- Good evening, welcome to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for Thursday, 27th. I'm going to call this
- meeting to order. Thank you for joining us tonight. First thing up is we'll have a roll call. Here.
- Shaday? Here. Smith? Here. Throckmorton? Here. And we have tonight five sets of minutes to approve.
- Would you I'll just ask the board. Would you like to do it as one general motion? Would you like to
- do each one? In other words, do we have any amendments to make to any of the minutes? If not, I'll take
- a motion for all five to be approved Just abstain from Yeah, okay motion for approval minutes second
- Okay, and call the roll
- Yes today. Yes Smith Thorpe Morton. Yes Okay, I'm gonna list out the four Petitions that we'll be hearing
- this evening in this order ZR 20 26 05 22 accompanied with ZR 20 26 07 35 and that is 412 East Wiley
- conditional use The second petition we will hear will be ZR 20 2606 31 and that is concerning 210 Southwest
- plex. It's a variance The third item is ZR 20 2607 33 at 530 South Washington and is an administrative
- appeal And the last petition we will be hearing tonight will be ZR 20 2607 34 pertaining to 712 West third
- It's a conditional use We have no petitions that will be continued tonight Before we get started. We
- have a full house. I just want to make sure if anyone's not been here before Here's how things work.
- So what we do is we get a report from the staff They present that to us It is expedited. It's a very
- short presentation at that point. I then asked the petitioner petitioner representative
- anyone else affiliated with the petitioner who would like to speak to come forward and They sign in
- and what we do is we swear each one of them in they affirm to tell the truth We do that first and then
- after that occurs it comes back to the board for any questions We have of that petitioner After that
- if we have no further questions at that point it goes open to the public for statements and that will
- be five minutes each and
- 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
- you're done signing in, I'll ask you, please state your name, and you'll state your name. At that point,
- I will also swear you in, asking you to affirm that you'll tell the truth. And then you have five minutes
- uninterrupted. You can make your statements, ask questions, et cetera. However, this board does not
- interact with the public we listen to your points. This board may or may not choose to take some of
- the points you make and then reinsert that into the discussion later on.
- very clear about what it is that you think that you would like to have answers to, and we'll make a
- determination of the best way to deal with that. But we do appreciate and welcome your comments. After
- the public has spoken, then it will come back to the petitioner after the public comments to use the
- remainder of the petitioner's time. The petitioner has a total of 20 minutes. They can use that the
- first time they speak, all of it, and then they have none left, or they can use part of it
- And then the remainder they can use at the second hearing of the petitioner Okay, so they will either
- have one 20-minute session or will have two broken up over that 20 minutes the petitioner then gets
- to speak uninterrupted at that second portion and then it's back to the board for us to either have
- continued discussion or further or to present a motion that is essentially
- the gist of what we're gonna do, and we do have policies of the respect within the chambers here, which
- is we just ask you not to be chatting or talking, because I know it's hard for you to understand out
- there, but we actually hear everything that comes this way, and sometimes it's difficult for us to hear,
- so we just ask, please, to be polite and not have those discussions. If you do have a phone call or
- something, we just ask you to step out. That's great. If you need to talk to someone, both of you step
- out and have that conversation.
- And that's completely fine. Don't feel bad about getting up and stepping out if you need to and with
- that With that again, we welcome you. We have a few more coming in Get comfortable here we go. We have
- our first Petition to be heard. May I have a staff report?
- Yes, thank you very much, Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning planner. So this is the second public hearing
- for the proposed duplex at 412 East Wiley Street. The petitioner is Mr. Kevin Spicer, and the first
- hearing for this case was back in June.
- and the BZA at that time chose to continue it. So since that meeting, the petitioner has made several
- revisions to their plans, mostly having to do with the elevations and then also some changes to the
- site plan with the access and the parking. And I'll get into that in more detail. So another change
- is that they're now requesting two variances in addition to the conditional use.
- And the two variances are from the maximum vehicle parking allowance and the vehicle parking location
- and design standards. So the zoning district for this property is R3 residential small lot and duplexes
- are conditional use in this zoning district. So that requires approval from the BZA. It also requires
- that the use specific standards from UDO section 20.03.030B3 are met.
- So this aerial map shows the location of the property. There is an unbuilt section of right of way for
- South Palmer Avenue along the West property line. And there's also a 12 foot platted alley to the south
- of the property. The alley to the south is not currently improved. So the petitioner does have the option
- to either improve that alley for access or to access the property via Wiley, having a drive cut off Wiley.
- In their prior plan, that's what was shown in June, that they had a driveway off of Wiley.
- With the new plan, the petitioner is planning to improve the alley to the south. And I will show that
- plan here in a second. So just to give an overview of this site,
- Currently on the 0.23 acre property there is a one story single family home and that's proposed to be
- demolished for the new duplex. All of the surrounding properties are also zoned R3 and they contain
- single family homes. The site is in the Bryant Park neighborhood and this petition was presented to
- the Bryant Park and Elm Heights neighborhood associations on May 7th and that is one of the requirements
- for the conditional use duplex.
- The property is not designated as a historic site and not subject to any historic regulations. And the
- city's senior environmental planner visited the site and determined that there is no close canopy on
- the site. So the tree and forest preservation requirements do not apply in this case. There are street
- trees required and those are shown on the plan along both Wiley Street to the north and Palmer Avenue
- to the west.
- So staff reviewed the use specific standards and we found that for this duplex, the use specific standards
- are met. At the time of their application, the property owner did not have any notices of violation
- on file with the planning department. The UDO's definition for family limits no more than three unrelated
- adults to live together in each duplex unit in the R3 district. And each duplex unit has a separate
- entrance facing Wiley Street to the north.
- Based on feedback from the first public hearing, the petitioner made modifications to their elevation
- drawings and I have the current elevation shown on the screen. So this house is one and a half stories.
- The second floor is partially finished and it gives an appearance of a one story house from Wiley Street.
- There are four design elements that the duplex must meet
- and be similar in general shape, size, and design with the majority of existing structures on the same
- block face. The four design standards that we evaluate per the UDO are roof pitch, front porch, width
- and depth, front building setback, and vehicle parking access.
- The UDO defines block face as the portion of a block adjacent and parallel to the abutting public street
- and extending from one intersecting street to another. So for this location, the block face is from
- South Dunn Street to the east and to South Grant Street to the west. The orientation of the roof lines
- match the orientation of roof lines along the block face and run east-west.
- The proposed roof pitch and orientation are similar to surrounding roof pitches along the block face.
- This petition includes a front porch that is typical in terms of depth and width to other front porches
- and covered entries in the area. The building is shown at the required 15-foot front build-to line and
- matches the setback of the house to the west and the location of the existing residents on the lot.
- The petitioner has modified the parking arrangement to remove the previously shown drive cut off Wiley,
- and the revised plan includes a new parking area off the alley to the south, and the new parking area
- will be accessed from a portion of the alley that will be improved in access from the existing stub
- of Palmer.
- The proposed duplex includes a total of six bedrooms, which is the maximum allowed. The property is
- not within the 150-foot buffer limitation from other nearby duplexes, and the maximum number of 15 allowed
- duplexes per year is not exceeded.
- So now moving into the criteria and findings for conditional use permit, UDO section 20.06.040 D6B addresses
- the general compliance criteria to ensure compliance with the UDO, other applicable regulations, utility
- service and improvement standards, and prior approvals. As I previously described, the use specific
- standards for a duplex within the R3 zoning district are met from the staff's analysis,
- The petitioner attended the joint Brian Park and Elm Heights Neighborhood Association meetings and presented
- the petition as required. There are no known other applicable regulations. Water service and sanitary
- connection will be coordinated with City of Bloomington utilities and electric service will be coordinated
- with Duke Energy. There is adequate capacity in the city's water and sewer system to serve the location
- and there are no known prior land use approvals for the site.
- The additional criteria applicable to conditional uses are in UDO 20.06.040 D6C. The first is consistency
- with the comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. And this proposal is in line with the goals
- of the comprehensive plan. In the future land use map, this area is identified as mixed urban residential
- and policy 5.3
- encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment across the city. As stated by City of Bloomington
- Utilities, there's adequate water and sewer capacity in the city system to serve the proposed duplex.
- On the site plan, new concrete walkways are shown to connect the proposed duplex to Wiley Street, so
- that provides pedestrian connections as required by the UDO.
- The new plan is showing a parking area off the alley along the south side of the property, which will
- provide vehicle access to the site. There are no known regulated natural or scenic features that will
- be impacted, no changes to trash and waste collection. In response to feedback received at the neighborhood
- meeting, the petitioner revised the plan to include a six foot tall privacy fence on the east side of the lot
- to help buffer the property from the adjacent use. And no phasing is proposed with the plan. So now
- moving into the two variance requests, the petitioner, the first variance the petitioner is requesting
- is from the maximum number of parking spaces. This is regulated by UDO section 20.04.060E, and it limits
- the maximum number of parking spaces to four parking spaces for a duplex.
- the petitioner is requesting to increase the maximum to five. The second variance is from UDO 20.04.060I2BII.
- And this limits the parking area off an alley to 20 feet by 20 feet. And the petitioner is requesting
- a variance to allow a 20 foot by 40 foot parking area off the alley.
- So this is their current site plan that was submitted in the packet to the board. And it shows the improved
- alley to the south with the 20 foot by 40 foot parking area for five parking spaces. I do want to make
- a note to the board that for 90 degree parking, 90 degree angle parking, the minimum parking dimensions
- are eight and a half feet by 16 feet. And this plan shows eight foot wide parking spaces.
- So the petitioner is either required to get a minor modification to be approved by the planning director
- to reduce the parking width from eight and a half feet to eight feet, or the board can add a condition
- to increase the parking area to 42 and a half feet to accommodate the eight and a half foot wide parking
- space width requirement.
- And then I also want to correct that the impervious area for this proposal is actually 31.74%. The prior
- plan had an impervious surface coverage of 44 and a half percent. So this is significantly less than
- the original plan. And for the variance from the maximum vehicle parking allowed, staff did not find
- that one additional parking space would have a significant impact on the community at large.
- While the maximum parking standards for this use were highly contested and vetted, one additional parking
- space that otherwise meets the design standards of the property is not expected to have adverse impacts
- on surrounding properties. For the third criteria, staff did not find any practical difficulties peculiar
- to the property because the site can be developed with a duplex with a maximum of four spaces. For the
- second variance from the vehicle parking,
- location and design, staff found that this would be injurious to the community because it is a request
- to double the size of the parking area permitted by the UDO. The purpose of limiting the size of allowed
- parking off an alley is to manage vehicular access and doubling the size of the allowed parking area
- can increase risks to pedestrians and future vehicle users in the event that the alley is expanded to the east.
- Staff did not find any practical difficulties peculiar to the property that prevent the petitioner from
- complying with the 20 foot by 20 foot parking pad as limited by the UDO. And this site can be developed
- with a compliant driveway off Wiley as previously shown or a compliant parking pad via the alley to
- the south. So on the screen, this is the prior plan that was presented to the board in June.
- and then this is the current plan before you and I'm happy to flip back and forth if that's helpful.
- These are the prior elevations that were presented to the board in June and then the petitioner modified
- their plans to present these elevation drawings. The height to the peak of the duplex is 26 and a half
- feet and that's compliant with the UDO.
- And you can see the floor plan with the partially finished second story. This was the siding color submitted
- by the petitioner. And then lastly, the department is recommending that the BZA adopt the proposed findings,
- approve the conditional use request, and deny the variances with the following conditions. One, that
- the conditional use is limited to the design approved by the board.
- Two, a right of way permit is required prior to any work in the public right of way. And three, a privacy
- fence is required along the east property line as requested by the neighbors. So with that, I am happy
- to answer any questions. Thank you. Is the petitioner here? Will you be the only one speaking on behalf
- of the petitioner?
- State your name, please. Kevin Spicer. Kevin, do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the
- whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. OK, and we'll start a timer. We have 20 minutes. Again,
- just as a reminder, whatever time you don't use, you can retain for later. Thank you. Thank you. So
- I think I'd like to start just by kind of recapping a little bit from a couple months ago. So in doing
- so, a lot of the things that we heard
- That the building that I you saw pictures of that we brought to you a couple months ago the neighbors
- The the neighbors didn't feel that it looked like the other properties on that street and
- Although let me remind you that there was another duplex a lot similar to this that was just approved
- within the last couple years it was up the street real nice and a 500 block that was real somewhat similar
- to what we proposed a couple months ago, but I heard I heard that and and and that was actually part
- of the the condition for the condition from the
- from this panel, from the BZA, was to make it look more like what was others on the street.
