --> 02:21:02.142 - so certainly they they have the ability and right to come forward to request that variance and 02:21:02.242 --> 02:21:08.974 - And with that, of course, we review this based on the criteria in the zoning code So we did find that 02:21:08.974 --> 02:21:15.838 - it would be injurious. There is on-street parking spaces that are immediately adjacent to this sidewalk 02:21:15.838 --> 02:21:22.108 - So having a six-foot compliance sidewalk does give that additional space for car doors opening 02:21:22.108 --> 02:21:28.840 - for pedestrians along that pathway We did not find any adverse impacts on the adjacent use and value. 02:21:28.840 --> 02:21:30.622 - This would just affect the 02:21:30.722 --> 02:21:37.495 - this particular property However again with the the one of the most challenging Criteria that the strict 02:21:37.495 --> 02:21:44.590 - application of the terms of the udl will result in practical difficulties And that the practical difficulties 02:21:44.590 --> 02:21:51.426 - are peculiar to the property in question. We were not able to find any peculiar conditions that prevented 02:21:51.426 --> 02:21:54.974 - a six-foot compliant sidewalk from being installed and 02:21:55.138 --> 02:22:02.030 - The parking spaces that are adjacent to this are eight feet wide which exceed what is actually the minimum 02:22:02.030 --> 02:22:08.600 - for the Transportation plan for on-street spaces, which is seven feet So removing one foot from those 02:22:08.600 --> 02:22:15.235 - on-street spaces would have no impact or bring it out of compliance As I mentioned the entire sidewalk 02:22:15.235 --> 02:22:21.676 - has to be replaced anyway So we did not find any peculiar conditions that prevent them from meeting 02:22:21.676 --> 02:22:24.446 - code or placing a hardship on the property 02:22:24.546 --> 02:22:31.674 - So the department is recommending that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt these proposed findings and 02:22:31.674 --> 02:22:38.943 - deny the variance requests And with that I'm happy to answer any questions once the petitioner speaks. 02:22:38.943 --> 02:22:46.282 - Thank you And this petitioner here They are here or so we have one online. Is that correct in one? Yes, 02:22:46.282 --> 02:22:49.246 - and I know are you from the petitioner? I 02:22:57.378 --> 02:23:03.005 - Get to you will second a public comment. Sorry. Yeah, so AJ Willis is here from the petitioner AJ say 02:23:03.005 --> 02:23:08.688 - your name so I can make sure I can hear you AJ Wells and do you affirm that the testimony you're about 02:23:08.688 --> 02:23:14.426 - to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and after sitting through that last 02:23:14.426 --> 02:23:19.943 - part of the meeting as you know, you have 20 minutes Well, thank you for being here tonight. I just 02:23:19.943 --> 02:23:23.198 - kind of want to introduce some stuff about the project and 02:23:23.298 --> 02:23:31.417 - It's about approximately 182 feet of sidewalk that would have to be replaced and expanded to a six foot 02:23:31.417 --> 02:23:39.380 - wide width. So along the east or the backside of that sidewalk, there's some steep grade. So it makes 02:23:39.380 --> 02:23:47.343 - it, we aren't able to really expand that sidewalk into the green space due to the steep grade and all 02:23:47.343 --> 02:23:52.574 - the vegetation that would have to be removed in order to make that 02:23:52.738 --> 02:24:04.192 - So we looked at expanding the sidewalk into the paved areas Eric mentioned and that cost about approximately 02:24:04.192 --> 02:24:14.910 - $13,000 of extra work to remove that asphalt for the additional concrete and do the pavement patching 02:24:14.910 --> 02:24:21.950 - work. And as Eric mentioned, this is a company that is a nonprofit 02:24:22.370 --> 02:24:32.438 - provide services to a lot of the less fortunate members of our community. And we believe that the hardship 02:24:32.438 --> 02:24:42.036 - of that cost on a company that's largely supported by donations in order to provide their services is 02:24:42.036 --> 02:24:47.870 - unnecessary, especially with a lot of the existing pedestrian 02:24:48.098 --> 02:24:56.749 - infrastructure in the area matching the existing condition. The petitioner is committing to replacing 02:24:56.749 --> 02:25:05.570 - that sidewalk just at five foot wide matching the existing width. And I'll be more than happy to answer 02:25:05.570 --> 02:25:14.137 - any questions. Very good, we'll withhold the remainder of your time. How much does he have left? I'd 02:25:14.137 --> 02:25:16.766 - say probably about 15 minutes. 02:25:17.346 --> 02:25:24.954 - I was responding to okay online Somebody who couldn't hear so we wanted to make sure to remind the board 02:25:24.954 --> 02:25:32.273 - members to speak into your mic Make sure the mics are turned on folks at home are having a hard time 02:25:32.273 --> 02:25:39.591 - hearing the deliberations. Very good. Thank you All right, very good. Thank you with that We're back 02:25:39.591 --> 02:25:46.910 - to the board for any questions for the staff or petitioner before we go to public comment Please yep 02:25:47.042 --> 02:25:56.076 - Yep When are we allowed to do a five foot sidewalk and move a six foot sidewalk By right never there 02:25:56.076 --> 02:26:05.290 - is language within the UDO that allows for modifications that staff level to match existing facilities 02:26:05.290 --> 02:26:14.413 - so there is an allowance in the UDO for that but also petitioners have the right to come forward with 02:26:14.413 --> 02:26:15.934 - the variance and 02:26:16.290 --> 02:26:23.021 - When this was approved as I mentioned the site plan showed a six-foot compliant sidewalk So, you know, 02:26:23.021 --> 02:26:29.884 - this is the first time that any relief has come up and the petitioner has come forward with the variance 02:26:29.884 --> 02:26:36.681 - request So when last month we did 12 19 East West Branch I asked the question can they meet an existing 02:26:36.681 --> 02:26:43.216 - cross-section? And I believe the answer gave me was no you have to have the five-foot tree plot and 02:26:43.216 --> 02:26:45.438 - the six-foot sidewalk and I asked 02:26:45.954 --> 02:26:51.768 - How do you get from five to six feet and how do you how do you how do you transition the sidewalk? So 