- Call to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for May 22nd 2025
- Could we get a roll call, please Ballard Fernandez
- Casinco
- Here I
- Didn't recall did you distribute the minutes? I didn't I did not personally seen them. I've been
- out
- Okay, we do have minutes for approval from the April 24th meeting last month
- Those who have read it. Do I have a motion to approve?
- Move to approve April minutes
- Fernandez, yes, because Cinco. Yes, the Rock Morton all abstained since I did not read them
- Ballard, yes
- All right
- So we do have petitions that are continued to the June 26th meeting and that would be a a 1722 Joe
- camp construction
- Cu 33 24 hat rentals LLC. Those were petitions
- Continued through to June 26. We do have a petition continued to
- July 24th, and that's V - 13 - 25. That's Carolina Lopez
- Tonight we will be hearing the following. There's been no change to the agenda, correct?
- No, actually the first case be 11 - 25 requested a continuance as well to which date
- So that would go to the June hearing
- Okay, so for the record V - 11 25 - 25 will be continued to the June
- 26
- That right June 26, okay. All right, that's the only change
- Then the petitions we will hear in this order tonight will be V - 14 - 25 down at least so Weiler
- V - 16 - 25 amber rentals be - 38 - 22 Brian rental wh Plaza LLC
- V - 17 - 25 Bloomington cornerstone Christian fellowship
- again, that will be in that order for those of you that are in the
- chambers who will be
- Addressing us as petitioners or even the public the process will be will hear a report from the
- staff
- Then the petitioner will have an opportunity to speak for 20 minutes
- Whatever portion of that 20 minutes is not used will be reserved
- Until before the votes taken where the petitioner have the opportunity to use the remainder of that
- time
- Anyone from the public who's here in attendance would like to speak either online or here will be
- afforded five minutes to speak
- To that petition or variance fair enough with that can I get?
- And we'll go to the first petition and that is
- B - 11, I'm sorry. I need to get to the right page since it's forward. I
- Can't print these out because they're a hundred and some pages long. Sorry
- All
- Right, I believe V - 14 - 25 and you speaking to that Eric, okay staff report, please. Thank you
- Request from Don and Lisa Weiler for a property at 934 West 2nd Street
- And the petitioners are requesting a variance from the maximum excess accessory structure size
- and maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit to allow for the construction of a new accessory
- dwelling unit in the residential urban lot are
- for zoning district
- So this property as I mentioned is at 934 West 2nd Street
- This is on the north side of 2nd Street and a zoned residential urban are for
- To the north in the east you have single-family residences to the west is an office
- And then to the south our offices as well
- The property was recently constructed with a single-family dwelling unit along the front
- This is in the historic district and receive a certificate of appropriateness for that new house
- At the time the HPC also reviewed a prospective new accessory building on the north side of the
- property
- That would have a garage on the ground floor and an accessory dwelling unit on the upper floor
- So the petitioners here tonight to request approval or variances more specifically for that
- accessory dwelling unit
- and even more specifically they are requesting to allow for the unit to be
- Approximately seven hundred and ninety eight square feet in the r4 zoning district
- The maximum size that is allowed for an accessory dwelling unit is 400 square feet
- This particular lot though is more than twice the size of the minimum lot size in the r4 zoning
- district
- And the r4 zoning district the minimum lot size is four thousand square feet
- And this lot is as I mentioned twice that size at about 9,000 square feet
- so the petitioners are requesting to
- allow for the accessory structure and
- They are basing that on the fact that this lot is twice the size of the minimum lot size of the
- district
- So the r4 zoning district when that was implemented and put on the map
- That was put in places where we fought thought that smaller lot sizes could be appropriate if
- something were to happen in the future
- Where other developments that allowed for more compact urban design might be appropriate, but this
- lot was
- Platted long before the r4 zoning district was put on the books
- So as I mentioned, it's more than twice the lot size
- And when you look at adjacent structures in the area
- You'll see a variety of accessory structures that exceed that 400 square foot
- That is allowed a lot of them that are surrounding here are in the six and seven hundred square
- foot range
- And all of the lots that are along the north side of second Street here also share the similar lot
- size with this
- And are more than twice the lot size of the district here
- And so the petitioners request in order to have an accessory structure in the accessory dwelling
- unit
- That is larger than this district is appropriate given the larger lot size
- And the adjacent structures that are significantly larger than the 400 square foot
- That is allowed. So the petitioners request is to allow an 837 square foot
- Accessory structure as I mentioned it would have a garage on the downstairs
- With an accessory dwelling you'd on the second floor. It'd be a one-bedroom
- ADU and so with this as always we are required to make findings
- For the criteria in the unified development ordinance
- We did not find any negative findings in relation to the size or of the accessory structure itself
- or the ADU
- As I mentioned there are several properties adjacent to this that have structures that are bigger
- than what is allowed
- This particular property also has an alley along the north side and the west side
- So any possible impacts as a result of the increased size are mitigated by the presence of that
- alley as well
- Again, we did not find any negative impacts on the use and value adjacent to this again
- There are many structures surrounding this that are much larger than the 400 square foot
- And the presence of the alleys also helps mitigate as I mentioned
- the increased size here
- In regards to the strict application in terms of the UDO resulting in practical difficulties
- And the relation of those difficulties to this lot as I mentioned, you know
- This lot size is more than twice the size of other lots in this area
- As we went through the standards of the unified development ordinance for the size of accessory
- structures
- Those are specifically relative to the size of new lots that would be created
- So a four thousand square foot lot a 400 square foot accessory structure is appropriate for those
- two
- So conversely with this lot being twice the size, you know accessory structure
- That is much larger than a 400 square feet is appropriate for the size of a lot
- Appropriate for the size of the area and so the unique characteristics here
- Certainly other the zoning envisions new lots of this not lot size not existing lots that that
- greatly exceed that
- So we did make positive findings for those criteria as well
- And we are recommending approval of the two variances
- With the two conditions that are listed in staffs report and I'm happy to answer any questions
- Oh
- Thank you, can I have the petitioner
- Online oh, I'm sorry that you said they were here
- Yes
- Hello, can you hear me
- Yes
- This is Don yes, and will you be speaking only or will Lisa also be speaking
- Just Lisa is here, but
- But it's I can I can talk to the points unless you would like to talk to her as well
- No
- I'm asking for the standpoint of I need to swear you in and then I can score you both in so you can
- both
- Speak if we can just do it at the same time
- Okay. All right. I think I can I'll be the speaker. All right, so Don state your full name
- Donald G Weiler, okay, and do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth
- the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth
- Yes, I do and
- Lisa would you state your name?
- She's she's not gonna be speaking. Okay, very good. All right, then done you have 20 minutes
- You don't have to use all of that time at this point
- Whatever you don't use you'll have an opportunity to use before the vote is taken
- Okay. All right. Proceed. All right. Well, thank you for the opportunity to present this
- Yeah, I think Eric did an excellent job
- Laying it out
- It's
- We've we've been in discussions about this with planning and
- Through the various back-and-forths we've we've arrived at this
- at
- this design and this for this application and
- I feel like it's
- Pretty straightforward. It kind of speaks for itself
- So I just in the interest of preserving everybody's time I will I will
- Let you guys if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer your questions
- Okay. Thank you. You'll reserve the remainder of your time, which is just over 19 minutes
- With that back to the board any questions for staff or the petitioner on this
- Please
- Just looking at the the documents that were submitted as part of the
- packet
- If I'm reading this right this prospect Hill Neighborhood Association
- voted support the proposal in
- January 6
- 2025
- The formal submission was March 13 2025 and it's now May 22nd
- 2025 I mean
- What were the material changes that were
- made if any since the January 6 presentation to the Prospect Hill Neighborhood or following the
- March 13th submission
- During that time we were working on the actual size of the structure
- So we are going back and forth between the petitioner a little bit trying to balance what their
- needs were
- Versus kind of what the size of other structures in the area kind of supported in terms of being
- appropriate and compatible
- So we were going back and forth a little bit on the design that
- And this was initially slated to be on the last hearing in April
- But there were some challenges with that time. So it got continued to this hearing
- So
- What do you use to base the debate about the size just comparable units or structures
- I'm just curious because if the neighborhood didn't have any problems with it, what was the
- Issue for the staff. I mean sure so from the staff perspective as I mentioned one of the things
- that we were looking at
- Well, what were the size of the existing accessory structures that were in the area?
- So we looked at the lots to the north of this and to the east kind of comparing this
- So the size of the structure that the HPC saw and that the neighborhood saw
- I think was a little bit smaller the petitioner wanted to have something that was a little bit
- larger
- And so we were just trying to balance what was appropriate
- Based on the size within the UDO
- But then also kind of what the petitioners needs were as well
- Thanks
- I would just say to Don and Lisa, I appreciate you making this investment in in our downtown area
- Thank you, yeah, it's been the house
- that this particular lot has nobody had lived on it for several decades and
- the reception from the neighborhood has been
- fantastic
- Back to the board. Do we have any other questions from the board on this?