- So with that, we did that. I brought that back to a story and a half, a rectangle style home that maybe
- would look like the homes there that was built in the 50s. The other thing we heard a lot about was
- the width of Wiley, it not being a really wide street. There's on-street parking on both sides, and
- they felt when there's people parking on both sides, the street's narrow, it was hard to pass. I thought,
- well, all right, we'll bring it in a different direction. So by bringing it in, Dodds and down Palmer,
- there's only a couple driveway, there's only two driveway cuts off of Palmer,
- onto would would be the south end of this property where the alley would be and You're right as you
- 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
- to get an additional parking space so if I could bring my tenant back off the the back if you will keep
- them off of Wiley and
- Trying to be neighborly trying to use you know, hopefully then that way maybe there would be less Tenants
- using that on-street parking. So that's the purpose for the The request for the the Variance and as
- you can see I had plenty of percentage of in previous space, you know to do that so as we're going to
- here, here after a bit, right? I tried to think, of course, I went back and I looked at all the other,
- as you well know, you guys have approved a lot of them, other duplexes in town, whether Roosevelt, there's
- a couple on Henderson, there's several on Woodburn, and I kept trying to go back and I even mentioned
- last time, there's really no difference between Wiley Street and these other streets. These are all
- Bloomington in town old streets Residential and some of them are now as we see her starting to be built
- on but one of the things that kept coming back that was different between my project and all the other
- projects that y'all have already approved was now we've got a couple council members that have come
- out due to the crowd and
- Have come out against this project in your packet last time. We had a letter from Piedmont Smith and
- she had said in that letter where she had gone and at that point in time the director was Mr. Hittle
- and met with him and told him all the problems that they had with Wiley and Of course forward that that
- letter to you all but then even at that point I
- The director Hiddle along with the planning staff they still had recommend approval and the reason of
- course was is what we've just heard is that all of the others that unions have approved met the udo
- standards just like this one, so now two months later We yet have a new director and into this director
- along with the staff have also requested requested but
- Suggested approval and it's just because it has met the udo Requirements again, just like all the other
- ones from All the other units on different streets that have already been approved a lot of them have
- been proved unanimously I went back and watched all those And then of course we had and I see mr. Ruff's
- in the in the crowd and you know, you know, he is
- He spoke a couple months ago and said that he fundamentally felt that the staff and the director was
- wrong. And fundamentally, they're not wrong. Again, the council has given them a set of standards to
- go by, and these projects, along with this project, met those UDO standards. So it's not fundamentally
- wrong. It's now become a political issue.
- And unfortunately these council members have now applied their political influence on you folks and
- now in some of you folks were appointed by the by the City Council and I hate you know shame on them
- for one and You know, I'm sorry that they've now put you in a position where you have to make a decision
- Whether it's just another duplex on another street and or now if it's become a
- Somewhat political and I hate that that that's that that's happened and it's obviously that it has So
- I think with that I would I'm sure I'll come back with some other and I think the other thing when I
- went back and and listened to all the remarks through the time and we're gonna hear him again tonight
- and When I went back and listened to him and even even mr. Ruff's comments all of those comments could be used
- for any other petition that's been in front of you. We're gonna hear all that, whether it's size or
- location, or width of street, or it doesn't match, or it's gonna be a rental. All of those comments
- fit any other petition that you've already seen, and you're gonna see in the future. I'm sure there's
- gonna be more. But with that, I'll leave it at there, and I'll be glad to finish later.
- Thank you Just quickly before we go back to the board. I had a question. Could you repeat the size of
- the parking space? You said eight and a half feet wide by what? Yeah, the minimum is eight and a half
- feet wide by 16 feet long and the petitioners plan is showing right now eight feet by 20 feet Thank
- you, okay, we're back to the board for any questions of the petitioner or or of the council. I'm sorry
- of the of the city staff
- Just to be clear The petition is the right to do a curb cut off of Wiley and we asked him not to So
- yes and no yes, they have the right to either have a curb cut off of Wiley, which is what they previously
- showed and
- They also have the option to improve the alley to the south. And they chose to revise their plan to
- do that. So it was not staff saying one way or the other. It was a decision that they made. So he has
- the option to do both. Yes, he can do one or the other for access purposes because the alley to the
- south is not currently developed. If it was developed, the UDO would only allow alley access.
- So if we hear from all these good people and parking is a major theme of hardship Your finding said
- there's not a peculiar to the property to allow the variance for parking on the alley I Would think
- there is because Wiley's an 18 foot wide road with no improvement So I just want to say that to all
- you people going to talk give us some guidance on where your parking thoughts are because I think we
- have leeway either way and I would assume the city's position is we don't want a curb cut on Wiley and
- We'd prefer it not be there. Because we don't like curb cuts on streets. We don't like curb cuts across
- sidewalks. Yeah, I mean, looking at the UDO, the UDO allows either if the alley to the south was already
- developed, though, then the city would require the UDO would require that the alley to the south is
- improved. So you may interpret that to be, you know, the city preferring alleys developed to the south.
- But the UDO is pretty clear in this case.
- What's the alley requirement these days? Is it gonna gravel, asphalt, is there a certain width to the
- asphalt or gravel? Good question, and I did consult the engineering department on this, so I think they
- would like to see the 12-foot alley completely developed, and right now it's only at nine feet. I think
- their preference as well is that it's paved, but I don't think it's a requirement, so they could do
- gravel or pavement, but that's between engineering
- What about the parking spaces, gravel or concrete or asphalt? Is there a requirement? We have requirement
- that it's paved on the private property. Just being clear. All right. Yep. We have any other questions
- for the petitioner for the board? Anyone else? OK. So with that, we are now to public comment. Just
- a show of hands, how many people
- Plan to speak to this? Okay, all right, we should be fine. Otherwise, I'd have you all stand in line
- and whatever. So we'll just go one at a time. Go ahead and sign in first. I was gonna say, Kevin did
- not sign in. Do you want him to sign in ahead of me or does it matter? Yeah. All right, give me a moment,
- please. And then when you're done signing in, just state your first and last name.
- Julie von der Schmidt Julie do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole
- truth and that's what the truth. I do you have five minutes Hi, I live at 421 East Wiley across from
- 412 I'm here tonight to ask that you deny the conditional use request for the proposed duplex dwelling
- while many in this room and throughout our community support sustainable affordable urban infill and
- This specific proposal involves the demolition of an existing single-family home to construct a permanent
- high-density rental structure with no viable path toward owner occupancy. This project is inconsistent
- with several key standards established in the UDO. Section 20.02.020C, the unique mandate of the R3
- district is to protect
- and enhance the established residential neighborhoods by increasing the viability of owner-occupied
- housing. This section explicitly discourages the conversion of existing housing stock. Demolishing a
- functional single-family home to build a commercial rental duplex directly undermines the statutory
- objective. Section 20.04.070, the UDO protects
- core residential zones from being overshadowed by abrupt intensifications in land use. This project
- conflicts with the transition rules meant to safeguard the physical integrity and scale of established
- face blocks. Section 20.03.030. The petitioner will argue that this project checks every box of the
- use specific standards.
- However, technical compliance on paper does not translate to structural compatibility in reality. The
- total square footage, massing and overall volume of the proposed building, completely dwarf the existing
- single-family, single-story homes on the block face. Furthermore, utilizing the maximum of six bedrooms
- is not an organic design choice.
- It is a calculated workaround meant to bypass the city's standard rental occupancy limits and maximize
- the per bedroom profits Under section 20.0 6.0 5 OB the conditional use cannot simply exist in a vacuum
- of technicalities The board must look at the physical reality this massive
- out-of-scale footprint creates a severe architectural mismatch that fundamentally undermines the neighborhood
- character criteria you are legally required to enforce. Bloomington's long-term economic viability and
- stability relies heavily on our ability to retain career-focused individuals, including teachers, healthcare
- workers, and early career entrepreneurs.
- When permanent housing stock is converted into speculative investor driven rental properties, the opportunity
- for local workforce home ownership shrinks. This trend drives up local land values through per bedroom
- pricing models, effectively putting many local workers, young professionals and family units who wish
- to establish permanent roots in Bloomington out of the market, whether they own or rent.
- Because this petition fails to satisfy the neighborhood character criteria as described and defined
- in the UDO, and also runs counter to the protective intent of the R3 zone, I respectfully ask the board
- to uphold this ordinance and vote no. I thank you for your time, your service, and my ability to speak
- here tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Julie.
- State your first and last name John Lawrence and John Do you affirm that the testimony you're about
- to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you. You have five minutes.
- Good evening again My name is John Lawrence and I'm here tonight to ask the board to deny this conditional
- use petition. I Want to focus on something that the petitioner raised at the previous hearing and again
- tonight He pointed to other duplexes that have been approved and essentially asked if those projects
- were approved Why shouldn't this one be approved too?
- Understand why someone would ask that question, but I think it misunderstands what a conditional use
- is If the City Council had intended duplexes in this district to be automatically permitted It could
- have made them a use by right. It did not Instead it specifically required each proposal to come before
- this board for conditional use review that means the question before you is not simply have we approved
- a duplex somewhere else and
- The question is, should this particular duplex be approved at this particular location under the conditions
- that exist here today? And those conditions can change. In fact, they have changed. Since some of the
- earlier duplex decisions that have been discussed, another duplex has been approved just a block away.
- That is now part of the existing condition of this neighborhood. I'm not suggesting that one duplex
- automatically prevents another. That's not the point.
- The point is that every approval changes the context in which the next application must be considered.
- Density changes, the mix of housing changes, parking demand can change, the character of a block and
- the surrounding blocks can change. That is precisely why conditional use review matters. If every earlier
- approval effectively required the board to approve the next similar application, then conditional use
- review would gradually become meaningless. The first approval would become an argument for the second,
- the second for the third,
- Eventually something that was deliberately made conditional would function almost like a use by right.
- I Don't believe that is what the ordinance asks this board to do in fact the ordinance itself recognizes
- that proximity between duplexes matter It establishes the buffer around an approved duplex for a period
- of time So the idea that the surrounding development pattern matters is already built into the UDO.
- I Also want to emphasize that there is nothing inconsistent about this board reaching different decisions
- on different petitions and
- Consistency means applying the same standards fairly. It does not mean reaching the same result when
- the properties, designs, surroundings, and existing conditions are different. So I would ask you to
- not view previous approvals as promises of future approvals. Please look at this application as the
- conditional use process requires you to, on its own merits and its actual surroundings and in light
- of the neighborhood that exists today. And under those conditions, we believe this petition should be
- denied. Thank you.
- Thank you, John. Cory Gerhart. And Cory, welcome. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give
- is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have five minutes.
- All right. I'm going to read straight from the page, so pardon the lack of eye contact.
- I submitted a formal letter co-signed by 23 neighbors, including residents and landlords, outlining
- how the original plan conflicts with the city's formally adopted policy. My points apply equally to
- this version, and I respectfully request that you review that letter prior to voting. You'll find it
- in tonight's packet. The file name starts with 412E Wiley and includes my name, Corey Gearhart. The
- size and scale of the previous submission contributed to two board members voting against it. This revised
- design is larger, both in total square footage and overall height.
- It's nearly double the average square footage of the seven homes on the block face, and more than a
- third larger than the single largest home among them. Small Lot R3 is fundamentally the least suited
- zone for maximizing the six-bedroom duplex limit, and this stretch of East Wiley in particular presents
- severe physical constraints. This is a pedestrian-heavy street that lacks sidewalks or even curbs, so
- everyone shares the same blacktop, and that blacktop is narrow.
- In fact, it's too narrow for cars to legally park on the street across from each other, as has been
- confirmed by parking enforcement. So the actual usable parking capacity is roughly half of what staff
- represented in the report. To be clear about that, parking is legally allowed on both sides of Wiley.
- You cannot legally park two cars across from each other on Wiley. The staff report also presumes that
- frontage parking along 412 will remain available specifically for the owner of this property
- These are unreserved public spaces and as I've explained if a vehicle so much as parks across the street
- from 412 the parking along it would no longer be usable the proposed on-site parking is frankly decorative
- the parking area is difficult to access and then neither the alley nor the spaces meet udo minimums
- for parking widths as Eric Grulick noted during a recent hearing regarding a very similar configuration quote
- Having a nine-foot aisle to get into a typical perpendicular parking space, you just can't really do
- that movement very easily at all. And again, these spaces are smaller than that typical. Once parked,
- residents and their guests end up approximately 75 feet from the building's nearest entrance with no
- walkway designated. Meanwhile, East Wiley Street sits just 15 feet from the front porch. Residents and
- their guests will predictably default to street parking. Unfortunately, the by-right parking in the
- previous plan was a little better.
- We see from both the 300 block where six bedrooms were added to a divided lot and the very similar duplex
- at 506 that residents and their guests will generally opt to park on the street or even the front lawn
- rather than utilize the already limited number of on-site spaces no matter how accessible. Ultimately,
- no on-site parking can solve the problem of East Wiley's insufficient width and lack of sidewalks.
- Parking from the six-bedroom divided loud on the 300 block funnels everyone in the tight interactions
- with motor vehicles and occasionally chokes off the flow of motor traffic entirely Parking from the
- six-bedroom duplex at 506 has created an entire block that is one lane or less serving all of the forms
- of foot and motor traffic you can imagine traveling in both directions and heading into or from a blind
- turn from South Henderson
- While opposing and when opposing motorists meet they usually have to either reverse down the entire
- pedestrian heavy block or reverse into the Wiley Henderson intersection It is an absolute mess and one
- that the city acknowledges but lacks the resources to address this project will worsen both of these
- situations and likely replicate them on the 400 block which is already far more densely populated than
- either of the adjacent blocks were before those buildings were added and
- Now, staff has explained that any existing street is presumed adequate when they evaluate conditional
- use recommendations, regardless of capacity or existing congestion. Planning has confirmed they wouldn't
- hesitate to line the entirety of East Wiley from South Lincoln to South Henderson with six-bedroom duplexes
- on every lot along both sides of the street while our narrow road remained as is. There is no limit.
- That's what I've been told.
- However, under the UDO this board not staff is tasked with determining whether both street and public
- safety capacities exist to accommodate this proposed conditional use I ask you to recognize tonight
- that they do not thank you for your time Thank you Hello, my name is Tatiana Moyer
- Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- Thank you Members of the board I'm a resident of Bryant Park neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity
- to speak I Respectfully ask that you deny the petitioners request I believe we need to preserve walkable
- neighborhoods for permanent permanent residents whether renting or owning
- This neighborhood is less than 10 minutes from downtown. We walk year round to the library, post office,
- restaurants, theater, doctor's appointments, beeline trail, community events at Switchette Park and
- more. Residents have chosen to live here because we can walk to so many places.
