►
From YouTube: Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals, August 24, 2023
Description
Board of Zoning Appeals Documents:
https://bloomington.in.gov/boards/zoning-appeals/meetings
A
B
A
Clapper
here,
okay,
we
do
have
minutes
to
approve
from
our
May
meeting,
but
we
are
going
to
wait
until
September,
once
everybody's
had
an
opportunity
to
review
them
and
we
will
look
at.
We
will
approve
those
minutes
in
September,
okay,
the
petitions
this
evening
well
actually
reports
resolutions
and
Communications,
nothing,
okay,
so
the
petitions
we
have
one
petition
which
is
continued
to
our
September
meeting
and
that
is
aaa-17-22
Joe,
Kemp,
Construction,
LLC
and
Blackwell
Construction
Inc,
and
on
this
evening's
docket
we
have
six
petitions.
A
C
Thank
you.
Everybody,
as
mentioned.
The
first
petition
tonight,
is
for
IU
Health.
This
is
for
a
property
that
they
own
at
727,
West,
2nd
Street.
C
The
petitioners
are
here
tonight
to
request
a
variance
from
parking
standards
in
order
to
allow
for
parking
in
the
front
parking
setback
and
to
allow
back
out
parking
on
an
alley
they're,
also
requesting
a
variance
from
the
required
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
width
for
this
property.
So
this
is
located
as
I
mentioned
at
727
West,
2nd
Street.
C
This
has
been
developed
with
a
office
building
owned
by
herb
used
by
IU
Health,
it's
owned
by
the
Monroe
County
Community
School
Corporation,
so
IU
Health
uses
this
for
office
as
well
as
treatment
areas,
and
so
they
are
looking
to
redo
the
parking
that
is
on
the
south
side
of
the
site.
The
property
spans
from
2nd
Street
to
First
Street,
the
building
that
is
on
the
north
side
of
the
site
is
a
notable
building.
C
So
it's
a
historic
rating
and
then
parking
has
been
developed
off
of
the
south
side
of
the
site
that
is
accessed
mostly
from
First
Street.
There's
an
alley
that
connects
2nd
Street
to
First
street
that
runs
along
the
east
side
of
the
site.
That
does
have
some
parking
that
you
can
see
here
in
this
aerial
that
is
along
the
along
the
alley.
C
So
that
is
the
area
that
they
are
requesting
to
keep
the
parking
spaces
in,
so
they
would
be
redoing
all
the
parking
to
redo
this
for
a
new
parking
area
and
as
part
of
that,
they
would
have
to
come
into
compliance
with
various
aspects
of
the
zoning
code,
since
the
parking
is
being
completely
removed.
So
they
are
requesting
a
variance,
as
I
mentioned,
from
the
front
parking
setback
in
order
to
allow
parking
to
be
between
the
building
and
First
Street.
C
So
that
is
one
of
the
variances.
The
second
variance
that
they're
requesting,
as
I
mentioned,
was
to
allow
for
the
parking
to
remain
off
of
the
alley.
The
zoning
code
does
allow
for
back
out
parking
off
of
an
alley,
but
only
for
lots
that
are
20,
000
square
feet
or
less,
and
this
property
is
almost
an
acre
and
a
half
I
believe.
C
So
it
is
over
the
size
that
is
allowed
for
back
out
parking
off
of
the
alley,
so
this
is
certainly
important
as
the
board
May
or
not
be
may
or
may
not
be
aware.
This
is
within
and
immediately
adjacent
to
the
Redevelopment
site
for
the
hospital.
So
we
have
lots
of
plans
for
redevelopment
as
of
this
entire
area
as
the
hospital
and
a
lot
of
the
supporting
structures
and
parking
have
been
removed
to
allow
for
redevelopment
within
the
transportation
and
Redevelopment
and
overlay
District
that
governs
the
hospital.
C
The
use
of
alleys
within
the
hospital
area
has
been
highly
encouraged
and
promoted,
and
all
access
is
required
to
come
off
of
those
alleys
for
driveways.
So
we
want
to
keep
those
free
and
clear
from
situations
that
create
traffic
problems
with
traffic
movement.
So
the
back
out
parking
is
certainly
an
issue
here
along
that
alley.
C
As
we
look
to
redevelop
this
entire
Hospital
site
and
then
also
as
I
mentioned
with
the
Redevelopment
here
of
the
parking
area,
it
does
trigger
limited
compliance
because
they
are
expanding
the
area
for
parking
that
is
currently
in
the
back
of
their
property.
So
the
limited
compliance
standards
would
require
them
to
install
pedestrian
improvements
along
both
frontages.
C
The
sidewalk
along
First
Street,
is
in
functional
conditions,
so
no
changes
would
be
required
to
that.
However,
the
sidewalk
along
2nd
Street
is
not
in
functional
Condition,
it's
in
a
very
bad
state
of
disrepair,
so
that
would
be
required
to
be
improved
with
the
sidewalk
and
tree
plant,
as
required
with
the
transportation
plan.
However,
the
petitioners
are
requesting
a
variance
from
the
required
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
width
to
not
require
the
full
sidewalk
width
that
would
be
required.
C
A
10-foot,
sidewalk
and
eight
foot
tree
plot
would
be
required
along
2nd
Street,
and
so
the
petitioner
is
requesting
the
variants
to
allow
for
the
five
foot
sidewalk
and
five
foot
tree
plot
to
remain
along
2nd
Street
so
moving
through
this.
Obviously,
there
are
various
findings
that
we
have
to
make
for
the
various
Grant
variances
that
are
being
requested
in
regards
to
the
parking
setback.
C
The
site
is
certainly
unique
in
that
it
has
Frontage
along
both
streets
and
has
been
developed
with
the
building
on
the
north
side
of
the
site.
It
is
a
historic
building,
as
I
mentioned,
and
so
not
granting.
The
variance
would
require
a
completely
new
building
to
be
constructed
on
the
south
side
of
the
site.
So
we
we
do
not
find
that
there
are
any
injuries
to
the
public
health
safety
morals
will
General
Welfare
of
the
community
by
allowing
the
parking
to
remain
where
it
is.
C
There
are
no
known
adverse
impacts
or
injuries
to
the
public
health
that
we
have
noted
with
the
location
of
the
existing
parking.
So
we
don't
find
any
negative
findings
in
that
regard.
The
back
out
parking,
as
I
mentioned.
You
know,
with
the
Redevelopment
of
the
hospital
site.
We
are
looking
to
utilize.
The
alleys
for
Access,
so
there'll
be
a
lot
more
traffic
generated
off
of
those
alleys.
C
So
having
background
parking
does
create
a
hazardous
situation
in
that
regard,
and
so
we
do
feel
that
there
are
negative
impacts
here
to
the
public,
health
and
safety
more
more
importantly,
as
a
result
of
allowing
the
back
out
parking
to
remain,
and
likewise
with
the
sidewalk
and
tree
plant
with,
we
do
find
that
there
would
be
injuries
to
the
public,
health
and
safety
as
it
would
not
require
or
would
not
allow
for
the
proper
facilities
to
be
installed
here
to
match
the
the
improvements
that
the
city
is
doing
as
part
of
the
Redevelopment
of
the
hospital
site.
C
We
are
also
committed
to
doing
several
improvements
along
2nd
Street,
including
widening
Street,
and
improving
the
tree
plant
and
sidewalk
system,
so
not
requiring
the
property
to
come
into
compliance
along
2nd
Street
and
to
sync
up
with
our
improvements
would
have
adverse
impacts.
You
know
real
quickly.
On
that
note,
you
know
we
did
include
a
condition
of
approval.
C
You
know
it
recommending
that
the
city
will
work
with
the
petitioners
to
install
the
improvements
along
2nd
Street,
but
in
regards
to
the
variance
findings
themselves,
you
know
we
don't
find
that
there's
anything
unique
along
the
this
property
that
doesn't
allow
them
to
install
the
sidewalking
tree
plot
with,
but
I'll
talk
about
that
in
just
a
second
with
the
Practical
difficulty
findings
in
regards
to
the
use
and
value
of
the
area
adjacent
to
their
property.
C
C
With
no
known
adverse
impacts
on
the
use
and
value,
so
we
we
do
not
find
any
adverse
impacts
in
that
regard
again,
with
the
back
out
parking
on
the
Alley,
we
do
find
some
adverse
impacts
on
the
use
and
value
adjacent
to
the
properties,
as
I
mentioned,
with
the
increased
traffic
that
is
expected
along
the
alley,
as
in
regards
to
the
Redevelopment
of
the
hospital
site.
C
You
know
we
want
to
minimize
possible
conflict
with
turning
movements
along
the
alley,
so
we
do
find
adverse
impact
with
that
regard,
and
we
do
also
find
adverse
impacts
on
the
use
and
value
of
Json
Properties
by
not
requiring
the
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
width,
as
it
would
create
a
situation
that
is
not
consistent
with
the
city's
planned
improvements
along
this
quarter.
That
I
I
mentioned
briefly
in
regards
to
practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
the
property
and
that
those
are
peculiar
to
the
property.
C
In
regard
to
the
parking
setback,
we
do
find
that
there
are
practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
the
property,
in
that
it
would
not
allow
for
any
parking
to
be
installed
on
the
site
given
where
the
existing
building
is
located
and
the
presence
of
two
streets
on
the
north
and
south
end
of
the
property.
So
the
double
Frontage
here,
along
with
the
location
of
the
historic
building,
does
create
a
practical
difficulty
here
with
the
use
of
the
property
and
placing
any
parking
on
that
in
regards
to
the
back
out
alley
parking.
C
You
know
the
the
intent
of
the
20
000
square
foot
limitation
on
the
size
of
a
property
was
to
recognize
that
smaller
properties
have
greater
difficulties
oftentimes
in
providing
parking
within
the
interior
of
the
site.
You
know,
as
I
mentioned,
this
site
is
very
large
in
size.
C
C
We
do
not
find
that
the
strict
application
of
the
terms
of
the
Udo
would
result
in
Practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
the
property,
in
that
there
is
nothing
along
the
front
of
the
property
that
prevents
them
from
installing
the
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
with.