- Okay, if not, it's time for public comment is anyone here wishing to make public comment anyone
- online
- Is that a no for that
- Speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function or send a note to the host and we can
- recognize you
- I'm not seeing anybody. Okay, and now Don sorry cut you off
- And now is an opportunity for you to respond to that comment from the board or make any other
- comments before a motion is entertained. Oh
- Yeah, I was just responding to the John's comment I just we're thrilled to be in the Prospectsville
- neighborhood. It's
- And thrilled to be able to have a a functioning home on that site again
- So that was just the rest of my comment. So I'm in good shape
- very good and
- With that then we'll come back to the board for any action
- To
- Approve V - 14 - 25 with the two conditions as stated the report
- Any further discussion from the board seeing them we'll call the question
- Pasinko yes, the Rock Morton. Yes Ballard. Yes Fernandez. Yes motion passes for
- zero
- Congratulations
- Thank you for joining us Don and Lisa
- with that we will move on to
- V - 16 - 25 amber rentals LLC have a staff report, please
- You
- Zoning a long-range planner presenting on behalf of David Brintez
- This evening we have
- 612 North Lincoln Street of variance request from minimum
- side and rear setbacks to allow for a second story addition to an existing dwelling unit
- This is in residential multifamily district
- RM
- The property is about
- 2500 square feet comprehensive planning designation as mixed urban residential and
- The proposed use is going
- To be staying as a single-family dwelling in it, however
- It is
- Converting the existing two units there into one single family unit and going from two bedrooms to
- a total of five bedrooms
- As you can see at the site plan here
- to current existing issues on the north property line you see a
- a
- Stoop as well as the eaves currently encroaching into the property to the north
- And with this proposed project these are the proposed elevations with the second story addition
- And of note
- With adding that second story. This is how the roofline will change
- The current layout of the property due to the size and location of the home
- Required the
- The roof to be
- elevated to the point as
- indicated here and
- Part of this will also going back to our site plan here
- These plants will remove the stoop to the north as well as adjust the eaves and bring those into
- compliance and not encroach onto that
- property to the north
- So the petitioner is requesting a variance from that required five yard setback to allow for 1.2
- foot setback to the north
- and then also from the 25 foot rear yard setback to allow a 10.8 foot setback to the east and
- this will reflect the location of the existing walls and
- Allow for that to for that second story to be added
- So our proposed findings
- We did not find anything that would be injurious to the public health safety or morals or general
- welfare of the community
- It will still have the pitched roof design which will be similar in nature and match surrounding
- residences
- we did not find any impact and
- As a result of this requested variance
- As far as use and value of the area adjacent to the property
- Again, we did not find anything significant that that would adversely affect any adjacent
- properties
- And as stated the two encroachments
- Would be remedied through this project
- And the practical difficulties as we review this the
- the existing layout of the property as we stated was the size of the property as
- As well as the current location of the existing home
- prevented any other
- Practical means of adding this second story
- Necessitating the variance here
- So based upon these written findings we recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt these
- findings
- With a condition that building permit would be required prior to construction
- Petitioner in attendance if so go ahead and sign in and we will swear you in
- I
- State your first and last name
- Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth I do
- You may proceed 20 minutes
- I'm here on behalf of amber rentals and we thank the staff for the report
- and
- Are happy to try to address any questions that staff or the board may have and we appreciate your
- consideration. Thank you
- Well, we'll reserve the nearly 20 minutes of time for you if needed
- We'll go back to the board for any questions to the staff or to the petitioner on this
- Please I'm sorry, this is gonna be a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway
- What what triggered the requirement of BZA review I
- mean because is it just that they're making addition or
- to an existing structure I
- Think it's normally in a neighborhood like this. We were typically
- Having arguments about adding density and this is
- RM zone, but they're adding
- Changing the roofline adding a couple rooms and single-family is it just with any
- Construction in a house like this require BZA approval. I
- Mean I guess where I'm going at did this have to come to us or could have been a staff approval
- Because the addition doesn't meet the setback requirements we were just erring on the side of being
- more conservative
- You know, we've had a couple of situations where some of these cases have gone different ways at
- the board
- For additions that we considered kind of minor
- But like I said, we were just kind of erring on the side of being more conservative with bringing
- this to the board if I understand
- the
- renovation
- It's not changing the footprint of the structure. It's just the roofline. Well, yeah
- So they're adding they're taking off the wall and adding this whole second floor
- So it is an addition if this was just simply work within the existing roofline itself
- That might be a little bit different, but they are changing the roof and adding on a second story,
- right?
- What's there right now is about a story and a half. So it's got an attic space. It's not really
- usable
- If the variance is about a side setback
- and
- The roof isn't changing the dimensions as it relates to the setback
- it just seems like
- From my perspective I
- Would much rather that just be a staff decision and I not have to come to the BZA sure
- Yeah, as I mentioned, you know in this case here, they're adding new usable space. They were
- expanding the second floor
- So unfortunately by the way, the code defines it
- It is new a new wall on the inside that we have to look at where that's going and meeting setbacks
- But we certainly hear what you're saying. Okay, cool. I
- Understand what you're asking
- Yeah, and I would I would echo that which is it is odd because I understand you going up
- But the footprint itself doesn't change so it's it's awkward. So I do have a question for Dawn
- Which was which is now this is going from a two-unit single-story to this is gonna be a family
- It is under the category of single-family, okay, it's intended though it in that area for student
- rental. Yes
- I'm just curious on that
- On that end of any other questions, yeah
- Oh
- This property is as it is now because it's I've been in this property it's been about a year
- But I don't I don't take I don't see 2,500 square feet
- Or is that the proposed? I believe the lot size is 2,500 square feet. Oh
- Okay, got it. Yeah. Okay. What is the what is the square footage now currently of the property and
- what is it going to be?
- I
- It's about five six hundred square feet less than the lot size and then there's about
- 800 square feet being added in that half story level
- Okay. All right. Thank you
- I
- With that we are to the public for any comment is anyone online if so and we'd like to address this
- please raise your hand and
- Anyone in chambers if you'd like to come forward and speak
- Please let yourself be known
- Zero online
- No, I don't see anybody online that's used to raise hand function or receive any messages. All
- right and
- Seeing no one here in chambers, it would go back to the petitioner if you have any further comments
- Do so at this time. Okay seeing that we'll go back to the board for comments actions
- I'll just start by saying I mean this it just seems like a no-brainer. There's no change in the in
- the
- Footprint here and it seems to me pretty straightforward and meets other meets the code. So
- Any other comments, otherwise, I'll entertain a motion, please
- Findings and recommend recommendations for petition V 1625. I have a second second
- Any additional comments scene then I call the question
- Yes, Ballard, yes Fernandez yes, Cosenco. Yes
- And it is approved for zero. Congratulations. Thank you for your time
- Next we have V - 38 - 22 Brian rental Inc WH Plaza LLC
- And looks like Gabriel that's to you for a staff report, please
- Yes, please just give me a moment to sit up here sure while I'm setting up
- I'm Gabriel Holbrock zoning planner for the city of Wilmington
- On the case number one
- , what are you doing? I gave her on the case number. What does ZR stand for?
- This is this is a new numbering that just starting
- Staff hopes that that will eventually replace the old V numbers so that will only have one set of
- numbers
- It's switching over because of the new
- Electronic system ZR stands for zoning relief. So that will be a number system for everything that
- goes to the BZA including variances
- conditional use and
- Administrative appeals great. Thanks. I
- Don't like it
- Okay, again, I'm Gabriel Holbrough zoning planner
- This petition relates to signage at the Whitehall Plaza shopping center on the south side of West 3rd
- Street just west of I 69
- The site is zoned a mixed-use corridor and is a multi-tenant non-residential center otherwise known
- as a shopping center
- So the request at this point relates to two signs
- The first is a proposed new multi-tenant sign on the 3rd Street frontage of the site
- The sign requires required variances, which your board
- Approved as position V - 38 - 22 in September 2022
- This proposed sign is approved, but it's not yet installed. So it's not there yet
- The other related sign is an existing pull sign
- currently utilized by at home the existing pole sign is a lawful non-conforming sign a
- condition of the variance approval V -
- 38 - 22 requires that this sign be removed in the future when at home leaves their space
- So we're talking about these two signs
- This is a picture of the proposed
- Multi-tenant sign the design has not changed
- Since it was approved by the variance in 2022
- The sign location is adjacent to 3rd Street
- But on ground that it is quite at a quite lower grade than the roadway surface of the street here
- The sign location is between Outback Steakhouse and Chipotle to give you an idea
- So and this is the existing pole sign
- Viewed from the south near the front of the at-home store
- The location of the proposed new multi-tenant sign would be over on the left
- I sort of spliced it in there
- approximately
- The existing pole sign is non-conforming with current sign standards in the UDO because it has a
- pole sign
- That's a sign design that is no longer allowed for new signs anywhere in Bloomington and also
- because the height is taller than currently allowed
- There may also be other aspects that are non-conforming, but it's at least those two
- So the previous variance approval in September 2022 had two conditions number one
- remove the at-home sign when that tenant changes and number two variance is for the sign as
- proposed in the packet and
- Like all variances. There was a three-year time limitation on the approval in this case in order to
- utilize
- The variance approval the petitioner must obtain a sign permit for the approved sign before
- September 28th this year
- The petitioners come before the board now to request two modifications to the previous variance
- approval v-38 - 22 first
- they would like to remove condition one and
- then second they'd like to extend the time limitation by two years or
- Other time extension up to two years that the board determines is reasonable to grant
- When considering the petitioners requests it may be helpful to review the context of the board's
- deliberations in
- 2022 that led to the adopted conditions of approval. I want to offer two video clips from the
- previous hearing
- So, let's see if we can do this properly
- The first clip is a board member Burel discussing the practical difficulty that justifies allowing
- the new multi-tenant sign
- I think we have to focus on what what we heard tonight in terms of
- Because of the elevation of Third Street and when you drive you don't you don't see the business.
- The road is above
- You're seeing groups. You're not seeing what's behind
- That's that's that that's what I see as the peculiarity of this specific
- petition
- And the location is a prime location we are this is a prime commercial location
- and
- What they are saying is that the sign is essential for the businesses that are behind they're not
- seeing
- Okay, so that might have been a little hard to hear I'll just repeat what you said I
- Think we have to focus on what we've heard tonight in terms of
- Because the elevation of Third Street when you drive you don't see the businesses below the road is
- above the level
- You're seeing roofs. You're not seeing what's behind
- That's what I see is the peculiarity of this specific petition and the location is a prime location
- This is a prime commercial location and what they are saying is that the sign is essential for the
- businesses that are behind that are
- not being seen
- So the the other clip I'd like to show is from board member Ballard responding to condition number
- one
- This clip comes immediately after board president clapper made a motion that detailed alternate
- findings for approval and proposed
- condition number one
- After this clip is when the board actually voted and adopted condition number one
- But it was adopted as miss clapper had just proposed it. So
- So mr. Ballard is responding to to the condition that was eventually adopted. So let's let's hear
- what he has to say
- Really is, you know, just came in to be able to go back to at home right now understanding
- We still leave the button right go back to them saying you need to take this down to get a bigger
- sign out here
- You can't do that. We understand that but this being a condition of
- Okay, we're gonna go one step further and say they don't have to do it. You can get your sign out
- from a bird street
- But once that group is gone and that sign is going to that to me feels like a happy medium all
- Because because otherwise everybody's gonna dig in their heels and we're not gonna go back to
- You guys have gone through a lot understand, right?
