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