Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. you're interested in having a copy of the agenda, they're available on the tables to the right of the audience. This meeting is being recorded for the public record. Because of this, we request that personal conversations are kept to a minimum and cell phone ringers are turned off with any phone calls taken outside the chambers. Hearings on individual cases will be conducted in accordance with the board's rules of procedure. Planning staff will first introduce the case, provide a

summary, make a recommendation. Petitioners will be given up to 10 minutes to present their case. Persons or groups opposed to the proposal will be provided a total of 10 minutes to present objections. Persons or groups in support of the proposal will be provided with 10 minutes to present comments and support. Any individual shall be allowed a maximum of three minutes. A person representing a group or organization shall be allowed a maximum of five minutes. The petitioner shall then have five minutes for rebuttal. No further testimony will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board. If you are interested in commenting during any public hearing, please sign up on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience. When your name is called, please step forward to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Please address your comments to the board and not to staff or the appellant. Your comments should relate directly to the case at hand. We do understand that there may be several persons who wish to speak. The chair may therefore impose an alternate time limit for each person. Thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful, fair, and timely meeting. Again, welcome to our meeting. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Do I have roll call, please? Paul Bugenberger, here. Annne Inman, here. Katherine Rinsburg here. Marcy Tasha here. Marcus Turner here. Our first item is approval of the minutes from February 17, 2026. Did anyone have any questions, comments, corrections? And with men being heard, we'll entertain a motion. I'll move to approve the minutes of February 17th, 2026. A motion by Mrs. Inman. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Mrs. Tashler. Any discussion? All in favor say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Minutes are approved. Next is request for continuences or agenda modifications. We do not have any.

We'll go on to public comment. Does anyone wish to speak? And with no one coming forward, we will close public comment. We have no old business direct. So, we'll go directly into new business. This is V26-03 Rights Gymnastics front yard trash enclosure. Thank you, Chairperson Turner, members of the board. V2603 is a variance of development standards located at 8170 Kingston Street. Um, it is a request to allow for a trash enclosure within the what will be the established front yard along Kingston Street.

Yeah, that's when it's green, right? 5.1H2 of the Unified Development Ordinance uh prohibits a trash enclosure from being in any front yard setback, which would include both the required front setback back um which is a mandated building setback from the rightway as well as an established front yard which is anywhere between the where the front building line is and the right of way. So this property 8170 Kingston Street is a corner lot in the Avon Commerce Park subdivision. Um it's outlined in blue here. So you have 36 and Dan Jones here. And the lot has frontage on both Kingston Street to the south and Do Street to the east. It's a corner lot. The ordinance defines the front yard as the frontage that is narrower of the two in the case of a corner lot. So it's really not it's you know it's close to a square but it's a little bit uh has a little bit more frontage on Dover than on Kingston. So that makes Kingston the front yard by ordinance. And then the Dover Street frontage actually becomes a what's by the ordinance deemed a street side setback or street side yard. Um this subdivision was platted back in 1997 shortly after the town was

incorporated. don't believe there's been any um proposals on this vacant piece of ground. We have two petitions pending with the plan commission. A development plan review that would allow for a roughly 22,600 foot uh multi-tenant commercial building which is actually scheduled for this month's plan commission. And then also a zoning map amendment case scheduled for next month's plan commission because the property is unique in that it has a split zoning about the northern one-third of it is zoned I2 I'm sorry C2 commercial and then the southern twothirds is zoned industrial I2. Um it's not really germanine to the the point at hand tonight, but just to let you know that those things are pending with the plan commission. I will talk about the development plan review specifically because there's an element of where a trash enclosure can be placed in the US 36 overlay um that is relevant. So we'll talk about that in a minute. Uh just to give you a little bit of a look at the property. This is facing north from Kingston Street to the site. There's a Godby home furnishings in the background which abuts the site to the north and then that's looking west from Dover Street. So Kingston Street is on the left there. Um in the background abuing to the west is Avon um Orthodontics and then this is looking east down Kingston Street. You have Mini Care there and you have um the old firing range that's not in business at this point.

And then um that's just looking across the side a little bit closer view of Avon Orthodontics. You can see it's a little bit relevant to the discussion about where the trash enclosure goes in that it's not it won't be out of place to be able to see a trash enclosure in front of a building. This so you can see the building back here and the trash enclosure here for Avon Orthodontics. This development was approved in 2018. The development plan review was approved in 2018. There wasn't a variance or waiver that we found related to the trash enclosure. However, we suspect with this also being a corner lot where Kingston Street running east and west then turns to go north. So, it it essentially has two frontages there. It very well may may be that the west frontage of this property was considered the front yard and that perhaps then this was considered a streety yard setback and so it technically met the ordinance. Um also just kind of looking back here it's I know it's kind of light over here. It's hard to see, but there the dumpster for Mine Key is also between the building and Kingston Street. That probably needs to be enclosed. So, we the town may need to do some enforcement on that to just make sure it's screened. But that is the approved location from when this development was approved back in the 90s. that um was originally Avon transmission and that is generally where the dumpster was shown between the building and Kingston Street. Again, um just to demonstrate that if this is approved to put the dumpster where it's proposed at this site, it won't be out of character for this stretch of Kingston Street.