We
certainly
do
recognize
that
there
is
a
retaining
wall
along
the
front.
However,
that
is
not
a
historic
wall
in
any
regards.
C
It
does
not
contribute
to
the
historic
rating
of
the
house
or
the
structure,
so
there
would
be
no
negative
impacts
by
you
know:
moving
the
sidewalk
and
the
tree
plant
with
back
to
the
required
separation
standards
and
with
standards.
So
we
do
not
find
that
that
there
are
any
practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
the
property
that
warrant
the
justification
for
a
variance
from
the
sidewalk
entry
plot
width.
C
So
we
are
recommending
that
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
approve
the
variance
to
allow
parking
within
the
front
parking
setback,
but
deny
the
variance
for
back
out
alley
parking
and
reduce
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
width
with
the
two
conditions
that
are
listed
in
staff's
report
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Eric
petitioners,
representative,.
E
E
State
your
case
IU
Health.
It
was
interested
in
producing
some
more
parking
since
there
was
a
large
loss
of
parking
over
there
with
the
elimination
of
the
current
or
the
the
hospital
in
that
location.
So
they
had
to
kind
of
readjust
how
the
parking
was
going
to
look
to
have
ability
to
park
everyone
that
is
going
to
use
this
existing
Hunter
School.
E
That,
as
Eric
mentioned,
is
historic
and
the
current
door
locations
of
this
building
are
going
to
remain
in
place.
There's
current
offices
and
different
services
that
are
offered
to
the
community
for
IU
Health
in
this
building,
and
so
there
was
a
variety
of
variances
needed
in
order
to
make
this
functional
to
make
it
work
to
park.
Everyone
that's
still
using
this
building,
so
it
sounded
like
the
first
variance
of
parking
at
the
rear
in
front
of
First.
Street
was
something
that
the
city
was
recommending.
E
Approval
on
the
other
two
I
wanted
to
State
a
little
more
case
of
why.
Why
would
we
need
that?
And
why
would
it
be
something
that
the
the
project
would
benefit
from
as
we
move
forward
the
first
one
of
having
that
there's
an
existing
strip
of
parking
I'm
sure
many
of
you
have
been
over
to
that
building
or
have
used
that
building
many
times
there's
an
existing
strip
of
parking
that
is
on
the
east
side
of
that
building.
E
Currently
there
is
a
front
door
in
that
location
and
right
now
the
majority
of
the
accessible
parking
is
in
that
location,
we're
amenable
to
even
making
that
accessible
parking.
Only
there's
a
current
barrier
between
the
alley
and
the
that
accessible
parking
that
exists.
So
it's
in
I
get
the
letter
of
the
law
is
that
it,
it
may
appear,
have
look
of
back
out
parking
the
alley,
but
we
would
be
willing
to
make
improvements
to
improve
even
the
barrier.
E
That's
there
so
right
now,
you're
not
truly
backing
out
into
an
alley
you're
backing
out
into
a
parking
Drive
area,
and
we,
the
the
hospital,
certainly
could
put
in
some
kind
of
new
accessible
spaces
that
are
more
on
the
south
side
of
the
building.
But
if
you've
ever
been,
you
know
not
able
to
walk
very
far.
That's
just
a
farther
walk
to
get
to
that
front
door
and
get
into
the
office
that
you
need
to
so
that's
right
now,
where
they
have
a
front
door
where
they
have
that
accessible
parking.
E
So
that's
why
we're
asking
for
that
one!
The
the
only
thing
about
the
width
of
the
sidewalk
that
we're
kind
of
looking
at
is.
We
have
a
peculiar
situation
on
that
north
side
of
the
building,
where
we
have
an
existing
wall,
mixed
with
large
I,
believe
they're
oak
trees
that
are
sitting
there,
certain
other
Maple
Camp.
Thank
you,
maple
trees
that
have
been
there.
They
look
like
maybe
40
to
50
year
old
trees.
E
So
if
you're
going
to
expand
and
move
that
wall
back
you'd
be
eliminating
those
trees,
so
that
one
is,
you
know
it's
not
out
of
the
possibility,
but
that's
why
we're
asking
for
that
as
well,
because
it's
you
know,
part
of,
in
our
opinion
a
little
bit
of
the
historic
nature
of
that
building
and
what
it
is
now.
But
that's
all
I
want
to
add.
C
So
real
quickly,
I'll
just
share.
If
I
can
a
Google
Street
View
hold
on
a
second,
so
this
is
the
area
that
is
being
shown
there
along
the
front,
so
the
sidewalk.
In
order
to
install
what
is
required,
it
would
need
to
move
back
about
eight
feet,
so
that
would
be
probably
approximately
where
I
believe
this
is
gravel,
as
shown
the
wall
would
need
to
be
moved
back
to
that
area.
C
So,
with
with
that
being
said,
you
know,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
in
the
presentation.
You
know
the
city
will
be
doing
improvements
along
here,
and
so
we
are.
We
are
willing
to
work
with
the
petitioner
to
come
up
with
a
a
plan
and
agreement
to
work
with
them
and
the
city
to
install
the
improvements
along
here.
C
However,
you
know
in
and
of
itself
you
know,
looking
at
the
variants,
you
know
there's
nothing
that
requires
those
trees
and
would
necessarily
definitely
impact
them
if
Society,
if
the
retaining
wall
is
moved
back
eight
feet
in
order
to
install
the
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
to
the
required
width.
So
while
the
trees
may
be
impacted,
you
know,
as
I
mentioned,
they're
they're
not
a
requirement,
they
can
certainly
plant
new
trees,
but
it's
also
not
necessarily
a
given
that
you
know
moving
the
wall
back.
Eight
feet
is
going
to
kill
them.
B
C
Well,
so
that's
you
know
that
that
would
be
it
for
the
petitioners.
They
opted
to
file
for
a
variance
from
this.
With
you
know,
we
we
obviously
cannot
tell
people
what
to
file.
They
make
the
choice
of
what
to
file
for,
and
then
we
process
that
accordingly.
A
A
C
So
so,
pending
the
results
of
a
certified
survey
showing
where
the
right-of-way
line
is
at
the
time
that
this
was
written,
you
know
we
weren't
sure
if
the
actual
property
line
was
at
the
back
of
the
sidewalk
or
back
to
the
retaining
wall
or
where
that
was.
C
It
appears
that
the
right-of-way
line
or
their
property
line
might
be
further
back,
and
so
we
would
not
need
additional
right-of-way
to
install
the
city's
improvements,
but
we're
working
to
verify
that.
So
in
essence,
you
know,
as
I
mentioned
you.
C
Work
with
us
either
dedicate
the
right-of-way
that
we
need
for
the
city's
project,
which
you
know
they
may
not
even
need
to
do
if
the
property
line
is
where
they
claim
that
it
might
be,
or
you
know
at
the
worst
case,
they
would
have
to
install
the
improvements
consistent
with
what
we
would
be
doing.
Mm-Hmm,
okay,.
A
If
you
could
come
to
the
podium
about
the
parking
on
the
east
side,
would
it
wouldn't
it
be
possible,
through
rotate
the
parking
spaces
90
degrees,
so
that
you
could
have
several
that
kind
of
doctor
the
North
and
then
several
that
dock
to
the
South,
because
I
understand
the
need
for
wanting
to
maintain
that
injury
as
an
accessible
Point?
Wouldn't
that
allow
for
accessible
parking
to
remain
there
and
not
back
out
into
the
alley.
E
I
would
also
like
Eric's
input
on
that.
If
that
would
be
deemed
a
direct,
it
sounded
like
from
his
report.
He
also
was
trying
to
eliminate
some
of
the
access
points,
and
so,
if
that
could
be
amenable
to
IU
Health
as
well
some
kind
of
compromise,
so
that
there
would
be
something
that
somebody
in
a
wheelchair
could
have
a
direct
access
to
that
door.
Location.
C
Yeah,
absolutely
so
so
far
in
our
interpretation,
our
application
of
the
back
out
parking.
You
know
we
have
basically
said
you
know
that
parking
spaces
cannot
access,
cannot
directly
access
the
alley.
You
know
whether
it's
angled
or
parallel
or
90
degrees.
C
You
know
the
use
of
parking
spots
directly
off
of
an
alley
would
not
be
allowed,
so
parking
would
all
have
to
be
contained
Insight.
So
there
is
a
provision
in
the
parking
that
says
you
know
all
parking
movements,
you
know
must
be
accommodated
on
site
so
as
to
not
you
know,
have
back
out
parking
or
you
know
that
would
meet
setbacks.
So
any
parking
spaces
directly
off
the
alley
here,
wouldn't
meet
setbacks
and
wouldn't
be
allowed.
A
So
they
would
have
to
have
sort
of
a
a
return
like
a
bump
out
and
then
they
could
have
parking
within
that
you
could
have
an
access
point
off
the
alley.
C
Yes,
access
access
points
from
an
alley
are
not
govern
in
terms
of
number
limitation.
C
A
E
You
meet
the
nature
of
what
they're
looking
for
to
keep
that
access
so
that
somebody
wouldn't
have
to
walk
as
far
it
is
you're,
probably
talking
about
another
20
to
25
feet,
walking
distance
to
that
door
from
the
alternate
location
that
we're
looking
at
for
I
mean
if
you
would
bring
up
the
map.
It
shows
some
extra
Ada
parking
spaces,
but
it's
just
a
little
bit
longer
of
a
walk.
That's
all
it
is
so
something
like
that.
I
think
would
work
out
if
and.
A
Just
a
clarification,
the
way
that
the
that
parking
lays
out
now
that
island
is
actually
in
the
alley,
the
sort
of
the
island
that
kind
of
Sandbar
sort
of
yeah
okay,
so
that
space
is
kind.
C
Of
yes,
I'll,
just
kind
of
say
from
the
city's
perspective,
you
know
we
do
not
want
obstructions
within
the
alley.
You
know
we're
working
to
utilize
that
alley
to
the
maximum
extent
possible.
