Board of Zoning Appeals

BIOWilSJJUig TOWNOF~. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Minutes Brownsburg Town Hall 61 North Green Street Brownsburg, Indiana 46112 Monday, July 13, 2020 The Brownsburg Board of Zoning Appeals convened at 7:00 PM with a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Neal opened the meeting, and a roll call was taken. Members Present: Maria Andrews, David Emery, Mike Neal, and Chris Worley Members Absent: Ben Lacey Also Present: Todd Barker, AICP - Director of Development Services, David Wilson, AICP- Senior Planner and Lauren Gillingham- Planner A. CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Staffinformed the Board that the Town '.s' video live-feed program was currently offline as a fiber optic cable was damaged and the meeting was not being live-streamed Staff did use a video recording of the meeting to assist with the creation of the minutes. B. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) MINUTES 1. June 6, 2020- Regular Meeting Motion: David Emery made a motion to APPROVE the June 6, 2020 regular meeting minutes as amended for a typographical error, seconded by Chris Worley, motion carried 4 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. D. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BZDV-05-20-1826 Kroger Redevelopment Parking Standards Motion: David Emery made a motion to APPROVE the Findings of Fact for BZDV-05-20-1826, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 4 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. E. HEARING OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES 1. None F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. None G. OLD BUSINESS 1. None 1 of 10 H. NEW BUSINESS 1. BZSE-06-20-1831 Elevate Office Building "Tattoo/Piercing Parlor" A request for a Special Exception Use approval from Art. 2 § 2.27 to permit a "Tattoo/Piercing Parlor" use within the Urban Commercial (UC) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-11-150-001.000-016 Represented by: Brad Untrauer, Envoy Inc. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Brad Untrauer, Envoy Inc. presented the case for the Board stating their building was located in the UC District, which allowed for commercial and retail uses. Some of the goals for that district was that it be a multifunctional destination that was pedestrian friendly and walkable. Mr. Untrauer said those attributes described their building community perfectly; you could walk to the building, get your taxes done, walk to the other side and get your hair done and then walk downstairs to market your business. There were a variety of uses and businesses that served to cater to small businesses and entrepreneurs in the community. The purpose of the request was to allow Tattoo/Piercing in the entire building. Lauren Gillingham reviewed the case for the Board describing the location and surrounding zoning. Other personal care uses were present at Elevate Brownsburg. The Applicant's walkability argument was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, there were no waiver requests or concerns from the TECH committee. Staff felt that based upon the analysis of the information submitted by the Applicant, they had satisfied the requirements for the Special Exception variance subject to and conditioned upon the following: (1) That the Special Exception Use be granted for the subject property pursuant to Staff's Analysis and the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons. (2) That the Tattoo/Piercing Parlor use be permitted pursuant to the Applicant's Application, dated 06/12/2020; and the Applicant's Revised Detailed Statement of Reasons, dated 06/16/2020. (3) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by the Board of Zoning Appeals. David Emery said he did not have an issue with the project but wanted more information on Staff's analysis. Ms. Gillingham stated staff analyzed the proposed request, the Detailed Statement of Reasons, how that interplayed with the Comprehensive Plan and the general concept of the downtown area and decided the Special Exception variance was valid pursuant to §9.10(E)(1)(a) of the UDO. As part of their analysis of the request and the Detailed Statement of Reasons, Staff believed they had satisfied the criteria for a Special Exception use. Chris Worley did not have any questions and noted that the tattoo/piercing parlor use was listed as a special exception use within the UDO and felt the Applicant had met the five criteria for approval. Maria Andrews asked what the hours of operation were going to be. Mr. Untrauer said typically the building front doors were open from 9 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday. Any business, including the tattoo parlor, could set their own hours. In May they started having the building open on Saturdays as well. There was an intercom system in place as well so a client could reach businesses after hours. Ms. Andrews asked if this was for an existing business in Brownsburg or an existing business somewhere outside of Brownsburg looking to move here. Mr. Untrauer said they did not have a prospective tenant waiting for approval. What prompted the request was that a month or two 2 of 10 ago they had a tattoo artist approach Elevate and that was when Elevate learned they could not lease for that use so they were looking to accomplish that change. Ms. Andrews asked who Scott Baldwin was and Mr. Untrauer replied that was the owner of the property. Mr. Worley said the Applicant