So, here's the site plan. So again, Kingston Street along the south, Dover Street along the east. Here's the proposed building on the north end of the property, parking to the south. And unlike a lot of commercial buildings that you would see that oftentimes would have a paved aisle going around behind the building for um loading and such. They don't believe that with the the tenants that they will have at this building that they will need a dedicated loading space. So they would appear that they're saving some space by not having to, you know, put pavement behind the building. So if there were pavement behind the building, they'd probably locate the dumpster there. Petitioner can speak to that. But obviously there's the intent to um not unnecessarily have a paved drive aisle behind the building where then the dumpster u enclosure could go. So, it's being proposed right here at the south near the southwest corner of the building. So, it is back as far from Kingston Street as it can be without being behind the building line. Um, this is just to show you what it will look like. This is the proposed elevation of the front of the building facing Kingston Street. These plans are from the development plan review. That's the uh trash enclosure. The ordinance requires in the 36 overlay that a trash enclosure have uh similar materials to the building, but that's basically you would see a brick wall facing um Kingston Street. That would be the side. This front access would be facing east towards Dover Street, but it would be all the way across the parking lot from Dover Street as well. So, as you're aware, you have five required findings of fact by state statute. Well, three. The first three

are statutoily required. The fourth and fifth are ones that were added by the town. The first being that it not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. The petitioner indicated that it will um it will not interfere with traffic. it'll meet other UDO requirements other than location. Um we believe that because it would be significantly set back about 170 ft from the rightway of Kingston Street um that it that the location would not be injurious to the public. The second finding that the user area adjacent to the property included in the variance not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Um again the petitioner cites the the significant setback from both streets. staff agrees that the the significant setback will lessen the impact on adjacent properties. It won't stick out um and be aesthetically unpleasing and it won't be out of character for the neighborhood as well since we've seen on both properties to the west and east they have trash enclosures that are closer to Kingston Street than the building. So, this would be similar to that pattern. Third, you have the requirement that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in a practical difficulty. The petitioner cites the the desire or need to align the curb cuts with the two curb cuts across the street. I'm going to go back to the site plan just to demonstrate that. So, they are aligning this curb cut across Kingston Street. It's not shown on the plan, but this curb cut is pretty close in alignment. It's I think it's intended to be aligned with the Minne driveway over there, which is very important from a a public safety standpoint. I think the argument

that the petitioner is making is if they move the building down to the south and then had the dumpster behind it, then it would they wouldn't be able to access the site right here across from the Minne driveway. And then they would have an offset um where they would have to request a a variance or waiver because driveways either need to be aligned with those across the street from them or they need to be offset by a safe distance so you don't have opposing vehicles on either side of the street both trying to make turns across each other at an offset. It works if they're aligned. So you imagine a car turning left here and a car turning left here. They can both turn just like they would in an intersection in front of each other. But if you have these slightly offset, then one car is turning left here, another car's turning left there. They might go into each other's path. Um, that's probably more commentary than needed on driveways, but um, we do agree that it it certainly makes sense to align the driveways and that if they move the building down to be able to put the dumpster in the back, then they would have a practical difficulty in aligning these two driveways, which we think overall is a very important thing to do. So, for that reason, we do agree that there would be a practical difficulty. Um and then we point out that uh practical difficulty, you know, doesn't mean that there's no possible other way to do to do it. It it just means that it would be there would be a real difficulty in doing it. And we think that not having those driveways aligned um would be more harmful than um having them the way they are with the the trash enclosure a little bit in front of the building. Moving on to the fourth finding that's the minimum necessary. We do agree

because it is as close to the building as possible. It's not out near Kingston Street. So, we do believe that what's being requested is the minimum necessary. And then finally, that the need was not caused by the owner previous or present. Um, again, when we look at trying to align those driveways, that's not something that the owner of this property was responsible for where the driveways across the street from them um, were created. And so, we don't believe that the need was caused by the owner, previous or present. So, we do believe that all the required findings have been met. And so we are recommending approval um subject to substantive compliance with the site plan as we typically would request. The one thing I want to go back to is um as I mentioned earlier that with the pending development plan review before the commission. So in the US 36 overlay there the the ordinance indicates that dumpsters or trash enclosures, recycling areas, anything dealing with refues, it should be located at the rear of the building unless an alternate location is approved by the plan commission. So if you approve this lo this variance, it will allow it to be in this established front yard. Then when the the development plan review goes before the plan commission, they will also have to agree that they believe that this is an appropriate location. The way it's written into the ordinance that being at the rear itself is not a hard standard because it's not written to say it just shall be at the rear. in which case then they would need to be asking you for a variance. But because it says it should be at the rear unless the plan commission approves an

alternate location, um it doesn't require a variance to not be at the rear. But what we're talking about today is a separate section of the ordinance that applies to any commercial property in the overlay or not that it can't be in the either required or established front yard. So that's why in order for them to not have it back here, you all first need to approve a variance of chapter 5 where it can't where it's not required in the front yard. And then if you approve that, when the plan commission hears the DPR, they will then decide whether they're going to bless this location as well, not being behind the building. I hope that made sense. It was probably a little bit.

You're just giving the plan commission the option of allowing it to be in front. Correct. Okay. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. I do have a question. If you could pull up the the um I guess I'm wanting to know what is on the west side of that where that what would be looking at that dumpster. Is it the back of a building? So, this property, the Avon Orthodontics, which is to the west, right?