02:26:51.768 --> 02:26:57.640 - so you transition obviously with a taper, you know where those those two facilities come together like 02:26:57.640 --> 02:27:03.625 - that last panel You know would just show a taper going from that six to five Is there any instance where 02:27:03.625 --> 02:27:09.383 - you guys have given the five foot and not brought it to us? Could you have done it there there? Yes, 02:27:09.383 --> 02:27:15.710 - there are certainly have been in situations where the director has allowed new facilities to go into match and 02:27:15.906 --> 02:27:21.974 - Existing widths and what is the what is the determination process for that? How do we how do we get 02:27:21.974 --> 02:27:28.285 - to that? Well, so it starts with the petitioner making requests. There are criteria in the UDO However, 02:27:28.285 --> 02:27:34.596 - in the case of monolithic facilities, the UDO says that only six foot monolithic facilities are allowed 02:27:34.596 --> 02:27:40.846 - So in situations where there is a tree plot or there is separation then the UDO can't allow for a five 02:27:40.846 --> 02:27:45.822 - foot facility but in situations where it's a monolithic then it has to be six and 02:27:46.530 --> 02:27:52.713 - receive a variance So this is so an existing neighborhood like we did last month where it was monolithic 02:27:52.713 --> 02:27:58.720 - concrete curb and sidewalk with no tree plot You're saying there's no facility for them to just match 02:27:58.720 --> 02:28:04.727 - the existing cross-section No, I'm saying there's no tree plot here. So in the situation because this 02:28:04.727 --> 02:28:10.674 - is monolithic Well, so was so I'm gonna back up. Sorry on West Branch the existing cross-section was 02:28:10.674 --> 02:28:12.382 - monolithic curb and sidewalk 02:28:13.090 --> 02:28:19.071 - We required them on this one lot to put five foot tree plot We offset the sidewalk tapered to six feet 02:28:19.071 --> 02:28:24.936 - and then dive dove back down to the street. Okay, we did that That's fine. My question is is there a 02:28:24.936 --> 02:28:30.860 - way around that and you're saying yes But if it's a monolithic curb and sidewalk, it has still has to 02:28:30.860 --> 02:28:36.783 - be six feet So we could have modified that cross-section gotten rid of the tree plot and a lot of six 02:28:36.783 --> 02:28:42.590 - foot sidewalk So that's the existing infrastructure Well, I am going somewhere with this by the way 02:28:42.850 --> 02:28:49.920 - Okay. Yeah, so in that particular case and it feels it feels weird talking about a different case Well, 02:28:49.920 --> 02:28:56.990 - there's a reason I'm getting there. I'm curious if somebody requests a variance from the tree plot with 02:28:57.698 --> 02:29:02.660 - a sidewalk with then the board can approve either of those okay regardless of what the UDO says because 02:29:02.660 --> 02:29:07.479 - you know you have the right you have what the UDO allows by right or you know through the discretion 02:29:07.479 --> 02:29:12.251 - in the for in the transportation plan it specifically says any neighborhood residential streets and 02:29:12.251 --> 02:29:17.213 - Existing expect the ADT of less than 500 vehicles per day and expect that operating speed less 20 miles 02:29:17.213 --> 02:29:21.985 - an hour except the community many's like schools and You're allowed to do different things. There's 02:29:21.985 --> 02:29:25.086 - two sections in here that give the traffic engineer leniency and 02:29:25.602 --> 02:29:31.467 - Yep, so that and I'm asking is there any instance in the last six months where you've allowed someone 02:29:31.467 --> 02:29:37.216 - instead of? Transitioning to a six-foot to stay at five feet not in a monolithic situation that I'm 02:29:37.216 --> 02:29:43.138 - aware What about in a regular situation with in situations where there is a tree plot? Yes, there have 02:29:43.138 --> 02:29:48.888 - been situations where we allow an existing five-foot facility to remain and not come before us Yes, 02:29:48.888 --> 02:29:52.510 - because the UDO allows for that to have an instance of that. I 02:29:55.394 --> 02:30:01.333 - I'm not immediately thinking of it, but I know that it's happened. Okay. The reason I bring this up 02:30:01.333 --> 02:30:07.391 - is West Kirkwood just got rebuilt and every sidewalk replacement was a five-foot sidewalk and I think 02:30:07.391 --> 02:30:13.567 - the hypocrisy of that is ridiculous. I Would have liked to brought this up in a lunch meeting or a plan 02:30:13.567 --> 02:30:19.685 - commission meeting But here we are with another sidewalk variance request and the city does it all the 02:30:19.685 --> 02:30:22.654 - time and yet we have a petitioner here online and 02:30:23.266 --> 02:30:29.071 - Asking just to replace an existing sidewalk and we're saying no you can't do in this case. Well because 02:30:29.071 --> 02:30:34.708 - it's monolithic I don't understand what the guidelines are the city can do whenever they want to but 02:30:34.708 --> 02:30:40.791 - no one else can unless we ask the right question and Then you just happen to say yes. Is that the guideline? 02:30:40.791 --> 02:30:46.819 - Or if they don't know to ask they just it's not an option No, I mean I can certainly give you the citations 02:30:46.819 --> 02:30:48.382 - in the udio that talk about 02:30:48.610 --> 02:30:54.519 - What the criteria are in the situations? So how did West Kirkwood end up saying all five feet if it's 02:30:54.519 --> 02:31:00.718 - such a big issue if we're demanding six foot everywhere How did we replace those with five foot sidewalks? 