- You want this dealt with you want a final answer on it
- I mean to me that's a very reasonable because they give the business exposure that you guys want
- your teams
- Which everybody wants good local businesses at the same time saying at home. What do you need to?
- You sign you're gonna get two big signs now. That's a plus for them
- So again, I'll just read that again because the audio might not have been great
- I mean he says I think that's a very fair offer really because you know, mr. Kamen to be able to go
- back to at home
- right now
- Understanding that leases are legally binding right go back to them saying you need to take this
- down to get a bigger sign out
- Here you can't do that. We understand that but this being a condition of okay
- We're going to go one step further and say you don't have to do it
- You can get your sign out front on 3rd Street, but once that group is gone, then that sign is gone,
- too
- That to me feels like a happy medium all because otherwise everybody's going to dig in their heels
- and we're not going to go back to
- You guys have gone through a lot. I understand right you want this dealt with you want a final
- answer to it
- I mean to me that's very reasonable because it gives the businesses exposure that you guys want for
- your tenants
- Which everybody wants which we do and the local businesses, but at the same time saying at home
- Why do you need two huge signs? You're going to get two big signs now. That's a plus for them
- I want to draw your attention to a few key words that mr. Ballard uses first toward the end
- He specifically calls out local businesses
- As among those who want more exposure and more signage
- This is who faces practical difficulties due to the peculiarities that miss Burel explained
- This is who the variance approval helps
- Earlier mr. Ballard refers to this approval and the condition is a final answer
- It was meant to resolve the issues and put an end to the petitioners difficult experiences up to
- that point
- He also refers to the condition as reasonable which gets close to the essence of what you need to
- decide this evening
- the UDO and state law
- Authorizes the board to quote impose reasonable conditions as a part of the board's approval
- Mr. Ballard is using the same language that the code and state law use reasonable
- Part of your decision this evening is to determine whether condition number one as adopted by the
- board is reasonable or not
- With that here are the findings that staff recommends
- For the first criterion that the approval will not be injurious to the community our proposed
- finding for the removal of condition
- Number one is that because the existing pole sign on the property is non-conforming with several
- different standards in the UDO
- Its continued existence perpetuates the unnecessary
- Proliferation of signs harms the aesthetic environment of the city and poses potential hazards to
- motorists and pedestrians resulting from sign clutter
- condition number one of the rains
- Approval enables a future time when the non-conforming sign will be removed thereby ending its injurious
- effect on the community
- Removing the condition perpetuates the injurious effects of the non-conforming sign
- by granting the original variance with condition number one the board recognized that approval with
- the condition was the minimum relief necessary to address the
- Practical difficulty without resulting an injury to the public health safety morals and general
- welfare of the community
- So the same criterion for the extension of time a recommended finding is that when granting the
- original variance the board found that
- Constructing the sign would not be injurious so long as the conditions of approval were met
- The proposed sign design and location remain the same as originally approved
- The board did not adopt any findings specific to any moment in time an extension of time would not
- be injurious
- So long as the conditions of approval are met
- so to the second
- Criterion that the approval will not substantially
- Adversely affect the use and value of surrounding properties our proposed findings are similar to
- the first
- For the
- For condition number one. It's the same just replacing
- injury to the community with
- adverse impacts on adjacent properties
- And by granting the original variance for condition number one the board recognized that approval
- with the condition was the minimum relief necessary
- Similarly with extension of time it's basically the same language
- When granting the original variance the board found that constructing the sign would not
- substantially
- Adversely affect adjacent properties so long as the conditions of approval were met the sign design
- and location haven't changed
- The board did not adopt any specific findings to any moment in time
- So an extension of time would not substantially adversely affect adjacent properties so long as the
- conditions of approval of approval are met
- onto the third
- criterion
- So that criterion requires practical difficulties in the use of the property that the practical
- difficulties are peculiar to the property and that
- That the request will relieve the practical difficulties
- Our proposed finding for the removal of condition number one is that the condition of approval does
- not result in practical difficulties
- When granting the original variance the board found that peculiarities of the property resulted in
- practical difficulties
- Related to signage and visibility for small tenant spaces in the Whitehall Plaza shopping center
- the rec
- Recognized practical difficulties do not apply to the same extent for regional and national brands
- operated by large businesses in the larger
- tenant spaces such as at home
- Because condition number one is only triggered once the current tenant leaves
- The condition does not pose any practical difficulty for the current tenant or for the property
- owner related to lease agreements with the current tenant
- Any future tenants of the space currently occupied by occupied by at home?
- Would be able to have signage on an existing multi tenant sign on the property on the proposed
- multi tenant sign allowed by the variance
- Approval or on future you do compliant signage on the I 69 frontage of the property
- Because condition number one is triggered by occupancy of the tenant space and not by any potential
- modification to the message or content of the sign
- Enforcement of the condition does not require anyone to review or even look at the content of the
- existing pole sign
- The condition is content neutral and is not inherently a violation of any constitutional, right?
- And then for our
- Proposed finding for the third criterion for the extension of time is the remaining validity period
- of the variance approval is more than four months
- Obtaining a signed permit within four months is not a practical difficulty
- To the extent that the time limitation of the variance approval poses a practical difficulty
- it would be a self-created difficulty because the petitioner could have initiated their request to
- modify the conditions of approval at
- Any time in the past two and a half years between the original variance approval and now
- Any delay since the original variance approval up to this point has been caused by the petitioners
- own actions
- Alleged construction delays due to pandemic related disruptions such as increased material costs
- and supply chain setbacks occurred prior
- To the original variance approval and relate to the validity period of a previous sign permit not
- the variance approval
- So our recommended findings are that removal of condition number one fails on all criteria
- we recommend upholding the condition is reasonable an
- Extension of time passes the first two criteria, but fails on the third
- based on the report and the written findings of fact the department recommends that the board adopt
- the proposed findings and deny both
- Requested modifications of variance approval v - 38 - 22. Thank you
- Thank you
- Any of the petitioners who are in attendance who intend to speak? Would you all please come forward
- so I can swear you and all at
- once
- please and
- Then we'll go about our business
- So we'll just do this in order go ahead and sign in give me your name then I'll swear you in and
- the next person will
- Sign in give me their name. I'll swear them in at such or until we're through that
- Once you sign in go ahead and state your name and state your name so I can swear you in sure Dan seer
- Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give Dan will be the truth the whole truth and
- nothing at the truth
- Yes, sir. Thank you
- Next Dave caiman and you affirm that the testimony you're about to get will be the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth
- I do. Thank you. Next
- Jeff Gould, please sign in. Okay
- And do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and
- nothing but the truth
- Yes, sir. All right, that gets that business out of the way now you have 20 minutes
- You may divide it however you'd like you have 20 minutes in total
- Whatever you don't use in this initial presentation will be reserved for you to address any other
- concerns before a vote is taken
- Okay. Thank you. Your time begins. Thank you
- Okay, wait a minute
- Okay
- And when ready state your name
- Eric Kamen Eric, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth
- Yes, okay. Very good first and you may begin tell you what I thought we were gonna be
- Have plenty of time, but we'll see how this goes. My name is Dan Sear. I'm with Paganelli Law Group
- representing the petitioner
- Wh Plaza LLC for the petition want to thank Gabriel Hambrough for working with us
- Clearly explaining the background in the history
- There's more history before that but I thought it was appropriate that he started with some clips
- of that last hearing and we appreciate the
- Board's review of everything we'll get right into it
- But I would welcome you to interrupt me with any questions
- You may have things that I want you to wait for the whole presentation to start asking a question
- I wasn't involved with the previous hearing
- but we did listen to the entire recording and
- We understand that they did add a condition at the very end of that deliberations before the vote,
- of course
- about removing the
- The at-home sign and so we think that is not a content neutral regulation
- It is saying that they're allowing government. The government is allowing speech by one specific
- tenant the at-home
- We want to continue to have that existing lawful
- Informing existing poll sign for at-home or whatever the successor tenant is that
- Sign is important for their business
- It would financially negatively impact them to take that down
- and so that's why we're not doing that or haven't done that and so we're challenging the
- The reasonableness of that condition
- I'm gonna briefly run through some of the check check boxes here because I want you to hear them
- from our perspective as well
- As far as why we want that
- first condition to remove that it's not injurious to the
- public health safety morals and general welfare the presence of both signs of freestanding tenant
- sign along 3rd Street and the approved sign and
- The existing pole sign do not create any identifiable hazard or injury
- These are stores that are set below the road grade any signage on I 69 would be invisible to motorists
- if it were complying with the
- Current UDO the existing pole sign is visible from I 69
- It's going to attract a different kind of customer than the signs that are on West 3rd Street
- Which are going to completely see be seen by different motorists
- We think that's a fair characterization and we do agree with some of Gabriel's presentation on
- those things
- but the the vital function of
- safely guiding informing the public about shopping that is the
- That is the purpose of this advertisement
- It is a commercial shopping center and so when we're thinking about largely the opposition seems to
- be driven by aesthetics
- I think it's really important to remember that the BZA doesn't ban all signage
- I think you find that context matters and that in the context of a shopping center with many other
- big-box stores
- That if there if you were going to allow a variance for signage
- We think this is the best place to do it, especially to allow us to continue to have an existing
- sign
- So the use and the value of the area adjacent to the property
- They're actually going to be negatively affected if we had to remove that sign the theory behind
- this
- I think you've heard it before is that anchor tenant is going to drive sales