Um, it's I don't know if you can look over to the screen back here. It's just a lot brighter, easier to see, but this is where their entrance comes in from Kingston Street. And then there's their dumpster there. So, basically, you'd be looking I mean, that that dumpster, I don't know exactly where. It's going to be somewhere in this area with a a whole lot of parking in front of it. So, is that the back of that building? This is kind of the the side. I mean, because it's a corner lot, you're going to be arguably arguable which side is the front, right?

And we think the the side that faces west is a little bit more of the front and then this what we call the street side or corner side and then the the rear would be back here. Um, so it would be a pro it would be an approximation with where that dumpster is pretty close. I think they they've attempted to capture it on their site plan here and the petitioner may be able to speak to that. I actually think it's that's actually that's not the dumpster for the orthodontics. That's the dumpster for the the office building behind to the north of there.

Okay. Um, that orthodonics dumpster would be somewhere out in this area about here. So, Kingston Street out here, that driveway comes in, it turns west for their parking area. That dumpster is probably right about here. So, it we already have two dumpsters in that approximate area, right? And if the Mini building was shown here, the dumpster would be basically out here. I mean, I can kind of look at the

Right. I this probably isn't well you can see pretty well here. So the the building proposed will be here basically the dumpster will be probably right around where this 21 is and then the existing dumpster for Avon Orthodontics is here closer to Kingston Street and then the dumpster for Minne is basically right here. Okay.

Anything else for staff? Yeah, I have a question. Could you bring up the site plan, please? Sure. What is the area on the top left there?

Yeah, that's a like an outdoor exercise or stretch area. Petitioner could probably speak to that a little bit more, but yeah, the building is notched out here and then there will be a fence that kind of encloses that area and there's a desire to do some kind of outdoor activity. I don't think I mentioned it's in the title of the the case, but this is rights gymnastics. So, I believe the west I don't know if it's half or what exact percentage of the building is intended to be uh occupied by rights gymnastics. Um, and then they'll have a couple tenant spaces on the east side. So, it'll be some kind of activity space affiliated with the gymnastics use. And then when you talked about the trash areas or trash bins and the other properties, are those sitting in the front yard of those properties?

Well, technically that's why I'm technically I'm looking technically. So just talk to me technically.

Yeah. So technically I think that we we couldn't find any notes um from the case for Avon Orthodontics which the development plan review went through in 2018. There were two different site plans. I will just I'm just want to give you this background information. There were two different site plans in the file and those site plans had the dumpster the dumpster in different locations depending on whether an addition was built to this building. So, one plan showed pavement that came back farther and had the dumpster further back here and one had it shown where it is specifically to the point of is it in the front yard. I think it's a judgment call that the administrator would make. She's sitting next to me as you're aware.

Let me ask it differently then. The reason I say that I just want to be clear is that again the the front yard by ordinance is determined by which one of these frontages has less frontage. And so when this interrupt here. It's kind of hard to say because it's pretty much a square. So, I think it would be at the administrator's judgment. Let me jump in, Paul. So, are any of the dumpsters in front of the buildings in the front side of the buildings where people walk into the buildings? Um, I think the public entrance to Avon Orthodontics is it faces west although I think it's right near the southwest corner of the building. So it's not on the same side as the front door

and the other and then for Mini is not on the same side as the front door either. And Mine Key was platted in the 90s. Did you say this was all platted back in 1997? The Mine was constructed in 98. So before Kingston was a signature street well before that.

Well before the US 36 overlay was adopted which is but I don't know I didn't research what the the ordinance might have said in 1998. I will say like I said I think I mentioned the the dumpster behind Minne was always behind a fence until recently so it wouldn't have been seen. um that fence came down I think probably in the last year. So now that we've looked at this case and noticed that that dumpster is exposed. Um we'll certainly be looking at trying to work with the owner and see if that can be screened. Um but the location just generally where it is was approved on the site plan and in the 90s.

All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Anything else for staff? We're ready to hear from petitioner.

Hi, Dylan Reynolds with Space Co. the civil engineer representing um Alt Construction, who is the developer for this project. Um I don't really have much much else to add. I think Paul hit uh on a lot of good information. Um really it comes down to, you know, there's obviously a certain size and type of building um that makes this um site attractive for for uh what the developer wants to put here. Um and then, you know, there's obviously financial considerations for making the project work as a whole. Um so really it just comes down to, you know, the building kind of needed to be what it needed to be. It's located on the high side of the site right now for drainage purposes, too, because the whole site kind of flows north to south. um because we looked at a few iterations of you know where to place the building and where all these drives um connected. So kind of where the building wanted to be from a drainage standpoint and connecting to the two existing drive cuts to make sure driveways were aligned. Um it kind of left left the site layout with what it was. Um and so that just kind of left this challenge of having you know two streets in front of us. Um, so we did try to put it in a place that it is it is around kind of two other dumpsters like we mentioned, the one northwest and the one at the orthodontics directly west. So there's kind of three what I'll call dumpsters kind of grouped together on three sites. Um, and that's really all I mean it'll be, you know, from Kingston Street it's just going to be a masonry wall that matches the building. So if you're standing on Kingston, you might not even be able to tell since it matches the building that it's even a dumpster enclosure. Um, the opaque gate faces Dober Street, but I can answer any other questions as well.