noted that the building had a designated area for salons with water and electrical power in their application. He asked if there had been any objections to this request from others salons or that type of business. Mr. Untrauer said they had not heard anything. Mr. Emery confirmed there was no tenant waiting for the variance and asked Staff if that had any impact on granting the variance. Mr. Barker replied that the request was to permit tattooing/ piercing as a permitted use in a building within the Urban Commercial district. In situations where there was a Use variance, oftentimes that was related to a specific request and user. In this case, they were requesting a Special Exception use be granted for the property to allow any tenant to utilize that use. Mr. Emery said he appreciated the fact that there were no limitations on that. Mr. Neal said the Elevate property was atypical and not like a lot of other buildings in Town. He had not come across something like this in his two years on the Board and asked if it was typical to grant something such as this with no tenant in mind and no specific future plans. Mr. Barker said they did not have a lot of uses that were personal-care related, whether nails, hair or things like that, spelled out differently as were personal care items and tattoos and piercings. There were some very specific uses listed that were similar but not necessarily identical. This was one in the personal-care aspect where they were requesting additional options for their business. Mr. Neal asked Mr. Untrauer if they had someone who was inquiring about a tattoo parlor. Mr. Untrauer said that they did but that did not work out. He said that Elevate was a different product. Right now if an accountant or hairstylist came in and wanted to lease the space, they could do that. Fill out paperwork, put down a deposit and they could move in their furniture within the hour. It was not the typical office lease where it was a drawn out process with agents and 3-, S- or 10-year leases. Lessees were able to build out the space, furnish and decorate it themselves. They shared amenities such as conference rooms, kitchens and restrooms with the other tenants. Now if they had a request for a tattoo artist that wanted to move in, tomorrow, or next week or next month, they could then accommodate them with the variance. Mr. Neal asked if the person that was initially interested become disinterested or went somewhere else because of the time it took to get before the BZA. Mr. Untrauer said he did not believe so. Ms. Andrews asked if there was a mailing went out to the other tenants; when she used to live in California there would be a mailing that would go out to the surrounding tenants and they had the opportunity to come and speak. Mr. Barker said the notice requirement was for the surrounding property owners, there was not a Town requirement that they notify other tenants. Ms. Andrews asked Mr. Untrauer if there was anything internally at Elevate as offices with certain clientele might not like that entity. Mr. Untrauer said that they did not, with 113 office suites they wanted the businesses to rely on the property managers; they too would share the same concerns such as if there were offensive tattoos visible. With the leases being flexible short-term, they had ability to remove a tenant if there were complaints. Ms. Andrews asked if someone could rent space for a longer amount of time or if it was only month-to-month. Mr. Untrauer said they were willing to negotiate longer leases but a short flexible lease was part of the draw. Todd Barker read into the record an excerpt from the Elevate Economic Development Agreement so the Board was aware of the Intended Development of the Property: "Developer anticipates 3 of 10  developing the property for the purposes of office suites space and commercially-related uses. The developer shall obtain all approvals required for construction in the town." ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Cindy Hohman, 15 Tyler Court- Ms. Hohman stated tattoo parlors should not have negative connotations, not all were "dirty." Ms. Andrews replied that she had no ill intentions with her comments on the use. Mr. Neal said Elevate had a business model and it was up to them as a business to allow what they wished and any wrong decision would affect their business so he was sure they would act in everyone's best interests. Motion: David Emery made a motion to APPROVE BZSE-06-20-1831 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Chris Worley, motion carried 4 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 2. BZDV-06-20-1832 Stephens Park Maximum Lot Coverage A request for a Development Standards Variance from Article 5, § 5.21(A)(2) "Density and Intensity Standards," to exceed the maximum lot coverage permitted within the Parks and Recreation (PR) District. Parcel No(s): 32-07-15-240-012.000-016 Represented by: Jonathan K. Blake, Brownsburg Parks ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING Jonathan Blake, Brownsburg Parks Assistant Director of Operations and Development, presented the case for the Board. He explained that Stephens Park was located in the southwest quadrant of Tilden Drive and S. Green Street. He was there presenting a request for increased lot coverage. About 22 years ago Brownsburg purchased the site from a Lincoln Township Trustee and at that point it was an open field and had a playground at some point. Over that 22 year history they added a shelter, renovated