- But every time a family home is replaced by a purpose-built student rental, we lose another opportunity
- for permanent residents to live in this walkable neighborhood. These homes are a finite resource. Once
- a single family home is demolished and replaced with a high-density student rental, that opportunity
- for permanent residential housing is permanently lost.
- Bloomington's comprehensive plan recognizes the importance of preserving neighborhood character and
- stability minimizing the placement of displacement of working residents supporting affordable homeownership
- and improving walkability and pedestrian pedestrian safety Approving this project moves us away from
- those goals Wiley Street has no sidewalks children play here ride their bikes and
- Young families walk with strollers and their dogs. Families bring their children to music lessons on
- this block. Elderly residents walk in the street to visit neighbors, meet Uber drivers, and more. Because
- we live so close to downtown, many residents walk rather than drive. Adding students is likely to mean
- four or five additional vehicles on an already narrow street.
- More parked cars mean less visibility, less room for two-way traffic and pedestrians being pushed further
- into the roadway. These are not hypothetical concerns. Approximately one year ago, a very similar student
- housing project was approved nearby. Residents warned that it would create additional street parking,
- congestion and safety problems. Those concerns proved to be accurate.
- The development, as well as several other properties throughout the neighborhood, have stackable off-street
- parking, yet residents and their guests still park on the street in front of the properties. Vehicles
- regularly line the roadway near the Wiley Henderson Corridor and the Wiley Lincoln intersections, reducing
- visibility, creating hazardous conditions for drivers,
- entering and leaving the neighborhood and for the pedestrians The board now has the benefit of real-world
- evidence rather than speculation Approving another similar project would compound a problem we can already
- see and this is why cumulative impact matters one project may seem small but each approval removes another
- family home adds more student housing and
- Increases parking demand and traffic and gradually changes the character of the entire neighborhood
- The character of a neighborhood is not lost all at once. It changes one property at a time We should
- be able to provide housing for students while also preserving established neighborhoods where permanent
- residents can raise family families grow older and walk to downtown and
- Those goals are not mutually exclusive, but they require us to be thoughtful about where high-density
- student housing is placed. I ask the board to consider not only this individual proposal, but also the
- precedent it sets for Welly Street and for similar neighborhoods throughout Bloomington. Based on everything
- I have outlined, I respectfully ask that you deny this application.
- Please help us preserve this neighborhood as a walkable Neighborhood for residents while allowing student
- housing in locations where that density and use are appropriate Thank you for your time and careful
- consideration Thank you Joe real quick. We do have one person online who I told you we get to next so
- we can get Eric
- Can I please ask you to wait just for a moment? Can I sign in? Go ahead and sign in, yes. Who do we
- have online? Eric. Good evening, can you hear me? Eric, if you hear me, state your first and last name.
- Do you hear me? No. I can't hear him. You do not hear me. I will.
- I will rejoin the meeting you do not hear me. I can hear you now state your first and last name Okay,
- good evening. My name is Derek host Eric Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the
- truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I? Do all right you have up to five minutes Thank you,
- I appreciate your consideration in allowing me to offer this comment this evening I
- We've reached a tipping point in Bloomington's approach to development, especially in core neighborhoods.
- As Mr. Lawrence indicated, context matters. Cumulative effects matter. Replacing modest, naturally occurring
- affordable homes with larger, higher rent duplexes increases occupancy and vehicle activity.
- It also introduces new pedestrian and traffic conflicts, increases demand for parking, and places additional
- burdens on aging streets, many without sidewalks, stormwater systems, utilities, and other infrastructure
- in Bloomington's core neighborhoods. One project may appear incremental, repeated parcel by parcel,
- however, these changes
- fundamentally alter the stability, affordability, and physical character of established residential
- areas. We must now therefore temper the way we evaluate these conditional use projects and consider
- the context. Housing policies, zoning, and regulations should not simply potentiate the production of
- more market rate units on the assumption that any increase in unit count is inherently beneficial.
- We must also ask what housing is being lost, what housing is being created, who can actually afford
- that housing, what infrastructure consequences follow, and whether the change advances the long-term
- stability and welfare of the surrounding residential community.
- A modest existing home that is affordable to a working household that has a real housing value that
- is not captured simply by comparing the number of units before and after development or redevelopment,
- excuse me. Demolishing that home and replacing it with a substantially more expensive income producing
- asset may increase density while simultaneously reducing meaningful affordability. Bloomington
- does not simply need more housing. Bloomington needs more homes. Ideally those homes would be owner
- occupied. Bloomington should place greater weight on preserving stable residential areas and protecting
- truly affordable and naturally occurring affordable homes.
- Development should serve the community rather than treating every residential parcel primarily as an
- opportunity for maximum asset appreciation and rental yield. I would turn your attention to the development
- that has occurred on North Jefferson over the last year and a half. There are parcels there that once
- on what's existed, NOAAs, Naturally Occurring Affordable Homes, priced in the area of 250 to $300,000,
- Now there are 10 bedroom duplexes, two of which have been put on the market for approximately $1.5 million
- a piece. The duplex up the street on Wiley was built on a vacant parcel purchased for $145,000 and was
- sold a year later for approximately $680,000. We are not creating affordable housing.
- And I ask that you consider that in your conditional use deliberation of this petition. Thank you.
- Thank you. Just state your first and last name, please. My name is Jeff von der Schmidt. And Jeff, do
- you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do. Thank you.
- Good evening. I live across the street from 412. My parents were the original owners of our house from
- 1954 until I purchased it in 1991. I believe Bryan Park is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in
- the entire city in which to live and raise a family. The UDO provides three grounds to deny this conditional
- use. Size and scale.
- This duplex is at the absolute limit of what is permitted by the UDO in an R3 zone. At 2,996 square
- feet, rather than being reduced in size as was recommended by the board members at the June hearing,
- it is 66 feet larger, would be nearly 30 feet in height, positioned over 25 feet closer to the street
- than the adjacent home.
- It more than doubles the square footage of five of the seven houses on the block face. It is 886 square
- feet or 43% larger than the next largest house on the block face. It is 1,880 square feet or 169% larger
- than the house to be demolished.
- It would add an additional four bedrooms on a street that has seen 12 new bedrooms constructed over
- the past several years Along with the added traffic parking and safety issues. These have brought Demolition
- of existing housing stock specifically and only in our three zoning The UDO states demolition
- of single-family homes converting to a higher intensity use is to be discouraged unlike previous Wiley
- Developments which were built on vacant property this plan for calls for demolition of an existing
- single-family home Construction constructing a six-bedroom six-bathroom commercial apartment home renting
- for a thousand dollars a bedroom and demolishing a $1,400 a month two-bedroom house this furthers neither
- affordability nor future owner occupancy in a core neighborhood
- inadequate infrastructure Between Lincoln and Henderson Wiley has no sidewalks The actual pavement width
- leaves a significant portion of the 40-foot right-of-way unpaved pedestrians walk in the travel lanes
- after construction of the duplex at 506 510 in effect Wiley has become one lane between Henderson and
- done forcing cars on Wiley and
- Turning on Wiley to back out into Henderson or vehicles going east to reverse pass done. So on truck
- coming traffic can clear Between our house and 412 Pavement width is 22 and a half feet or less than
- 60% of the right away You cannot park cars across from each other This plan shows on-site parking for
- five vehicles entering the property from the south via 12 foot wide alley from the Palmer Avenue stub
- There is no sidewalk or path from the parking spaces to the duplex triggering concerns. They would be
- ornamental and not used Staff recommends denying the parking variance if denied, but the duplex use
- is granted It leaves parking which is the neighbors primary concern not addressed in a public forum
- In any case, some residents and guests will have to park on this already narrow street, intensifying
- parking pressure in the middle of the block, resulting in a new area that becomes a safety hazard for
- pedestrians and cyclists on both Wiley and Palmer. If, as stated by planning staff, Palmer is considered
- a greenway and is designated as a multi-use pass on the transportation plan,
- Reducing traffic visibility where it intersects Wiley is counterintuitive Eventually the city will have
- to address safety concerns at that intersection for these three reasons I urge you to deny the conditional
- use for this duplex and Real quickly. Can I have a show of hands of people that are here in opposition
- to this petition in person and online? Thank you, thank you for your time and attention Thank you
- And Dave as you sign in just give me a moment before I swear you in I State your first and last name
- Dave Rallo And Dave do you affirm to the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth Yes, I do. Okay. Thank you. You have five minutes. Thank you Good evening
- board members and thank you for your service to the community I'm Dave Rallo City Council district for
- I was serving on the City Council when up zoning plexing was adopted I didn't support the legislation
- at the time as I was afraid of the investment incentive and
- purchasing homes in neighborhoods near campus and converting them to rentals, adversely changing the
- character of our neighborhoods. This fear has proven correct. Homes that might be currently owner-occupied
- or might return to owner-occupancy have been turned into apartments by plexing. It has worked contrary
- to owner-occupancy. Furthermore, some houses that have been rentals have been expanded such that although
- they now have more rooms, they are now more expensive
- than those previously occupying the house. I note that the market rate for these rooms may range from
- $1,000 to $1,200 per room, when typically they would previously have ranged from $400 to $500. So it
- has worked contrary to affordability. Although flexing was adopted in part on the grounds of owner occupancy
- and on part on the grounds of affordability, neither has passed the test.
- Anticipating these and other impacts on the community several of us on the council sponsored amendments
- in order to mitigate These impacts on our neighborhoods and thus send it to you the BZA for
- your determination These included requiring the proposed structure to adhere to the context and compatibility
- with the adjacent homes within the block face These amendments were adopted by the City Council for
- design our municipal code requires that the
- The following design quoting the following design elements of the duplex dwelling shall be similar in
- general shape size and design with a majority of existing single-family or duplex structures on the
- same block face on which it is located and Then number one roof pitch number two front porch width and
- depth number three front building setback and
- vehicle parking number four. I want to make clear that as a sponsor, I was a sponsor of this code that
- our intent and the other sponsors who are co-sponsors was primarily general shape, size, and design.
- The other elements are important too, but the size, shape, and design must be considered primary in
- your review. This proposal is out of scale for the neighborhood.
- It is larger than any other structure on the block face and over twice as large as five of the seven
- houses on that block face. The code is being misinterpreted and this concerns me. I understand in previous
- petitions brought before you, the BZA, the definition of block face was stated incorrectly for your
- determination. That was a finding by our counsel attorney reviewing the BZA transcripts.
- bcad videos Although block face is correctly interpreted this evening to maintain that this position
- is in compliance is Incorrect. It is not compliant in size relative to other structures on the block
- face I urge you to follow the code and the vote against this petition. Thank you
- State your first and last name You may and also the ending of that also bends by itself if that'll help
- a little bit. Oh, thank you very much. Absolutely Much okay first and last name Jan Sorby Jan Do you
- affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do. Thank you Good evening. I want to focus on one basic question tonight Do you have enough information?
- to decide whether this duplex meets the requirements of the ordinance. Duplexes are conditional use.
- That means they must meet the regular zoning rules plus additional standards written specifically for
- duplexes. Those standards require certain design elements to be similar, as you heard before, in general
- shape, size, and design.
- to the majority of the existing houses or duplexes on the same block face. There are seven existing
- houses on this block face. The staff report never tells you that, or how big those houses are, or how
- many stories those houses have. So how can you determine what the majority look like? The revised roof
- is a good example of how this comparison should work. The ridge now runs in the same direction as all
- seven houses. That's an improvement, and it's important, as it helps the shape and design of the duplex
- fit the block face. But why isn't the same comparison being applied to size? The ordinance says, shape,
- size, and design. All three must have meaning.
- This duplex is more than twice the size of five of the seven houses on that block face. Five out of
- seven, that's a clear majority. That said, how does staff reach a finding that this much larger building
- is similar in size? Front Step Back raises a similar question. As planned, the duplex meets the zoning
- build-to line.
- But front setback is one of the additional requirements. So you must ask, if the building is set at
- the required build-to line, will this much larger building maintain the established line of houses along
- the street, or will it stick out in front? The staff report does not give you that comparison. And finally, parking.
- Six of the seven houses have front access parking. Six of seven. The seventh is a corner lot with parking
- access on the side street. The duplex has rear parking. I'm not saying whether front or rear parking
- is better. I'm asking, how is rear access parking similar to the majority of the six of the seven houses
- that have front access parking?
- In fact, elsewhere in the report, staff itself says the proposed 40-foot drive cut access is not comparable
- with the vehicle access in the surrounding properties. Tonight, all I'm doing is asking you to apply
- the requirements council adopted, and that requires an actual comparison with the majority of the house
- on this block face.
- So now, I'm back to my original question. Do you have enough information for these findings yourself?
- Staff gave you their conclusions, but where's the data? Where's the information that allows you,
- as a BZA, to independently reach those conclusions? I don't believe it's in the report.
- And without that information, I don't believe you can make the findings required to approve this conditional
- use. So I ask you to vote no on this proposal. Thank you for your time.
- Jane st. John For 33 years I have lived at 408 East Wiley the house immediately to the west of the proposed
- structure My father here tonight lives across the street and my daughter lives nearby, too I also own
- two rental properties in this neighborhood
- Have always valued the vibrant balance of full-time and part-time residents here and I want to be clear
- that I strongly favor increased density in my neighborhood My neighbors and I have spent significant
- time documenting for this meeting Why the specific proposal is inappropriate for this specific location?