- They're going to drive traffic to all of the smaller
- Tenants there and all of the neighbors are going to be commercial businesses restaurants that are
- going to be negatively impacted by that sign
- So small business tenants. I think that was heard by the previous BZA
- Which is probably why they justified allowing a new freestanding multi-tenant sign
- I want to point out in case it wasn't already clear to you that the
- Existing multi-tenant sign on 3rd Street
- Has about nine panels on it and there are many more tenants in that shopping mall on this side that
- do not have signs
- And so that is part of the motivation for getting this new freestanding sign by outback and Chipotle,
- which I think you can imagine
- May I take this time just ask you Gabriel to put up that PowerPoint. Thank you
- I forgot to ask earlier, but I think it's alright. So I just want you to see that there are
- You know there it's a pretty small
- Location for where the proposed multi-tenant sign is and we don't think that we have to relitigate
- that that was approved by the previous
- PCA but we were asking for you to remove that first condition that will really allow us to put that
- sign in
- Yeah, great, thank you and you can go to the next one
- Continue please. Okay. Thanks. Let's leave it here. You see this up here where the proposed sign
- There's a red text and an arrow on the left side that's pointing not to scale just trying to show
- you where I think it
- Would be if you were looking
- Looking toward across 3rd Street from the north side. The you can see the current
- Currently built multi-tenant sign. I'll slow down here for a minute. You can see it's about nine
- panels up there
- I think I counted and that is not all of the tenants
- So there's a lot of tenants that don't have any signs at all
- Okay, and then you can see the freestanding sign for Bob Evans the pole sign there
- And I think that's outback steakhouse has another pole sign there and then you can see the at-home
- sign
- But in terms of a concern about the over proliferation of signs, I realize that might be a
- subjective determination
- But we're looking at three pole signs in this area. It's fitting within the context of that
- shopping center
- I'm gonna jump back to some of the UDO criteria for a variance the strict enforcement of the
- existing condition
- gonna require a removal of that pole sign creates a hardship that wasn't we don't think it was
- fully envisioned by that board because it
- Was added kind of late in the process and it wasn't really represented by a full hearing
- the at-home sign is also physically separate and
- it provides a
- Specific purpose with visibility that the new sign can't replace like I was trying to say
- I'm not sure how clear less but that at-home sign is seen from my 69 and it's seen from
- Farther away then that multi tenant sign is going to be pretty small relatively and that's that's
- kind of the motivation mind
- Why they don't want to remove that at-home sign is because it serves an entirely different purpose
- And so there's not too much overlap there. We think
- The Joanne fabrics is a major tenant in the park in the parcel
- That has a prominent sign, but that space is going to be vacant due to their recent banker
- bankruptcy
- And so again why we're coming here for you is because we want the shopping center to thrive and so
- we need every advantage that
- We can give to them by giving them some signage with minimal impacts
- The modified variance that we're asking for would allow several tenants to utilize a shared sign on
- a single parcel
- Rather than each tenant trying to get individual signage all these outlets in the front if you
- could go to the next slide for me
- When you got a second
- So the out lots were parceled out you can kind of see how there's two red slots toward the top
- Those are part of the parcel and then the other ones are out lots that are that so that those don't
- allow us
- Usually the UDO would give you signage based on my limited understanding of it based on the number
- of road frontage
- The road frontage is pretty pretty limited to about a hundred feet. Okay, next slide, please
- Okay, the sign location
- it's
- It's and then I think you know where the at-home sign is
- Right down south of that star next slide, please
- Okay, the current variance approval. There are actually no minutes of that meeting. We went back
- There were no minutes that were ever created for that meeting in 2022
- There were also no written findings that we could find that the BSA had entered
- We probably would have seen that in front of you in your presentation if there were findings
- I just find that interesting. It's kind of a complicated presentation
- It does suggest possibly that some of these things weren't fully considered by the previous board
- because of this condition issue only
- So that's the substance of the previous approval next slide, please
- The approved sign design we're not asking for any changes to it
- That was the approved sign design on the left on the right that's in your packet very hard to see
- here
- But it does kind of show you what was going on is a little bit complicated
- So take ask questions, whatever you need next slide, please
- Okay, so I'm just gonna leave these slides up for a second just to speak
- But essentially if you were to agree with us on removing that first condition
- We really would need you to get an extension of time just to assure that we could
- Get the permitting done and the construction done. We don't think that's a whole lot to ask
- Although I do know that you you may need to get some variance criteria on that. We did just just to
- be fair
- We did think we need to ask for that and we there is some rules in your administrative
- Guidelines that allow you to to grant
- Grant an extension up to two years
- We don't think we need two years, but we would like to ask for an extension based on how it goes
- today
- So we submit that the extension of time is important
- I just want to before I go let somebody else talk
- I want to explain the distinct branding visibility function by the existing sign
- It has a strategic location orientation toward the highway. That's probably why I came out put it
- in there. It's important
- It's been a part of that shopping center. It's elevated in position to capture the attention of
- drivers
- Those who may not otherwise turn it to Western Street it acts as a regional beacon in that way
- It's the beginning of the first thing you might see of that shopping center from the highway
- Signaling the presence of a large format retail destination
- drawing customers who are unfamiliar with the area coming from outside of Bloomington or from in
- Bloomington and
- Contrast the multi-tenant sign which does serve a different purpose. It's lower
- primarily for visibility upwards West 3rd Street
- So we don't we're trying to explain why it's not clutter because it's those purposes don't cross
- over and the sign provides a complementary function
- So although the current existing pole sign advertises a single tenant they would
- you know, we'd like that to be another national anchor store and
- For whoever long at home is there they're doing well
- we want them to stay we can't take that pole sign down and
- Expect that then to continue to do well and nor can we fill that space
- It's gonna be a big empty space if we can't get somebody else in there is what our thinking is
- because we need that
- That's one of their important checkboxes if they if they're looking at different places and they
- want to have I don't want to believe that
- Believe at that point, but I think you know it is that if we want them to come here
- Then we have to kind of provide them some of these things such as signage
- So I'm gonna stop there. I would like to reserve the balance of my time
- Thank you for hearing from me and I'll invite up another one from the petitioner to speak. Thanks
- What's the time we have left for them, please
- Nine half minutes. Are you going to speak now? Okay, go ahead. We'll keep the clock running. They
- came
- Gabriel made a point that I want to clarify here and a picture
- I
- Want to catch them up on how we got there it started a long time ago
- Eric Grulick and Jackie scan and said we were not allowed to keep our pylon sign when can't Kmart
- left and
- They were adamant and then I had to get
- Philippa Guthrie who was legal
- counsel for the city to tell him
- Finally, I could finally got into a meeting and they told Eric and Jackie we do have the right to
- keep that sign
- Okay
- then
- For many months months and months and months before Cove it started
- We asked Eric and Jackie we had the right it was a
- PCD to have this multi-tenant sign. I said we have the right
- Eric and Jackie said no, you don't I said it's very clear. It's in the PCD here
- It is in black and black and white. No, you don't I said, yes, we do. I said, will you listen to my
- attorney? No, we won't
- Okay, so it went on and on and on finally. They were gonna cancel
- which they did expired the
- PCDs and the PUDs around town and I finally they finally get a hold of me said, oh you were right
- You do have the right to have that and we're gonna give it to you while while they're working
- remote
- We're crippled because of kovat
- Here your permit here it here it is right now and you got six months lots of luck
- So that's how we got got here. Okay now
- The merits I've already spoken about the merits and the merits is the last time they talked about
- sign clutter
- It's not there. We just took that photo. It's not shopped. It's not doctored up
- It's not there and this thing is expansive as it could be
- blocks and blocks of shopping center and
- Very few of the tenants and one last point that I want to make very few the tenants are on there a
- lot of the
- small tenants to the small business owners
- They don't have all the social media to direct you to where they're going and the national credit
- tenants
- You don't have signage. That's one of their slots that you can't fill you can't fill the slot
- They're not coming and now Joanne fabrics went BK
- Now they got to try to fill that spot. Okay, not the easiest things to do here. Okay, so
- Instead of overly signed it's under under signage and
- As Dan pointed out he made a great point the at-home sign. That's an i-69 sign
- the multi-tenant sign is where people on 3rd Street going east and west and
- Discover all the shops that are there. So I think
- To be fair
- And to make a wrong right that condition needs to be removed. Thank you
- And what's the time now
- Five and a half minutes, okay
- Will you be reserving the rest or will they be more?
- Sure, absolutely. Go ahead and start the clock, please
- Okay
- Yeah, don't worry. I'll be brief. I'm just echoing kind of the things Dave said the importance of a
- Having a as many pile on signs you can have I am I'm a partner with Dave on this property
- But I also own other shopping centers throughout the country. So for example in Hobart, Indiana
- You know, we have four pile on signs. It's a bigger center
- But it's it's so important because when you negotiate with the tenant, that's one of the key things
- they want
- they want to be on the pile on sign for
- Visibility because it's very important their business, you know
- Obviously these people have Joanne fabrics now vacant and I guarantee you that any any help they
- can get getting the right signage
- Is going to be very key because they sit down at the other end. So they need that exposure
- also
- You know, hopefully at home, you know, like hopefully at a home business
- Stays in business forever, but down the road. We don't know if it'll be one user like them or could
- be
- Two or three different users and so any pile on sign of that nature is very important
- And obviously the shops right now, I think are doing pretty well
- But again, I think you know for the businesses that just besides
- Social media, it's a very important
- Advertisement and presence. So I want to be brief, but hopefully you'll consider what we're trying
- to do here. Thank you very much
- Thank you
- Again the timing left, please. Oh
- There's more sorry, please continue
- The
- Clocks running so let me know I'll be real quick cool time starts
- Yeah, so just want to kind of go back off what these guys are saying
- I mean retail leasing it's it's tough, especially for an eighty six thousand square foot box
- There's you know this many users for you know, a giant box like this or a big big space and then
- you know for us to fill
- it
- Which is I think what the community would want, you know
- I think we look at the UDO and kind of be very precise on it
- But you know, does the community want a big?