the playgrounds and made drainage improvements to the area. The property was 3.38 acres in size. About two years ago they started to Master Plan the site. The existing conditions included a gravel parking area, trees along the north property line, an existing shelter and two playgrounds. Along the east side of the property there was a drainage/detention area that was built in conjunction with the Arkanoff apartments that existed to the east. The Parks Department wanted to create a property that was unique and provided a benefit to the residents and also met some of the needs that were identified in the Strategic Master Plan. Mr. Blake explained that every five years the Department of Natural Resources required Park Departments across Indiana to complete an updated Master Plan for the next 5-10 years. The Parks Department identified that this park needed refreshing. At the end of 2019 they worked with the Park Board and the Town Council to secure a bond for $4.4 million to renovate the park as well as construct the White Lick Creek Trail greenway between Arbuckle Acres and McAllister's. Open space would be used for a loop trail around the west end of the property and a playground with inclusive features that would provide opportunities for kids of all abilities, whether in a wheelchair with mental or physical limitations, to be able to play alongside their peers. They were also relocating and renovating the shelter space and providing outdoor fitness equipment. There would be six pickleball courts. They were also adding restrooms. Mr. Blake explained that the final design was able to comply with the required setbacks but they were not able to comply with the maximum lot coverage. Section 2.2 of the UDO limited lot for impervious area to 20% of the overall lot. The existing site was 3.38 acres and the maximum lot coverage permitted was 29,446 sq. ft. The proposed improvements would be 41,225 sq. ft. and 4 of 10 resulted in 28% lot coverage. Mr. Blake reviewed the site and the impervious area. He said they attempted to design the park to comply with all Town regulations and UDO but any improvements to the park site required parking improvements as well as ADA compliance; in order to do that those items had to be impervious. As a result they would be encroaching on that lot coverage much quicker than they would on a larger site. They did look at reducing the scope of the project but even with just the pickleboard courts the parking lot put them over lot coverage. He did not want to strip out any programming on the site because the site provided those amenities for the public. Mr. Blake reviewed a graphic showing the inclusive play features which included sensory walls, swings that provided opportunities for children with limited physical abilities to interact with one another and play alongside their peers. On the east side of that there would be a shelter facility and outdoor fitness equipment. This would be the first implementation and something they were looking to add to future park facilities. As it related to Detailed Statement of Reasons, Mr. Blake explained that the approval of the development standards variance would not be injurious to health, safety morals because the parameters of the improvements would not encroach upon setbacks. In fact, the approval of the variance request would impact the public health and safety of the community in a positive manner by providing a variety of resources for park visitors of all ages to exercise, recreate and interact with one another while playing pickleball, using the outdoor fitness equipment and walking on the loop trail. The amenities included in the proposed project had been requested by residents and park users through multiple public surveys and the 2017 Needs Assessment conducted by the Department. These amenities would increase the use of this park. The project had been designed with public safety, health and wellness as the primary goal upon its completion. Furthermore, the site currently took on stormwater runoff from surrounding properties on the north, east and south sides of the property. The drainage improvements had been designed to capture the runoff from surrounding properties, utilizing vegetated swales, rain gardens and an existing detention basin on the east side of the property. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the Development Standards Variance would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Studies have shown that parks increased property values. According to The Trust for Public Land, research has shown that public parks increased property values for homes within 500 - 2,000 feet of a park by 5%. A similar study, published by the University of Washington in 2010, found that the value of homes near public parks and open spaces increased by 8-10% The proposed improvements would positively impact the surrounding residential uses by providing convenient and safe access to park amenities, playground equipment and fitness equipment; and improving the aesthetics of the subject property through thoughtful and well-planned native landscape design and buffering, and thereby improving the overall appearance of the property from neighboring properties. Furthermore, the proposed improvements included green infrastructure concepts for capturing, treating and discharging the stormwater run-off from neighboring properties, and the stormwater generated by the site. Mr. Blake said that the strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Each of the zoning districts surrounding and immediately adjacent to the site were permitted to have high lot coverage counts that the site itself: Traditional Residential {TR) 60%, Medium Density Multi-Family Res. (M2) 45%, Institutional (IS) 65% and Hendricks Co. Residential (RB) 35%. The increased lot coverage for those properties combined with poor draining soils and a lack of adequate surface drainage in the area all contributed to the amount of stormwater run-off entering the park. The proposed improvements had been designed to capture, treat and discharge the additional stormwater run-off from the surrounding properties through vegetated swales, constructed rain gardens and temporary detention. 