So
we
we
don't
want
any
Islands
or
any
encroachments
or
any
obstructions
within
the
alley
itself.
A
Go
away
correct,
along
with
the
pro
this
with
this
project,
that
that
kind
of
concrete
Allen
Island
would
disappear.
Yeah.
E
A
Questions
I
I
do
have
some
questions
about
the
trees
Eric,
because
the
really
nice
specimen
trees
and
they're,
mature
and-
and
it's
you
know-
I
know
that
the
city,
when
they
when
there
are
Street
designs
or
redesigns,
that
mature
trees
are
often
worked
around
and
I,
don't
know
if
these
would
qualify,
but
it
seems
kind
of
a
shame,
since
this
is
going
to
be
sort
of
a
piecemeal
kind
of
thing
and
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
time
frame
for
the
improvements
yet
of
Second
Street,
but
I
just
wanted
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
about
how
how
other
projects
take
into
account
sort
of
those
types
of
natural.
C
Yeah
absolutely,
and
so
the
Udo
does
give
some
discretion
to
the
planning
director.
You
know
to
allow
some
some
minor
alterations
to
pedestrian
facilities
or
tree
plot
width
to
accommodate
any
unique
situations
that
might
arise
so
that
you
know
there's
always
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
at
that
level.
C
You
know
with
this
request.
You
know
we're
simply
evaluating
this
from
a
variance
perspective.
You
know
they
they
just
don't
want
to
to
meet
the
standards
so
evaluating
it
from
A,
peculiar
condition.
Standpoint.
You
know,
there's
nothing
about
the
property
that
doesn't
allow
them.
You
know
to
move
the
wall
and
the
the
sidewalk
back.
Yes,
there
might
be.
You
know
a
minor
impact
to
the
tree.
That
is
arguable
whether
or
not
it
will
have
any
major
impacts
to
the
tree.
C
But,
yes,
there
is
at
a
staff
level,
always
the
ability
to
to
have
minor
modifications
or
adjustments
to
required
improvements
to
accommodate
unique
situations
on
the
ground.
So
you
know
if
it
was
a
matter
of
you
know,
rather
than
a
eight
foot
tree
plot
with
you
know,
we
approve
a
seven
foot
or
a
six
and
a
half
foot.
You
know
there's
always
that
path
for
discussion,
but
in
terms
of
not
requiring
full
compliance
from
a
variance
perspective.
That's
where
you
know
we
were
not
able
to
make
findings
for
okay.
A
So
if
we
were
interested
in
seeing
that
street
that
street
design
like
looked
at
comprehensively
and
holistically,
so
this
is
part
of
what's
Happening,
you
know
to
the
East
and
to
the
West.
A
A
C
You
know,
as
as
I
mentioned
there,
you
know
we're
always
willing
to
work
with
somebody
and
and
in
this
specific
situation
you
know
with
the
condition
of
approval,
we've
already
kind
of
said.
You
know
that
we
expect
that
we'll
be
able
to
accommodate
their
improvements,
assuming
that
we've
got
enough
right-of-way
if
we
need
a
footer
to
a
right
away
for
some
reason
and
they're
able
to
dedicate
that
we
will
do
the
improvements
along
this
property.
A
C
So
so
you
know
we
do
have
a
design
right
now,
I
talk
into
engineering
staff.
Earlier
today
you
know
we're
still
at
like
a
70
level.
C
You
know
of
what
it
will
look
like
along
2nd
Street,
but
you
know
at
this
time.
You
know
it
appears
that
you
know
we'll
probably
be
able
to
do
a
lot
of
the
work
within
the
existing
right
away.
As
I
mentioned,
there
might
be
a
foot
or
two
needed
depending
on
where
their
final
survey
kind
of
lays
things
out,
but
it
appears
that
we
have
every
reason
to
believe
that
we'll
be
able
to
do
what
the
city
is
envisioning
along
the
entire
Corridor
along
this
property
I.
C
Yeah
it's
it's
still,
you
know,
2025
is
the
year
that
we
will
most
likely
begin
those
improvements
and,
as
I
mentioned,
the
design
is
at
kind
of
a
70
phase.
A
A
E
We
are
expecting
to
provide
that
full
certified
survey
to
the
city
as
well,
and
we're
happy
to
do
that
and
it
it
does
appear
that
the
the
right-of-way
line
is
needed
is
enough
needed
for
this
city.
The
city
project
I
just
want
to
make
everyone
aware
of
that
situation
that
you're
talking
about
with
the
trees.
Hopefully
that
can
be
designed
around
if
the
or,
if
the
you
know
the
petition
for
that
particular
variance
is
turned
down.
A
Okay,
word
for
action:
I
will
entertain
a
motion.
H
H
C
So
you
know
right
now:
we
are
still
I
believe
evaluating
perspective
development
projects
for
the
overall
health.
Well,
development.
You
know
nothing
has
been
formally
submitted
for
approval
other
than
a
planning
process
to
subdivide
properties
and
platinum,
internal
alleys
and
streets.
C
A
This
lot
was
regraded
as
part
of
the
demolition
and
that's
why
it's
all
green,
now,
yeah
and
and
but
that
is
owned
by
that's
IU
Health-
is
maintaining
ownership
of
this
lot.
Like
does
that
make
sense,
because
it's
a
little
weird
when
you
go
up
there
and
you
see
that
how
it's
fenced
and
everything
okay
did.
We
have
a.
B
The
bordozone
appeals
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
approve
the
variance
to
allow
parking
within
the
front
parking
setback
and
deny
the
variances
for
back
out
early
parking
and
reduce
sidewalk
and
tree
lot
with
with
the
following
conditions.
A
sidewalk
connection
from
First
Street
to
the
building
is
required.
Number
two:
the
petitioner
shall
work
with
the
city
engineering
department
to
either
dedicate
appropriate
right
away
to
be
improved
with
the
city
project
or
to
install
improvements
along
the
Second
Street
Frontage,
consistent
with
the
seating
improvements.
A
Okay
discussion,
any
comments.
I
just
would
say
that
I
really
hope
that
those
trees
can
be
maintained
and
whatever
adjustments
need
to
be
made
so
that
they
can
remain
healthy
and
beautiful
as
they
sit
there.
Lording
over
Second,
Street
right
right,
so
I
think
we're
ready
for
a
vote.
D
A
Have
a
good
evening:
okay,
I
am
going
to
be
recusing
myself
for
the
next
case,
and
Flavia
is
going
to
take
over
the
meeting.
B
C
C
C
So
this
site
has
been
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
a
few
times
for
a
variance
from
side
yard,
buffer
yard
requirements,
as
well
as
for
previous
variants
from
architectural
standards.
So
this
is
located
at
the
West
End
of
Kirkwood
Avenue.
It
is
zoned,
RH,
residential
high
density,
so
it's
a
somewhat
small
site
about
a
quarter
of
an
acre
at
best
about
7
000
square
feet.
C
Actually,
sorry
and
the
petitioner
is
looking
to
redevelop
the
site
currently
or
previously
had
one
house
on
it
as
well
as
a
garage
or
two,
and
so
the
petition
received
approval
site
plan
approval
to
allow
for
it
to
be
developed
with
a
new
multi-family
development.
It
would
have
four
buildings
on
there.
There
would
be
two-story.
C
C
So
the
the
zoning
code
requires
a
certain
amount
of
variation
within
features,
change
in
Building,
height
variation
in
terms
of
modulation,
so
the
petitioner
has
incorporated
defined
breaks
in
the
building
in
the
height
of
the
building.
As
you
can
see
here,
there
is
a
separation
between
the
two
northern
southern
buildings
by
a
staircase
that
creates
the
the
visual
separation
that
is
desired
and
looked
to
be
accomplished.
Through
these
architectural
standards,
they
have
included
a
two
foot
separation
height
between
the
two
buildings.
C
So
all
of
these
things
have
really
kind
of
contributed
to
making
it
very
difficult
to
develop
the
site
in
terms
of
meeting
all
of
our
architectural
requirements,
but
the
petitioner
has
incorporated
all
of
the
elements
they're
just
not
able
to
have
full
compliance
with
all
of
the
standards
along
all
four
sides,
and
so
this
is
something
that
we
have
obviously
evaluated
for
the
various
findings.
You
know
we
do
not
find
that
there
will
be
any
injuries
to
the
public
health
safety
and
morals
or
general
welfare.
C
As
a
result,
this
is
not
a
variance
from
any
safety
standards
or
any
building
code
issues,
so
there's
no
impacts
in
that
regard.
We
do
not
find
any
adverse
impacts
to
the
use
and
value
of
the
surrounding
properties.
This
will
meet
all
building
code
standards.
The
reduction
in
the
change
in
the
height
and
modulation
and
the
amount
of
ground
floor
windows
will
not
impact
any
of
the
adjacent
Properties
or
uses.
C
And
lastly,
the
Practical
difficulties,
as
we
mentioned,
are
tied
directly
to
the
narrow
width
of
the
lot.
The
amount
of
buildable
area
and
width
only
allows
for
a
25
foot
wide
building
the
required
modulation
further
takes
away
from
that
amount
of
buildable
area
and
would
require
almost
three
and
a
half
feet
of
modulation
on
the
side,
so
that
reduces
the
interior
width
even
even
more
so.
The
the
granting
of
the
variants
will
relieve
those
practical
difficulties
by
allowing
the
property
to
be
developed
in
a
very
modest
way.
C
In
keeping
with
the
multi-family
zoning,
the
petitioner
is
working
to
provide
affordable
housing,
which
furthers
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
we
are
recommending
approval
of
the
variants
with
the
two
conditions
that
are
listed
in
staff's
report
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
B
I
I
This
site
is
challenging
just
because
of
the
nature
of
the
size
of
it
and
the
proportions
so
in
an
effort
to
create
a
reasonable
building
that
is
Affordable
and
able
to
be
built
in
a
reasonable
way.
We're
asking
for
this
variance
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
B
G
Your
virtual
hand
or
send
a
message
to
the
host
Jacqueline
Scanlon,
and
we
can
let
you
speak
here.