02:31:00.718 --> 02:31:06.685 - And why are demanding this petition or do it when we don't do it as a city? So I think that maybe that 02:31:06.685 --> 02:31:12.536 - conversation would be best had not in the context of this case. That's before us today Well, I think 02:31:12.536 --> 02:31:15.838 - there's grounds for us to approve the five foot sidewalk 02:31:17.218 --> 02:31:23.442 - Certainly, and that's you know as part of a variance. That's what they are here to do Because what they 02:31:23.442 --> 02:31:29.665 - have requested is without is outside the bounds with the UDO allows but in the world of a variance They 02:31:29.665 --> 02:31:35.889 - can request anything and if the board finds peculiar condition they can approve that. Okay Well, I want 02:31:35.889 --> 02:31:41.933 - to continue this discussion, but I just want the board to hear me say out loud Okay, I want to focus 02:31:41.933 --> 02:31:44.446 - on what Wheeler mission is requesting and 02:31:44.898 --> 02:31:52.960 - And I am inclined to hear what he's saying that there's is there a Does the elevation drop very fast 02:31:52.960 --> 02:32:01.261 - on one side of the sidewalk? Yes, so along the east side the elevation does drop however The additional 02:32:01.261 --> 02:32:09.482 - one foot could come from the west side and take from the on-street parking where there is no elevation 02:32:09.482 --> 02:32:14.590 - change But it will go then you would have to break the blacktop 02:32:16.194 --> 02:32:23.425 - Dig out and then extend that direction, correct? Yes, I would imagine there is some slight engineering 02:32:23.425 --> 02:32:30.656 - and design work and construction to remove. Yes goes to his The cost that he's talking about Certainly 02:32:30.656 --> 02:32:37.676 - there is a cost but obviously with the variance, you know a financial hardship is not a criteria. I 02:32:37.676 --> 02:32:42.590 - Thought we'd had this conversation that we are allowed to consider it 02:32:43.490 --> 02:32:50.958 - We've had this conversation before yeah, so that that has come in in different contexts Not of a financial 02:32:50.958 --> 02:32:58.216 - hardship on a property owner. There have been a conversation about financial gains from a property that 02:32:58.216 --> 02:33:05.405 - create a hardship But that's been a little bit I guess questionable in that one isolated situation but 02:33:05.405 --> 02:33:09.662 - financial hardship is not a criteria certainly we've got our 02:33:09.826 --> 02:33:16.953 - legal representative here tonight, if you would like to. Yeah, I mean, we need to get that cleared up 02:33:16.953 --> 02:33:24.150 - because we had a whole conversation and it really sounded like we were able to consider the financing. 02:33:24.150 --> 02:33:31.137 - I'm looking at the map. I just want to make sure I understand exactly what I'm looking at. You were 02:33:31.137 --> 02:33:38.334 - talking about a point. Is this what we're talking about here? This one? No. There's nothing over here. 02:33:39.778 --> 02:33:48.166 - You're saying that we're you're requiring him to replace a five-foot wide sidewalk and I'm trying to 02:33:48.166 --> 02:33:56.803 - find where it is currently I Thought it was over here on Westplex Where is it? It's right there. That's 02:33:56.803 --> 02:34:05.107 - the one that's one Yeah, so you have the parking lot then you have a blacktop drive then you have a 02:34:05.107 --> 02:34:09.758 - tree area or grass area Then you have the sidewalk Yeah 02:34:11.362 --> 02:34:18.782 - Yes, but there's also the blacktop drive behind it, right? Okay, so and you're saying that the sidewalk 02:34:18.782 --> 02:34:26.201 - there is Non-functional. Yes, our engineering department went out and to look at it And as I mentioned, 02:34:26.201 --> 02:34:33.478 - you know, there are many panels that are cracked and upheaved and failing Well, who's responsible for 02:34:33.478 --> 02:34:35.262 - cutting it back is that? 02:34:35.874 --> 02:34:41.703 - Property owner is responsible for maintaining vegetation alongside and that's part of their property 02:34:41.703 --> 02:34:47.531 - even though there's a drive through it Yes, they own property frontage up to Westplex. Okay, so that 02:34:47.531 --> 02:34:53.418 - 201 goes all the way up to that sidewalk. Yes Okay, so that drive that cuts through their property is 02:34:53.418 --> 02:34:59.246 - their drive and their responsibility to pay Yes, so they they own those three buildings the building 02:34:59.246 --> 02:35:04.094 - at 250. So all those are like a driveway. Yes. Okay, very good All right. Thank you 02:35:05.986 --> 02:35:13.576 - Any other questions for staff or the petitioner If not, we can go to the public for comment we'll come 02:35:13.576 --> 02:35:21.091 - back to the board for further discussion any objections Okay, we'll go to the public for comments. Do 02:35:21.091 --> 02:35:28.607 - we have anyone in the public who'd like to comment on this petition? If so step forward to the podium 02:35:28.607 --> 02:35:30.302 - and sign in please and 02:35:53.698 --> 02:35:59.439 - And then after you've signed in, would you just state your first and last name? Mary Sutherland. Let's 02:35:59.439 --> 02:36:05.124 - say your first name again. Mary. Mary. Mary, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is 02:36:05.124 --> 02:36:10.697 - the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. You have up to five minutes. OK, so all 02:36:10.697 --> 02:36:16.605 - this is new to me. I'm not quite sure where the sidewalk is going that you're talking about for Westplex. 02:36:16.605 --> 02:36:22.457 - I have the property right in front of it, 1602 West 3rd. And I don't know, are you talking about putting 02:36:22.457 --> 02:36:23.070 - a sidewalk 02:36:23.650 --> 02:36:30.870 - On the west side of my building, Westplex, are you talking further down? I'm sorry, we can't answer 02:36:30.870 --> 02:36:38.235 - your question, but we will come back to that. Go ahead and make your statement. Okay, well, if you're 02:36:38.235 --> 02:36:45.455 - considering putting a sidewalk on the west side of my property, I oppose to it for a whole bunch of 02:36:45.455 --> 02:36:53.470 - reasons. First, Wheeler Mission has bring a financial hardship to myself and the other owners of 1602 West 3rd 02:36:54.146 --> 02:37:01.893 - We are now all out of business. I've had break-ins that I go to all the time There's a huge rap sheet 02:37:01.893 --> 02:37:09.487 - from all the police coming to the being called to that area because of the vandalism and If you put 02:37:09.487 --> 02:37:17.158 - a sidewalk on the west side of my building One there's a big drop-off and I'm afraid that there'd be 02:37:17.158 --> 02:37:23.006 - flooding for unit a also, there's a 10-foot utility easement right there and 02:37:23.554 --> 02:37:29.718 - And so you would have to go into the pavement, I would believe, to put in a sidewalk. And I mentioned 02:37:29.718 --> 02:37:35.943 - this only because Dana had said something to me once that he wanted to put a sidewalk up that way. Not 02:37:35.943 --> 02:37:42.410 - only that, the expense of trying to keep the ice off of it with it being on the west side and the building 02:37:42.410 --> 02:37:48.575 - across, the ice will stay and wouldn't want anybody hurt. And I'm afraid that, you know, we're trying 02:37:48.575 --> 02:37:52.382 - to sell the place. We cannot rent it. We're trying to sell it. 02:37:52.930 --> 02:38:01.227 - And as it stands right now, the sidewalk in front of 201 Westplex is full with a lot of personal belongings 02:38:01.227 --> 02:38:09.294 - from the residents of Westplex of the mission. So it's, I have pictures of that and that's still sitting 02:38:09.294 --> 02:38:17.283 - there. So it's not very conducive and homeless people don't always follow the rules and they will still 02:38:17.283 --> 02:38:20.894 - walk up the driveway and not use the sidewalk. 