We're going to go ahead and open up the public hearing. It's uh 6:56. Does anyone wish to speak? I should say, is anyone signed up to speak? We have one one uh gentleman here. I'm not sure I can pronounce his name. Do you wish to speak? Okay. So, no one wishes to speak. Then we will close the public hearing at 657 and we'll open it up to questions and discussion. I I do have a question for the petitioner. The gate to allow access into it is facing which direction?

Uh it's facing east towards Dover Street. So, it's visible from the parking lot. And from the front entrance? Yes, I guess. Yes, technically. So, while you're up here, um because you our ordinances require landscaping around the trash enclosure. What are your plans for that? Um yeah, I think so. We have submitted for the DPR that um will be heard um next Monday as of right now. Um, and I think, yeah, we covered all the landscaping around. So, we have the can't remember if it's three sides. Um, but we worked with Paul to get kind of our landscaping plan under control around the

Yeah. around the dumpster. So, yeah, the landscaping will be met. I guess the first time I went through this, I didn't realize that this was a multi-tenant building. Do we have any idea what the other tenants are going to be or

I don't I do know. I mean, Rights Gymnastics is the obvious one, and they're taking about 12,000 square feet. So, they're taking just about half that building. Um, and then I think they have it um that it could be I think three two or three other um tenant spaces. And I don't think they have any signed LOIs or anything with anybody at this point, but I think they were at least targeting kind of what I'll call gymnastics adjacent kind of exercise uses. Um, but not nothing locked in stone, nothing signed. It's just the rights gymnastics at this point. I guess my only concern with that is is the trash enclosure a large enough and b convenient enough for the other three tenants to to use without having overflow into the lots or you know we don't want to see people coming back at a later date asking for more trash enclosures on the site especially when there's no no back portion to it.

Yeah. No, it's so it's it's designed for two eight yard dumpsters. Um which is, you know, fairly typical for this for this size of building and size of tenants that they're after. So, um yeah, I'm assum I mean I'm confident they won't come back for any additional trash enclosures, but I'm sure even if they did, that would definitely be something they'd have to come back to Paul and and the staff for. So, I have a concern that you're putting a trash enclosure in the front of the building in the front yard for your development, but when we approve this, this lives on in perpetuity. So, you move on, the developer moves on, the tenants move on, that trash enclosure is still there. Subsequent tenants may not treat it as well as the original tenants. So, now we have a trash enclosure in the front of a building. that we and here's what I'm going to ask Steph to help me. Do you know of any other buildings that have a trash enclosure in on the front side of the building? Not in their front yard, on the front side of the building.

I mean, I imagine there's a lot if we went around and looked. I know for one, the McDonald's at on 36 is not in the front yard. It's on the corner back by the drive-thru. Okay. Well, I guess it depends on which side is the front. I thought the and it no the other one down by Mike's car, right?

So, that's out. So, do we set a precedent? We don't set precedences, right, though? So, no one case that's precedence for any case. This is by itself. And then the reason I'm asking is I having a really hard time with a trash enclosure on the front side of a building. I mean, I don't see the practical difficulty on this that you want a building on this lot and you want this accommodation to get your building in. It's not practical difficulty. It's desire. I mean, it's stated in here in the staff's report where their developer does not need or want to provide vehicle access behind the building. That's a desire, not a practical difficulty there. And I guess I'd look at staff too. Does it require two entrances? Does there have to be a road cut on Dover Street? It's not required. So, if they had to move the building forward, they'd lose potentially lose that road cut. They'd only have a road cut off Kingston Street, which wouldn't, I don't believe, violate or um not meet any requirements. So, I'm I'm having a hard time with the trash enclosure on the front side of the building. I don't see that as a practical difficulty and I don't think it meets that criterion.

So, I'll sit back and let the other board members talk. I don't I was I was going to comment because I I'm not sure. I I thought at some point there was a question for me, but if I'm misunderstanding

he was asking if there had to be two road cuts into that parking lot. I don't know that there'd be a requirement to have two. Um, I would say though that if if you on your question of practical difficulty or comment on that, if you required the building to be pushed to the south and then have a drive aisle that either goes between the building and Dover Street or behind the building to the west to go around, you know, just to access um a trash enclosure when there's not another need to have access behind the building for loading. I mean, I mean, staff respectfully thinks that that would be a practical difficulty in developing the site and in somewhat maximizing the potential of the property if the building had to be significantly reduced um only to move the dumpster um because really I mean you're talking well I guess the dumpster doesn't have to be behind the building by ordinance. Again, that goes back to the plan commission determining whether they'll approve it not behind the building. Um, but it's it's it's yeah, it's very close to the front line of the building, which it would only need to be behind the front line of the building to meet the requirement to not be in a front yard. So, the practical difficulty is that I desire this size of a building on this lot, which doesn't allow me to put a driveway on the back side of the building for a trash enclosure. So, that's my desire. If I put a smaller building that would accommodate that and meet the ordinance, then they could do that. So, that's where the practical difficulty is. I want you, the town, to

accommodate what I want. Not that this property is set up the way it is and meet our ordinance that you need to get a variance, which is why they're here, or put it behind the not in front of the building.