- vacant building in the future and and we we did this with the former March on the east side where
- you know
- We had a lot of homeless people hanging out and even here behind the building
- We had a big homeless camp and I think when you look at it does the community want, you know a
- thriving retail
- Community and I think the answer is yes, and and I think you know the signage will help us be able
- to you know
- Maximize the the possibilities here and and if we don't have signage then unfortunately, you know
- our chances of you know
- Having good tenants are very you know go lower
- so we're asking you to help us out and you know try to make a you know good building for the
- community and
- That's I think the main goal of what everybody's trying to do is be good for the community. So that's
- what I got
- I
- 235 will hold the clock there for him, please
- All right at this point are there any board questions or comments before we go to public
- To one one for staff and one for the petitioner
- Coming back to being at that meeting on that board
- I think that was my first year at the BZA. Is this true? There's no minutes from that meeting
- that they're
- Assessing that is that is correct. There are no written minutes. We minutes we discovered that as
- we were preparing for this hearing
- We're in the process of creating the minutes from the from the recording
- so it was
- Unfortunate for the petitioner and staff to have to read through the whole or listen to the whole
- recording as opposed to just reading the minutes
- But we're working on working on that. Thank you
- Yeah, why are we hearing this two and a half years later?
- What why is it taking it this long to I thought this was a done deal
- Two and a half years ago, so we're circling back to this
- The question is why you had two and a half years to do this. Why are we hearing this now?
- Well, I think there might be one easy answer. I don't know if it's acceptable
- I know that you did put a lot of work in preparing for the last time
- This was heard this BZA put a lot of work in hearing these petitions tonight
- One reason is that we're allowed to under the procedures to ask for a relief from a variance
- and
- there was
- As far as we know that we asked that question when we work with planning before
- How in if we could file this variance and they said that we could file this application and so that's
- that's why we're here
- As far as why we didn't build it
- I I don't know that I could explain that other than that first condition was really not
- Okay for us because we don't want to give up what we're allowed to currently have
- I don't know that there are many folks with large signage opportunities
- Who would be willing to give them up for a small sign? That's gonna serve multi tenants. So I
- Don't know if that's the answer as far as why I didn't get filed right after or why we waited a
- year and a half
- But it was just a very difficult condition that that caused for us
- Okay, I appreciate that. I'd actually like to hear from Dave as well because I think this is a this
- is an efficiency question to me
- You guys are talking about efficiency. This seems
- Inefficient that we're we're sitting on this this long and now we have to go back to it
- So yeah, if you could just wait one thing that I did forget to say and I want to thank the BZA
- members for the oh
- To go off. Let's stay on the let's stay on our procedure, please
- Voted that I think I ended indicated that we couldn't move forward because I just can't give up
- that
- sign and I got up with the owners of the Whitehall Plaza who had changed the Whitehall Plaza
- owners changed and it's a
- Lot of chiefs a
- Lot of chiefs this guy's in charge that guy's in charge
- So I kept working through it and I said I like to do and I also thought think you can answer that
- question if
- There's a you can't go back for a certain period of time
- I think it's
- So many months. I don't I don't know what the answer but you can't immediately go back. So we lost
- some time there
- When the shopping center changed hands, we lost some time there and I said we really need to visit
- this and
- They the new owners who Daniel was
- representing
- They said they need signage for their tenants and then
- They don't have it. They need it. I said
- Okay, let's go another another round
- Could it have been brought sooner probably but I think the changeover of ownership had a lot to do
- with that
- So I hope that answers your question. Okay. Yeah, thank you
- Okay, why don't we do this then let's go to the public
- For comment before we have an additional discussion time for that
- Do we have anyone here in the chambers to like to discuss?
- or
- Put onto the record any comments about this petition, please
- Go ahead and sign in
- And as you're signing and I'll let everyone know you'll have five minutes to speak
- We'll take as many people as would like to address this
- after that it will be back to
- The
- petitioner to speak before we go to the board for action
- The state your name Tom Orman. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the
- truth the whole truth and nothing
- But the truth absolutely and you have five minutes. Yeah. Yeah. I operate a lot of real estate here
- in Bloomington, Indiana
- Speaking. Yep. Sorry. Is that better?
- Yeah
- anyway, I operate a lot of real estate here in Bloomington, Indiana and some of you're familiar
- with me, but I
- agree with the things that were saying signage is important for these tenants and if you ask me
- there's
- There's not enough signage. There's I don't know how many tenants. I think one of these petitioners
- should have
- Mentioned that without signage and you know for the older people
- Trying to find locations in these big shopping centers. I think signage is important
- I think it's important to the businesses like it's important to the older generation to find these
- locations
- Not like the younger generation who uses the Google Maps to get everywhere they go. So
- I'm in support of
- the petitioner, I think it's well
- needed and documented and it makes sense that
- I've got I've got this similar situation on 3rd Street and I have to create a list of tenants and I'm
- like
- Well, if they move out I'll give you a signage, you know
- And that's really hard to manage because then the tenants are thinking, you know
- The ones who's been there longer have has the signs, you know
- And it's really kind of unfair when you're you're everybody wants a sign
- Everybody wants to be recognized on 3rd Street and I think that's very important for business in
- our community
- So that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time
- Thank you
- Anyone else in chambers who'd like to speak to this petition?
- Is there anyone online? If so, please raise your hand. It looks like there's two. Is that what I'm
- reading correctly?
- Two comments from before it was someone asking about when another petition would come up
- So if you are online and you would like to speak you can use the raise hand function or you can
- send a chat
- Indicating that you would like to speak
- Sure sure it's that's unusual once someone steps away, but please go ahead now, please go ahead
- That's all right. I apologize for that sir. Never been in never been in front of the city here
- First of all, my name is Greg Adams
- I'm the store director of fresh time on the west side of Bloomington
- You test me you're about to give me the truth old truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. Okay,
- good
- Just myself. I'm I run the fresh time on the west side. Like I said, I've been in the grocery
- business for 34 years
- Most of them probably 30 of the 34 is where I've been in with management a lot of those years here
- and Bloomington like with
- Marsh previously before they went under so to myself and a lot of you know, a lot of my colleagues
- It's important to have a signage, you know, I've been in some businesses where the sign has been
- destroyed
- Because of storms or other things obviously and you know
- You notice those type of things where the signage is not available for a lot of business of people
- to notice you
- When you're just driving down 3rd Street, we got some businesses where I'm located over there that
- don't have signage right now
- And and the only way that they get recognized is by word-of-mouth or they're going on Facebook or
- things like that
- So it's important for the signage to be available for all our local businesses as many as we can
- I'm not saying that you know, it makes or breaks every business
- But it definitely helps to have the the signage up for a lot of the smaller businesses and the
- shopping plazas is near myself
- And I would think it would help other ones in the community
- So it's really all that I have to say except I think it's worked for work for the businesses
- I've been involved with in the past. Thank you. Thank you
- Okay, so before I do go on to the next next item any other public comment
- pause for a moment
- Okay, good with that
- We will go to before we go to the board for action
- There's two and a half minutes left for the petitioner. That's a good time to address that point.
- You have two and a half minutes
- Thank you. I this is very very brief. I want to thank the board BZA people for approving the
- Academy Sports Store. We did a
- two variances
- It's a first-class
- Operation, I promise you that I do a first-class job there. It is first-class. I hope you've had
- time to go into it and
- See, but we did a lot of work a lot of quality work and I
- Truly appreciate it, you know
- Everything that the BZA did it was a nail-biter and all the stories that I told you about
- That this can go up or down
- everything was true and
- At the last minute it was like a pacer
- three-point shot that they called the two-point shot last night or whenever it was but we but we
- won
- That one I appreciate it and this one just from my heart
- I wish everybody would focus on that aerial view. There's not a proliferation of science
- It's just not there and a multi-tenant sign is going to do so many of these tenants
- Good because they need
- Signage, especially the small tenants really needed and they're just not on the multi-tenant sign
- that's there now
- Thank you
- Could please note for the minutes that Gina Bradford is
- On the zoom I think and that she is a representative for WH Plaza LLC
- Just wanted to have that mentioned. I forgot to mention it earlier. Are there any questions?
- If so, we'll ask you at that time. You have 50 seconds left if you have any other comments
- Okay, all right, thank you for that it'll come back to the board for comments questions to either
- petitioner or the staff
- Before any action is taken
- Do we have any?
- Comments or questions
- I'll start with one. I'll go to the city first
- The question to the city is if I remember correctly because I I remember that meeting I was there
- There was some issue about along that third Street corridor there
- Who owns actually?
- Is there multiple ownership on that strip mall property that faces the road or is that was single
- owner?
- Understanding you correctly along the south side of Thursday. Let's go from from the exit to the
- interstate to
- the corner
- That is the liberty right next to bichettos along that corridor there
- I thought that when we went through this that there was that there was some
- Distribution of the ownership along that corridor about who owns exactly what property and what
- signage went on each property and things like that
- Yeah, the short version of it is that?
- The along 3rd Street there are multiple
- Separately owned properties. So so here in this image up there now, would you actually zoom in a
- tiny bit?
- So you can a couple of you weren't on the board at that point
- But I'm talking about right across the top along 3rd Street, right?
- Yeah, there was some discussion about who owns what and who gets to have signs so that the the the
- general
- Version of the answer is each of those red boxes that you see along there are separate
- Parcels under separate ownership that have separate allowances for signs. So
- You know next to the proposed multi-tenant sign that was approved by the variance before
- Chipotle and outback steakhouse. Those are different ownership from each other and different from
- the petitioners
- They can have signage. In fact, Chipotle is
- Either just put up a new sign or but the point being that each one of those has their own signage
- Correct and Bob Evans is separate
- Correct from the petitioner and all the way down as you go across there now what we provided I
- believe and again
- I'm asking you because it was three years ago
- That little section where we allowed for that sign to be put on third Street is between those two
- properties, correct?