02:38:25.634 --> 02:38:39.537 - Thank you Is there anyone online who would like to speak to this petition If there's anybody on the 02:38:39.537 --> 02:38:53.022 - line, please use the raise hand function we can recognize you I'm not seeing anybody else online 02:38:53.474 --> 02:39:00.452 - And before coming to the board, we go back to petitioner for final comments. Does petitioner wish to 02:39:00.452 --> 02:39:07.430 - use your remaining 15 minutes? Yeah, I'd just like to add a few things. I think I want to respond to 02:39:07.430 --> 02:39:14.339 - Mary. I do not believe that the sidewalk is going to be extending down all the way to Third Street. 02:39:14.339 --> 02:39:21.455 - I think if I'm understanding correctly, she has that building just south of the property. The sidewalk 02:39:21.455 --> 02:39:23.390 - does end along our frontage 02:39:23.586 --> 02:39:31.415 - basically where the existing sidewalk is. And then I just wanted to add a few things about, Eric mentioned 02:39:31.415 --> 02:39:39.098 - the on-street parking with the sidewalk width and the reason going to six feet. We believe there's still 02:39:39.098 --> 02:39:46.634 - adequate clearance for pedestrians to use that sidewalk even with the on-street parking. The US Access 02:39:46.634 --> 02:39:52.414 - Board only requires 48 inches of clear space. And then anytime it's less than, 02:39:52.546 --> 02:40:01.865 - Five feet every 200 feet. They want a 60 inch which is five foot passing area So it does meet Standards 02:40:01.865 --> 02:40:11.095 - for accessibility. I think that's all I had if there's any more questions for me Thank you, we're back 02:40:11.095 --> 02:40:20.414 - to the board for either a motion or continued questions of the petitioner or the staff any questions or 02:40:21.954 --> 02:40:30.752 - or comments Mainly my my big comment here is that I truly do believe that sidewalks should be six foot 02:40:30.752 --> 02:40:39.635 - wide to accommodate especially large pedestrian facilities No matter what and you have a lot of walkers 02:40:39.635 --> 02:40:48.433 - going through there generally speaking but at the end of the day, you know, what is best for everybody 02:40:48.433 --> 02:40:51.166 - in a It's not a highly traveled 02:40:51.458 --> 02:41:02.111 - Vehicle access back there. So it doesn't make sense to me To put this on the petitioner Any other questions 02:41:02.111 --> 02:41:06.846 - or comments otherwise, I'll accept the motion I 02:41:35.522 --> 02:41:43.735 - So I have a question. Please. Obviously the proposed findings for denial. Do we have to go back through 02:41:43.735 --> 02:41:51.948 - each of these and come up with those findings? Correct, right? And they can't be flippy. No, they can't 02:41:51.948 --> 02:41:59.846 - be flippy. But you're, there is some latitude and we'll try to provide guidance to make sure we can 02:41:59.846 --> 02:42:05.374 - understand what the. All right, well I'll give her a shot. Thank you. 02:42:06.402 --> 02:42:12.165 - Proposal we recommend approval of the variance request based on the following findings Approval not 02:42:12.165 --> 02:42:18.101 - be interest the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community. My findings are most 02:42:18.101 --> 02:42:24.094 - the sidewalks are community five feet in the city routinely replaces sidewalks with five feet sidewalks 02:42:24.094 --> 02:42:30.030 - and that ADA code is five feet and the six foot which is to made up with The use of value the area J's 02:42:30.030 --> 02:42:35.966 - the property include the development standard bears will not be effective substantially adverse manner 02:42:36.130 --> 02:42:40.742 - Post findings. Well, there's no inverse impacts in the use of value the surrounding properties is all 02:42:40.742 --> 02:42:45.400 - of this this variance Which is what they said this reduced with the sidewalk on this front only impact 02:42:45.400 --> 02:42:50.012 - this property not the Jason property So that's a good finding. I like that one The strict application 02:42:50.012 --> 02:42:54.624 - the term of the EO will result in practical results in the use of the property that the practice goes 02:42:54.624 --> 02:42:58.558 - for particular property in question the development standards variance where we really 02:42:58.946 --> 02:43:07.519 - relieve the practical difficulties. A practical difficulty is this is an existing situation with existing 02:43:07.519 --> 02:43:15.688 - cross-sections, existing sidewalks, difficult topography, and just a low traffic area. So with that, 02:43:15.688 --> 02:43:23.856 - I move approval with the variance. So I have a second. Second. I have a motion, I have a second. Any 02:43:23.856 --> 02:43:28.062 - further discussion before I call the question? I'll 02:43:28.354 --> 02:43:35.743 - I will start with one thing, though. I am looking at this sidewalk closely. I think this may be a little 02:43:35.743 --> 02:43:42.921 - bit older, but I'm only seeing five of the slabs that are out of a line and only two of them that are 02:43:42.921 --> 02:43:49.958 - actually damaged, but I don't know how old this picture is. It may be six years old, so it could be 02:43:49.958 --> 02:43:55.166 - worse. But I think... I was out there today. The sidewalk's pretty rough. 