Yeah, I I would respond that I think that, you know, the town has an interest in seeing sites be developed to their reasonably maximum potential. And so if a requirement of the ordinance is going to make them, you know, slice off a significant portion of the building just to move the dumpster back another, you know, whether it's 20 or 50 feet, we would um see that as a practical difficulty and that the town would have an interest in in wanting to make an accommodation. Um, given that we think the other findings are met, we think that would constitute practical difficulty.

I do have a question. The lot is is slightly rectangular. It's it's a little longer from north to south than it is from east to west. Correct. Correct. Which is why I'm assuming the building was placed the way it was as opposed to the back of the building being on the west side. which would which might accommodate if if the building was on the west side and more and the south end was more towards Kingston then you could possibly have access on the north side of the building but I'm but then I'm assuming that would mean it would be a smaller building. Yeah. I just uh is that what we're

I mean the petitioner can comment more on

Sure. you know, how they and he's already commented on the drainage issue, but just as an example, if you took the proposed building, if you're looking at the site plan and the staff report, and you rotated that 90 degrees clockwise, so that was essentially along the west end of the property, um, by ordinance, Kingston Street would still be the front yard. And so the building could appear to face more appear to face Dover Street, have its front door facing Dover Street with the parking between the building and Dover Street, but Kingston Street would still technically be the front yard. And then they could put they could basically leave the the dumpster where it is. I mean, rotating it 90 degrees clockwise with the building, it would appear to be in the front yard along Dover Street, but technically it would not be in the front yard because the front yard would still be Kingston Street per ordinance and Dover Street would be the street side yard. So, you'd still have kind of the same effect appearance-wise, but technically it would not be in a front yard and they wouldn't be here requesting a variance. Well, and I know it's not our job to tell people how to design, but you know, I'm just wondering why the building would not have been oriented so that the back of the building is facing west and um that it's as far south on the lot as possible, leaving space on the north side for there to be a dumpster that's not seen that's only seen on Dover Street and that would have access through the parking lot. So, I guess that's that's a question I would ask the petitioner if you understand what I'm saying.

Yeah. Basically, why didn't we flip it 90 degrees and put it against the west line? Yes. And then move the building further south so that there's space on the north end. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, two primary reasons. Um, one is

just a kind of a pure marketing aesthetics of you have a corner lot. You want to try to get as much frontage. Obviously, you know, the front door is facing the corner. if you flip it, you're kind of only visible from Dover Street. So, it's definitely kind of an aesthetic choice um architecturally and from a marketing standpoint. But, um honestly, the big biggest driver was from a drainage perspective. Um that you know that north end of the site is much higher than the south end of the site and everything kind of want to d wants to drain kind of a little bit in both directions. Definitely north to south and then it kind of splits east to west along the south property line. So just from a a land disturbance, earthwork perspective, how much dirt you have to move, um you know, then you run into putting the you know, if you put the building any portion of the building as it goes further south, you you know, you obviously have to lift the building higher. Um and then there's portions of the the storm water runoff that comes kind of down on the building. If you picture your building on the south line, um obviously then when it rains the water runs to your building and then it's a little bit more difficult to kind of handle drainage, future drainage problems with water coming down on top of you. So,

okay. Kind of a developer answer, I guess, and but with some real engineering kind of back. You answered it very understandably. So, thank you for that.

So, I understand we're we're here about the trash enclosure today and and really nothing else. But when I first saw this, I couldn't help but ask myself, why why is the building set back, you know, near the property line? You know, that's that's where you go behind any multi-tenant building and that's where the trucks deliver and each little section has its own trash bin. And that that's more the typical the typical setup. And I I understand that that I understand now that half of this building is going to be a gymnastics place and that you know their their intention is to use it as stuff. They don't they don't need that. But my my mind goes to where Paul's went that hey this building's probably going to be sitting here for a hundred years and there will likely be other businesses in here. And how do you man it just it brings up all sorts of questions for me. Yes, with with trash, but then also how do you how do you make deliveries to this place?

Well, yeah, question for us. It's plant commission, right? Right. But it does create the question is like, you know, so you guys are in business for 50 years and then eventually somebody else in is in that space who does take deliveries, whether it's a retail space or hair or whatever, furniture store or whatever, and now they don't have a place to do that except coming in through this. So that's that's a concern on this.

If I could just shut a little bit of comment on that. Um I mean the ordinance does make provisions for requiring dedicated loading spaces for commercial buildings. However, it specifically excludes buildings or uses that would not typically receive regular truck deliveries. And so, you know, we brought that issue up with the petitioner and we knew, you know, the gymnastics facility is not something that's typically going to get truck deliveries and they've indicated that they they intend for the other tenants to be similar um you know, not like a lot of retail or restaurant type use that would typically get regular deliveries. So them going forward with their development plan review without a required loading space is limiting themselves to the type of uses that aren't going to regularly get truck delivery. So if they came back later and wanted and said, you know, this isn't working out. We want to put a restaurant in. They'd have to amend their development plan to accommodate a loading space at that time. Um

or we would have to ask them to make use commitments today. And I don't I don't know that we can do that in the context of a variance request. Can we Are you going to make that recommendation to the plan commission on what uses would be permitted?