- I have signed on to their letters about parking and
- infrastructure and the disproportionate physical scale and I know you've heard this before but 43% larger
- than the current largest house on the block face of this proposed building I Would like to offer further
- context regarding our current density and the potential impact of this project the city block and
- where we live between Lincoln and Henderson, which includes the block face we've been talking about,
- has already seen a significant increase in population over the past eight years. The second and third
- lots on the north side of Wiley on our block grew from one resident to nine through the addition of
- a house and a carriage house by a rental developer on what was a vacant lot and a half.
- Formerly owner occupied house across the street from the new house and carriage house is now a rental
- Two former rentals and one owner occupied home on this block have transitioned into short-term rentals
- as Airbnb's Most notably as you've heard many times the blue duplex at 506 510 added six residents to
- a previously vacant space Consequently this one blocks population has increased by 13 residents
- We have accommodated and are familiar with density its effects and how to navigate them further I would
- point out that all of this density has occurred and more certainly could occur without demolishing any
- existing houses all the while as we know the pressure to approve projects like this duplex has intensified
- a landlord who purchased property years ago myself included
- sees a massive financial opportunity in replacing modest homes with high density structures that can
- command triple the rent. The proximity to campus makes these lots exceptionally attractive. This financial
- potential has driven lot values to a premium. Vacant lots or those with small disposable houses are
- highly sought after. For example, the lot which became the blue duplex at 506-510
- East Wiley sold within hours of Hitting the market after the owner could not reach an agreement with
- the city for the design of the single-family house She wanted to build there It has been suggested that
- because a large single-family home could legally be built on this lot by right Larger even than the
- duplex we should be happy about this duplex proposal on the contrary
- We would welcome a large single-family residence Such a home would likely place far less demand on our
- parking and infrastructure than the intensive use proposed by the developer I urged the board to deny
- all parts of this request the environmental and infrastructure consequences the removal of trees and
- However, they're designated and the addition of significant pavement that won't even accommodate parking
- for three additional residents Does not make sense on this lot While each project is viewed in isolation
- and for good reason Let's also consider the aggregate impact of these projects this structures monolithic
- presence especially since it would sit at the pinch point of a street and
- which has no curbs or sidewalks, will fundamentally alter the character of a block and of a neighborhood
- that has taken decades to establish. I respectfully urge you to reject all aspects of this proposal.
- Thank you for your service on this board and for your time and consideration today. Thank you.
- Good evening. State your first and last name, please. Kim Vint. Kim, do you affirm the testimony you're
- about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Good evening. Thank you.
- What's for the greater good? Our municipal code itself has some ideas. In fact, these are some of the
- guidelines that our appeals board have to follow. Protect the character and stability of residential
- areas. To protect the scale and character
- of existing development from the encroachment of incompatible uses, restrict the location and intensity
- use of buildings, culminate the need for student housing while minimizing the negative impacts of that
- housing on residential neighborhoods. Encourage the provision of affordable housing. This is a small
- block, not even a full street,
- that has at most five bungalow homes on each side. What is best, if we can't prevent the demolition,
- is to have a reduction in the size of the request. A one-story, two-bedroom per unit, this would be
- an alignment with the uto to quote, compatible with the surrounding pattern. Creating a driveway pad
- in the front,
- We're all acutely aware the street's not wide enough to support additional development, as those letters
- specifically stated. The east and west entry points on this block are at best one-lane roads. You can't
- really turn on them anymore. A redesign for affordability is another you-do-goal. This would add to
- the housing stock for our workforce. This is for the greater good.
- As a citizenship, what's our true goal? What are we really here for? Increasing density with affordability
- or increasing density with profit alone? Duplex zoning in a college town disproportionately benefits
- the developer without our firm oversight. Who are we? What's your goals be as stewards of this neighborhood?
- Every single decision the appeals board makes is mutually exclusive from any other decision that's already
- made. Decisions are based on a specific situation. What is best for the greater good? This tiny block
- cannot sustain more. Who wins in this denial? We all do. Kevin, even you. When I ask you why here in
- this little neighborhood,
- You kind of laughed. You said, well, I'm going to do it to all my properties. So you still win, Kevin.
- This is our only option. We live here. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Marcus Moyer.
- Do you affirm that's testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
- truth I do. Thank you My next-door neighbor has asked me to read in to the record a statement That she's
- written because she has to be at work right now My name is Jodi Atkins and I live at 401 East Dodd Street and
- I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed duplex development on Wiley Street. I believe
- this structure is out of character with the design and architectural elements that make the neighborhood
- such a beloved community. Beyond its appearance, I'm concerned that the development will have an adverse
- impact on the safety, accessibility, and quality of life that residents have come to expect in this area.
- In my view, this project does not promote affordable housing or sustainable living. Rather, it is likely
- to attract college students who can afford higher rents in a newly constructed residence located close
- to campus. As a result, increased traffic, parking congestion, and overall density are significant concerns
- for neighborhood residents, including children, pet owners, and elderly individuals. I also have a personal
- concern regarding access to my property.
- My driveway and garage are located behind my home and are accessible only via the alley alley West of
- the dead end of Palmer Street This alley runs along the length of my backyard and serves two other homes
- as well The only access point is the area where Palmer Avenue ends. I'm worried that vehicles belonging
- to duplex occupants or visitors Could block this access preventing me and my neighbors from reaching
- our garages or moving our vehicles when needed
- Respectfully asked that you consider the concerns of the residents who call this neighborhood home Please
- weigh the long-term impacts this development may have on the character safety and livability of the
- Ryan Park neighborhood and and and please Do not approve this proposal. Thank you for your time consideration
- and service to our community and then very very briefly I Did want to address mr. Spicer's comments
- That it's unfortunate. This has become political I Don't find it political. I think it's very fortunate.
- We have community members who actually care and are here So thank you for your time
- I'm Susan Bright. And Susan, do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the whole truth and
- nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have five minutes. I've been a resident of this neighborhood
- for over 25 years, just living on Lincoln, just south of Wiley. I believe the key difference with this
- location versus Kevin's other references is that this duplex is on a narrow street with no curb, sidewalks,
- or bike lanes.
- Secondly, the other two structures that have been recently built on this section of Wiley have already
- proven that the residents and their visitors park on the street Given with what the staff said they
- are looking out for the safety of pedestrians and vehicles Who on this board is looking out for bicyclists
- when they approve developments that reduce the amount of pavement for us to ride our bicycles I believe
- that this duplex is approved. You will continue to teach
- Decrease the safety of bicyclists and that there are safer areas in Bloomington. We can develop Dense
- housing. I deny this project and thank you for listening I'm doing it right now
- Well, first of all, I since the developer brought my name up several times for getting involved I don't
- think he meant it as a compliment or in a positive way, but I take it in a positive way because I am
- a council representative What do I represent? I represent the people that live in
- in the parts in our community. And the community, this part of the community clearly feels very strongly
- that this is wrong. And so, I'm actually honored to have the opportunity to represent. That being said,
- I just want to get a little more technical because, you know, you might wonder or people might wonder, well, how
- How is it that staff recommendations is so at odds with what? Neighborhood members say those who've
- researched the code a lot of those residents are very well versed on what the code says it directs what
- the requirements are and how It can conflict with what? Some elected officials who were involved in
- the process Councilman Rallo earlier explained his role in
- Actually developing the legislation and so that's what I want to talk about for just a moment So just
- today I got a memo that that I had asked for from our counsel attorney So just today I got a memo from
- our counsel attorney This is why I didn't have an opportunity to really share it widely. So Councilman
- Piedmont Smith Sarah didn't really have a chance. I literally got this late late in the day but it It
- says I'll just quote from it the plain language of the city's UDO is
- Supports that the factors that are to be considered under code general shape size design roof pitch
- front porch width in depth setback parking excess are all comparisons now, I Think that the potential
- for just Different interpretation comes from the idea. I believe that the staff has that
- as opposed to the developers of the the code language that general size general size shape and design
- refers to front porch roof pitch parking access I would assert that that's what's wrong. I'm not saying
- The staff is not fresh staff can't doesn't know what's right or wrong. It's a very different understanding
- From what I believe and from what councilman Barallo explained a few minutes ago the intent was which
- is to ensure compatibility and if you think about if we just apply general size and design and and massing
- and shape to these smaller features and
- It to me it makes no sense Having a you know a structure that doesn't fit generally at all in terms
- of massing size and shape and design for the neighborhood but the small porch and the roof pitch are
- making compatible so I think We're probably going to see very soon on council and initiative to clarify
- this and change code language and
- to clarify this potential different interpretation that this language, unfortunately, seems to be able
- to allow for. And I would say, though, to this board and to everybody, anyone who's an advocate for
- higher density and plexing, of which I am, I realize there are needs and demands and benefits from higher
- density and plexing where it fits in and where it's appropriate.
- if you want The density and the flexing to be supported generally And you want the city to make progress
- in Enabling those things that you make a decision that gives the community confidence Confidence that
- this can be done right and be done in a way that doesn't undermine the livability in the character of
- their cherished
- heavily invested in neighborhoods where they've built their lives and I invested much of what they have
- So I would just ask you to keep that in mind To build support in the future for doing this the right
- way and you have an opportunity to hear to To make a decision on things consistent with that. Thank you
- Isabel do you I'm sorry go ahead say Isabel Piedmont Smith and do you affirm that the testimony you're
- about to give us truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you as well I Think that
- a lot of the arguments made tonight are very well thought out and very well researched and I am very
- impressed by
- by people who have done their homework and also seem to have collaborated so that the different arguments
- can be brought forth by different speakers. I was trying to get down earlier today, what are the actual
- problems that the neighbors are facing? And bicycle and pedestrian safety is already a problem on this
- street because it is narrow
- There are no parking signs, so people do park on either side, both side of the street. Technically,
- they're supposed to leave 12-foot travel lane, but nobody knows that. I mean, I didn't know that until
- somebody pointed it out in code. So that's already a problem that people who walk and bike down the
- street experience. Related to that,
- There's concern about emergency vehicles getting to their destination quickly, especially in the block
- with the other duplex closer to Henderson, which is 15 feet of pavement, 15 feet, and people park on
- one side. They have enough common sense to not park on both sides there, but they park on one side regularly.
- And Henderson, of course, is a main artery
- emergency vehicles would use. So I think that these problems would be exacerbated by this duplex. And
- unlike my colleagues who spoke earlier, oh, I didn't say it. I'm on the city council. I represent this
- district, district one. Unlike my two colleagues, I was in favor of allowing plexes
- in residential, traditionally single-family neighborhoods. I think in this case, the nature of this
- street means that this will be injurious to the public health and safety if you allow this particular
- duplex because they're not gonna park behind the building. They're not gonna park 75 foot away from the door.
- The people who live there probably will have cars. Not guaranteed. But certainly, given that there are
- six units, it's highly likely there'll be more cars than in the current configuration. And the street
- just can't handle more on-street parking. I've spoken with engineering about this. I might be going
- to the Transportation Commission about this issue because
- We really need some no parking signs. There's no sidewalk, no curb, as you've heard. So it's really
- not even safe the way it is, and I think it would just be exacerbated. So I hope that this is one of
- the things you can legally consider, so I hope that you keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth.
- My name's Alan shirts Alan Alan. Yes Alan. Do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the
- truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but of course, thank you so I'm just I have some questions
- and I just didn't know how to quite put them into words or just how to do this but some of the imaging
- that I saw earlier seemed to imply that the
- Roof line where I would say gables would face west and east and then there was another View of the house
- that seemed to say the roof line would or the gables would face north and south and I just I don't know
- I felt like it they were kind of conflicting and I don't know if it's because one image was an earlier
- Scenario and then there was like a
- So so I guess I'm just kind of like saying All the rest of the houses on that street seem to have gables
- that if they do have gables That they face the west and the east and just I mean, maybe it's nothing
- too particular, but if we are talking about making things similar or And then I'm gonna stop because
- 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
- If there is anybody else online they would like to speak please use the raise hand function I'm not
- seeing anybody else online anyone else in chambers like to speak to this Okay with that we're back to
- our petitioner yes you have 13 minutes left please
- Now this will be the remainder of petitioners time in which he can speak to anything and everything
- At the end of that time. We will then go to questions from the board There will be no more statements
- from the petitioner after this. Thank you
- Before you begin I do want to clarify because there's certain about the statement there There'll be
- no more statements from the petitioner, but he will be asked to respond to questions Thank you. Go ahead.