- Yes, okay, and that was essentially giving them third Street frontage of a sign
- For their property that before they had none
- They always had frontage. They are that frontage, but they weren't using it
- They would they didn't have a sign in that frontage, right?
- But in order to put a sign there they needed to come to us because they already had a sign
- On their property elsewhere. Yes, and that other sign if I remember correctly is the one that they're
- talking about the large pull sign
- that you can see from 69 that's on the
- That's on the eastern portion of the problem. There's another sign that hasn't come up yet tonight
- closer to the entrance
- so right
- Miss Scanlon has her mouse around it if you can see it tiny up there
- So counting from the right we have Chipotle
- Okay, where the proposed sign is out back and then Bob Evans and then you see the entrance drive
- This the there is an existing multi-tenant sign on the petitioner's property that is there. So the
- the shopping center
- Currently has a multi-tenant sign there that some of their tenants have space on other tenants don't
- have space in that sign
- there's also the at home that the existing pole sign right that has at home and I that maybe
- All of this Jackie is that right there? Is that the sign here in the front far, right?
- Is is that what the at home is at the top of that?
- They have a sign there then they want to put that other sign has not been built yet the one on
- third the one that we
- Provided the variance for and then they have the pole sign. Alright, so I just want to make sure I
- was I was remembering on it
- Thank you, Jackie
- that there was all this issue that their sign sign signs for each of those properties available,
- etc and
- If I remember correctly to refresh those not here is part of what we had agreed to was essentially
- a sign swap down the road
- Put this up but down the road if at home leaves down goes that sign to get rid of that big pole
- sign
- So it comes into compliance. So essentially it was like a swap. We'll give you 3rd Street take away
- 69
- That's kind of how I remember it
- I don't know if you remember it Tim
- But it was I know that there was a lot of arguments about where to put signs were not to put signs
- There was a lot of arguments about who owned what property etc
- And this battle has been going on for a long long time and we felt that we put it the rest which is
- I think
- Your comment so that was why I wanted to clarify that with the city
- The next question was what's changed and you asked that question essentially Tim and that was what's
- changed
- Why did it take so long? Why did you come back? And I believe that you've answered that in terms of
- process
- Okay
- The other thing though is I would love it
- If you want to grab that sign that you're talking about that aerial and turn around and show it to
- folks
- I did have a comment about that sign
- Now I'm gonna use a little bit of humor. So just bear with me here. Go ahead and let people see it
- I'm going to venture a guess that 100 motorist or pedestrians that walk along this area never see
- this property from 400 feet up
- So I do appreciate that comment about it doesn't look like sign clud being cluttered, you know
- aerial
- But nobody that we're talking about is gonna see that property from that side
- They're gonna see it from that side, which is the next one
- So I did want to say it's kind of a they're gonna see it from the ground
- They're not gonna see it from 400 feet up. So I did want to just point out it may not look like
- I wanted to address your point that it's not sign clutter. It's not from 400 feet up. We're talking
- about that sign
- From the ground that's clutter
- I'm saying there it is because that's where most people see it from so I did want to just address
- your comment because
- You a couple of times you mentioned that this aerial shows that there's no clutter
- People don't see that
- Streetscape from that angle that's 400 feet in the air. They see it from that angle and that's the
- clutter that we're talking about
- So I wanted to just address that point. This is what we're talking about. Here's this is the
- clutter
- Yeah, I see one two three four or five signs so
- There's clutter here, which is the area we're talking about so I just just want to make a point
- there, okay
- I
- Brought the sign there's clutter here, and I did want to just make that point
- It's a spurious argument to show me something 400 feet up and say there's no clutter
- Yeah, I just wanted to make it I know I just want to make sure it's clear that you understand why I
- say there is clutter
- Okay, you've been you've been in front of us enough that you know so like I said
- It's a little bit of humor
- But the point being that I do want people to focus on this is what we see on a daily basis
- And that's what we're trying to address so it's a it's a serious underlying point
- Which is that's what we're trying to address here on the far, right?
- Sure, yeah
- Yeah, I'll look at it going as well
- I
- Say that into the mic I see where you're talking about saying into the mic so we have it on record,
- please
- The B tenants which is the inline tenants I'd venture to say
- Two thirds your bedroom don't have any signage on third Street at least that many I would venture
- to say so
- When when you're talking about Bob Evans, yeah, they're an out parcel when you're talking about
- Hardee's
- Yeah, they were not parcel Chipotle. Yeah, they were not parcel these guys
- Shows
- that where they're at they are they are not on third Street and
- signs are important to most of these signs this multi-tenant sign and
- Daniel's client
- Tell you what are gonna go to the B tenants that have nothing now
- So the vibrancy of a three big city block
- Shopping center is important not just today at homes there. I'm doing okay
- They got a okay. I get your I get your point. So I don't want to belabor that
- I just the other thing is I don't think that you're gonna be able to fit all of the B tenants on
- the sign that you're
- You'll get more but you're not getting them all so someone will be left out
- Sure, you can you can certainly petition for that, of course, we love seeing you here
- Then I do want to go on to I'm not sure who from the petitioner can address this
- but is there anything stopping you from getting the the
- sign permit now
- Now specifically what would be preventing you thank you, I think the answer to your question was in
- the notice of approval which is
- We have to remove the existing pole sign when that tenant changes once you get the sign permit
- Now what I'm asking is right now you have until August I believe it is
- Under the current variance to get your sign permit, right?
- All right, if they get the sign permit
- Does that mean the other sign has to come down?
- when that
- When that not at that time only when at home changes hands
- It goes into a different business correct. So with that understanding is there anything preventing
- you from getting the sign permit now?
- Yes
- we don't want to
- Remove something that we are allowed to have as an existing non-conforming pole sign did I'm sorry
- Just did I misunderstand the city? Are they allowed to keep that sign so long as that home is in
- that business?
- Correct even with the sign permit
- Correct. Okay, what's preventing you from getting your sign permit then? I think you
- Already know the answer to the question unless I'm misunderstanding. We don't want to violate an
- ordinance
- By putting the sign up now
- And then whenever at home leaves we would have we will be in violation. So we don't want to do that
- Okay
- So the reason I'm asking I want to make sure
- That we're all clear because the reason I'm asking is there's no basis to give you an extension
- When you're able to get the sign permit
- So there's there's no hardship other than you disagree with the outcome of you would have to give
- up that sign down the road
- if that home leaves which was a
- Variance that was granted three years ago
- But the condition hasn't been removed yet, so we don't know when you're gonna make that decision
- We would just want to if you were going to grant that variance
- We just think it would be reasonable to ask you to give us a reasonable amount of time
- We don't think we need up to two years as I said, but just a little bit of time
- If you think a lesser amount of time is reasonable, we're not going to argue with that
- But we're not going to apply for that permit if that condition is a part of it
- We don't want to waste anybody's time because we're not going to build that stuff. Okay
- You made that you've made that very clear that answers my question. Okay. Thank you
- This is for the staff. I just want to make sure I fully appreciate the previous agreement. I think
- I do but essentially
- New sign goes up
- Pull sign stays
- The condition is that if in the future
- the at-home space is
- Leased to new tenant
- The new tenant doesn't get the benefit of the pull sign because it has to come down. Is that
- correct?
- and so really what the petitioners argument is
- These are two different thing. It's like I
- Mean I would look at it this way. I
- Mean I can fully appreciate that you're trying to mitigate potential risk or at least to mitigate
- Issues should you have to?
- Seek a new tenant
- I'm
- Not your lawyer
- But I would think that
- That would be appropriate time to talk about changes because it seems like the benefit of the new
- pole sign or the monument sign now
- Is fairly significant?