5 of 10 Mr. Blake said when the Town went through the zoning ordinance update of 2012 he was on the Development Services team. The Town has not had a test of that limitation prior to 2012 or since then; there has not been a Parks property go through that process. While 20% seemed to make sense, it did not work in every situation. The ordinances were written in such a manner that 85- 90% could comply but there are cases when those standards were impractical. He said that one of the key objectives of any park project was to improve access to the site, public amenities and park facilities; in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Town of Brownsburg ADA Transition Plan. The standards and regulations of both public policies required the removal of physical barriers and improved access when redeveloping park properties or renovating public buildings. In order to comply with those regulations they had to construct sidewalks; paved parking; curb ramps; pedestrian facilities and gathering spaces to provide equal access to all visitors and eliminate existing or potential barriers. Those improvements must be constructed of impervious materials ( concrete, asphalt, compacted stone, etc.) which all count towards the lot coverage. Mr. Blake said the size of the park presented its own challenge with meeting the maximum lot coverage threshold. Not only was this a small park, but it was the smallest park in Brownsburg Parks. With 3.38 acres, getting to that 20% threshold would happen much quicker than in other parks. All of their properties, except for Stephens Park, met that 20% threshold. He said he felt that was a good standard and all other parks met or exceeded that requirement. Stephens Park would be able to have 28 parking stalls, pickleball courts, playground equipment, restroom and outdoor fitness equipment with this variance. He was happy to answer any questions. Mr. Neal appreciated the presentation and all the information it contained. Todd Barker reviewed the Staff report for the Board recapping that it was a development standard variance request to increase the maximum lot coverage in the Parks and Recreation district. It was the first test for the Parks department. As indicated, this was a challenge caused by the size of the property. As with any process coming before the Board, the Board's role was to look at those outliers that said they could not develop with the existing standards. The small size of property created the biggest challenge. As indicated the amenities for the facility, whether they eliminated parking or pickleball, it would still result in going over the threshold. With the Detailed Statement of Reasons, the situation of the Park, Staff completed their analysis and believed they had meet the three criteria for approval and had the following recommendations: (1) The Development Standards Variance be valid to permit 28% Maximum Lot Coverage. (2) Prior to development on the subject property an Improvement Location Permit must be obtained from Development Services. (3) The variance approval shall expire on July 13, 2022, two years from the date of approval if Improvement Location Permit has not been issued for the construction of the project. (4) The TECH Review Minutes, dated 06/18/2020; the Applicant's Detailed Statement of Reasons submitted 06/24/2020 and the Applicant's Site Plan as provided in Exhibit-C dated 05/27/2020. (5) The approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Maria Andrews asked about pickleball and said she had never heard of that. Mr. Blake said it was the fastest growing sport across the country. He had never played but it was a cross between ping pong and tennis. They used a whiffle ball instead of a tennis ball. They currently had people playing pickleball on the tennis court at Arbuckle Acres. 6 of 10 Chris Worley said he knew the demand for pickleball demand had grown quite a bit and the Parks Department parks had trouble keeping up with that demand so this would help. He asked Mr. Blake for a summary of the drainage improvements. Mr. Blake said that they would be taking the stormwater that currently sheeted across the properties, using a depression they would add additional capacity for temporary storage that would ultimately, through a series of vegetated swales and piping, get over to the drainage basin through an enclosed structure. All of the parking lot area drained directly into the center island which was a designed rain garden. There were also underground utilities installed on the site. David Emery asked if they were going to lock up the pickleball courts and put remote access in where they paid monthly. Mr. Blake replied they would provide pickleball free of charge. While there would be a couple of lights in the parking lot for security there would not be any