02:43:55.330 --> 02:44:02.412 - Is it so it's the tear is to tear Yeah, yeah in my point being that it looked like it was more candidate 02:44:02.412 --> 02:44:09.158 - for repair than it was for replacement But I haven't seen the rest of it Okay, that was it. I don't 02:44:09.158 --> 02:44:16.173 - have any objection to the five foot I don't have a I don't have any objections to the motion I was just 02:44:16.173 --> 02:44:23.390 - curious about the situation on this on this drive any other comments or questions before a vote is taken I 02:44:25.922 --> 02:44:31.165 - Yes, this sidewalk is replacement existing sidewalk. They're not building sidewalk next year building 02:44:31.165 --> 02:44:36.613 - per this petition. I'm talking to you Yeah, they're not adding sidewalk as part of this petition. They're 02:44:36.613 --> 02:44:41.855 - replacing existing sidewalk That's what's before us. I don't know if anybody was clear about that. So 02:44:41.855 --> 02:44:46.995 - I should be clear No one's coming on your property. Well, they are but not because of us So for the 02:44:46.995 --> 02:44:52.135 - record Chris is restating what the petitioner had said in reply to the comments from the public and 02:44:52.135 --> 02:44:54.910 - it may not have been clear So I'm glad Chris did that 02:44:57.250 --> 02:45:08.892 - With that out any other questions or comments saying none. I call the question vote Approve vote for 02:45:08.892 --> 02:45:20.419 - approval. So yes is a vote to approve the request for a variance Burrell yes Shady. Yes Smith. Yes, 02:45:20.419 --> 02:45:23.646 - Throckmorton. Yes All right 02:45:33.090 --> 02:45:43.736 - Let me get reset again. Here we go next up We have ZR 2026-07 33 Administrative appeal for the property 02:45:43.736 --> 02:45:53.972 - of 530 South Washington. May I have a staff report? I believe that is Gabriel Yes, let me full stop 02:45:53.972 --> 02:46:02.366 - report While I'm getting that up. Yes. I am Gabriel whole brow zoning planner and 02:46:04.642 --> 02:46:16.773 - I'll try to speak into the yeah, it's I know it's this work. Thanks gay room Okay We have Administrative 02:46:16.773 --> 02:46:28.557 - appeal so progress to ZR two zero two six dash zero seven does zero zero three four five thirty South 02:46:28.557 --> 02:46:34.334 - Washington Street is an administrative appeal and 02:46:34.594 --> 02:46:41.617 - Of a notice of violation warning letter for a sign in the public right of way, which is a prohibited 02:46:41.617 --> 02:46:48.640 - sign location I just want to start with we've had some some intense cases this evening I want to try 02:46:48.640 --> 02:46:56.220 - to set a tone for this one. There's a real material dispute here. So it's right for us to be here discussing 02:46:56.220 --> 02:47:04.286 - it But the stakes are not that high There's no fines. The there was the what initiated this was a warning letter if 02:47:04.770 --> 02:47:12.451 - the board chooses to deny the appeal the Appellant will kid can move the sign onto his property out 02:47:12.451 --> 02:47:20.746 - of the right-of-way if the board decides to grant the appeal the city can simply Mark the case is resolved. 02:47:20.746 --> 02:47:28.503 - So it's all okay There's a real material dispute here, which is why we're here, but it's all okay So 02:47:28.503 --> 02:47:34.110 - we're talking about South Washington Street, this is the block between a 02:47:35.010 --> 02:47:43.647 - university and first that's a zoning map there and There's an aerial image you can see Walnut Street 02:47:43.647 --> 02:47:52.199 - to the left there. It's one block off of walnut In on May 12 planning and transportation department 02:47:52.199 --> 02:48:00.836 - received a complaint of signage in the street on May 21st staff observed the signage took a photo on 02:48:00.836 --> 02:48:02.974 - June 23rd staff issued a 02:48:03.330 --> 02:48:12.561 - notice of violation warning letter for the prohibited sign location, and on July 6th, the property owner 02:48:12.561 --> 02:48:21.529 - filed a timely appeal, which is why we're here. So this was the image in the NOV warning letter. This 02:48:21.529 --> 02:48:30.496 - is taken in Washington Street looking toward 530 South Washington, and we can see some signage there. 02:48:30.496 --> 02:48:32.606 - It happens to be green. 02:48:34.338 --> 02:48:41.368 - So that was what the appeal, sorry, that was what the warning letter was for. Some things to keep in 02:48:41.368 --> 02:48:48.467 - mind, UDO definition of sign is any display or device placed on a property in any fashion that can be 02:48:48.467 --> 02:48:55.427 - seen from a public place or a public right of way that is designed, intended, or used to convey any 02:48:55.427 --> 02:49:02.666 - identification, message, or information other than an address number. Then this was the section of code 02:49:02.666 --> 02:49:03.710 - that was cited 02:49:03.842 --> 02:49:11.895 - in the warning letter, DODO prohibits signs in the public right-of-way. So signs should not be installed 02:49:11.895 --> 02:49:19.794 - in any of the following locations, and then there's a long list. Number two on the list is, excuse me, 02:49:19.794 --> 02:49:27.616 - numbering might be a little weird, but a prohibited location is in any public right-of-way unless the 02:49:27.616 --> 02:49:29.150 - sign is an approved 02:49:29.570 --> 02:49:36.094 - wall sign, awning, or projecting sign, or is authorized by section blah, blah, blah, and blah, or further 02:49:36.094 --> 02:49:42.373 - authorized by the city. We can go down each of those if you want, but it is not any of those. Most of 02:49:42.373 --> 02:49:48.712 - those are sandwich signs, sandwich board signs, I mean, a lot in the downtown. Okay, by the way, staff 02:49:48.712 --> 02:49:54.991 - does not consider this to be vehicle signage, but we're talking about things where vehicles sometimes 02:49:54.991 --> 02:49:57.822 - park, so we wanted to just get ahead of that. 02:49:58.082 --> 02:50:04.876 - So staff does not consider this to be vehicle signage. However, to the extent that it could be considered 02:50:04.876 --> 02:50:11.670 - a feature of vehicles parked illegally in the street, the EDO clarifies that vehicle signs are prohibited 02:50:11.670 --> 02:50:16.862 - sign type. This was in the packet as well. Prohibited sign types, vehicle signs. 