B
J
For
this
project,
even
the
first
time,
I
came
through
I,
like
the
mission
of
the
group
I,
think
one
of
the
owners
kind
of
spoke
and
shared
where
they
were
coming
from
and
trying
to
support,
voucher
housing,
which
I
think
is
much
needed.
So.
J
Okay,
I'll
move
to
improve
case
number
8-19,
Dash,
23
and
adopted
for
post
findings
improved
the
following
conditions.
One
Cyclone
approvals
require
prioritizens
grading
permit
into
this
approvals
for
the
submittance
icon
at
Ovations.
Only.
B
K
A
Okay,
great
our
next
case
is
cu,
slash
v-20-23
Daniel
Weddle
staff
report.
Please.
G
Family
development
services
manager,
we
are
looking
at
the
property
at
917,
North,
Fairview
Street.
You
can
see
located
here
just
southeast
of
sorry
Middle
School.
Here
you
can
see
that
on
the
right,
the
property
is
one
is
0.16
Acres,
it's
currently
zoned
to
R3,
and
there
is
an
existing
lawful,
non-conforming
duplex
on
the
property
that
has
been
existing
there
for
some
time.
The
property
also
contains
an
accessory
structure
and
is
in
the
Maple
Heights
historic
district.
G
It
received
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
the
work
that
we
will
discuss
tonight
from
the
historic
preservation
commission
at
its
July
13th
hearing.
It
also
received
approval
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
that
will
be
built
in
the
northwest
corner
of
the
site
and
a
building
permit
for
that
building
from
the
Monroe
County
building
department,
with
the
planning
certificate,
zoning
compliance
as
well
as
I
said.
The
main
structure
on
the
site
currently
contains
two
units.
G
The
petitioner
is
proposing
to
add
an
addition
to
one
of
the
units
in
order
to
provide
an
additional
bedroom
as
well
as
a
bathroom,
but
in
order
to
expand
a
lawful
non-conforming
duplex,
a
conditional
use
approval
is
required.
The
petitioner
did
hold
a
neighborhood
meeting,
which
is
a
requirement
for
duplex
in
this
zoning
district
and
again
they
are
requesting
conditional
use
approval
for
expansion
of
their
existing
dwelling
duplex,
as
well
as
a
variance
from
one
of
these
specific
standards.
G
So
this
is
the
site,
obviously
from
the
street,
currently
basically
reads
as
a
single
family
home,
but
is
a
duplex.
There
are
two
units
located
in
the
structure.
This
is
an
aerial
view
here.
This
is
where
the
petitioner
would
like
to
do
an
addition
here
at
the
southwest
corner
of
the
back
of
the
house.
Again
they
will
be
doing
an
Adu
on
the
western
side
of
the
property
and
already
have
approvals
for
that,
but
because
they
are
creating
additional
space
in
the
duplex.
That
is
why
they
need
the
approval
for
conditional
use.
G
So
again,
this
is
a
different
site.
Plan
might
be
maybe
a
little
bit
easier
to
understand.
The
purple
is
the
addition
here
against
the
existing
primary
structure.
G
So,
as
you
know,
there's
various
criteria
for
conditional
use
approval
and
the
department
found,
as
you
may
recall,
that
there
are
various
specific
standards
for
dwelling
duplex.
In
addition
to
our
regular
development
standards,
this
petition
does
meet
those
with
the
exception
of
one
for
which
they
are
requesting
the
variance,
and
that
is
a
request
to
not
have
separate
utility
meters
at
this
site.
G
But
basically,
this
cite
this
petitioner
was
able
to
take
advantage
of
net
metering
for
this
site,
some
things
that
aren't
available
for
some
types
of
residential
houses.
G
Now
so
the
type
of
solar
panels
and
this
setup
that
they
have
here
couldn't
be
done
in
the
way
that
it
can
be
done
now,
as
far
as
the
benefit
to
the
property
owner,
our
duplexes
require
splitting
the
utilities
by
unit,
and
so
the
petitioner
is
requesting
that,
because
he
already
has
such
a
large
solar
installation
on
the
building
and
was
able
to
take
advantage
of
the
net
metering
at
the
time
when
that
was
available,
which
is
no
longer
available,
asking
to
request
to
have
a
variance
from
the
use
specific
standard
related
to
splitting
those
utilities.
G
So
here
is
the
use
specific
standard,
it's
the
one
at
the
bottom,
it's
C4,
each
individual
dwelling
unit
shall
have
separate
utility
meters,
and
this
was
done
in
an
effort
to
allow
for
each
unit
to
be
sold
separately
in
a
condo
situation.
If
that
was
something
that
the
property
owner
wanted
to
do
in
this
case,
this
particular
owner
is
not
looking
to
do
that
and
would
like
to
keep
the
utilities,
as
are
again
as
I
mentioned,
because
of
existing
solar
system.
G
So
the
department
looked
at
the
request
and
determined
no
adverse
impacts
on
the
community
at
large
or
immediate
neighbors.
By
allowing
the
existing
solar
system
to
continue
and
not
split
into
two
separate
units.
We
did
also
include
a
condition
of
approval.
G
So
if
the
situation
on
site
changes
related
to
the
large
solar
installation
than
that
new
specific
standard
will
need
to
be
met
of
the
duplex
is
bolded,
because
I
didn't
write
that
in
the
initial
condition,
but
I
wanted
to
clarify
that.
That's
what
we're
discussing
since
there
is
a
third
unit
on
this
site
in
the
Adu,
so
that
would
be
our
proposed
condition
and
I
can
answer
any
questions.
A
A
K
I
think
that
pretty
well
covered
it
yeah
and
that
metering
ended
December
of
last
year
and
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here.
It's
the
ability
to
count
your
solar
credits
across
your
bill.
It's
not
really
possible
net
zero
property
without
it
in
our
region.
So
that's
why
I
pursued
that
so
trying
to
eliminate
electrical
use
on
the
site.
A
I'm,
assuming
that
the
property
owner
lives
in
one
of
the
units
in
the
duplex,
currently,
okay,
okay,
then
we
are
to
the
public
for
comment
or
or
input.
Do
we
have
anybody
on
Zoom.
A
J
The
approval
v-20
Dash
23,
with
the
following
conditions,
conditional
use
and
variance
approvals,
limited
to
the
design
shown
and
discussed
in
the
packet,
and
then
even
the
petitioner
removes
the
solar
utility
installation
on
the
side.
Both
units
must
have
completely
separate
utility
meters.
A
Okay,
any
comments
before
we
vote:
okay
ready
for
a
vote;
yes,
Ballard
Burrell,
yes,
feral!
Yes,
the
conditional
use
and
variants
are
approved.
Good
luck!
Thank
you.
Okay,.
G
All
right,
this
property
is
located
at
1100,
West,
11th
Street,
and
the
petition
is
v2123.
You
can
see
located
here,
just
Northwest
of
downtown
and
the
site
is
a
6
000
square
foot,
roughly
six
thousand
square
foot,
0.14
acre
parcel
and
a
zoned
mixed-use
neighborhood
scale.
The
property
is
developed
with
a
commercial
building
and
parking
area
that
is
used
by
the
Community
Kitchen
properties
to
the
north
and
west
are
also
of
the
same.
Zoning
district
and
properties
to
the
east
and
south
are
residential.
Small
lot.
G
R3
zoned
surrounding
land
uses
include
the
boys
and
girls
club
building
to
the
north
gas
station
to
the
west
and
detach
single-family
to
the
south
and
east
across
both
11th
and
Monroe
streets.
The
petitioner
is
seeking
to
redevelop
the
site
with
a
new
building
and
parking
area
in
order
to
improve
their
ability
to
provide
meals
for
those
in
need
from
this
location.
They
are
proposing
a
new
building.
You
can
see
the
building.
G
That's
currently
here
with
the
brown
roof,
is
kind
of
awkwardly
shaped
toward
the
corner,
so
the
new
building
is
about
1,
000
square
feet
and
square
with
the
corner
to
better
better
utilize.
This
really
small
parcel
for
this
use.
The
petitioner
needs
three
variances
in
order
to
develop
the
desired
configuration,
so
the
variances
are
variants
from
driveway
location
standard
to
allow
vehicular
access
from
11th
Street,
as
opposed
to
Monroe
minimum
parking
setback,
standard
and
maximum
parking
space
total
standard
variants.
G
G
So
for
the
first
experience
is
access
from
11th
Street.
The
reason
a
variance
is
needed,
for
that
is
because
access
per
the
code
is
required
to
be
from
the
lower
classified
Road.
Monroe
at
this
location
is
a
secondary
collector,
while
11th
Street
is
a
primary
collector.
However,
the
new
configuration
will
result
in
that
vehicular
entrance
being
more
than
50
feet
from
the
intersection
and
because
the
property
is
only
50
feet
deep
from
north
to
south.
G
If
the
and
if
they
used
Monroe
Street
as
opposed
to
11th,
we
would
not
be
able
to
get
the
50-foot
separation.
That
is
also
desired
and
more
important
for
safety,
probably
at
this
location
than
using
Monroe.
Again,
that's
a
product
of
how
of
how
shallow
this
property
is.
G
So
the
second
variance
is
parking
setbacks.
So
these
black
lines
are
rough
indications
of
where
the
parking
setback
lines
are
located.
So
in
this
district
and
in
most
of
our
districts,
the
front
parking.
So
that
would
be
for
the
east
and
south
lines,
because
there
are
two
Road
frontages
have
to
be
20
feet
behind
the
front
building
wall.
So
if
we're
looking
at
this
Southern
building
wall-
and
we
go
roughly
20
feet
back-
that's
this
kind
of
thicker
black
line
here
to
the
South.
G
G
G
This
the
department
is
supporting,
does
think
that
the
petition
meets
the
requirements
for
the
variants,
because,
because
of
the
very
shallow
nature
of
the
lot,
the
building
could
not
be
much
bigger
than
it
is
and,
as
you
know,
parking
a
space
is
based
on
for
this
type
of
use,
the
square
footage
of
the
building.
So
because
the
building
is
constricted
by
the
size
of
the
parcel.