- I'm sorry. What'd you say? I was just clarifying you have 13 minutes in which you can have a statement
- Response to anything and everything at the end of that period petitioner will not be able to make any
- further statements He will however be able to respond to any questions from the board. Hmm
- Understand good. Thanks. Well, as I just said a moment ago and I was up here everything you're gonna
- hear tonight You could apply to all the other units that you've already approved and I was I mean, I'm
- exactly right We talked about the width of the street, you know I drove down Roosevelt the other day
- and it is a narrow street with on-street parking
- I know there's been multiple units there. We talked about it being political I do we now have you know
- again three council members here Given your their view to you, which is fine But just a few months ago
- the council made changes to the UDO and as far as I can tell they didn't make any change on the reduction
- of bedrooms on the reduction of bathrooms and
- or on the reduction of the in previous area. The in previous area is what is gonna determine what the
- square foot is. There's nothing in the UDO that talks about square feet. It talks about in previous
- area. And so that, of course, we're allowed 45%. I think they said earlier I'm down to around 31%. I
- made changes to the building to be more
- To meet the block face So, I mean I feel like I have I have done those things and again I just want
- to repeat that everything we've heard tonight could could be used could have been used for any duplex
- that have been approved and
- And you and could be used for any more do but there'll be more duplexes come through Size is a big thing
- and how much bigger it is, but it's per unit We have to remember every you know, I hear that plexing
- is okay and in people approve that well these units are no more than 1500 square feet each or
- which is about the same size as the homes on that street. So we talk about the size of the unit. Remember,
- there's two units there. So per unit, those are average size of the houses through there. And so then
- again, what I hear is maybe, well, I go back to what they didn't, if they wanna change the UDO,
- And make and make what we've seen being built in Bloomington like this and yes, it is It's a college
- town, right? And so, you know, we are gonna try to build to you know to to what is allowed and that's
- what we're doing But if the council doesn't want that then man, we need to change the UDO If you change
- the UDO, then I don't have to come up here and get whatever, you know, so
- Think if the UDO needs to be changed, it should have been changed before he got here again. I don't
- feel that my My duplex is any different than the ones that have already been approved with that. I hope
- Hope for your approval. Thank you Thank you with that we're back we go to the board for either a motion
- or continued discussion we can ask questions to
- The city or to the petitioner I might encourage you to actually maybe take the front chair here. Just
- I'm sure if we have any questions, so Please Ryan. Well first as a renter of 22 years and Probably the
- only renter on this board I have plenty of opinions on on how this should go and I wish I could stay
- here for this vote but consciously I cannot do so because I have a conflict of interest and I've got
- to recuse myself as I'm a renter of Mr. Spicer's stepdaughters
- So I cannot consciously vote on this so I'm gonna recuse myself from my this vote and step aside at
- this time Thank you And back to the board do we have any questions of the petitioner of the staff I
- Have a question for the petitioner Mr. Spicer when I look at the at the site plan
- And I see the five proposed parking spots that you have. Are you going to put a sidewalk or is there
- a way from how are your renters going to walk with their groceries back to their place?
- Sure, you're right. They need to have a way to get there. It wasn't required So it wasn't put on the
- it wasn't put on the plan and I and I will make one quick change They talked about the eight and the
- eight and a half I thought when we did the eight foot width parking I had to be within the setback boundaries
- And so they do have a new drawing. It was drawn up today. I do have enough room to
- Actually widen that 40-foot to make those eight and a half foot spaces. So with that but I don't have
- any issue of Putting in sidewalks from the parking area to the units and again, I have plenty of impervious
- space to accomplish that Okay on sidewalks, I guess I'll ask the city then Is he going to be required
- to put a sidewalk in front of the building?
- No, it's not a requirement because there are no existing sidewalks connecting on either side right now.
- So that's the only time that the sidewalk requirement is triggered if there's already an existing sidewalk
- to connect to, which is not the case with this one. My last question to Mr. Spicer. Sorry, I just remembered.
- What is the surface you're going to use to improve the alley?
- It would be it would be blacktop in the parking area will be concrete. Okay. Thank you Can city put
- up slide eight from your presentation I
- I said slide eight? Yeah, that's it. For the petitioner. My understanding then is looking at the current
- elevation's top image, what is facing us will be facing the street. I want to make sure. Wiley Street,
- yeah. Yeah, that'll be the facing. No. Sorry. You have the front porch there. It'll face the street.
- Yeah. And there'll be side doors that are shown on both those elevations. Yeah. Okay. Now, can you go
- to slide 10?
- Okay, this is I think for the city's is that yellow line meant to represent kind of a general setback
- Is that roughly around the 15 or is that just what was that for again? Great question. No, it's not
- to represent a setback It's just to show the the length of the block face So the block face is ranging
- from done on the east to grant on the west And for the petitioner, what's the current setback of 412
- that we're looking at in this photo? What's the current setback?
- How far back is 412 currently sitting? I Don't know that exactly I can answer it's it's roughly 15 feet.
- Okay, that's so Essentially the the new will will sit on the same will be in line with what's there.
- Okay, that was my question I'm
- About again the park we had that whole discussion at the last time about the parking and we were talking
- about what's the best way to To use the off off-street parking. So I'm just trying to get my head wrapped
- 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
- it follows the code Which is 20 by 20, correct for the city. It's 20 by 20 is what's allowed Yes, so
- he improves the alley. It's limited to 20 by 20. So that would probably limit it to two spaces, right? So
- What would that do if we weren't? Providing a variance on that 20 by 20 It'll just put that much more
- pressure on the on the on-street parking I mean, I mean that's the whole purpose of me doing this is
- trying to alleviate some of my tenants using the on-street parking by putting by adding five spaces
- in the back having my tenants use the back and
- Use Wiley Street less we heard how narrow Wiley Street was and in and not even though they're able to
- use the on-street parking like everybody can But if I can keep my five in the back, that'll be less
- people using that so I did that a purposely Trying to make it a better scenario for the neighborhood.
- I Have a question for the staff Do we have a count of how many duplexes we've approved this year? I
- I think it's three, so this might be the fourth. And remind me what the maximum is we're allowed? 15
- is the maximum. Okay, so we've approved three this year, or we've approved the conditional use. Any
- further questions? Is that a no? No.
- All right, with no further discussion then, I would entertain a motion.
- I'll make a recommendation for BZ adopt the proposed findings approved condition use request and neither
- variance request per case is er 20 26 0 5 0 0 2 2 with the following conditions Commission use approval
- is limited design shown and discussed in the packet right away use permit is required Prior to any work
- in public right away per the submitted site plan a six foot tall a big fence required along these property line and
- Motion in front of the board for votes taken. Is there any further discussion or anything else you'd
- like to say before we take a vote? So I will ask Chris since it's your motion I'm inclined at the moment
- unless I'm swayed to vote against the motion, which is I am finding there to be compelling reasons for
- Primarily with the size of the street and with the parking I'm concerned even with the five spaces.
- It's not going to be enough for The duplex is there and they're still going to put end up on the street
- And I'm taking into account too that even though it's not 150 feet It's still rather close to that duplex
- on 500 and we are trying to keep them separated a bit and I just wonder if it falls within the The spirit
- of the UDO
- I'm also struggling with a bit with the size. Although I do think that this is much smaller than what
- we saw before so that I can live with but What would be the rationale for me to change that boat? I'm
- just I'm curious Well, I kind of want the parking but there was no compelling argument today to say
- that everybody really wanted didn't want it there's concerns about pedestrians in the alleys concern
- of bicycling and
- All of that I think there should be parking behind us best for improving that alley. Yeah, I just don't
- think it's not it's enough That's yeah, I think even with what we're giving them that concern And we're
- gonna give them 40 feet, right? We're gonna give them the 20 by 40, right? We're not wait a minute.
- Yeah, the 20 by 20 is what they'd imp with based on the recommendation based on my recommendation Yeah,
- okay, they're gonna get the 20 by 20. So it'll be three spaces Roughly roughly. Okay
- I'm sorry from staff perspective. I just want to clarify The 20 by 20 pattern would really only allow
- for two spaces. Yeah Well, that's right because it's eight and a half wide that's 17 feet But the motion
- you have is for is for the 20 by 20 Yeah, absolutely more discussion before yes before we call for the staff and
- Can we call a peculiar reason that the parking that this is a very narrow street with Volume was parking
- so we can approve the parking in the back because this is a peculiar situation with this lot I'd vote
- for it Yeah, I would be I would be cautious about citing the existing street
- as the peculiar condition for the lot In that the street can obviously be widened the petitioner could
- add Asphalt and create additional on-street parking You know, I think it's also important to note that
- while the street is 20 feet wide that that 20 feet is compliant with the transportation plan So while
- it wouldn't allow for on-street parking in the current 20-foot width you could add that so I would just
- Cautious perhaps about using the width of the existing asphalt of the street as a condition You just
- confused me. So it's 20 feet wide. Yes on that 20 feet wide Are they allowed to park on one side of
- the street on a 20 foot wide street? It is it's codified right now that you can park on on either side
- of the street Although nobody is doing that now. I don't I don't think so in order to legitimately establish those
- Street parking. I think they would have to add on asphalt in order to Legitimately meet other requirements
- title 15. I thought we saw pictures that there were cars I think the discussion was is There's no restriction
- on parking on the street, but legally you can't park across from somebody on that street So there are
- some properties that have
- Improved some spaces along there. You have to park on an improved surface So there are one maybe two
- properties along here that have created some Off-street parking areas that are improved that you know
- parking enforcement wouldn't ticket But given how there aren't improved spaces along Wiley I have a
- feeling that although it's codified that you could technically do it we'd want to check with parking
- enforcement and engineering to see you know if somebody could legitimately park on the street and
- So you've seen that the petitioner could widen the street in front of his property in order to allow
- for property? Yes. I think to keep it simple, if I could just make a statement about the variance, if
- we can tie it to the property, that's probably the simplest way to do it. So when we're talking about
- the street, if that's a peculiar condition to the variance, that's off the property. So I think we should
- really focus on the actual property.
- Is my thinking so even with the 40 foot wide still only going to be four spaces If the board has a condition
- that it's 42 and a half feet wide that would allow for five parking spaces and That would meet the eight
- and a half foot minimum that the you do has for parking space width But there's an alternate he could
- go out in front after this hearing Come back to you and allow and build
- Improve the front of it for on-street parking It's not before us today Wiley you're saying he could
- improve the parking on Wiley and have on-street parking on Wiley Yes, he could do that, you know, there
- are a number of options that could be pursued They could go back to the driveway that was shown previously
- that went along the west side of the house They could do the 20 by 20 pad in the back. They could add
- parking asphalt within the right-of-way now and
- and create those dedicated off-street spaces. So I think the answer for parking is that he has other
- options rather than a variance. And it's hard to tie a variance to a lot. It's peculiar to a lot when
- there's other options available. What's the length of that lot along the street? Just to clarify, you're
- asking the width of the lot? The width of the lot, yes.
- It's about 65 feet wide. Could you please divide that by 18? About three spaces wide So three spaces
- so even if he had the two spaces by code in the back and he improved the street he would actually be
- creating five spaces I honestly don't have enough information about about how the on-street parking
- Yeah, yeah, so that's that's one thing Chris that
- Makes sense. Can you show the previous? site plan with the Curb cut in parking, please. That's a slide
- It may be seven try yeah, it is seven slide seven on the presentation No, it's not there
- It's on the other document. It's on the it's on the present Were you asking for the prior site plan
- we were okay, I think that's what you're looking for. That's the previous one there. Yeah And that's
- the one that we had the site the drive coming down the side and the
- Spaces in the back With this plan no, he's close he's at forty four and a half percent the maximum is
- forty five percent So compared to the new plan, it's much higher, but it's not over the maximum The new plans
- Yeah, the current plan is at 31% So then the other question I had for you on a different matter is do
- we have the heights of the other houses on that block I Do not have those offhand. I think most of them
- are one story, but there may be a couple two stories I don't know what would a typical one story house
- height be roughly
- Well, so typical one story you're probably looking at about 25 feet Ish, you know from ground to the
- top of the peak of the roof typical For a one-story house. Yeah, and this this one my understanding
- is going to be just a tad over 26 Yes to the peak. It's about 26 and a half feet Yeah
- So those were just some of the questions I wanted to bring up. No, you're not allowed, sorry. We can,
- however, ask you questions, Kevin, but no more statements. So do you want me to call the question on
- that motion or do you want to rescind it and change
- Only asked because of this Go to the 20 is provided by code then he can work with the city to improve
- the front There are different things you can do he's paying for improvements either way Just not before
- us from staff's perspective it might be helpful if it's something that the board is open to is to to
- give an allowance and
- Either way for a driveway or for the 20 by 20 pad if you want to give flexibility to the petitioner
- as they explore options It would be helpful to clarify certainly in your motion or you can add a condition
- of approval To allow either scenario if that's something the board is amicable to Are you gonna stick
- with the 20 by 40 well
- I'll just amend to say or the driver with the parking is shown on the first plan You know, I think you
- know, we're we're pretty close to Essentially it being a by right aren't we I mean the conditional use
- if we can't find That it violates the conditions You know, it's under it's under the impervious surface
- The height penalty, I mean, it's almost the same height as the other homes on that block. The front
- build line is exactly where it is. The occupancy is within limits. The bedrooms are within limits. The
- street facing entrances are met. The question was the neighborhood design harmony. That's the principle
- one on which we could find a basis to not approve the conditional use.
- Have we heard any compelling argument for a neighborhood design based on the redesign? He's presented
- to us. Do we feel that it falls within the design? Harmoniously with the neighborhood. I'm assuming
- from your motion that you feel that way So I'm just kind of plowing through what we're allowed and not
- allowed to do We're under the approved annual
- duplex cap, way under by 12. There was the 150 foot buffer zone to another duplex, and this has not
- been subdivided. If you leave it as is at this point,
- What if we add a condition at the end a condition that the developer will work with the city to create
- other possible parking conditions. I mean is he allowed by you know to I like I like the amendment allowing
- the drive and the rear yard parking because it's what's before us and we can see it. So I would say
- same recommendation.
- with the addition that the 20 by top 20 slot or do the Wiley cut, bring the driveway back and put the
- spaces behind it. One or the other. Our primary concern with that one was. How about a site plan?
- I'm sorry. Well, it was more the site plan. It was more the size of the home, right? What does that
- do? What does that? He can do that. Can you fit? Yeah, he can do that.