02:50:17.282 --> 02:50:22.500 - Vehicles vans and trailers of trucks that are parked continuously in the same general location to be 02:50:22.500 --> 02:50:27.822 - used to display signs That's one of the prohibited sign times. We can go back to this if you want, but 02:50:27.822 --> 02:50:32.989 - Staff does not consider these to be vehicle signage. So this is We think that this is not relevant, 02:50:32.989 --> 02:50:35.934 - but you might which is why we put it in the presentation 02:50:37.954 --> 02:50:44.670 - Recommendation in accordance with you do section twenty dot zero six dot zero eight zero D three B two 02:50:44.670 --> 02:50:51.647 - Because this petition is an administrative appeal the staff report shall not make a formal recommendation. 02:50:51.647 --> 02:50:56.798 - Thank you Thank you Is the petitioner president like to speak to this petition 02:51:35.970 --> 02:52:00.288 - And then Mr. Davis, you would just state your first and last name. Good evening. Mr. Davis, state your 02:52:00.288 --> 02:52:05.246 - first and last name. 02:52:05.378 --> 02:52:13.342 - My name is Joe Davis. Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, 02:52:13.342 --> 02:52:21.151 - and nothing but the truth? I do affirm. You have 20 minutes of time to use. Please. I would like to 02:52:21.151 --> 02:52:28.959 - ask, due to the late hour, that this be continued, as I'm not sure that my supporters who wanted to 02:52:28.959 --> 02:52:33.566 - zoom in and make comment are still available at this time. 02:52:33.698 --> 02:52:46.142 - Our meetings continue through the nine o'clock hour. That's a standard practice. So please continue 02:52:46.142 --> 02:52:59.084 - Unless of course I should ask the city unless he's allowed to withdraw his petition and wait six months 02:52:59.084 --> 02:53:00.702 - Okay, but if 02:53:01.186 --> 02:53:09.249 - So my response it falls within our purview To continue to ask him to continue since we're within our 02:53:09.249 --> 02:53:17.232 - regular meeting hours I want to make sure that we're handling this properly. It might be prudent to 02:53:17.232 --> 02:53:26.014 - take a vote of the board to to deny the request Or or approval that would be my that would be my motion. So I 02:53:27.170 --> 02:53:33.159 - Very well, I'll make a motion that we deny the request for continuance. It needs to be unanimous, 02:53:33.159 --> 02:53:39.454 - I believe. I think it has to be unanimous. Oddly in this case, it would have to be unanimous to grant. 02:53:39.454 --> 02:53:45.871 - I'm sorry? It would have to be unanimous to grant, but it can be split. Because it's already been posted 02:53:45.871 --> 02:53:52.227 - on the agenda. Okay, but it could be split to deny. Yes. Okay, very good. In that case, I have a motion 02:53:52.227 --> 02:53:55.038 - to deny so that we can continue to hear this. 02:53:59.202 --> 02:54:08.599 - Yeah, of course just in the spirit of participation The petitioners requested the continuance to get 02:54:08.599 --> 02:54:18.368 - his supporters here Now My comment would be why not let him What's your what's your reasoning? My reason 02:54:18.368 --> 02:54:26.462 - is this has been on the docket and he was aware that the meeting was occurring the our 02:54:26.914 --> 02:54:33.418 - Yeah shouldn't make no difference, especially since we commonly meet up to and just past the nine o'clock 02:54:33.418 --> 02:54:39.554 - hour and I think it's That a situation like this that appears to be fairly straightforward from the 02:54:39.554 --> 02:54:45.751 - city's point of view doesn't warrant a continuance, okay? But I do need a second if we're gonna vote 02:54:45.751 --> 02:54:52.132 - and it can be it can be I'll second. All right, then any discussion if not, I'll call the question I'll 02:54:52.132 --> 02:54:55.998 - call the question this to deny the request for continuance and 02:54:56.866 --> 02:55:03.917 - Are you checking the bylaws make sure we're accurate? Yeah, I don't see that it says it has to be unanimous, 02:55:03.917 --> 02:55:10.838 - you know the rules and procedures Do you say that you know, no petition may be withdrawn by the petitioner 02:55:10.838 --> 02:55:17.500 - after vote has been ordered It has been our standard practice when a petitioner requests a continuance 02:55:17.500 --> 02:55:20.670 - the day of a hearing for the board to vote on it 02:55:21.218 --> 02:55:27.685 - you know, the rules and procedures are not clear if the board has to vote but that has been our procedure 02:55:27.685 --> 02:55:34.030 - in the past of Requests has been continuous today of the hearing the board votes on it just to be clear 02:55:34.030 --> 02:55:40.192 - that that has happened But it's not clear that it has to be unanimous. Yeah, I would say I pose this 02:55:40.192 --> 02:55:46.781 - as a question to Eric really here Absent it's stating here a majority would be decisive in either direction 02:55:46.781 --> 02:55:50.686 - sir. Okay, so we have a motion We need to stop petitioners time 02:55:51.906 --> 02:56:03.686 - It would start again. He hasn't used it. He hasn't used any so it'd be 20. Okay Well, I'll call the 02:56:03.686 --> 02:56:15.584 - question so we can vote on it Yes, and to have the presentation continue Burrell No Should they know 02:56:15.584 --> 02:56:20.414 - Hattie sorry Smith yes Throckmorton. Yes 02:56:23.874 --> 02:56:35.393 - So the request to deny the continuance failed Okay, we'll reset the clock 20 minutes and ask for mr. 02:56:35.393 --> 02:56:46.798 - Davis to continue Excuse me. I'm sorry. That was two to two How How was it a failure My request the 02:56:46.798 --> 02:56:52.158 - motion the motion was to deny your continuance 02:56:52.578 --> 02:56:59.961 - And so that failed, so your motion to continue was to not. I would not say that's true. Oh, then reverse 02:56:59.961 --> 02:57:07.063 - that. I don't know. And the same thing will happen next time. It'll be at the end of the docket, and 02:57:07.063 --> 02:57:14.094 - we'll do the same thing. But it's a two to two. You know what I'm saying? It's no vote. It's just a 02:57:14.094 --> 02:57:21.758 - delight, and it's not even working. So right now, it is not continued. Right. It is not currently continued. 