The
parking
is
also
constricted
by
the
size
of
the
parcel.
So
we
are
recommending
variance
approval
for
that
as
well.
G
So
again,
the
three
General
regular
criteria
for
development
standards,
variances,
which
I've
discussed
briefly
and
based
on
their
support
and
written
findings
of
fact
above
the
department,
recommends
that
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
approve.
Excuse
me
that
should
say
all
three
of
the
requested
variances
for
v2123
with
the
following
conditions:
site
plan.
Approval
is
required
prior
to
issues
of
a
grading
permit
and
that
this
approval
is
for
the
submitted
site
plan
only
with
the
following
modifications-
and
these
are
our
suggestions
to
you.
G
Additional
Landscaping
density
will
be
required
along
the
western
property
line
adjacent
to
the
parking
spaces.
In
order
to
separate
the
Extra
Spaces
visually
more
from
the
property
to
the
west
and
that
the
dry
vial
on
the
north
of
the
parking
spaces
needs
to
be
as
short
as
possible
to
allow
for
vehicular
movement
and
that
if
Green
Space
can
be
created,
Landscaping
is
required.
So
I'm
going
to
show
you
what
we
mean
by
that
in
this
location.
Here
at
the
north
end
of
this
circle,
they
are
showing
that
back
out.
G
So
if
you
can
imagine
pulling
into
one
of
these
part
spaces
and
then
backing
out
to
leave
going
all
the
way
to
the
property
line
that
is
generally
by
by
the
department
seen
as
part
of
the
parking
lot
and
would
need
to
meet
the
setback
requirement,
they
can't
do
that
here.
It's
not
feasible
or
we
encourage
people
to
design
that
way.
G
Even
though
it's
not
a
parking
space,
so
we
will
continue
to
work
with
the
petitioner
and,
if
there's
a
possibility
of
putting
in
some
green
space
Landscaping
to
separate
the
parking
lot
visually
again
from
the
property
to
the
north,
we
will
do
that.
We
wrote
it
in
a
way
that,
if
it's
not
required,
if
they
physically
can't
do
it
and
still
allow
for
vehicular
movement,
then
we
won't
require
that
and
I
can
answer
any
questions.
Thanks.
B
B
I
Thank
you
again,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
board
for
considering
these
variances
and
staff
for
the
report
that
we
just
heard.
I,
don't
have
anything
additional
again
to
say
about
the
report.
I
think
it
was
pretty
clear.
The
I
will
say
the
mission
of
the
Community
Kitchen
to
serve
the
neighborhood
I
think
is
needed
within
within
this
neighborhood
and
that
the
challenge
of
this
small
site
does
limit
some
of
the
site
design
aspects
of
the
project.
I
G
It's
for
five
and
including
the
Ada
spot
five,
including.
J
G
So
the
way
that
I
wrote
in
the
report
and
Eric
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
If
a
parking
space
has
under
I
think
12
spaces,
then
we
don't
count
your
Ada
space
against
your
max.
So
I
said
that
they
would
only
be
able
to
have
three
with
the
Ada
space,
but
they
could
have
three
plus
an
ADA
space.
So
they're
really
only
asking
for
one
additional
space.
G
So
in
their
site
plan
they're
showing
five
spaces
in
one
aisle
accessible
aisle
next
to
their
accessible
space.
J
J
Okay,
I'll
move
that
the
board
of
zoning
appeals,
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
approve
v-21-23
the
following
conditions:
site
plan
approval
is
it
required,
prior
to
issuance
of
a
grading,
permit
and
number
two.
This
approval
is
for
the
submitted
site
plan
only
with
the
following
modifications.
J
A
Okay,
please
let
the
minutes
reflect
that
Barry
Clapper
has
join
rejoined
the
board.
Our
next
case
is
v-22-23.
True
storage,
LLC
staff
report.
Please.
G
This
property
is
located
at
1701,
South,
Liberty
Drive.
The
petition
is
V
2223
and
you
can
see
the
property
located
here
on
the
West
side
of
town.
The
property
is
currently
zoned
mixed
use,
medium
scale
mm
and
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
South
Liberty
Drive.
The
properties
to
the
east
and
south
are
also
of
the
same.
Zoning
district
and
properties.
West
are
of
our
residential
high
density,
multi-family
District
properties
to
the
north
are
outside
of
the
city's
jurisdiction
and
then
the
Monroe
County
Planning
jurisdiction.
G
So
the
petitioner
is
requesting
a
variance
from
location
and
separation
of
Drive
standards
for
their
zoning
District.
The
requirement
is
that
no
entrance
or
drive
be
installed
closer
to
the
street
than
the
existing
or
front
building
wall.
So
you
can
see
the
building
here
and
you
may
recognize
this
site
plan
from
the
last
time
you
saw
it
these
kind
of
grayer
gray
space
here
is
a
parking
area
that
exists
that
will
be
removed,
and
this
darker
gray
with
the
Curve
is
the
driveway
that
is
planned
to
be
installed
again.
G
So
obviously,
this
is
completely
parallel
to
the
street
right-of-way
again,
these
are
the
parking
areas
that
are
changing
which
you've
seen
previously
and
then
this
driveway
will
be
the
result,
and
this
is
the
drive
we
were
discussing
tonight,
and
this
is
where
Liberty
Drive
is
located
here
in
the
rectangle.
The
proposed
Drive
location
is
approximately
225
feet
from
the
property
line
adjacent
to
the
right-of-way.
G
So
obviously,
the
code
requirement
is
written
with
probably
smaller,
more
city-sized
properties
in
mind
and
not
wanting
to
have
parking
or
drive
aisles
in
between
buildings
in
the
road,
one
that
can
create
confusion
for
drivers
and
two.
It
is
also
usually
more
detrimental
for
pedestrians
trying
to
access
buildings
in
this
case.
That's
not
really.
We
have
here,
obviously,
because
the
building
is
so
far
from
the
road
that
that
will
not
have
the
general
negative
effects
that
we
sometimes
see
so
again.
G
Our
three
development
standards
findings
that
we
typically
have
the
department
found
that
granting
the
variants
will
not
be
injurious
to
public
health,
safety,
morals
and
general
welfare
again,
largely
because
the
property,
the
building
on
the
property
is
so
far
from
the
right-of-way
225
feet
and
that
there
is
already
some
parking
there
that
is
going
to
be
removed.
G
So
we
think
that
that's
an
improvement,
and
that
will
be
also
again
removing
excess
asphalt
to
reduce
total
impervious
surface
coverage
and
the
department
found
that
the
strict
application
of
the
terms
of
the
ordinance
does
result
in
Practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
the
property,
largely
because
of
the
existing
layout
and
size
of
the
property
and
additionally,
because
the
area
to
the
east
of
the
building,
which
could
possibly
be
used
for
for
a
driveway
to
have
it
be
switched.
I
mean
on
the
east.
G
So?
Based
on
the
report
and
written
findings?
Of
fact,
the
department
recommends
that
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
approve
the
requested
variances
for
v223
with
the
following
conditions.
The
variance
for
the
driveway
is
approved
for
the
location
shown
on
the
plans
and
cannot
be
moved
closer
to
the
right-of-way
and
that
11
large
trees
shall
be
planted
along
the
length
of
the
driveway.
That
runs
north
and
south
at
a
separation
of
approximately
20
feet
between
trees.
G
So
we
felt
that,
having
again
some
sort
of
visual
separation,
for
you
know,
if
someone's
using
that
driveway
at
night
and
having
having
car
lights
and
things
to
have
it,
be
delineated
that
that
is
happening
on
the
property
that
that
would
help
with
that
issue
and
I
can
answer
any
questions
thanks.
Thank
you.
A
The
petition
is
representative:
if
you
could
step
to
the
podium.
Please.
A
L
L
Thank
you,
yeah
you've
heard
from
this
case
before,
and
there
was
just
another
variance.
L
We
discovered
that
we
needed
to
to
come
back
and
ask
you
about
so
so
this
parallel
driveway
is
it's
needed
for
the
site
plan
for
this
proposed
use
of
this
site
to
be
successful,
so
that
so
that
patrons
of
the
true
storage
facility
can
access
the
north
side
of
the
building
where
a
a
loading
Bay
is
proposed,
and
it's
standard
within
the
this
storage
business
that
you
know,
storage
units
should
be
accessible
to
users
within
you
know
a
walking
distance
of
150
feet
and
if
and
if
we
only
have
access
to
those
interior
storage
units
from
the
south
side
of
the
building,
there
will
be
quite
a
number
of
the
pretty
large
percentage
of
the
building
won't,
be
you
know
accessible
from
an
entrance
at
150
feet,
so
so
the
north
loading
Bay
is
really
needed
for
the
the
site
plan.
L
The
the
business
proposed
use
to
be
successful,
so
we
thought
that
that
using
that
existing
driveway,
that
extends
I
mean
it
runs
almost
the
entire
length
of
the
you
know
front
side
of
the
building
there
we've.
We
thought
it
would
be
the
best
use
of
resources
to
use
that
existing
drive.
You
know
repave
it
and
extend
it
to
access
the
north
side
of
the
building
so
and
we'd
like
like
Jackie
mentioned
the
you
know,
we'd
remove
the
parking
spaces
that
are
there
and
it
would
really
just
be
an
access
Drive.
L
L
It
would
actually
make
the
drive
substantially
longer
and
would
require
us
to
remove
more
of
the
existing
trees
on
the
site,
and
it
would
really
you
know
that
that
driveway
would
land
right
near
the
entrance
to
the
facility
like
right,
where
you
turn
in
from
Liberty
Drive,
and
that
would
just
cause
a
lot
of
problems
with
the
with
the
you
know:
safety
problems
with
patrons
entering
and
exiting
the
facility
and
and
just
problems
with
vehicle,
turning
movements
to
access
the
north
side
of
the
facility.
L
So
so
we
just
felt
that
that
wasn't
really
an
acceptable
solution,
so
so
we're
here
asking
for
the
variants
on
the
parallel
driveway
and
if
you
have
any
further
questions
about
it,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer.