- for your other tenants
- so I'm
- the other comment I
- went around in
- 2000 when this zoning ordinance was adopted
- but what kind of strikes me about it is the
- You know, we lump all retail
- into employment zones and
- I don't know if that's standard practice and in the industry now
- But my head when I think employment zones, I don't think
- major commercial
- retail sites and all the illustrations that are in the UDO
- For all the different zones have a very standard kind of look-and-feel
- into the design
- considerations and
- none of them
- really reflect a
- very legitimate
- business use in our community of these larger sale scale commercial areas and
- I don't know why
- There's our ordinance was written the way it is but it just seems odd that
- there's no reflection no language that really reflects the reality of
- large commercial retail sites
- Because I would think we would want to lay out some clear guidance on what we want
- in areas that are
- radically different uses
- Then quote-unquote employment properties. I would say the other observation
- Unless I missed it
- There's really no reflection in our zoning ordinance a UDO of the reality of I 69
- And I don't know when it was finished through. I don't remember when it was finished the
- construction through
- Bloomington, but that just seems like a huge oversight that we're not really thinking about
- that massively important
- valuable piece of infrastructure and
- You know, we don't really we treat every corridor as if it's the same and I would argue that I 69
- is quite different than
- You know each third street. So anyway, those are just comments
- I though the other comment is that you know, the BZA is always stuck in these weird positions where
- The code is code, you know, and we're kind of it is what it is
- We don't get to rewrite it even if I have, you know strong feelings about deficiencies
- so I just want to couch any future actions based on what our
- Constraints are interpreted in terms of interpreting the code
- Yeah, and I think that's kind of where that question about what's stopping from getting the sign
- permit because the reality is
- You know, you have the ability right now to maximize what's at your disposal based on what we've
- already granted
- But it doesn't appear that it's been that urgent to you
- if it was really that important to the businesses, I would think that you would have built it and
- Promoted them. It sounds to me like it's it's that's not the primary reason in your mind
- It's it's holding on to both signs. It's not about we should do this for the business
- I want to restate that because if it was important to promote those businesses that other sign
- would have been built and those other
- Businesses would have been promoted for three years. That was the whole point
- Originally when we heard that petition was we need to get our B businesses the smaller businesses
- out there on 3rd Street
- They don't need a big pole sign on 69. They need promoted
- it's hard for me to say that that's what this is really all about when there's been three years
- that have passed and
- It's clearly not what this is about or else you'd bite the bullet
- You would have built the sign and then come back and fought the pole going away when you you know
- If you would lose at home
- If the businesses are really that important that sign would have been built
- In my opinion, I'm stating you my opinion. It that's
- That's doesn't make sense within your argument. Yeah, absolutely because I'm addressing you on that
- That they're different ownership of the two parcels within the not out lots
- I guess backlots so at home has one property owner. That's Bryan rental. That's where the sign is
- where we're asking
- WH Plaza owns the other side which one of them changed hands the other the east the west side
- So this where this sign is the smaller tenants there. He's letting
- Well idea would be that he would let them put science smaller tenant signage on the multi tenant
- sign and
- Our theory and it may be rejected. I understand but
- Losing the at-home sign in order to put in the multi tenant sign
- We kind of think that's a huge negative well because it's gonna lose right and that's exactly what
- I was asked or stating was
- At home is still there. It's in business and it has been for three years
- and if you've owned that property and it hasn't changed hands for that sign and it really was
- important to you to make sure that
- the entire strip mall that that area of businesses I don't like to call strip mall but that
- business of
- Strip of businesses was really that important that sign would have been built in those guys would
- have been promoted
- That sign that property didn't change hands that that sign could have been built in that could have
- promoted those businesses. Okay. Thank you
- Yeah, sure. Of course. I actually the time line is compressed a little bit more than what you think
- because I talked to you Jackie
- Last year and told her that we were going to be coming forth with this. So let's compress it
- Okay, two years. There you go. Sure. We can use two years. That's 24 months of no signage. Yeah
- To mr. Fernandez's point
- He said and to your point and you said well, why don't you come back when the at-home thing?
- Changes very reasonable to ask. Okay, the the simple answer is every time I
- can't think of a time that it hasn't been the case, but every time I
- come to
- Eric and Jackie and say here's what I want to do. They're gonna
- Recommend denial denial denial. So you got your back up against the wall
- Already and we got an eighty seven thousand
- square foot building that I operate there the at-home store and
- It's risky business to put my faith and trust into Eric Grulick and Jackie Scanning
- It would be but let me ask you this when we were you brought up earlier the idea of the action
- sports
- And I think you were up for denial you brought up moments ago the action sports issue
- And I think you were up for denial on that and I believe the board the VCA worked with you at
- length
- you know they did and I was and when I told you about the timing issue that we had and
- Staff said that they thought it was making that up. I've got it in writing. You're welcome to see
- it
- I did not make it up. We were this close to not getting that deal done and they fought us tooth and
- nail
- It's risky now my alternative just just so you know, let's say it would have been denied and let's
- say
- Planning would have gotten their way and tried to stop the project and it didn't go through
- Okay, if you remember I had Kroger still guaranteeing that lease for years
- Even empty they that was always least so I was always getting funded. That's a big
- difference between here and
- What we have
- Currently at home currently has a lease and they're currently doing business. That's great
- All right, and I was just making a point of the comment you made about the
- Jackie and and whomever else you were talking to we're saying no
- I mean they are giving you my understanding is they're giving you the answers based on the udl and
- then you ask for a variance you
- Come to us and we worked with you on that and I'm saying the very same thing at this point
- For the for edification of whatever motion we come to which is there's nothing to stop you from
- coming back
- even if they say no to you you have the right to to petition it and bring it before the board of
- zoning appeals for
- That the simple request of asking to maintain that pole sign. All right
- So right now what we're talking about here with this at-home sign is you've had
- two years
- Practically three years of time has changed and I my point is if it was really that important for
- the businesses
- That sign would have been built and they would have been promoted
- So I don't buy that and I don't buy the fact that there's no clutter and I remember the meeting
- that we had which was
- We'll give you that for now and we'll let you keep the poll
- Sign for now, but when they leave that sign goes and that was all what we had agreed to and now we're
- back here again
- Discussing it there because I told the the neighbors who I'm working with now
- I can't live with that condition. So I will not move forward. It's me
- Okay, it's not them. It's me you guys know, but I can't it's too risky
- It's you know that big of a retail building. It's just too risky for me to put myself at the mercy
- of
- Planning and mercy of BCH just to be clear. The pole sign is more important to you than the small
- third Street sign
- We're here because we need both
- The for the vibrancy of the center just I've been in the retail development world for many many
- years
- It's very important. Both of them are very important
- So by saying well, which one is more important in try to weigh it and try to balance it. That's not
- really really fair
- They're both important. So I don't want to give up one say, oh, yeah, let's sacrifice this to get
- this
- It's not that case. Okay. Well, I've made my point which is if it was really both important
- Then the other sign would have been built two years ago. So that was that's my only point
- So that's the comment you've made. You've made your point clear. Okay. Thank you any other comments
- I'm an agreement with Joe and I think
- He's right and I think that was part of when you guys came two and a half years ago
- You you were advocating for the businesses. That was your standpoint
- Then then you should have put it up and then you should come to us
- when
- That group is getting ready to leave at home getting ready to leave
- Yeah, I mean you can you can state risk every every developer has some risk when it comes to going
- through planning as well
- You guys are be a bigger group. There's other groups that come through they have their backs
- against the wall as well
- But I feel like I'm backing Joe in this because I'm in agreement with him that I think the sign
- should have gone up
- I was actually really shocked when I opened this and saw this again
- It could have gone up and then you would have had two years of advertising for those businesses
- helping them out which was
- Really where you were arguing for and then you could have come probably five years from now to deal
- with the at home
- So it's it's a little frustrating that we're back to this and that we're not really standing behind
- what I thought you guys
- were trying to do
- Five years, I mean
- This whole idea of not being able to bring it back
- The to BZA for this pulver that could change in five years. So that's a good point. So
- Yeah at the time just to clarify
- When you propose or one of the whoever proposed to add the condition?
- I don't know if you remember what I said at the time, but I believe it was something to the effect
- I'd rather eat broken glass than to
- Take down that
- Pylon sign it just it's just a bad
- Situation. I don't want to get in my hands and knees and beg for that sign
- And if you want to look one step further just one thing more that I want Joe to consider
- Intent to consider him everybody else to consider
- Why am I here? I
- Own the at-home store. I don't own the beach stores. I'm sorry. I don't know the inline stores
- I only have one store there the at-home store. I've got plenty of signage
- I own the property where the multi-tenant sign is now and I'll I
- Can put you know, you know anything can happen. Okay
- But the vibrancy of the Whitehall Plaza Center is important
- For me it's very important that they
- Stay vibrant
- They do well and the tenants do well. So
- Most of why we're here is for the benefit of his client. Not me
- Not me just so, you know, I just wanted you to consider that that I'm actually trying to be the
- nice guy here
- saying that
- It'll be put on my piece of property here for the benefit for the most part of
- His clients tenants, so I'm actually trying to be a good guy here. That's not always the case
- But this time it is the case. Okay, so I hope that that
- kind of
- Well, I would disagree. You're always quite nice. I'm always quite nice
- Quite nice quite nice. Okay, I got it
- So if let's for the pole sign
- Just set that aside for a second for the other sign to list the other businesses if you
- If you were not awarded the first
- the the pole sign
- Would you still have interest in the extension for the second sign?
- Meaning or is this all or nothing?
- I'm trying to get on if we gave you an extension to do the multi-business sign. How long would you
- need?
- Because two years seems
- But you could give us ten years and if you keep that first condition we're saying that's that multi-tenant
- sign won't get built because
- important that pile of sign is
- Okay, so I just want to repeat so if you do if you do not get the pole sign
- You're refusing to put up another sign to promote
- Businesses within the area. Is that correct? I think six months. I don't want to speak for
- I think any six months we would start as soon as we could but it it's all going to be six months
- I think is reasonable. It's a little tight
- And that's only if you get condition one
- yeah, without without the
- Without alleviating my risk of condition one. It's not going up the same thing that I said at the
- last BCA
- It's not going up and I want to compress Joe one more time. We're at two years now
- Or a little over two, but there's a time limit Gabriel might know between
- When you have a BCA and when you can bring it back. I don't know what that is. So
- It's six months. Okay. So now we're at less than two years. I just want to do it to shave for you
- with you
- Okay
- And my I'm sorry a third question
- Can you elaborate on the lease terms with at home? Is it renewal like five years seven years?
- When is there I guess I?
- Pardon, it's a confidential lease, but in my opinion
- It wouldn't matter if it's very short or if it was very long I
- Just there's no reason for me to risk that pylon signed we almost lost it because
- Eric and Jackie wouldn't give us a permit for at home until I had
- Because he said the pylon sign and he's here. He can correct me if he thinks I'm wrong
- He said we're not allowed to have that and he wants that out and he said
- some other things that I didn't
- think but
- Right. No, but no, but our permit that goes back to what you were saying come back to you
- Well, all of a sudden we have a tenant which we did all the sudden we say here
- We want to build this and all of a sudden planning says
- Even though it's there and we had the right to have that sign
- If that sign doesn't come down you are not getting a building permit. That's risky
- That is risky as it could be. Okay, and that happened
- So he can that we got a record shows shows that
- Then on the code so you've got a non-conforming sign
- Does conformance get triggered
- By a change of use I no longer a large retailer or is it the change of the business?