lighting on the courts so it would not allow people to play after dark. Mr. Emery wondered why there was a fee for dog owners but not one for the pickleball courts since they were both special parks. Mr. Blake said the reason for charging at the dog parks was to recoup the operating costs. The capital costs were paid for through the general funds budget, impact fees and food and beverage taxes. The dog park required maintenance on a daily and weekly basis and they needed to offset those staff and operational costs. The amount of maintenance the pickleball courts required was small. Mr. Emery questioned taxation for dog owners and pickleball users. He did not know if there was a resolution but wanted to make that statement. Mr. Neal asked about the workout equipment, while it was unique and he thought it was neat he wondered about property liability and maintenance of those particular items. Was there any additional or different type of liability for those? Mr. Blake said it did not increase their liability. The Town had an insurance policy that covered liability on all park properties. This equipment was designed for outdoor use, it would require some maintenance. It did not affect their liability. Mr. Neal said he understood they were there because the park was so small. Typically when you thought of a park you thought of a larger area. The Parks Department wanted to use the land and it was well intentioned. Mr. Emery ask for clarification that even though there was additional maintenance required for the workout equipment they did not intend to charge the users. Mr. Blake it was not necessarily appropriate at the BZA level to get into an operation discussion and costs of amenities in the Park system but summed that those amenities that had additional operations costs were required to charge fees. Mr. Emery said they elected to charge and Mr. Blake clarified they were instructed to do so by the Council and Park Board. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Marvin Cassity, 116 Dover Blvd 5.- Mr. Cassity lived to the south of the park property. He wanted to know if there would be any water runoff impact to his property. Jim Ogle, 621 S. Locust Lane- Mr. Ogle was the Pastor at the adjacent Apostolic Bible Church. He noted that when the surveyors were out there were several flags about 20 ft. over the projected lines on the map and wondered what those were for off the Parks property. He noted there were large trees on the site that would need to be removed as they were dying or a danger. He asked if those would be removed for the walking trail. Any remaining trees could have an impact on the root system or the water main. He was concerned with trash on the park site that had blown into the Church's parking lot in the past. He noted that in the past lawnmowers had driven erratically across his property to 7 of 10 get to the Park property. Pastor Ogle had only been in the area a few years and asked who Stephens was as the park and street were named after him. Sandy Arkanoff, 10566 N. SR 267- Ms. Arkanoff stated that she and her husband Fred owned the adjacent St. James apartments. When they bought the property and wanted to develop it, they were required to build a 100 year pond that they shared with the park. The Arkanoff's were unaware that the Parks Department was going to pump water into it or that it would be a retainage pond; they had not been notified at all about the development. She stated that half of the pond was on their property; the Parks Department did not maintain it. The Aranoff's paid for it and put grass in. She was leery about having a regular retainage pond in the back of the apartments as apartments were built very close to the park. Ms. Arkanoff was worried about standing water which could lead to mosquitoes and which was dangerous for children that lived in the apartments. She said they should have been notified about the development and been told they were using their property. Mr. Neal asked Staff if there was a specific notification requirement for this particular type of development. Mr. Barker replied that the variance request required a notification piece but the Parks Department did not have a notification piece when they developed a piece of property. Fred Arkanoff, 10566 N. SR 267- Mr. Arkanoff said he was concerned with how much they wanted to put on a small piece of property: 28 parking stalls, pickleball, and exercise equipment. He felt with the exercise machines there would be people out there working and playing at night and wondered who would control that. He wanted to know who was supposed to be cutting the grass at the retainage pond. Mr. Arkanoff told the Board they spent $30,000-$40,000 extra for the pond when they built their apartments. When they built there were concerns from the neighbors that were directly to the north about water coming onto their property which the Arkanoff's had to correct to stop drainage, he felt the Parks would have the same problem. He asked why the needed pickleball. He was concerned with the walking trails that people would walk out of the park onto his property. Overall his concern was putting so much in one area. Josh Ogle, 629 S. Locust Lane- Mr. Ogle worked with his father, Pastor Ogle. He liked the presentation and appreciated the work they did. He was concerned with trash and noted that homeowners along Stephens Drive parked on the street as they struggled to park in their driveways. While the plan looked good, there was another walking path 4 