L
Oh
one
thing,
I
might
note
is
that
the
the
condition
about
the
11
large
trees?
We
can
certainly
do
that.
L
We
might
just
ask
for
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
about
the
spacing
between
between
the
trees,
because
there
is,
or
there
are,
four
trees
existing
on
the
site
within
you
know,
along
that
that
current
driveway
that
we'd
like
to
keep
there,
and
so
you
know
we'll
we
can
put
four
11
trees
in
there,
but
we
might,
you
know,
adjust
a
little
bit
the
spacing
between
them
to
accommodate
the
existing
trees
that
are
on
the
site,
but
we
would
certainly,
you
know,
be
able
to
accomplish
some
some
good
screening
from
Liberty
Drive,
which
I
believe
is
the
goal.
A
Thank
you.
We
are
to
the
board
for
any
questions.
B
G
Okay,
no
I
mean
we
base
the
spacing
on
spacing
from
the
Udo
as
20
foot
as
a
minimum
and
I.
Think.
If
you
wanted
to
amend
it
to
say
you
know
a
total
of
11
trees,
including
those
that
are
there,
that
would
be
fine.
We
basically
looked
at
the
length
distance
and
then
picked
the
number
of
trees
in
the
spacing,
based
on
what
the
Udo
requirement
would
be
for
Street
trees,
so
yeah
changing
that
in
some
way
would
be
we'd,
be
amenable
to
that
for
sure.
A
Are
to
the
public
for
a
comment?
Is
there
anybody
in
Chambers
or
online,
who
would
like
to
comment
on
this
petition?
This
is
your
chance.
A
B
B
G
A
H
A
Okay,
the
put
the
variance
is
granted.
Thank
you.
Good
luck.
Okay.
We
are
on
to
our
last
case
of
the
evening.
It
is
v-24-23
David,
Hayes
staff
report.
Please.
C
Thank
you.
So
this
is
a
request
for
David
Hayes
for
a
property
at
300
East
6th
Street.
The
petitioner
is
here
tonight
to
request
a
variance
from
the
use
specific
standards
in
order
to
allow
ground
floor
dwelling
units
within
20
feet
of
the
first
floor,
facade
of
a
building.
So
this
property
is
at
the
northwest
corner
of
6th
and
Morton
and
has
been
developed
with
two
buildings.
C
C
The
petitioner
has
applied
for
a
building
permit
to
remodel
the
southern
portion
of
this
site,
Southern
portion
of
the
building,
that
is,
for
a
new
dentist
office
that
is
currently
being
reviewed,
and
they
are
requesting
to
refinish
some
of
that
commercial
space
to
allow
for
these
two
new
dwelling
units
to
be
installed
so
as
a
board
as
well.
There
are
three
criteria
that
we
need
to
make
findings
for.
C
So
in
this
regard
for
the
granting
of
the
variants
to
allow
for
the
dwelling
unit,
we
do
not
find
that
there
will
be
any
injuries
to
the
public
health
safety,
moral
welfare
again.
The
granting
of
this
variance
would
not
impact
the
overall
safety
and
the
design
of
the
building.
So
we
do
not
find
any
injuries
to
the
public
health,
safety,
moral
or
general
wareful
as
part
of
this
aspect
of
it.
However,
we
do
find
that
there
are
adverse
impacts
to
the
the
overall
Community
as
a
whole.
C
You
know,
as
the
board
is
aware,
with
several
petitions
that
have
pursued
this
aspect.
The
desire
of
the
Udo
in
the
prohibition
of
the
ground
floor
units
is
to
have
active,
non-residential
spaces
along
the
portions
of
a
building
immediately
adjacent
to
a
sidewalk
and
pedestrian
area,
so
the
location
of
a
residence
immediately
adjacent
to
the
sidewalk
does
not
provide
the
desired
pedestrian
experience
within
the
downtown
that
is
desired
by
the
Udo
and
the
comprehensive
plan.
C
So
we
do
find
that
there
would
be
a
negative
impact
on
the
use
and
value
adjacent
to
the
area
if
the
variance
was
granted
and
finally,
the
strict
application
in
terms
of
the
zoning
code
would
result
in
Practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
the
property.
We
do
not
find
that
this
petition
meets
that
criteria
ground
floor
dwelling
units
are
not
a
requirement.
C
You
know.
As
the
board
knows,
the
granting
of
a
variance
is
to
relieve
the
difficulty
from
a
requirement
from
the
zoning
code
on
a
property.
The
zoning
code
does
not
require
ground
floor
dwelling
units
here
there
is
ample
space
within
the
building.
If
the
petitioner
wanted
to
install
dwelling
units
which
they
have,
they
have
installed
two
ground
floor
dwelling
units
within
the
building
that
meets
these
setback
requirements.
C
C
So
while
we
we
may,
you
know,
have
differences
of
opinions
of
whether
or
not
we
agree
with
the
legislation.
You
know
that
is
obviously
not
the
role
of
the
board
of
zoning
appeals.
They
are
defined
that
there
is
something
unique
that
doesn't
allow
you
to
meet
code
here.
C
So,
as
I
mentioned
in
that
regard,
we
do
not
find
that
there
is
a
practical
difficulty
here
that
is
peculiar
to
the
property.
That
would
say
that
the
variance
has
to
be
granted
nor
for
the
property
to
be
allowed
in
a
reasonable
manner.
Commercial
uses
can
occur
on
the
ground
floor.
The
ground
floor
of
this
building
has
had
commercial
use
in
it
for
its
entirety.
So
there's
certainly
not
an
argument
there
that
prohibiting
the
ground
floor
units
prohibits
the
use
of
the
building.
A
Thank
you,
Eric.
Okay,
we're
ready
to
hear
from
the
petitioners
representative.
A
I
guess
where
are
you
in?
Do
you
swear
or
affirm
to
tell
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth.
M
M
Right,
thank
you,
I
believe
the
petitioner,
a
family
member
partner,
is
also
here
to
speak
after
me,
a
few
things
and
I
had
some
notes,
but
I
want
to
address
something
that
Eric
just
mentioned
right
off
the
bat.
This
building
over
its
history,
of
course,
has
had
commercial
uses
on
the
ground
floor.
It's
a
very
much
a
very
old
historic
building
of
limestone
walls
not
easily
something
that
we
want
to
cut
new
openings
in.
So
we
find
that
kind
of
particular.
M
This
is
not
a
new
building,
and
this
is
not
some
wood
frame
structure
that
we
can
just
plop
openings
in
very
easily.
I
would
also
say
that
the
main
entrance
to
this
building,
where
it
had
its
entrance
to
the
commercial
space,
is
at
the
corner
of
six
and
Morton,
and
at
that
space
you
have
a
corner
entry.
It's
been,
it's
been
the
only
commercial
entry
for
this
building,
and
at
that
point
the
sidewalk
is
27
feet
wide.
So
it's
almost
like
a
plaza
there
and
I.
M
M
What
I
wanted
to
talk
about
is
in
2019
under
the
Udo
there
was
an
addition
built
which
used
to
be
the
parking
lot
to
the
back
of
this
building
and
that
addition
has
residential
uses
on
a
couple
a
few
stories
and
they
are
right
up
against
the
sidewalk
and
the
plan
at
that
time
was
to
create
a
courtyard
which
it
does.
That
is
fenced
off,
because,
as
you
could
imagine,
you
need
some
Safety
and
Security
in
this
in
this
area.
M
So
they
have
a
a
landscaped
Courtyard
with
a
fence
that
allows
access
to
those
units
that
they
planned
in
2019,
as
well
as
an
entry
to
the
door
on
the
north
of
this.
That
residents
could
gain
access
to,
and
there
was
a
unit
built
at
that
time,
and
the
plan
was
is
to
finish
out
a
couple
of
more
of
these
units,
but
not
exceeding
the
50
percent
requirement
to
put
of
a
couple
more
units
in
so
now.
M
We
have
a
six
foot
wide
sidewalk
with
parking
meters
in
it,
and
angled
parking
right
up
on
the
sidewalk
and
bumpers
hanging
over
the
sidewalk.
So
we
don't
have
a
real
accessible
area
and
we
don't
have
a
sidewalk
in
that
area.
That's
like
the
27-foot
sidewalk
that
you
find
at
the
main
entry
or
on
some
of
the
other
places.
The
other
sites
around
this
I
think
Sixth
Street
over
by
yonko's
has
a
tree
plot.
Sixth
Street
has,
and
even
across
the
street
has
a
tree
plot.
We
don't
have
a
tree
pot
here.
M
We
have
cars
right
up
against
the
building,
so
we're
one
of
the
few
spaces
right
in
this
area
again
unique.
That's
just
not
set
up
for
commercial
interaction
and
furthermore,
we
have
a
historic
building
that
is,
isn't
just
easily
something
that
we
can
open
up
the
walls
and
make
it
visible
for
commercial
use
and
then
finally,
I
wanted
to
mention
that
I
mean
even
this
month
and
I
know.
This
is
under
the
current
Udo.
M
But
the
plan
commission
is
looking
at
at
the
Udo
and
reducing
the
or
proposing
to
reduce
the
commercial
requirement
from
50
to
30
percent
for
ground
four
we're
at
50.
Now
in
a
town
where
we're
talking
and
clamoring
and
as
I
heard
mentioned
earlier,
wanting
more
housing.
This
is
two
one
bedroom
units
on
a
ground
floor,
so
these
aren't
going
going
to
be
expensive
units
by
any
means.
M
So
even
in
the
MD
District,
where
we
have
in
this
area
a
lot
of
vacant
ground,
floor
spaces,
I
think
we
can
all
realize
post
covid,
that's
an
issue
that
we
have
to
fight.
We
have
to
address.
We
don't
have
as
many
people
in
offices
anymore,
but
we
have
a
housing
need,
and
even
maybe
more
so
than
we
had
before
covid
with
that
I'll.
Let
Jerry
a
speak.
Thank
you.
F
F
So
I'd
like
to
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
my
family's
history
with
this
property.
My
grandfather
started
a
grocery
store
in
Smithville
Indiana
in
early
40s.