- But it was the whole it was the design of the home that was concerned If you can't sign yourself to
- that one specific block Sorry
- She's showing me figures of what the square footage is of the homes on that block. I Looked at every
- square footage of every home on the block in their footprint This one is smaller than four of them no,
- that's These are combined some of them are combined So it's it is larger, but not extremely larger
- And this specific black alley found one bigger Well, so we can go back to we have a motion then and
- that motion was essentially to approve the city recommendation And that would be conditional uses approved and
- Denied the variance approved the conditional use and add one that if he wants to do the driveway with
- the rear parking that's on that's an option you can choose Yeah, I'm amending it to add the driveway
- and rear parking if he's just so chooses okay, so let's let's withdraw so we've made an amendment to
- the the motion that's before us I Need a second on that I believe
- Just for staffs clarity, can you restate the moment with the condition of approval? Yeah You read it Wake up
- I recommend the BZ adopt the proposed findings approved the conditional use request and then I denied
- the variance request for cases er Twenty twenty six oh five zero zero two two with the following conditions
- the conditional use approval is limited design shown and discussed in the packet a right-of-way use
- permit is required prior to any work in the public right-of-way for the submitted site plan a six foot
- tall opaque fence required on East property line and number four writing this one if so if the petition
- so chooses he can do the drive cut driveway and rear parking off of Wiley and
- In lieu of the alley parking. The second. Yes I second. Okay. Just give me a minute.
- All right. Well, we can call the question Burrell yes Smith yes, it's Rock Morton. No Petition the condition
- of use petition passes I'm sorry Joe. Did you vote? No. Yeah, I Didn't make the motion I voted no
- Sorry, there were two yeses and one no two to one We have a quorum don't we see one we need three unanimous
- votes. Yeah Let's look at a different motion then Yeah Oh, we we need our Ryan
- Go back to the board. I'll make a motion that the department, that the BZA adopted proposed findings
- approved the conditional use request and denied the variance request for case ZR2 2026-05-0022 with
- the following conditions, the one, two, three conditions as stated in the packet. And I'll add a condition that
- that the petitioner will work with the city to add parking spaces to improve the road adding parking
- spaces in the front as many as it fits my code.
- Might be helpful from Staff's perspective to hear from the petitioner if that's something that they
- want Certainly, we're always happy to work with the petitioner. We want to hear from them if that's
- something that they want to pursue Kevin could you come forward and address that specific point, please
- Absolutely, I'll be more than happy to work with the staff to add more spaces on the
- Wiley I earlier didn't know that that was a possibility to Add blacktop and make that happen. So absolutely.
- Thank you Second okay All right So aside from the Single issue of a disagreement whether this
- property fits within a neighborhood design harmony, the petitioner has met all the requirements of the
- conditional use. Is that correct? And your opinion is it does meet the harmony? The design requirements
- are very subjective. The design requirements are very subjective. So I'm not going to tell you what
- to think. I think it meets it. That's why I voted yes.
- You think it meets it because of the size or the Chiefly, I think the new plans worse than the old plan
- like the other architecture a lot better but in our town that doesn't seem to matter we do a lot of
- ugly stuff to meet code I Don't disagree that with you on the terms of what I'm looking at. Yeah, we're
- not here to discuss that well
- It does meet the fabric of this street of being that's that is the question. Does it do you think it
- meets the front porch? We don't have an architectural purview at this point To follow up on that the
- we do have some purview in the design harmony
- Resemble the architecture and style of the majority existing single-family homes And I feel like that
- was meant for bungalows Yeah, this is just 50,000. Yeah, and I understand what you're saying in the
- 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
- the street. I've looked at all the homes So for me that's where I
- Coming back to them just not I just don't feel comfortable Giving a yes vote to this because I just
- I think it While it meets all of the other Technical restrictions, this is what we saw before and then
- go to the next slide, please This is what I'm looking at now and that does not feel like the other homes.
- I'm looking at that's my problem That's my biggest problem and it's very difficult for me to vote. Yes
- for this because of that and
- Not because of the size, the height is right, the setback's correct. But when you look at all the other
- homes down that street, this doesn't, if it's going to be a duplex, it's gonna fit the spirit of the
- code, it doesn't look right. The one, go back to the one before. That's the one we liked, we thought
- we were gonna get something that was comparable that would fit within the. But it can't do that. I know,
- we can't do that size. It can't do that elevation. But the next slide, that doesn't look right.
- Can't support that design That's what that's what I know. That's what's along the street. Well, I've
- looked up another street in there Yeah, this doesn't it's subjective. Yeah And I'm using my subjective
- 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
- why I'm having difficulty
- Look at the house next door and it is a limestone House that Doesn't have the same character as the
- one we're looking at a Couple of houses down it has a It has a peak two different peaks that are much
- more along the lines of the of the one he presented initially nothing like this flat-faced more of a
- barn structure and
- Then of course you get to the new the home on the corner and the new duplex and they also have a much
- more buried front They're split So this is this is what I'm looking at the the homes on this street.
- Don't look like this If you brought me something else that it looked right I Could vote for it because
- everything else he's done is within is within code and
- of the conditional use. But I do think that it's it's not a nice direction to go if we're trying to
- maintain the look. And I'm also looking across the street too. So you want to continue and ask him to
- do better architecture. Well we did before. I mean I hate to do it because I understand the costs associated
- with being a developer. I get it. Well it knows the same thing. I know. Or worse. I know. I don't like it.
- but it is also an issue of trying to maintain it. I mean, again, two houses down across the street,
- it has a peak. It doesn't have a flat roof like this. So I think if we're going to ask the neighborhood
- to accept a building, I mean, even the one next to it has a peak with a porch, but it's not flat like
- this. I don't think that fits subjectively. It is subjective. I think what he was trying to do here
- And maybe you didn't translate. He's trying to reproduce what is there now. Take a look at the house
- that he has. Well, I see that. Yeah. Because he's going with the red and white before. But look at that
- and look at the house. It has a peek over the door. It has a setback on the side. It's got two setbacks.
- 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.
- 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
- look like a house Subjectively, would you allow a two-story house? Just real quickly make sure that
- all the members of the board have their mics turned on and are speaking into the mic Sorry, I'm just
- trying to give Kevin some guidance here if you're gonna ask me if it was a two-story building what I
- I think that if it was
- What would the height of that be close to 35? It's within right for him to do that And it also is not
- different than the one that's down the street. The one that's down the street is two-story block away
- So At least that building has the design elements of what's currently in their neighborhood Would I
- approve I mean I would have approved the other one if it was the argument was that the Facebook is just from
- From that slide, you know, it's it's smaller that that house is not included that that duplex is not
- included. I thought the initial The initial project looked much more like that. I mean it would fit
- with the Yeah, go back to the other slide, please that I Mean that's that's too big but we've talked
- about making it smaller but it had some of the same design elements and
- See along the street. Well, let's say what that's 80 square foot smaller than the other one. It's how
- many it's like 80 square foot smaller than the other one I was glad for the continuous last time because
- I was concerned about that drive going around the back and trying to make sure that that worked so But
- this this design is what I'm struggling with so I'm that's where I'm at so if if I
- If we voted down, what's what's the petitioners option? When can he come back? So I believe that they
- have six months to come back if something is denied he can't come back before six months. Yes How did
- we do it so I can come back without a substantial change, you know, obviously the board the board can
- vote to put it back on the agenda if they feel that there has been a Substantial change from what was
- previously. Yeah. Well, I mean we actually have the right we could probably bypass the six months if
- we want a bit
- Would we also just withdraw the this particular most Could we just withdraw this particular motion and
- ask for continuance asking I mean the vote the board can vote to continue it. Yeah, we sure can I Go
- yes for that So we could speed it along I Withdraw my motion Okay
- So again, obviously with a continuance, it would be very helpful for the petitioner You know just to
- hear clear guidance from the board if there's direction that you want them to my clear guidance is I
- Don't yet think that this matches the street. So I don't think that looks right. It looks like a barn
- I think we need to give him clear guidelines. What is the street? Is it from Anderson all the way down
- or is it just from dogs? The block face is clear from the code in terms of what the board should be
- looking at it and what our review is I'm looking at I'm just looking at that block street and even that
- blocks be I still see peaks All right. What I what I don't see is flat all of them have some design
- distinction that makes it look more like a home and
- I can tell you Kevin if you look up and down both sides of the street for Four kind of input on what
- I'm talking about There are there are peaks and there are setbacks across the face of that building
- and I think if you you know that makes it for me something that's much easier to To agree to this this
- building that's that you currently have in front of me I don't think that that meets the spirit of the
- neighborhood and
- Now with that I also think it's an opportunity to rethink and talk to the city about what to do about
- the parking Because frankly I have an issue with providing a 40-foot wide in the back Although I understand
- that this is probably a good idea based on the fact that it's often undeveloped alley So that's something
- I can I could probably get behind if we have the right design for the house But you may want to look
- at extending anyway to create a safer street along that area if
- You as a builder would like to do that, but that's not going to prevent me from voting Okay for the
- variance on the 20 by 40 in the future Sure glad since I made a statement to you about the design
- The only reason why I changed this building to begin with is because when we was here two months ago,
- the neighbors didn't like the way it looked and said it didn't fit. So I thought, well, okay, I'll try
- to make something fit, and all the other houses are more rectangle. I don't have a bit of problem going
- back, and I heard what Chris said underneath his breath. The last one was better looking than this one.
- I totally agree. When I was here two months ago, the neighbors didn't like it and said it didn't fit.
- There's too many cuts and notches, and you're right.
- This house is a little larger than house last time. We always heard last time. Oh, it's too big. It's
- too big Well, it's smaller than the others that have been It's smaller than the others that one have
- been approved and two it was still less than the in previous Space so it met those requirements. Do
- I have a problem building the other one? Absolutely not It wasn't due to money. I was trying to move
- the neighborhood to make the neighbors happy and so I thought well we'll go back with a Rectangle style
- home make it a story and a half instead of a two-story So I think that the previous design was better.
- I Think my biggest issue with that one was the drive and the Parking in the back that was I think where
- my conflict said but we continued in any way but I don't I like the idea of improving the
- The alleyway and putting the spaces in the back. I like that off of Off of the other alley So I think
- 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.
- So so yeah, I just think it needs a If this to go back and be more along the lines of what he presented
- initially and I have no problem with the two-story So long as it fits within the code under 35
- We have to see an elevation So do you do we want to vote for continuance and heaven I'm sorry. Oh Did
- you do be a second? Yeah. All right. I'll call the question I'm sorry. So who? And Chris seconded flow
- you had a motion to continue Chris seconded Burrell yes Smith yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes
- We're gonna take a five-minute break All right, thank you for that quick break I appreciate that and
- we're gonna move on now Okay, that was uh, so that happened We're gonna do ZR 20 2606 31 Pertaining
- to the variance at 210 Southwest plex me. I have a staff report
- Yes, as mentioned this is a request at 210 Southwest Plex Avenue from Wheeler Mission for a variance
- from minimum required sidewalk width For the use supportive housing large in the mixed-use medium-scale
- zoning district. So this property is at 201
- Southwest plex it came forward with a series of several approvals one was a rezoning petition inevitably
- then followed up with a conditional use request to allow for the building to be used for Some expanded
- services for supportive housing So they received that those approvals and then a site plan was also
- issued for the property as part of those approvals that were site improvements that were required on
- the site and
- And a site plan that was improved with those one of the improvements was the replacement of the sidewalk
- along Westplex It was determined not to be in functional condition. There were many panels that were
- broken and Just failing so there was a site plan as I approved that I mentioned that showed that being
- replaced with a six-foot sidewalk and
- as required and so the petitioners did all the majority of all the improvements on there and they Are
- coming to the end of the required improvements and are working on the sidewalk request is sidewalk aspect
- and decided to come forward with a request to Allow a five-foot sidewalk rather than a six-foot sidewalk
- so certainly they they have the ability and right to come forward to request that variance and
- And with that, of course, we review this based on the criteria in the zoning code So we did find that
- it would be injurious. There is on-street parking spaces that are immediately adjacent to this sidewalk
- So having a six-foot compliance sidewalk does give that additional space for car doors opening
- for pedestrians along that pathway We did not find any adverse impacts on the adjacent use and value.
- This would just affect the
- this particular property However again with the the one of the most challenging Criteria that the strict
- application of the terms of the udl will result in practical difficulties And that the practical difficulties
- are peculiar to the property in question. We were not able to find any peculiar conditions that prevented
- a six-foot compliant sidewalk from being installed and
- The parking spaces that are adjacent to this are eight feet wide which exceed what is actually the minimum
- for the Transportation plan for on-street spaces, which is seven feet So removing one foot from those
- on-street spaces would have no impact or bring it out of compliance As I mentioned the entire sidewalk
- has to be replaced anyway So we did not find any peculiar conditions that prevent them from meeting
- code or placing a hardship on the property
- So the department is recommending that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt these proposed findings and
- deny the variance requests And with that I'm happy to answer any questions once the petitioner speaks.
- Thank you And this petitioner here They are here or so we have one online. Is that correct in one? Yes,
- and I know are you from the petitioner? I
- Get to you will second a public comment. Sorry. Yeah, so AJ Willis is here from the petitioner AJ say
- your name so I can make sure I can hear you AJ Wells and do you affirm that the testimony you're about
- to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and after sitting through that last
- part of the meeting as you know, you have 20 minutes Well, thank you for being here tonight. I just
- kind of want to introduce some stuff about the project and
- It's about approximately 182 feet of sidewalk that would have to be replaced and expanded to a six foot
- wide width. So along the east or the backside of that sidewalk, there's some steep grade. So it makes
- it, we aren't able to really expand that sidewalk into the green space due to the steep grade and all
- the vegetation that would have to be removed in order to make that
- So we looked at expanding the sidewalk into the paved areas Eric mentioned and that cost about approximately
- $13,000 of extra work to remove that asphalt for the additional concrete and do the pavement patching
- work. And as Eric mentioned, this is a company that is a nonprofit
- provide services to a lot of the less fortunate members of our community. And we believe that the hardship
- of that cost on a company that's largely supported by donations in order to provide their services is
- unnecessary, especially with a lot of the existing pedestrian
- infrastructure in the area matching the existing condition. The petitioner is committing to replacing
- that sidewalk just at five foot wide matching the existing width. And I'll be more than happy to answer
- any questions. Very good, we'll withhold the remainder of your time. How much does he have left? I'd
- say probably about 15 minutes.