That's a that's addressed in our staff report for the development plan review. So that'll be at the discretion of the plan commission. We didn't specifically recommend excluding uses. Um but we did make some comment about the not having a dedicated loading space um based on the type of uses that they'd be that they're indicating that that they anticipate to occupy the space. So with the current layout then that we potentially there'd be semi-truck traffic in the parking lot if there's a need for delivery of that size. Yeah, if there was a need. But, you know, can speak to the type of uses they're going to put in the building. And if they attempted to get a certificate of occupancy for a change of use for something that would regularly require truck deliveries, then they would have to amend their site plan to accommodate that.

Well, I'm assuming that at least initially there's going to be truck deliveries for the equipment. And if we're talking about and and perhaps you can enlighten me, I could see if you're talking about um having workout adjacent businesses, I could see a clothing store that specializes in that sort of thing that would get regular deliveries. I could see a health food store that sells supplements and caters to that customer base. So, I don't think I think we're kicking the can down the road by not requiring that there be even even aside from the from the garb for the trash um thing, but from from future use of the building, do we want to res do we want to put that much restriction on the future use of the building? And again what's going to happen today is today but you know 50 years from now you know that may we who you know that whole area could be right now it's kind of you know commercially industrially sort of it may change a lot in the next several years and this variance would would still be in place and instead of to me to me it makes more sense that we think not only in terms of the best use for this um the the intended use today but also the intended use down the road. You know, I I I know our practice here is to approve the variances before it goes to the DPR, but with the questions number one, specific to the trash enclosure, which we've piggybacked on

some concerns about access for delivery and that type of thing. I I wonder if it makes more sense to throw this to the plane commission, let them do their thing, let them work out those issues, and then come back to us at a later date for the variance.

Well, I would say you need to make your decision based on the findings, which again we believe are met. Um, but in a sense, colloquially speaking, you would be throwing it to the plan commission in that the plan commission still needs to make a determination that per the US 36 overlay, they want to approve an alternate location rather than having the dumpster behind the building. But if you don't approve the variance, um the plan commission doesn't have they don't then they wouldn't have the ability to decide whether this location is appropriate because you would have you would have denied

removing that option.

Correct. So, so I'm just going to go on the criterion criterion three on the practical difficulty. I don't believe that's been met. I think that the developer has a desire to build a certain size building that this property based off the design can't accommodate um to meet the ordinance without getting this variance and I don't think it's a practical difficulty. They could meet that with a different size building. I also don't agree with criterion five. I think the size of the building was caused is caused by the petitioner. So, I don't know how that reads if it's the owner of the property today or the petitioner, but I think the petitioner is creating a situation because they want a certain size building on the property. So, I don't believe this has been met and I don't support this variance.

I do have a question for staff. So if there is a requirement either by us or by the plan commission that the trash area needs to be behind the building. What does that do as far as the petitioner's obligation with relation to uh there needing to be an access road built? How how is that? I'm just trying to understand how that it it was your question. If they have to put the trash enclosure at the rear of the building, would they have to build an access road to

how Yeah. How does that work with the town and how does and as far as this this body as well as the plan commission? An access road or driveway around Yeah. or Yeah. A drive around the building. Yeah. I mean, effectively speaking, I would think they would need to have uh they could do a one-way aisle. If it's just for a truck to circulate the building, I think our minimum oneway access aisle would be 15 feet. It would have to go around the building because a a truck can't if it has to get to the back, it can't turn around unless you build a big

um culde-sac of sorts. So you'd probably have to have a at least a minimum 15 foot drive aisle around the building. Okay. Sorry. Have access envisioning right out there in the front at 2 in the morning. People say we do see a dumpster drive up and start throwing stuff. So toss their couch.

Exactly. I know that's kind of elementary, but I think like that sometimes. So and I like that. So that's what I'm wondering. What provisions might Yeah. I mean, yeah. And obviously the developer will know more, but um yeah, the tenants will have access. I'm sure it will be um under lock and key and each tenant has a key. Now, I mean, I'm sure they're all like that. It's whether or not, you know, these obviously these tenants lock it back up. I'm sure if you go to Yeah. I mean, there will be I mean, you can't force people to lock it, right? So it's like if the lock is key, the lock and key can be on it if they don't shut, you know, picture a Kroger, Walmart people. Sure.

Sure. 100%. I just think kind of practically sometimes and it just that was something I was wondering now would the second question to that would be would waste management or whoever the illustrious trash haulers would be how would they access that? Would they have the key to get in there or Yeah. And it it would it would probably be something similar to a not kind of a Knox box for the fire department. It's like they could pull up there'd be

basically a code or a key a key to a key that kind of is only for the Yeah. trash company. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. You're you're Yeah. That I mean that would kind of all be the you know obviously the building own building ownership team but yeah. Um,