02:57:22.594 --> 02:57:33.033 - But there's nothing to prevent you from from making a motion to continue it I'll make a motion to continue 02:57:33.033 --> 02:57:43.472 - the next hearing second Call the question Brill yes Should a yes Smith. Yes, it's Rock Morton. No Petition 02:57:43.472 --> 02:57:48.350 - is continued. All right, we'll move on to ZR 2026 02:57:48.674 --> 02:57:58.586 - 7-34. Thank you very much to 712 less third the conditional use. Can we please have a staff report and 02:57:58.586 --> 02:58:08.209 - that is Who's doing that one? How's that Joe? Real quick. I'm just checking here, but I think since 02:58:08.209 --> 02:58:13.406 - we're past 830 we have to take the vote again. Yes, I 02:58:23.298 --> 02:58:32.699 - Yeah, no new cases heard after 830. So you have to vote to suspend the rules Do I have a vote so and 02:58:32.699 --> 02:58:42.565 - this does have to be unanimous. Do I have a motion to suspend the rules and here? Zr 20 26-07-0034 Second 02:58:42.565 --> 02:58:52.990 - and call the question, please Burrell yes should a yes Smith. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes And a staff report, please 02:59:16.130 --> 02:59:25.306 - I'm sorry whenever you're ready. Thank you The staff report Good evening, I'm Joe Patterson zoning a 02:59:25.306 --> 02:59:34.574 - long-range planner So before us is a conditional use for a dwelling duplex in a residential small lot 02:59:34.574 --> 02:59:45.022 - zoning district And this is at 122 North Roosevelt Street, which is in the greater Prospect Hill Historic District 02:59:45.762 --> 02:59:52.962 - is located on the north side of West Third Street between Maple and Fairview. And what they are proposing 02:59:52.962 --> 02:59:59.823 - is taking the existing one-story dwelling unit and largely through interior remodel, convert this to 02:59:59.823 --> 03:00:06.684 - a duplex dwelling unit. There will be some minor exterior changes as well to accomplish that. As you 03:00:06.684 --> 03:00:13.544 - can see on the site plan here, there is a proposed parking area off of the alley, and that will take 03:00:13.544 --> 03:00:15.582 - place of the existing carport 03:00:15.842 --> 03:00:22.455 - which will be converted to a covered porch. Looking at our floor plans here, we see the existing and 03:00:22.455 --> 03:00:29.069 - proposed first floor plans, which are taking the existing layout of a one bedroom, one bathroom to a 03:00:29.069 --> 03:00:35.748 - two bedroom, two bathroom. And you see that the interior stairs are removed as required to accomplish 03:00:35.748 --> 03:00:42.361 - the separation of the two units. You also see one of the exterior changes on the rear of the home is 03:00:42.361 --> 03:00:43.998 - to add a deck and stairs 03:00:44.354 --> 03:00:52.280 - to provide another access for that main floor. For the basement floor, for the other unit, the existing 03:00:52.280 --> 03:01:00.434 - two bedroom, one bathroom will become two bedroom, two bathrooms. Again, those interior stairs are removed 03:01:00.434 --> 03:01:08.283 - and the covered port is converted to a patio. And additionally, off of each bedroom, you'll see window 03:01:08.283 --> 03:01:13.694 - egress for fire and safety purposes. Looking at specific use criteria, 03:01:15.746 --> 03:01:22.487 - For this particular site, we do not find any violations in the past three years for the owner. And since 03:01:22.487 --> 03:01:28.972 - this is created through renovation and expansion, the remaining front entrance for the main floor is 03:01:28.972 --> 03:01:35.713 - to remain. And again, the roof pitch, front porch width and depth setbacks are all essentially remaining 03:01:35.713 --> 03:01:42.326 - as this is largely interior. As discussed, there will only be a total of four bedrooms. No conditional 03:01:42.326 --> 03:01:44.702 - use has been granted within the last 03:01:45.730 --> 03:01:53.194 - two years and within 150 feet of this site. And as we discussed earlier tonight, if approved, this will 03:01:53.194 --> 03:02:00.659 - be the fourth conditional use approved for a duplex this year. Moving on to our conditional use general 03:02:00.659 --> 03:02:07.262 - criteria, that complies with the UDO and other applicable regulations as discussed with the 03:02:12.738 --> 03:02:20.705 - As discussed with these use specific criteria, those were all met. And additionally, prior approval, 03:02:20.705 --> 03:02:28.592 - the petitioner did receive a certificate of appropriance from the historic board for their project. 03:02:28.592 --> 03:02:36.953 - For the additional conditional use criteria, regarding comprehensive plan, we find that the comprehensive 03:02:36.953 --> 03:02:42.238 - plan goals are met as this does increase a sensitive location with 03:02:43.650 --> 03:02:51.554 - increased residential dwelling units in capacity. For adequate public services and facilities, the existing 03:02:51.554 --> 03:02:58.945 - water and sewer are already to the dwelling unit and we do not find that the addition of one bedroom 03:02:58.945 --> 03:03:06.410 - and one bathroom will increase that unnecessarily. Regarding mitigating adverse impacts, there are no 03:03:06.410 --> 03:03:10.142 - natural or scenic features found to be on site and 03:03:10.242 --> 03:03:17.862 - The petitioner did meet with the Neighborhood Association and did receive an actual vote of support 03:03:17.862 --> 03:03:25.710 - for their plan. No phasing is proposed. And as such, staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals 03:03:25.710 --> 03:03:33.329 - adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with the condition that any units to be rented 03:03:33.329 --> 03:03:39.806 - must be registered and inspected by hand prior to occupancy. And that is all I have. 03:03:41.090 --> 03:03:51.501 - Petitioner present Is it just a single person just you or will they be more than one? Okay, go ahead 03:03:51.501 --> 03:04:01.809 - and come forward and sign in and we'll get you going And then when you're finished there just state 03:04:01.809 --> 03:04:04.798 - your first and last name and 03:04:25.314 --> 03:04:32.114 - Dennis birch MCA architects and do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole 03:04:32.114 --> 03:04:38.590 - truth and nothing but the truth. I do you have 20 minutes Just to reiterate what Joe said the owner 03:04:38.590 --> 03:04:45.260 - Bought this property about four years ago. It's a hundred year old existing house in Prospect Hill and 03:04:45.260 --> 03:04:52.254 - she has lived there and built a newer home to the north of there, but she wants to renovate this home and I 03:04:52.578 --> 03:05:01.185 - as I understand it, potentially move back into it after it's renovated. The house is 100 years old. 03:05:01.185 --> 03:05:09.793 - We are not changing the exterior footprint of the house, with the exception there is a small access 03:05:09.793 --> 03:05:18.486 - attached deck on the back. I'm sorry. Wait for the conversation to end in the... You guys done? Yes. 03:05:18.486 --> 03:05:20.638 - Okay, thank you. Please. 