He
made
his
sandwiches
and
delivered
them
to
the
query,
workers
and
sold
them
and
that's
how
he
made
his
money
in
about
1945
between
45
and
48.
He
moved
this
grocery
store
to
this
site
and
it's
called
Hayes
Market.
F
That
Doug
mentioned
David
commissioned
a
local
artist,
Adam
long
to
paint
a
mural
on
the
B,
sideline
that
he's
Market
building
depicting
the
transition
of
the
block
from
the
era.
When
the
store
was
in
business
to
the
present
day,
it's
pretty
cool.
If
you
have
never
seen
a
junior,
take
a
look
at
it.
Dave
has
been
very
careful
to
preserve
the
Integrity
of
the
building
and
the
family
Legacy.
F
It
represents
with
more
and
more
people,
as
Doug
said,
with
more
and
more
people
working
from
home
and
Staffing
shortages,
making
it
more
difficult
for
retail
stores
to
open
new
brick
and
mortar
businesses.
It's
becoming
increasingly
difficult
to
find
tennis
for
non-residential
space
I'd.
Ask
that
you'd
grant
us
variants
to
keep
a
hated
Market
building
financially
viable.
A
A
N
That's
okay,
I
mean
listen
to
my
dad.
Talk
honestly
got
me
very
emotional,
so
I
apologize,
but
he's
absolutely
right
that
when
I
met
with
mayor
Hamilton
in
2018
and
I
said
what
do
you
think
I
should
do
with
this
spot?
He
said:
I
want
you
to
make
it
great.
N
I
was
on
the
board
of
Casa
for
13
years
and
I
had
them
in
the
bottom
floor
and
during
covet
I
said
You
know
guys
it's
kind
of
silly
that
we're
here
you
know,
let's
move,
let's
find
something
a
little
more
affordable,
so
we
did
and
at
that
expense
I.
Let
that
space
go
dark
for
12
months,
nearly
12
months
and
but
I
never
wanted
to
I,
never
wanted
to
change
the
Integrity
of
that
building.
N
Never
one
time
and
and
I
have
it
and
I
won't
and,
as
Doug
Bruce
said,
you
can't
allow
someone
to
walk
through
that
gate.
Double
key
fob
fob
to
get
into
that
that
beautiful
little
Courtyard
that
we
made
I
wouldn't
like
I,
wanted
to
be
like
a
Melrose
Place
for
you,
older
people
that
know
what
I'm
talking
about
I
wanted
to
be
a
great
place
for
people
to
congregate
and
to
enjoy
and
I've
met
some
parents
bringing
their
kids
there
and
they
love
the
fact
that
it's
locally
owned.
N
They
love
the
history
behind
it
and
we
just
can't
allow
it
so
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
going
to
do
it
I'm
just
not
going
to
do
it
I'm
not
going
to
cut
a
hole
in
that
building.
I'm
not
going
to
do
it.
So
I
just
want
to
ask
you
guys
to
in
your
heart
to
understand
that
this.
This
building
has
a
big
meaning
to
Bloomington,
and
you
know:
we've
been
in
this
area
for
five
generations
and
we
love
this
community.
N
J
M
H
B
N
You
so
I
mean
the
answer
is
no.
We
haven't
really
considered
anything
else,
I
mean
when
we
in
that
bottom
floor,
I,
don't
know
what
you
would
do
with
that
other
than
just
have
two.
It's
just
two
one
bedroom
units
I
mean
there's
already
two
one
bedrooms
in
there
or
one
two
bedroom
unit.
There's
there's
two
shells
there
waiting
to
be
built
out
which
we
had
fully
intended
to
do
until
we
found
out
about
the
Udo.
We
had
no
idea
about.
We
already.
N
We
built
the
Q
Tower,
which
is
named
after
my
wife,
because
I
call
her
the
queen.
So
that's
named
after
her
and
there's
bottom
floor
units
there
as
well
I,
don't
know
what
you
would
do
with
it.
Besides,
let
people
let
people
live
there.
I
have
no
idea,
I
mean
they're,
small,
they're
they're,
you
know
they're
affordable,
you
know,
I
I,
don't
know
for
sure
exactly
the
numbers,
but
when
you're
looking
at
our
acute
the
Q
Tower
the
same
footprint
on
the
top
yeah
on
the
far
right
hand
side
there.
N
Well,
you
can't
really
see
it
there.
Actually,
but
that's
that's
an
old
picture
yeah!
Those
are
those
are
old
pictures.
That's
during
the
yeah,
that's
old
yeah.
Those
are
really
old.
N
It
doesn't
look
like
that
at
all.
It's
all
been
I
mean
it's
all
beautiful.
Now
it
has
beautiful
black
trim
around
the
windows.
N
We
power
wash
the
outside
got
the
graffiti
off
of
it
did
everything
we
could
to
make
it.
We
make
it
beautiful,
but
the
top
floor
leases
for
substantially
more
than
the
bottom
floor.
Does
the
bottom
four
units,
as
Eric
mentioned
to
me,
one
they're,
just
less
desirable.
You
know,
but
that's
okay,
because
some
people
need
that
they
need
something
more
affordable
and
they
want
to
be
downtown.
There's
nothing
else.
You
can
do
with
that
spot.
Besides,
let
people
stay
there.
So
that's
a
long-winded
answer
to
your
question.
N
G
Jackie
Stanley
development
services
manager
and
Eric
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
this.
When
the
Q
Tower
was
built,
there
was
a
site
plan
done
for
both
buildings,
and
that
might
be
what
Eric's
putting
up
here.
I'm,
not
sure
there
was
a
site
plan
done
for
both
buildings
and
this
area
was
shown
as
commercial.
That
was
the
plan
at
that
time.
A
G
So
there
was
commercial
plan
for
this
building
and
it
is
you
know,
a
historically
commercial
storefront
and
then
work
was
done
and
started
in
the
building
without
permits
and
they
started
doing
interior
remodel,
so
Mr
grulich
very
kindly
worked
with
them
to
allow
for
the
unit
that
they
have
that
doesn't
have
Frontage
to
be
able
to
be
built
out
and
occupied
because
they
had
already
rented
it
and
these
units.
G
You
know,
there's
like
a
long,
protracted
story
about
that,
but
I
do
want
to
make
it
clear
that
there
was
a
site
plan
approved
for
this
location
when
they
built
the
second
building.
I
mean
they
built
that
the
building
in
the
back
and
at
that
time
it
was
not
requested
or
discussed
that
these
would
need
to
be
residential
in
order
to
be
viable
and
then,
at
some
time
after
that
they
decided
that
that
needed
to
happen
and
as
they've
mentioned
and
Eric
is
showing
here.
G
You
know
they
have
at
least
51
percent
of
this
building
to
a
non-commercial
use,
which
is
great.
That's
one
of
our
regulations
had
they
leased
the
site
with
Frontage
on
our
roads.
That
would
have
met
our
second
regulation,
which
is
the
one
that
they're
requesting
the
variants
for,
and
we
that
was
previously
commercial.
As
he
mentioned,
the
casa
offices
were
there.
G
So
maybe
there's
a
compelling
reason
why
that
couldn't
have
been
done.
I
know
that
that's
not
what
they
chose
to
do,
or
maybe
the
doctor
didn't
want
to
have
the
front.
You
know
there
could
be
lots
of
reasons,
but
they're,
not
the
same
regulation.
So
51
is
great
and
meets
that
requirement,
but
they
also
have
to
have
Frontage
as
commercial
just
to
kind
of
clarify,
because
it
gets
a
little.
A
Yeah,
could
you
maybe
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
because
I
know
we've
had
discussions
of
of
that
are
similar?
You
know
this
has
come
up
again
and
again
and
and
and
we
know
that
that
there
has
been
further
thinking
about
potentially
changing
those
percentages.
Has
there
been
any
further
thinking
on
the
Frontage
aspect,
or
is
that
still
is
the
goal
of
that
still
really
remains
in
place
in
that
pedestrian-oriented
Frontage
is
still
very
important.
Our.
G
It
typically
provides
for
a
more
comfortable
interface
or
also
you
know,
use
for
that
building
for
members
of
the
public
who
are
outside
of
the
building,
especially
in
this
building
where
they
have
the
kind
of
I.
Don't
know
if
I'm
going
to
say
the
right
word
Colonnade
or
they
have
the
columns
and
you
can
walk
under.
You
know
you
can
imagine
if
those
are
residences
whose
space
it
is
that
how
does
that
you
know?
Are
people
still
going
to
be
walking
through
there
they're
going
to
be,
you
know,
chairs
outside
and
things
like
that?
G
It's
it's
just
an
oddly
designed
I
would
say
the
department
thinks,
oddly
design,
you
know
it's
a
wonderful
historic
building
and
maybe
not
designed
for
those.
You
know
store
Frontage
large
Windows
to
be
into
a
residence
and
Udo
doesn't
call
for
that
either.
So
it's
we
unders
it's
a
hard
one
for
sure.
Just
from
the
you
know
that
they
do
have
a
non-residential
use
in
here.
G
It's
just
an
unfortunate
that
they're
not
meeting
both
requirements
with
that
and
as
Mr
grew
like
pointed
out,
you
know
there
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
compelling
reason
with
the
site
that
they
couldn't
make
this
commercial.
We
know
that
it
most
recently.
It
is
it's
not
residential.
It
hasn't
been
residential
they're
asking
to
switch
it
to
that.
A
Thank
you,
I
have
a
question
for
for
the
petitioner,
petitioner's
representative
I,
fully
understand
the
historic
and
I
and
I
love
this
building.
It's
a
beautiful
building,
the
the
access
point
that
is
off
the
street
currently
I
know
it
there's
a
stair
that
goes
up,
I,
guess
to
a
unit,
that's
right
above!
Wouldn't
it
be
possible
I'm,
not
sure.