yeah. And I don't I don't know if I can speak kind of to your comments about practical difficulty. I mean, I I 100% understand where you're coming from. I think a couple points, I guess, in rebuttal to to I don't know if it's in the UDO, but Paul's um staff report mentioned basically that practical difficulty doesn't mean there's no other alternative. So, it's like, you know, shrink the building, make it 5,000 ft, pull it to the front. I I don't think the practical difficulty is that there's no other alternative. Um so that I mean that's just a general point to make that you know um that it's not that other alternatives exist because I'm sure yeah you could do a million things if you shrink the building and do different things. You have different users and you know a whole different project essentially. Um, and I will say that, um, you know, also from that practical difficulty standpoint that, you know, there obviously is is real things that make these projects go forward. You know, there's cost of land, cost to develop, all these different things. So, if you say, you know, oh, if if we need to make the building 10,000 ft smaller to fit this, like this project may not happen. Pro, you know, the land's too expensive, you have to rent for so many square feet. So, it's not necessarily that's like it's as easy as just shrink the building. This lot's been sitting vacant since 1997, which is not quite, but almost older than I am. Um, and so we're, you know, we're talking about a a trash enclosure location that's keeping a, you know, 29year-old um site from being developed is is um, you know, is one thing. Um, and the the kind of the second point is I think and Paul can jump in if I'm wrong. I mean, one way to make this compliant if we did shrink the building, probably what we would do is chop some of it off, move it east, and then we would probably create a little bit little tiny drive that goes puts the dumpster just past the south

line. And then now your um wooden gate is facing Kingston Street and it's technically out of the front yard. So you could end up with a worse situation that's UDO compliant. Yeah, if I can um I don't know if you can elaborate on that. I'm not sure I understand that I can point or

remembering that Kingston Street is the front yard and Do Street is per ordinance street side yard. There's no prohibition in putting an ordinance between the building. There's no prohibition on putting the dumpster, the trash enclosure between the building and Do Street. We might not want it to sit there. It might not have a better public effect, but it would be permitted. So, you know, we appreciate you guys strictly looking at the findings as we believe we try to do as well. But one of the things we have to look at when considering practical difficulty is as I think Anna has pointed out in your training is would the spirit and intent of the ordinance be met by what's being proposed. And when we look at alternatives as Mr. Reynolds was indicating they could cut out a piece of the corner of the building here or just slice a piece of it off either. Well, and they could put the dumpster enclosure just behind this front south line of the building. So, right along the east end of the building and then it wouldn't be in the established front yard along Kingston Street. It would be in the street side yard. There's no prohibition in chapter five of the UDO about it being there. So, would that really be a better outcome? because then the the opening part of it would face towards Kingston Street. It would be very close to Dover Street, a lot closer than it is now. And you know, we might also consider that we certainly understand, you know, the the consideration about how's this going to look in the future. Well, if it's near the front door and it's visible to people as they walk from the parking lot to the building, the owner andor the tenant probably have a lot of incentive to try to keep this area wellmaintained and looking good in order for their business to be successful. Whereas, if they revise the site and put it over

here on the side, it's a little more out of the way for the parking lot. It's maybe a little bit easier to be forgotten about, but it's right out along Dover Street. And is that would that really be a better alter? But Mr. Reynolds presented an option that involves just simply well I so I have a question that um is that like a patio space on the east end of the building there? Um no the east end on the right side. Yes. What is that? There's there's sidewalk out front and then there's sidewalk all along do street. Are you talking right here next to those lines are that easements?

Yeah, those those Oh, yeah. Those dash lines are easements and setbacks. So, it's just right now it's just green space, grass, landscaped area from

Okay. So you talked about moving the whole thing over I don't what 15 feet 20 feet and so that the so that the trash area would be in the same kind of placement that you were talking about Paul but it would be on the west side and instead of that corner it' be on the west corner and so it would not be facing do street and it would be it could be seen from Kingston but you'd have a parking lot guarding a kind of blocking you and you have cars kind of blocking it and that doesn't reduce the footprint of the building. It doesn't you know that that was something you you suggested and

yeah so to get to do that option we would have to reduce the footprint of the building. So try not to get into redesign on the fly here. That's not right. I know it's it's hard to but it's but I h I think we all share the same concerns is that this is like Paul said once we grant it, it stays with the property.

Sure. And there's no guarantee that this is always going to this building is always going to be used by businesses that don't have deliveries, including right now because your other two tenants, even though you're trying to get tenants that are, you know, adjacent to your business, they may be adjacent that also require deliveries. Um, a place that sells um, you know, exercise equipment at home. Yeah. And I I mean I totally understand where you're coming from, but it all comes back to if those uses are involved and we don't have a loading space, they they're not I mean permitted as far as I'm not looking for a comment to this. If I might, Paul, here before you jump in here that

we this is going to go to the plan commission. There's no guarantee the plan commission is going to agree to what they need to agree with. So I it's one of those things where I understand the point that you made about what you could do as a developer. We've heard that for years from the developers. If you don't let me have this, I can't do this. And it's kind of a I don't like the connotation when I hear that.

So I understand that you can do things if we don't approve this that maybe aren't as desirable for us right now. And that's not our responsibility for that design. our responsibility is to look at does this variance is should we approve it or not and and that's where I just would like developers come in and it's like I know you got other options that may not be as desirable but work with us don't pressure us.

Yeah. And I mean that I mean that comment was not intended for that. That's just I mean we're here because we would rather do this that's more desirable for the look of the overall building. So, I mean, I don't know if we would have got if we would have done the other situation of putting it closer to Dover Street and different things. You know, this was this is all, you know, goodwill intention to kind of group it with the other two dumpsters and put it in the corner.

We well, we always assume, at least I always assume, I can't speak for everyone else that petitioners come to us with good intentions and in good faith. And we operate in good faith, too. Sure. And so we want things to work out for everybody. I do have a question about the the building itself. So is you is the rights um what's it called? Rights gymnastics. Dwight gym gymnastics. Is that like in the middle of the building or is it to one side of the building? It's it's the entire pretty much the entire west half. So it's you know 22 23,000 square feet. They're taking about 12. So it's they're the west half

and then the area closer to Dover would be where the other tenants would go. Yep. Okay. Um so the the ex the enclosure would be the the other tenants would be farther away from the trash enclosure. Yeah. Okay.