03:05:23.554 --> 03:05:32.865 - There there is a small new attached access deck on the back that allows transition from the first floor 03:05:32.865 --> 03:05:42.623 - down to the Lower level because of grade change across the property Beyond that The work itself is primarily 03:05:42.623 --> 03:05:52.382 - an interior renovation. There are some adjustments to a few of the windows Primarily on the west side of the 03:05:52.546 --> 03:05:58.749 - elevation of the property But the general character and footprint and everything else as I mentioned 03:05:58.749 --> 03:06:05.074 - remain the same. It has been reviewed by the HPC and received approval prospectiles and a neighborhood 03:06:05.074 --> 03:06:11.523 - association has reviewed it and approved it and As I understand it was scheduled with the owner. There's 03:06:11.523 --> 03:06:16.190 - nobody in the neighborhood that is Opposed to or disagrees with the project 03:06:25.090 --> 03:06:34.730 - That's all we will go back to the board any questions for the staff or the petitioner at this point 03:06:34.730 --> 03:06:44.371 - before going to the public Okay, seeing none we'll go to the public for comment that we have anyone 03:06:44.371 --> 03:06:54.782 - in chambers you'd like to address this If not to anyone online Richard Lewis he should be able to speak now 03:06:55.074 --> 03:07:01.258 - Richard, do you hear us? Yes, I do. Can you hear me? Yes. State your first and last name. Sure. 03:07:01.258 --> 03:07:07.764 - First name, Richard. Last name, Louis. L-E-W-I-S. Richard, is the testimony you're about to give the 03:07:07.764 --> 03:07:14.463 - whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, it is. You have up to five minutes. Great. Thank you. Thank 03:07:14.463 --> 03:07:21.226 - you all for your time this evening. My spouse and I live directly across the alley from Joyce and David, 03:07:21.226 --> 03:07:24.318 - the neighbors who are planning this renovation. 03:07:24.610 --> 03:07:31.097 - I have served on our neighborhoods, well, our local historic districts design review committee and have 03:07:31.097 --> 03:07:37.335 - reviewed this from that perspective before it was forwarded to the historic preservation commission 03:07:37.335 --> 03:07:43.573 - where they approved it. I also served on our historic design guidelines committee back in 2014 when 03:07:43.573 --> 03:07:50.123 - we created these guidelines. So from an historic preservation standpoint, which I realize is a different 03:07:50.123 --> 03:07:54.302 - purview, but I will speak to that, but I appreciate that there are 03:07:54.562 --> 03:08:01.271 - negligible changes to the outside of the structure to accomplish what they want to do as far as the 03:08:01.271 --> 03:08:07.981 - renovations. I think there's a few window changes on the alley side and a couple others on the east 03:08:07.981 --> 03:08:14.690 - side of the building. They've been very conscientious about not making changes to the public facing 03:08:14.690 --> 03:08:19.454 - facade on the streetscape. And as a duplex, the flow inside the houses 03:08:19.618 --> 03:08:27.413 - has always been problematic. And so I appreciate that they're trying to find better solutions for that. 03:08:27.413 --> 03:08:34.983 - And as a duplex renovation, I appreciate the fact that they can do this without causing disturbances 03:08:34.983 --> 03:08:42.553 - to the original structure, to the shape, the mass, et cetera, the roofline, all that help inform the 03:08:42.553 --> 03:08:49.374 - streetscape, which is always a big concern in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District. 03:08:49.634 --> 03:08:55.621 - I have seen many streets where the new plexus are cropping up and are just a series of boxes. And so 03:08:55.621 --> 03:09:01.785 - I appreciate the fact that this helps to maintain the, you know, the architectural fabric and character 03:09:01.785 --> 03:09:07.831 - in our neighborhood and in our district. So I'm very supportive of this personally and as a member of 03:09:07.831 --> 03:09:13.758 - our local design review committee. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other public comment? 03:09:16.834 --> 03:09:24.262 - If there's anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not 03:09:24.262 --> 03:09:32.131 - seeing anybody else. Okay, with that we'll go back to petitioner if you have any final comments, otherwise 03:09:32.131 --> 03:09:39.486 - we'll go right to the board. Okay, do we have any comments, questions or I will entertain a motion. 03:09:40.162 --> 03:09:46.591 - I move to adopt the proposed findings and approve petition ZR twenty twenty six Oh seven zero zero three 03:09:46.591 --> 03:09:52.714 - four with the condition as outlined by staff I have a motion. I have a second. Is there any further 03:09:52.714 --> 03:09:59.021 - discussion questions or comments before a vote is taken? This one's a retrofit of existing house which 03:09:59.021 --> 03:10:05.328 - makes this a lot easier and it's also an historic district was of course changed the entire discussion 03:10:05.328 --> 03:10:07.838 - because they'd had gone through historic 03:10:08.066 --> 03:10:15.374 - Approval before they were brought that other house to us if it was an historic district So we do have 03:10:15.374 --> 03:10:22.825 - a lot of protected neighborhoods because the HPC it's good that they're not all protected in some areas 03:10:22.825 --> 03:10:30.348 - We're gonna get some interesting stuff because of that, but um, I think this is an easy one It's exactly 03:10:30.348 --> 03:10:36.510 - what we were looking for Any other comments questions Seeing none I call the question 03:10:38.690 --> 03:10:50.863 - Yes, shabby. Yes Smith. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes 4o the motion passes Do we have any other business before 03:10:50.863 --> 03:10:58.398 - this board this evening? No seeing none. I we stand adjourned. I