- I was responding to okay online Somebody who couldn't hear so we wanted to make sure to remind the board
- members to speak into your mic Make sure the mics are turned on folks at home are having a hard time
- hearing the deliberations. Very good. Thank you All right, very good. Thank you with that We're back
- to the board for any questions for the staff or petitioner before we go to public comment Please yep
- Yep When are we allowed to do a five foot sidewalk and move a six foot sidewalk By right never there
- is language within the UDO that allows for modifications that staff level to match existing facilities
- so there is an allowance in the UDO for that but also petitioners have the right to come forward with
- the variance and
- When this was approved as I mentioned the site plan showed a six-foot compliant sidewalk So, you know,
- this is the first time that any relief has come up and the petitioner has come forward with the variance
- request So when last month we did 12 19 East West Branch I asked the question can they meet an existing
- cross-section? And I believe the answer gave me was no you have to have the five-foot tree plot and
- the six-foot sidewalk and I asked
- How do you get from five to six feet and how do you how do you how do you transition the sidewalk? So
- so you transition obviously with a taper, you know where those those two facilities come together like
- that last panel You know would just show a taper going from that six to five Is there any instance where
- you guys have given the five foot and not brought it to us? Could you have done it there there? Yes,
- there are certainly have been in situations where the director has allowed new facilities to go into match and
- Existing widths and what is the what is the determination process for that? How do we how do we get
- to that? Well, so it starts with the petitioner making requests. There are criteria in the UDO However,
- in the case of monolithic facilities, the UDO says that only six foot monolithic facilities are allowed
- So in situations where there is a tree plot or there is separation then the UDO can't allow for a five
- foot facility but in situations where it's a monolithic then it has to be six and
- receive a variance So this is so an existing neighborhood like we did last month where it was monolithic
- concrete curb and sidewalk with no tree plot You're saying there's no facility for them to just match
- the existing cross-section No, I'm saying there's no tree plot here. So in the situation because this
- is monolithic Well, so was so I'm gonna back up. Sorry on West Branch the existing cross-section was
- monolithic curb and sidewalk
- We required them on this one lot to put five foot tree plot We offset the sidewalk tapered to six feet
- and then dive dove back down to the street. Okay, we did that That's fine. My question is is there a
- way around that and you're saying yes But if it's a monolithic curb and sidewalk, it has still has to
- be six feet So we could have modified that cross-section gotten rid of the tree plot and a lot of six
- foot sidewalk So that's the existing infrastructure Well, I am going somewhere with this by the way
- Okay. Yeah, so in that particular case and it feels it feels weird talking about a different case Well,
- there's a reason I'm getting there. I'm curious if somebody requests a variance from the tree plot with
- a sidewalk with then the board can approve either of those okay regardless of what the UDO says because
- you know you have the right you have what the UDO allows by right or you know through the discretion
- in the for in the transportation plan it specifically says any neighborhood residential streets and
- Existing expect the ADT of less than 500 vehicles per day and expect that operating speed less 20 miles
- an hour except the community many's like schools and You're allowed to do different things. There's
- two sections in here that give the traffic engineer leniency and
- Yep, so that and I'm asking is there any instance in the last six months where you've allowed someone
- instead of? Transitioning to a six-foot to stay at five feet not in a monolithic situation that I'm
- aware What about in a regular situation with in situations where there is a tree plot? Yes, there have
- been situations where we allow an existing five-foot facility to remain and not come before us Yes,
- because the UDO allows for that to have an instance of that. I
- I'm not immediately thinking of it, but I know that it's happened. Okay. The reason I bring this up
- is West Kirkwood just got rebuilt and every sidewalk replacement was a five-foot sidewalk and I think
- the hypocrisy of that is ridiculous. I Would have liked to brought this up in a lunch meeting or a plan
- commission meeting But here we are with another sidewalk variance request and the city does it all the
- time and yet we have a petitioner here online and
- Asking just to replace an existing sidewalk and we're saying no you can't do in this case. Well because
- it's monolithic I don't understand what the guidelines are the city can do whenever they want to but
- no one else can unless we ask the right question and Then you just happen to say yes. Is that the guideline?
- 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
- in the udio that talk about
- What the criteria are in the situations? So how did West Kirkwood end up saying all five feet if it's
- such a big issue if we're demanding six foot everywhere How did we replace those with five foot sidewalks?
- And why are demanding this petition or do it when we don't do it as a city? So I think that maybe that
- conversation would be best had not in the context of this case. That's before us today Well, I think
- there's grounds for us to approve the five foot sidewalk
- Certainly, and that's you know as part of a variance. That's what they are here to do Because what they
- have requested is without is outside the bounds with the UDO allows but in the world of a variance They
- can request anything and if the board finds peculiar condition they can approve that. Okay Well, I want
- to continue this discussion, but I just want the board to hear me say out loud Okay, I want to focus
- on what Wheeler mission is requesting and
- And I am inclined to hear what he's saying that there's is there a Does the elevation drop very fast
- on one side of the sidewalk? Yes, so along the east side the elevation does drop however The additional
- one foot could come from the west side and take from the on-street parking where there is no elevation
- change But it will go then you would have to break the blacktop
- Dig out and then extend that direction, correct? Yes, I would imagine there is some slight engineering
- and design work and construction to remove. Yes goes to his The cost that he's talking about Certainly
- there is a cost but obviously with the variance, you know a financial hardship is not a criteria. I
- Thought we'd had this conversation that we are allowed to consider it
- We've had this conversation before yeah, so that that has come in in different contexts Not of a financial
- hardship on a property owner. There have been a conversation about financial gains from a property that
- create a hardship But that's been a little bit I guess questionable in that one isolated situation but
- financial hardship is not a criteria certainly we've got our
- legal representative here tonight, if you would like to. Yeah, I mean, we need to get that cleared up
- because we had a whole conversation and it really sounded like we were able to consider the financing.
- I'm looking at the map. I just want to make sure I understand exactly what I'm looking at. You were
- talking about a point. Is this what we're talking about here? This one? No. There's nothing over here.
- You're saying that we're you're requiring him to replace a five-foot wide sidewalk and I'm trying to
- find where it is currently I Thought it was over here on Westplex Where is it? It's right there. That's
- the one that's one Yeah, so you have the parking lot then you have a blacktop drive then you have a
- tree area or grass area Then you have the sidewalk Yeah
- Yes, but there's also the blacktop drive behind it, right? Okay, so and you're saying that the sidewalk
- there is Non-functional. Yes, our engineering department went out and to look at it And as I mentioned,
- you know, there are many panels that are cracked and upheaved and failing Well, who's responsible for
- cutting it back is that?
- Property owner is responsible for maintaining vegetation alongside and that's part of their property
- even though there's a drive through it Yes, they own property frontage up to Westplex. Okay, so that
- 201 goes all the way up to that sidewalk. Yes Okay, so that drive that cuts through their property is
- their drive and their responsibility to pay Yes, so they they own those three buildings the building
- at 250. So all those are like a driveway. Yes. Okay, very good All right. Thank you
- Any other questions for staff or the petitioner If not, we can go to the public for comment we'll come
- back to the board for further discussion any objections Okay, we'll go to the public for comments. Do
- we have anyone in the public who'd like to comment on this petition? If so step forward to the podium
- and sign in please and
- And then after you've signed in, would you just state your first and last name? Mary Sutherland. Let's
- say your first name again. Mary. Mary. Mary, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is
- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. You have up to five minutes. OK, so all
- this is new to me. I'm not quite sure where the sidewalk is going that you're talking about for Westplex.
- I have the property right in front of it, 1602 West 3rd. And I don't know, are you talking about putting
- a sidewalk
- On the west side of my building, Westplex, are you talking further down? I'm sorry, we can't answer
- your question, but we will come back to that. Go ahead and make your statement. Okay, well, if you're
- considering putting a sidewalk on the west side of my property, I oppose to it for a whole bunch of
- reasons. First, Wheeler Mission has bring a financial hardship to myself and the other owners of 1602 West 3rd
- 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
- from all the police coming to the being called to that area because of the vandalism and If you put
- a sidewalk on the west side of my building One there's a big drop-off and I'm afraid that there'd be
- flooding for unit a also, there's a 10-foot utility easement right there and
- And so you would have to go into the pavement, I would believe, to put in a sidewalk. And I mentioned
- this only because Dana had said something to me once that he wanted to put a sidewalk up that way. Not
- only that, the expense of trying to keep the ice off of it with it being on the west side and the building
- across, the ice will stay and wouldn't want anybody hurt. And I'm afraid that, you know, we're trying
- to sell the place. We cannot rent it. We're trying to sell it.
- And as it stands right now, the sidewalk in front of 201 Westplex is full with a lot of personal belongings
- from the residents of Westplex of the mission. So it's, I have pictures of that and that's still sitting
- there. So it's not very conducive and homeless people don't always follow the rules and they will still
- walk up the driveway and not use the sidewalk.
- Thank you Is there anyone online who would like to speak to this petition If there's anybody on the
- line, please use the raise hand function we can recognize you I'm not seeing anybody else online
- And before coming to the board, we go back to petitioner for final comments. Does petitioner wish to
- use your remaining 15 minutes? Yeah, I'd just like to add a few things. I think I want to respond to
- Mary. I do not believe that the sidewalk is going to be extending down all the way to Third Street.
- I think if I'm understanding correctly, she has that building just south of the property. The sidewalk
- does end along our frontage
- basically where the existing sidewalk is. And then I just wanted to add a few things about, Eric mentioned
- the on-street parking with the sidewalk width and the reason going to six feet. We believe there's still
- adequate clearance for pedestrians to use that sidewalk even with the on-street parking. The US Access
- Board only requires 48 inches of clear space. And then anytime it's less than,
- Five feet every 200 feet. They want a 60 inch which is five foot passing area So it does meet Standards
- for accessibility. I think that's all I had if there's any more questions for me Thank you, we're back
- to the board for either a motion or continued questions of the petitioner or the staff any questions or
- or comments Mainly my my big comment here is that I truly do believe that sidewalks should be six foot
- wide to accommodate especially large pedestrian facilities No matter what and you have a lot of walkers
- going through there generally speaking but at the end of the day, you know, what is best for everybody
- in a It's not a highly traveled
- Vehicle access back there. So it doesn't make sense to me To put this on the petitioner Any other questions
- or comments otherwise, I'll accept the motion I
- So I have a question. Please. Obviously the proposed findings for denial. Do we have to go back through
- each of these and come up with those findings? Correct, right? And they can't be flippy. No, they can't
- be flippy. But you're, there is some latitude and we'll try to provide guidance to make sure we can
- understand what the. All right, well I'll give her a shot. Thank you.
- Proposal we recommend approval of the variance request based on the following findings Approval not
- be interest the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community. My findings are most
- the sidewalks are community five feet in the city routinely replaces sidewalks with five feet sidewalks
- 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
- the property include the development standard bears will not be effective substantially adverse manner
- Post findings. Well, there's no inverse impacts in the use of value the surrounding properties is all
- of this this variance Which is what they said this reduced with the sidewalk on this front only impact
- this property not the Jason property So that's a good finding. I like that one The strict application
- the term of the EO will result in practical results in the use of the property that the practice goes
- for particular property in question the development standards variance where we really
- relieve the practical difficulties. A practical difficulty is this is an existing situation with existing
- cross-sections, existing sidewalks, difficult topography, and just a low traffic area. So with that,
- I move approval with the variance. So I have a second. Second. I have a motion, I have a second. Any
- further discussion before I call the question? I'll
- I will start with one thing, though. I am looking at this sidewalk closely. I think this may be a little
- bit older, but I'm only seeing five of the slabs that are out of a line and only two of them that are
- actually damaged, but I don't know how old this picture is. It may be six years old, so it could be
- worse. But I think... I was out there today. The sidewalk's pretty rough.
- Is it so it's the tear is to tear Yeah, yeah in my point being that it looked like it was more candidate
- for repair than it was for replacement But I haven't seen the rest of it Okay, that was it. I don't
- have any objection to the five foot I don't have a I don't have any objections to the motion I was just
- curious about the situation on this on this drive any other comments or questions before a vote is taken I
- Yes, this sidewalk is replacement existing sidewalk. They're not building sidewalk next year building
- per this petition. I'm talking to you Yeah, they're not adding sidewalk as part of this petition. They're
- replacing existing sidewalk That's what's before us. I don't know if anybody was clear about that. So
- I should be clear No one's coming on your property. Well, they are but not because of us So for the
- record Chris is restating what the petitioner had said in reply to the comments from the public and
- it may not have been clear So I'm glad Chris did that
- With that out any other questions or comments saying none. I call the question vote Approve vote for
- approval. So yes is a vote to approve the request for a variance Burrell yes Shady. Yes Smith. Yes,
- Throckmorton. Yes All right
- Let me get reset again. Here we go next up We have ZR 2026-07 33 Administrative appeal for the property
- of 530 South Washington. May I have a staff report? I believe that is Gabriel Yes, let me full stop
- report While I'm getting that up. Yes. I am Gabriel whole brow zoning planner and
- I'll try to speak into the yeah, it's I know it's this work. Thanks gay room Okay We have Administrative
- appeal so progress to ZR two zero two six dash zero seven does zero zero three four five thirty South
- Washington Street is an administrative appeal and
- Of a notice of violation warning letter for a sign in the public right of way, which is a prohibited
- sign location I just want to start with we've had some some intense cases this evening I want to try
- to set a tone for this one. There's a real material dispute here. So it's right for us to be here discussing
- it But the stakes are not that high There's no fines. The there was the what initiated this was a warning letter if
- the board chooses to deny the appeal the Appellant will kid can move the sign onto his property out
- of the right-of-way if the board decides to grant the appeal the city can simply Mark the case is resolved.