But that's probably Yeah. I mean that's almost probably going to be true unless you put a dead middle somewhere for most buildings. But Yeah. Rights Gymnastics is also developing the building, so I'm sure they have an incentive to give themsel a little bit shorter of a walk. I I I don't like this, but I also ultimately this is the plan commission's decision and I always feel like I'm always open to options. Um I don't know. I I I agree with a lot of what my colleagues say, but your arguments are strong in terms of the placement and and drainage and all that kind of stuff. So, I'm not I'm not sure. If I can cut in for just a second just to I know that one of the factors you guys are focusing on is practical difficulty and I just want to remind you that this is different than undue hardship and that one of the things we look at with practical difficulty is whether it's going to cause significant economic injury. Um so really what we're talking about is it going to cost a lot more money to comply with our ordinance rather than not. That's not the only thing you're looking at. That is one thing that you're looking at with regards to practical difficulty. Um not just the cost of complying with your ordinance, but is it is it more than that? um is a substantial amount of money going to go into trying to comply with your ordinance. So, I just want to clarify that money can come into your consideration with regards to practical difficulty. Whereas with undue hardship, we're saying we can't use its property at all unless you grant this. It's a little bit lower of a standard with practical difficulty there. Um and then I wanted to remind you as well that um you know the spirit and intent of the ordinance. So think about what is the ordinance trying to achieve by not by having this development standard in place. Um this isn't a use case. We're not focusing on how this property is

really being used. That would be a use variance or in the in the realm of the plan commission. So, we're focusing on what is the intent of the UDO, which is why they're here asking to essentially vary from that. Um, and would the variance granting that variance achieve that effect. So, those are just two things for you to consider when you're talking about practical difficulty. I understand that you should not be connected here, but again, we're here about the trash enclosure and how those other tenant spaces are used is going to impact, how the trash enclosure is going to be used, how it's accessed, if it's big enough, on, you know, on and on and on. I I I think they're inherently connected. if it's I mean when you I think when you consider the size of the trash enclosure which is not dictated by the ordinance you have to remember that if if it only gets full every two weeks they only need to schedule pickup every two weeks. if they end up having a user that uh that produces a little bit more trash, they'll have to schedule uh you know weekly or some some facilities have you know three times a week. Some places may even be collected every day. I really don't think that's going to be the case here, but I don't think, you know, we should be looking at whether the dumpster we think is sized correctly because that's not an ordinance requirement and that can be met by changing the frequency of pickup.

Any other discussion? Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. I move that we deny variance 2603 writes gymnastics requesting approval of a variance development standards of UDO 5.1H2 to allow for a trash enclosure within the established front yard which is not permitted because it will not meet all the requirements for variance of development standards under state law subject to the adopted findings of fact and subject to the condition listed in the staff report. We have a motion by Mr. Gutenberger. Is there a second?

Second by Mrs. Tashel. Discussion. I'll just I'll just throw out there that again focusing on the issue of the trash enclosure. I I share Mr. Genenber's concern uh regarding u practical difficulty. It does seem to me like it's more of a preference and with item number five of was this caused by the the petitioner and having you know having them insisting that the building be sized and placed where it is and and all that I I think is really kind of caused this situation. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Genberger

four, Enman, four, Ransburg, four, Tashler, four, Turner, four. Thanks. We have any other business? Uh, we just want to discuss with you real quick um for your meeting in October. Paul and I both cannot be here for that meeting. Oh,

and we would like to move it a meeting a week sooner. That date want to be here. Where are you two off? Where are you two off to? Uh, we both planned we both planned something without talking to each other. My wife planned it. So that's why social director. Oh, sure. Blame the wife. A week sooner is what we prefer. October 20th to October 13th. Say again. October what to what? From the 20th to the 13th. A whole week. We were gonna have a meeting for a week.

That would be fun. I love you guys, but you're both gone for two weeks. Is that what you No, no, we're only gone one week from the 20th to the 24th or whatever. That week that you're wanting to move it to the 13th. Correct. The 24th. This is Saturday. I'm not No, we don't want to do it then. That will be back then. But Okay. So, you want to move it to the 13th. Correct. Okay. Does that work for the majority of you? It doesn't work for me. It does not. No. Second. You could also look at the week after. It's not ideal for us, but because we have plan commission the day before,

but we could do the week after. So, you're saying the 27th? Yes. The fourth Tuesday? Yes. I I could do that. I'll make a suggestion though. Would it be better to run with one member absent though to get it done? Anything that needs to be done before the plan commission? I would think so. I mean, I'm fine. Be good to have you, but it just for business might be better that way. Yeah,

I'm not going to throw a fit. I'm open. I'm open. 13th is fine. going to Florida or anything? No. Okay. So, it sounds like we have consensus on the 13th. Is that what I'm hearing? So, change it to the 13th. Sounds like we'll update the schedule accordingly. Correct. Correct. 13th. October 13th. Great. Anything else for the good of the cause? No. If there's nothing else, we are ajourned. Thank you.