M
A
good
question,
like
I
said
you
can
see
there
that
we
just
I
think
is
is
was
brought
up
the
colonnade,
where
the
I
kind
of
worked
this
facade
here,
where
the
columns
are
there,
that
is
commercial
and
it's
wider
there
and
then,
if
you
go
a
little
further
to
the
right
okay,
so
that
area
is
where
there's
just
not
a
lot
of
width
of
sidewalk
there.
M
No,
you
know
you're
not
going
to
set
a
sandwich
board
out
front,
there's
the
door
that
goes
upstairs
so
I
suppose
you'd
have
to
to
look
at
and
again
I
wasn't
part
of
that
project.
What
you
could
do
upstairs,
so
you
know
there's
a
potential
that
you
could
enter
in
this
door,
I
suppose
and
have
a
door
to
the
left
or
a
door
to
the
right
to
gain
access
to
it.
M
It's
not
the
most
desirable
I
mean
it's,
not
it's
not
much
of
a
storefront
and
it's
already
in
an
area
that,
like
I,
said
I.
Think
if
you
zoom
out
you
can
see,
we
have
the
smallest
sidewalk
right
there.
That's
that's
the
part
where
we
don't
have
commercial
and
where
the
the
dentist
wasn't
wasn't
wanting
to
take.
M
You
know
you
can
see
that
I
mean
this
building
was
built
with
the
the
main
entry
for
commercial
on
that
corner
and
that's
why
you
have
so
much
space
there
so,
but
but
I
again
answering
your
question:
I
suppose
you
could
come
in
and
have
a
Lobby
there
you're
still
going
to
have
the
stairs
going
up
so
you'd
have
to
deal
with
privacy
or
security
upstairs
and
I
know.
You
know
you
can't
have
a
door
right
at
the
top
of
the
stairs
so
now
you're
going
to
take
space
out
up
there.
M
So
you
know
is
that
something
that
could
be
configured
I,
don't
know,
but
the
thought
of
at
least
downstairs
possibly.
A
Okay,
if
there
are
no
other
questions
at
the
moment
at
this
time
from
the
board,
we
will
go
to
the
public.
If,
sir,
would
you
like
to
step
to
the
podium
please
and.
O
O
Bloomington
seems
to
say
that
they
want
people
to
live,
downtown,
spend
their
money
downtown
work
downtown,
but
then
they
make
it
so
difficult
to
do
that.
We
have
a
property
here.
That
really
does
not
have
any
true
pedestrian
and
thoroughfare,
except
for
one
day
a
week.
That's
Saturday,
that
is
the
market
allowing
residences.
There
doesn't
change
the
the
the
view.
The
the
business
structure
of
Bloomington,
so
Bloomington
needs
to
make
a
decision
whether
they
want
people
to
live
downtown
and
make
it
accessible
for
people
to
live
downtown
or
not.
O
O
A
Okay,
anybody
online
no
one
online
okay,
so
then
we
are
back
to
the
petitioner
or
any
of
the
petitioners
representatives
who
would
like
to
make
final
comments.
F
I'd
just
like
to
address
the
findings
of
fact.
The
second
criteria
I
think
the
first
criteria,
the
staff
had
no
problem
with
the
second
criteria.
The
use
and
value
of
the
area
adjacent
to
the
property
will
not
be
affected
in
a
substantially
adverse
Manner,
and
it
starts
out
by
saying
the
comment
starts
out
by
saying,
while
no
direct
adverse
impacts
to
the
use
and
value
of
the
surrounding
properties.
As
a
result,
the
requested
variants
are
found.
F
That's
a
very
subjective
statement
to
make,
and
finally,
the
third
proposed
finding
the
strict
application
of
the
terms
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
will
result
in
Practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
property
that
the
Practical
difficulties
are
peculiar
to
the
property
in
question
that
the
development
standards
variants
will
relieve
that.
Well,
in
this
case,
I
believe
there
is
a.
F
N
Let
me
just
say
about
the
insurance
there
on
the
street
that
the
stairs
go
directly
up
up
and
into
all
residential.
So
all
the
entire
upstairs
is
all
residential.
It
goes
right
when
you
walk
up.
It
goes
into
a
two
bedroom
with
two
young
ladies
live
there
and
then
down
a
hallway
and
they're
all
it's
all
residential
and
they're,
like
Doug
said
he
wasn't
part
of
the
design
of
that
project,
but
I
do
not
see
any
practical
way.
N
You
could
secure
the
the
residential
piece
of
that
and
also
have
any
room
at
all
at
that
bottom
Landing,
to
cut
anything
in
and
to
go
into
those
those
those
areas
but
I
think
my
dad
nailed
it.
You
know
I,
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
Thank
you
guys.
We
really
appreciate
your
time.
A
Keep
turning
this
off
for
further
questions
or,
if
anybody's
ready
to
make
a
motion.
A
D
B
C
B
A
C
So
so
there
was
so
we
did
approve
a
building
permit
to
allow
for
this
interior
unit.
C
Let
me
see
if
I
can
Circle
that
here,
so
that
it's
a
little
bit
more
clear,
so
this
area
here
they
did
apply
for
a
permit
and
we
approved
that
to
allow
for
the
residential
unit
within
the
inside
of
the
building,
because
we
said
we
could
not
approve
the
units
on
the
outside
because
they
did
not
meet
the
standard
for
the
20-foot
setback
from
the
front
facade,
and
so
you
know
we
had
several
discussions
with
them.
You
know
where
I
pointed
out.
C
C
G
On
all
the
units,
these
three
units-
and
we
realized
they
were
working-
contacted
the
Monroe
County
building
department.
So
do
you
have
a
building
permit?
They
didn't
have
one
stop
recorder,
I
met
with
Mr
Hayes
and
then
Eric
was
able
to
work
with
them
because
they
already
because
we
were
able
to
permit
this.
So
then
Eric
did
the
review
of
this
third
unit
and
was
able
to
release
that
certificate
of
zoning
compliance.
So
they
could
continue
on
that
unit.
But
then
the
outcome
was
hey.
B
A
Okay,
so
any
if
anybody
doesn't
have
any
other
questions,
we're
going
to
need
a
a
to
make
a
motion.
Somebody
and
then
we
can
discuss.
A
B
A
So
we
can
discuss
the
the
reason
that
I
made.
The
motion
is
because
I
do
think
this
is
a
beautiful
historic,
commercial
building
and,
while
I
I
understand
the
need,
the
desperate
need
for
more
housing
options
and
more
units
I
also
am
sensitive
to
the
Udo
and
this
private
public
Zone,
where
I
I
believe
that
it
is
quite
uncomfortable
to
be
up
against
Residential
units
in
such
a
close
proximity.
A
This
is
a
relatively
well
trafficked
area,
I,
don't
know
exactly
in
front
of
this
building,
but
it
is
part
of
the
downtown
sort
of
the
heart
and
core
of
our
of
our
community
and
in
looking
at
the
findings
that
last
finding
which
talks
about
practical
difficulties,
I
I,
do
not
see
that
this
the
building
and
how
it
is
situated
and
what
has
been
brought
to
us
today,
actually
Rises
to
the
level
of
a
variance
I.
A
Don't
think
that
there
is
enough
of
a
uniqueness
of
the
quality
of
you
know
in
in
the
argument.
I
am
again
I
understand
not
wanting
to
change
the
facade
and
I
greatly
respect
that,
but
I
do
think
that
there
are
probably
some
ways
that
that
this
could
be
thought
of,
maybe
a
bit
differently.
A
A
I
I
know
that
this
has
been
a
sensitive
topic
and
it
is
under
it's
being
reconsidered.
What
the
right
balance
is
for
our
first,
our
first
floor
properties
in
the
downtown
area,
but
we
don't
make
that
policy
and
I
am
not.
You
know.
A
A
And
then,
until
that
change-
and
it
sounds
like
it
is
changing,
but
it
does
not
sound
like
the
the
relationship
between
these
commercial
properties
and
the
street
that
that
relationship
still
seems
to
be
held
as
important
and
valuable
and
something
that
that
we're
holding
in
balance
with
the
need
for
more
units.
J
I'll
just
speak
to
you:
I
really
appreciate
the
petitioners.
You
know
the
presentation
you
can
tell
you
know
the
passion
behind
and
what
this
building
means
to
your
family,
family
and
the
Legacy
to
the
public
as
well
think
they
raise
good
points
and
I
think
this.
This
is
an
ongoing
discussion
as
part
of
the
Planning
Commission
as
well.
J
I
can
tell
you
we're
in
our
second
round
of
discussions
at
the
meeting
next
month,
you're
more
than
welcome
to
join
us
there,
because
I
I
think
things
are,
are
trending
a
different
direction
and
Commercial
properties,
commercial,
real
estate,
I,
I,
think
in
terms
of
ground
floor
residential
ground,
floor,
purposing
I
do
believe,
that's
going
to
be
in
the
future.
J
That's
part
of
the
reason
I
think
it's
being
discussed
as
taking
it
from
50
50
to
an
even
lower
number.
If
that
dialogue,
kind
of
continues
and
I
think
is
backed
by
you,
know,
facts
and
data
I
do
personally
will
be
supporting
changes.
More
changes
for
Less
required
commercial
space
because
of
the
changing
in
the
market
and
that
that
affects
everybody
and
I.
Think
everybody
wants
a
vibrant
downtown,
but
there's
also
there's
a
risk
that
comes
with
that
as
well
for
developers
and
owners
of
downtown
buildings.
J
So,
if
that
were
to
change
down,
the
road,
I
think
we're
having
a
different
discussion
with
this,
but
the
changes
haven't
been
made
yet
and,
as
you
mentioned,
the
purview
of
the
zoning
appeals
is
very
narrow.
We
have
to
deal
with.
You
know
the
facts
as
presented
and
we're
not
we're
voting
on
things
as
they
are
not
as
potentially
what
they
could
be.
J
So
this
is
honestly.
This
is
a
tough
one.
You
guys
raised
some
really
good
points,
but
I
think
we're
Limited
in
what
we
can.
We
can
do.
A
We
have
a
a
motion
for
denial
and
a
second
so
we'll
have
a
vote.
H
D
J
A
Okay,
the
petition
is
denied
and
we
are
concluded.
Thank
you.