- So it's all okay There's a real material dispute here, which is why we're here, but it's all okay So
- we're talking about South Washington Street, this is the block between a
- university and first that's a zoning map there and There's an aerial image you can see Walnut Street
- to the left there. It's one block off of walnut In on May 12 planning and transportation department
- received a complaint of signage in the street on May 21st staff observed the signage took a photo on
- June 23rd staff issued a
- notice of violation warning letter for the prohibited sign location, and on July 6th, the property owner
- filed a timely appeal, which is why we're here. So this was the image in the NOV warning letter. This
- is taken in Washington Street looking toward 530 South Washington, and we can see some signage there.
- It happens to be green.
- So that was what the appeal, sorry, that was what the warning letter was for. Some things to keep in
- mind, UDO definition of sign is any display or device placed on a property in any fashion that can be
- seen from a public place or a public right of way that is designed, intended, or used to convey any
- identification, message, or information other than an address number. Then this was the section of code
- that was cited
- in the warning letter, DODO prohibits signs in the public right-of-way. So signs should not be installed
- in any of the following locations, and then there's a long list. Number two on the list is, excuse me,
- numbering might be a little weird, but a prohibited location is in any public right-of-way unless the
- sign is an approved
- wall sign, awning, or projecting sign, or is authorized by section blah, blah, blah, and blah, or further
- authorized by the city. We can go down each of those if you want, but it is not any of those. Most of
- those are sandwich signs, sandwich board signs, I mean, a lot in the downtown. Okay, by the way, staff
- does not consider this to be vehicle signage, but we're talking about things where vehicles sometimes
- park, so we wanted to just get ahead of that.
- So staff does not consider this to be vehicle signage. However, to the extent that it could be considered
- a feature of vehicles parked illegally in the street, the EDO clarifies that vehicle signs are prohibited
- sign type. This was in the packet as well. Prohibited sign types, vehicle signs.
- Vehicles vans and trailers of trucks that are parked continuously in the same general location to be
- used to display signs That's one of the prohibited sign times. We can go back to this if you want, but
- Staff does not consider these to be vehicle signage. So this is We think that this is not relevant,
- but you might which is why we put it in the presentation
- Recommendation in accordance with you do section twenty dot zero six dot zero eight zero D three B two
- Because this petition is an administrative appeal the staff report shall not make a formal recommendation.
- Thank you Thank you Is the petitioner president like to speak to this petition
- And then Mr. Davis, you would just state your first and last name. Good evening. Mr. Davis, state your
- first and last name.
- My name is Joe Davis. Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth,
- and nothing but the truth? I do affirm. You have 20 minutes of time to use. Please. I would like to
- ask, due to the late hour, that this be continued, as I'm not sure that my supporters who wanted to
- zoom in and make comment are still available at this time.
- Our meetings continue through the nine o'clock hour. That's a standard practice. So please continue
- Unless of course I should ask the city unless he's allowed to withdraw his petition and wait six months
- Okay, but if
- So my response it falls within our purview To continue to ask him to continue since we're within our
- regular meeting hours I want to make sure that we're handling this properly. It might be prudent to
- 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
- Very well, I'll make a motion that we deny the request for continuance. It needs to be unanimous,
- I believe. I think it has to be unanimous. Oddly in this case, it would have to be unanimous to grant.
- I'm sorry? It would have to be unanimous to grant, but it can be split. Because it's already been posted
- on the agenda. Okay, but it could be split to deny. Yes. Okay, very good. In that case, I have a motion
- to deny so that we can continue to hear this.
- Yeah, of course just in the spirit of participation The petitioners requested the continuance to get
- his supporters here Now My comment would be why not let him What's your what's your reasoning? My reason
- is this has been on the docket and he was aware that the meeting was occurring the our
- Yeah shouldn't make no difference, especially since we commonly meet up to and just past the nine o'clock
- hour and I think it's That a situation like this that appears to be fairly straightforward from the
- city's point of view doesn't warrant a continuance, okay? But I do need a second if we're gonna vote
- and it can be it can be I'll second. All right, then any discussion if not, I'll call the question I'll
- call the question this to deny the request for continuance and
- Are you checking the bylaws make sure we're accurate? Yeah, I don't see that it says it has to be unanimous,
- you know the rules and procedures Do you say that you know, no petition may be withdrawn by the petitioner
- after vote has been ordered It has been our standard practice when a petitioner requests a continuance
- the day of a hearing for the board to vote on it
- you know, the rules and procedures are not clear if the board has to vote but that has been our procedure
- in the past of Requests has been continuous today of the hearing the board votes on it just to be clear
- that that has happened But it's not clear that it has to be unanimous. Yeah, I would say I pose this
- as a question to Eric really here Absent it's stating here a majority would be decisive in either direction
- sir. Okay, so we have a motion We need to stop petitioners time
- 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
- question so we can vote on it Yes, and to have the presentation continue Burrell No Should they know
- Hattie sorry Smith yes Throckmorton. Yes
- So the request to deny the continuance failed Okay, we'll reset the clock 20 minutes and ask for mr.
- Davis to continue Excuse me. I'm sorry. That was two to two How How was it a failure My request the
- motion the motion was to deny your continuance
- And so that failed, so your motion to continue was to not. I would not say that's true. Oh, then reverse
- that. I don't know. And the same thing will happen next time. It'll be at the end of the docket, and
- 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
- delight, and it's not even working. So right now, it is not continued. Right. It is not currently continued.
- But there's nothing to prevent you from from making a motion to continue it I'll make a motion to continue
- the next hearing second Call the question Brill yes Should a yes Smith. Yes, it's Rock Morton. No Petition
- is continued. All right, we'll move on to ZR 2026
- 7-34. Thank you very much to 712 less third the conditional use. Can we please have a staff report and
- that is Who's doing that one? How's that Joe? Real quick. I'm just checking here, but I think since
- we're past 830 we have to take the vote again. Yes, I
- Yeah, no new cases heard after 830. So you have to vote to suspend the rules Do I have a vote so and
- this does have to be unanimous. Do I have a motion to suspend the rules and here? Zr 20 26-07-0034 Second
- and call the question, please Burrell yes should a yes Smith. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes And a staff report, please
- I'm sorry whenever you're ready. Thank you The staff report Good evening, I'm Joe Patterson zoning a
- long-range planner So before us is a conditional use for a dwelling duplex in a residential small lot
- zoning district And this is at 122 North Roosevelt Street, which is in the greater Prospect Hill Historic District
- is located on the north side of West Third Street between Maple and Fairview. And what they are proposing
- is taking the existing one-story dwelling unit and largely through interior remodel, convert this to
- a duplex dwelling unit. There will be some minor exterior changes as well to accomplish that. As you
- can see on the site plan here, there is a proposed parking area off of the alley, and that will take
- place of the existing carport
- which will be converted to a covered porch. Looking at our floor plans here, we see the existing and
- proposed first floor plans, which are taking the existing layout of a one bedroom, one bathroom to a
- two bedroom, two bathroom. And you see that the interior stairs are removed as required to accomplish
- the separation of the two units. You also see one of the exterior changes on the rear of the home is
- to add a deck and stairs
- to provide another access for that main floor. For the basement floor, for the other unit, the existing
- two bedroom, one bathroom will become two bedroom, two bathrooms. Again, those interior stairs are removed
- and the covered port is converted to a patio. And additionally, off of each bedroom, you'll see window
- egress for fire and safety purposes. Looking at specific use criteria,
- For this particular site, we do not find any violations in the past three years for the owner. And since
- this is created through renovation and expansion, the remaining front entrance for the main floor is
- to remain. And again, the roof pitch, front porch width and depth setbacks are all essentially remaining
- as this is largely interior. As discussed, there will only be a total of four bedrooms. No conditional
- use has been granted within the last
- two years and within 150 feet of this site. And as we discussed earlier tonight, if approved, this will
- be the fourth conditional use approved for a duplex this year. Moving on to our conditional use general
- criteria, that complies with the UDO and other applicable regulations as discussed with the
- As discussed with these use specific criteria, those were all met. And additionally, prior approval,
- the petitioner did receive a certificate of appropriance from the historic board for their project.
- For the additional conditional use criteria, regarding comprehensive plan, we find that the comprehensive
- plan goals are met as this does increase a sensitive location with
- increased residential dwelling units in capacity. For adequate public services and facilities, the existing
- water and sewer are already to the dwelling unit and we do not find that the addition of one bedroom
- and one bathroom will increase that unnecessarily. Regarding mitigating adverse impacts, there are no
- natural or scenic features found to be on site and
- The petitioner did meet with the Neighborhood Association and did receive an actual vote of support
- for their plan. No phasing is proposed. And as such, staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals
- adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with the condition that any units to be rented
- must be registered and inspected by hand prior to occupancy. And that is all I have.
- Petitioner present Is it just a single person just you or will they be more than one? Okay, go ahead
- and come forward and sign in and we'll get you going And then when you're finished there just state
- your first and last name and
- Dennis birch MCA architects and do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth. I do you have 20 minutes Just to reiterate what Joe said the owner
- Bought this property about four years ago. It's a hundred year old existing house in Prospect Hill and
- she has lived there and built a newer home to the north of there, but she wants to renovate this home and I
- as I understand it, potentially move back into it after it's renovated. The house is 100 years old.
- We are not changing the exterior footprint of the house, with the exception there is a small access
- attached deck on the back. I'm sorry. Wait for the conversation to end in the... You guys done? Yes.
- Okay, thank you. Please.
- There there is a small new attached access deck on the back that allows transition from the first floor
- down to the Lower level because of grade change across the property Beyond that The work itself is primarily
- an interior renovation. There are some adjustments to a few of the windows Primarily on the west side of the
- elevation of the property But the general character and footprint and everything else as I mentioned
- remain the same. It has been reviewed by the HPC and received approval prospectiles and a neighborhood
- association has reviewed it and approved it and As I understand it was scheduled with the owner. There's
- nobody in the neighborhood that is Opposed to or disagrees with the project
- That's all we will go back to the board any questions for the staff or the petitioner at this point
- before going to the public Okay, seeing none we'll go to the public for comment that we have anyone
- in chambers you'd like to address this If not to anyone online Richard Lewis he should be able to speak now
- Richard, do you hear us? Yes, I do. Can you hear me? Yes. State your first and last name. Sure.
- First name, Richard. Last name, Louis. L-E-W-I-S. Richard, is the testimony you're about to give the
- whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, it is. You have up to five minutes. Great. Thank you. Thank
- you all for your time this evening. My spouse and I live directly across the alley from Joyce and David,
- the neighbors who are planning this renovation.
- I have served on our neighborhoods, well, our local historic districts design review committee and have
- reviewed this from that perspective before it was forwarded to the historic preservation commission
- where they approved it. I also served on our historic design guidelines committee back in 2014 when
- we created these guidelines. So from an historic preservation standpoint, which I realize is a different
- purview, but I will speak to that, but I appreciate that there are
- negligible changes to the outside of the structure to accomplish what they want to do as far as the
- renovations. I think there's a few window changes on the alley side and a couple others on the east
- side of the building. They've been very conscientious about not making changes to the public facing
- facade on the streetscape. And as a duplex, the flow inside the houses
- has always been problematic. And so I appreciate that they're trying to find better solutions for that.
- And as a duplex renovation, I appreciate the fact that they can do this without causing disturbances
- to the original structure, to the shape, the mass, et cetera, the roofline, all that help inform the
- streetscape, which is always a big concern in the Greater Prospect Hill Historic District.
- I have seen many streets where the new plexus are cropping up and are just a series of boxes. And so
- I appreciate the fact that this helps to maintain the, you know, the architectural fabric and character
- in our neighborhood and in our district. So I'm very supportive of this personally and as a member of
- our local design review committee. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other public comment?
- If there's anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not
- seeing anybody else. Okay, with that we'll go back to petitioner if you have any final comments, otherwise
- we'll go right to the board. Okay, do we have any comments, questions or I will entertain a motion.
- I move to adopt the proposed findings and approve petition ZR twenty twenty six Oh seven zero zero three
- four with the condition as outlined by staff I have a motion. I have a second. Is there any further
- discussion questions or comments before a vote is taken? This one's a retrofit of existing house which
- makes this a lot easier and it's also an historic district was of course changed the entire discussion
- because they'd had gone through historic
- Approval before they were brought that other house to us if it was an historic district So we do have
- a lot of protected neighborhoods because the HPC it's good that they're not all protected in some areas
- We're gonna get some interesting stuff because of that, but um, I think this is an easy one It's exactly
- what we were looking for Any other comments questions Seeing none I call the question
- Yes, shabby. Yes Smith. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes 4o the motion passes Do we have any other business before
- this board this evening? No seeing none. I we stand adjourned. I