blocks away at Williams Park. Williams Park generated a lot of traffic and they were a V2 mile away. Did the Town need two walking paths within a mile? Mr. Blake responded to Mr. Cassity and said the condos were over 400 ft. away from the Park property so there would be no impact to his property or drainage. The Parks would collect and send the water north to the storm system in Stephens Drive. He apologized to Pastor Ogle for the mowing incident and would like to exchange information to ensure the Park was kept clean and off the church's property. Mr. Blake told Pastor Ogle that they were not proposing to change any boundaries of the park property and would be required to work with property owners to do that. Likely when the surveyors were out they were setting temporary points of reference to get elevation information which was permitted under Indiana law. There would be no improvements made across the property lines or any additional property requested. Mr. Blake agreed the trees could be a danger and before construction they would be examined with their onsite arborist. Mr. Blake was not sure of the park's history or who the park was named for. Mr. Blake thought Mr. Arkanoff's concerns were a misunderstanding; they were not proposing to turn the detention basin to a pond. % of the basin was on the Parks property. There was an 8 of 10  easement dedicated on Town side and Arkanoff side. The detention basin was designed to take on water. While Mr. Blake was not sure what communication the Parks Department had with the Arkanoffs at the time of development he knew that there were discussions with the Building Commissioner and the Plan Commission that there was intent to redevelop the property at some point in the future. Mr. Blake said they were not converting the wet basin to a pond; as it did today, it would get wet and then would dry out within 72 hours. With regarding to Mr. Arkanoff's comment about the amount of development, one of the questions the Parks Department asked themselves was is this appropriate level of development for this type of size? In Parks and Recreation agencies across the state there were a variety of park sizes, everything from a pocket park which could be the size of a parking stall to a neighborhood park such as this. There were a variety of sizes and uses/intents. The Parks Department wanted to provide users with opportunities and felt this was the appropriate use of the property which had been an underutilized site for 22+ years. Mr. Blake said they recognized that Stephens Drive was limited in scope and the Stephens Park would have parking stalls on site in anticipation of the increased uses on site. Right now with the limited parking, you could only fit five cars around that gravel drive before they start winding down Stephens Drive which was why they provided additional parking. Mr. Neal told the remonstrators he was sure Mr. Blake would take their concerns back to the department and review them as Town staff typically did. He reminded everyone that the issue before the Board was how many items they could place on the property. It was not their scope to say whether or not Mr. Blake and his team were right or whether they should have a pickleball court. Their role was simply based on the statutory requirements in the BZA review. The Park Board, Town Council and other people had been involved in the process for quite some time. Mr. Worley said the public had requested the improvements. He saw Stephens Park as a neighborhood park. He did expect an increase in traffic and parking for the pickleball courts. He also felt there would also be a lot of walking traffic from the neighborhood. He was confident from Mr. Blake's presentation that the drainage would be improved so therefore he approved. Motion: Chris Worley made a motion to APPROVE BZDV-06-20-1832 subject to and conditioned upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 4 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 3. Resolution 2020-01 BZA Rules of Procedure Update Additional Public Comment Mr. Barker explained the request was to add an additional item to regular meeting agendas to allow for citizen comments at the end of the meeting. There were some regulations or limitations added and Staff anticipated that the President would outline those rules in terms of time limitations and reminding people that comments would not impact a case that was already decided. Mr. Neal said he felt it was incumbent upon the Board as public servants to hear from the public and give them another opportunity to speak on a myriad of issues. He requested this change when he became BZA president January, Covid-19 slowed things down. He appreciate the work that Staff and Legal Counsel put into the Rule change. Motion: David Emery made a motion to APPROVE Resolution 2020-01, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 4 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 9 of 10  Motion: David Emery made a motion to AMEND the July 13, 2020 Meeting Agenda to allow for Citizens Comments Relating To Agenda, seconded by Maria Andrews, motion carried 4 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. I. COMMUNICATIONS & REPORTS 1. None J. CITIZENS COMMENTS RELATING TO AGENDA 1. Cindy Hohman complimented the work of the Board that night. K. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Chris Worley made a motion to ADJOURN, motion carried 4 In Favor/0 Opposed/0 Abstained. 8:27 P.M. ATTEST: Heather Wetzel, Adminis rative Assistant 10 of 10