- There
- Changing the business does not affect
- Changing the business changing the what's on the sign do not affect
- Do not require to come into conformance at all. So absent the condition that was adopted in
- 2022
- So if at home went away tomorrow and it was replaced by
- Acme retail
- They don't have to get rid of the pulse sign. I
- Mean yes because of variance
- Outside of this
- Right, but John at the time he said I have to take the pole sign down so the answer to your
- question
- He's correct. Now, he wasn't correct when we were signing at home because he said that signs got to
- come down
- okay, what I think is some of the under I'm not a
- Mind reader, but I mean, I think I'm what I'm trying to get
- Underneath the surface here is that you want to make darn sure that if that home's not there and
- you have to lease it to another
- Retailer you want to still have that sign and if that means giving up a monument
- for your be
- retailers
- His be your be rose hose. You're fine with that. I'm not saying, you know, it's ideal. I'm just
- saying that's kind of the reality
- That's how it has to be. Yeah, I hear
- If I understood to I'm gonna paraphrase this but the that's what they're saying is that's what hasn't
- been built
- One of the things that was discussed last time that hasn't really been brought up and that was that
- their unit that they own
- So the other side could be split up. So, you know, they made spoke quite a bit about
- You know large retail and how retail is changing and once at home leaves
- will they be able to find a bigger tenant because initially they wanted a large sign and
- Multi-tenant on there and that's why and this used to be part of a PUD
- So we had to do a lot. This has been going on for a very long time
- so part of what was discussed by the BZA at that time was if we give you the multi-tenant center
- and
- Then the at-home one has to come down and then you have to convert yours into multi tenants now
- you'll be able to use this sign where you wouldn't be able to use your existing sign to
- Advertise all of those businesses and that was in part of the discussion as well
- All right, so
- No, no, not unless a question is posed and the question has been asked and answered. Thank you
- That were passed questions come here to there
- Sorry, that's I'm sorry. That's just where we are in the process right now. Sorry
- We are at the board now for action and we've had
- Discussion now what we could do at this point is we could take a motion
- And we could have continued discussion on that or we can take a vote either way
- Are we at a point with the board that we have a motion to put in front of the board for
- consideration?
- Sure
- Based on the report and written findings of fact
- Pose that we
- recommend that the BZA
- Adopt adopt the proposed findings and denied
- the both requested modifications of variance approval v 38 22
- Second okay, so I have a motion in a second now with that in front of the board now just to be
- clear
- When when this motion is called a vote of yes means to deny a vote of no means
- That you do not agree with the motion to deny. Okay. All right now
- Now it's back to the board though before
- Anyone calls the question any other discussion thoughts comments that you'd like to put on to the
- record before we move forward. I
- Don't think there's a strong enough argument here I look across the street and you've got Lowe's
- that has a building that's 50,000 square feet larger and
- They're on a multi-tenant sign. I think what you guys presented was a very nice well-done sign that
- should be up there
- But I also think I find it hard to believe that a sign off of 69 is driving so much traffic
- To affect these this business when it's this large of a business
- It doesn't it doesn't affect Lowe's people know Lowe's people know at home. So I just feel like
- Getting past the fact that we're here again. I
- Don't think it's a strong enough
- Argument for you can get this done move on and then as Joe said you could come back around if
- necessary
- I
- Appreciate that and I have two comments about that, which is I think that it's it's it is
- Difficult for a business like at home and it's also then as difficult for these new car dealerships
- that are just up the road
- You have anymore I think has the Honda Hyundai and they've all been asked to move out
- Move out to the interstate so that they have higher visibility
- However, what do they not get when they they don't get any signage like that?
- It's on the side of their business within the regulations of the UDO
- So that's one thing so I do think it's I do think people can see it from the roadway
- But it is more difficult than having a pull sign and I think that that's that's correct just to
- make that statement
- It is more difficult if that sign is not there. It's easier to see because it's the only one that's
- sticking up
- So that's part of it. The other one though is what John's saying, which is you know, we have
- restrictions based on the UDO
- We have no we have no valid reason for
- Changing that previous variance because we granted the variance for the reasons that were presented
- to us
- Nothing really is substantially changed at home still has signage on they have signage on 3rd
- Street
- It's on that sign right there
- And in addition to that they have the bonus of the pull sign still being there. So
- Up until such a time as at home goes away if it ever does
- That's the only time that that sign goes away. So those are my two comments
- I'm in agreement with where you're going with that 10 is it's difficult to make a decision
- to
- To approve this variance
- Any other comments
- If the I would I would put the comment that if a short extension is needed if there if there is
- Intercipiting the sign the multi-tenant sign up that I would be willing to give a slight extension
- but it doesn't sound like that's the case but they can't put the sign up all they have to do is get
- their sign permit and
- then build it so the the extension will not change that fact and
- Three years was a long time or two or a year or a year and a half
- All of those were plenty of time. So
- So but I agree with Tim. I think it's his comments. I think are are dead on, you know
- This is what we're faced with and it's it's difficult to make any other decision at this point
- Right that we can write that down put it in the record
- Group 10 any other any other comments? All right in that case, I'll call the question
- Ballard yes Fernandez. Yes, Casinco. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes, that's a 4-0 denial of the request
- We will move to V - 17 - 25 at first I need a two-minute break to go to the bathroom, please
- And we're back thank you for that brief
- Lesson brief break
- John's always right. All right. It's time for V - 17 - 25 Eric. I can have a staff report, please
- Thank you, this is a request for Cornerstone Church for a property at 2655 South Adams Street
- The petitioners are here tonight to request variances from front parking setback standards
- Required electric vehicle charging stations and buffer yard
- Landscaping standards to allow for the expansion of a parking area for the use place of worship in
- the mixed-use institutional zoning district
- So this property as I mentioned his own mixed-use institutional and has been developed with a
- church
- surrounding land uses to the west include
- Attached single-family the Summit Ridge neighborhood slightly to the southwest you have apartments
- multi-family residential
- Into the east you have single-family residential
- Within Sunflower Gardens and to the north you have a mix of mixed-use institutional with summit
- school and some single-family to the north
- as well
- So the site as I mentioned has been developed with a church with the parking area on the west and
- east sides and north side
- The building has been located somewhat centered in the property and as you can see
- The property is very long from north to south and is a corner lot located at the southeast corner
- of countryside and Adams Street
- The petitioner would like to expand the parking area and add approximately 70
- So parking spaces on the site to expand the existing 89
- To provide for a total of a hundred and fifty four parking spaces on the site
- This would include a new drive cut along Adams Street
- The location of the drive cut meets all of our requirements and is not a component of the variance
- So the variances that are being requested or relation are related to the front parking setback
- So the UDO UDO does not allow parking within 20 feet at the front of the building
- As I mentioned with the location of the building and on a corner lot
- No parking would be allowed on the north side of the building since that is between the building
- and countryside lane
- And then the 20 foot setback would also severely restrict the property as well in terms of where
- any additional parking could be
- installed
- With the expansion of the parking that is an expansion of the use and does trigger the limited
- compliance standards of the UDO
- That would involve new landscaping throughout the property as shown here
- installation of islands
- Through the property as well
- It's also because there are more than 50 parking spaces requires the installation of electric
- vehicle charging stations as well as bike rack
- And then also a buffer yard is required to the east
- Since this use here is mixed-use institutional or the zoning is mixed-use institutional and the
- zoning to the east is single-family
- Residential so a type 3 buffer yard is required along the entire east property line
- So as you can see here to the east the property is very long. It's between 900 feet long
- So that would require a type 3 buffer yard along that entire 900 feet
- So that buffer yard requires a certain mix of deciduous
- Evergreen and small medium trees along that area and obviously the intent of that buffer yard is to
- mitigate the visual
- impacts and sound impacts from
- More intensive uses from less intensive uses. So as I mentioned certainly there are single-family
- to the east of this
- And as you look at the site here from Sunflower Gardens, you can see the church in the parking lot
- in the background
- It's on a level with those single-family residences. So certainly the presence of the buffer yard
- does play a role
- In buffering this use from those residences
- Even though there will be landscaping installed around the parking area that doesn't necessarily
- cover all of the area and doesn't really
- Buffer the entire property from those uses having that landscaping up against the single-family
- does have a lot more benefit
- To those to those adjacent properties
- So as I mentioned the petitioner is requesting three variances. One of those is from the parking
- setback standards
- To allow parking within that 20-foot setback
- we did find that the granting of that variance would not be
- Injurious to the public health safety or moral morals or general welfare the parking area will meet
- all landscaping standards
- In regards to the variance request from the electric vehicle charging station
- You know one of the reasons for requiring electric vehicle charging station was to certainly be a
- lot more progressive
- In the zoning code as we look to encourage different forms of transportation and certainly
- different modes of using vehicles
- the presence of electric vehicle charging stations does several things certainly one of those it
- provides a service to
- The people that are at a facility, but also it raises general community awareness that there is
- Availability these electrical vehicle charging stations as they go to place to place
- So we did find that there would be injury to the public health or safety or morals or general
- welfare because this particular
- Requirement was put in very specifically to help
- improve the community as a whole
- So requiring these around the community as are required does does have a lot of benefit
- In regards to the buffer yard landscaping
- We did not find that the granting of the variance to not require that would be injurious
- However, the installation of the buffer yard certainly does benefit the adjacent not neighbors
- But you know would not benefit or negatively harm any safety or morals as they stand
- in regards to the parking setback
- Well, we did not find any adverse impacts as a result of the granting of the variance the
- substantial amount of landscaping
- helps mitigate and buffer that
- I should note though that we did receive one letter of opposition from an adjacent neighbor
- That's in your packet and then after the packet went out
- I received another letter and phone call from an adjacent neighbor again in Summit Ridge who were
- not
- Supportive of the variance to have more parking in the front as that would be visually impacting
- and visual
- visible from their properties across the street
- We did not find any negative impacts on the granting of the variance for the electric vehicle
- Charging stations on the use and value of adjacent to the area
- And we did find though with the buffer yard landscaping
- Negative impacts on the use and value again as I mentioned, you know
- The purpose of the buffer yard landscaping variance or the purpose of the buffer yard landscaping
- is to mitigate these uses
- the more intensive uses from less intensive uses which does have a very
- Real impact on a day-to-day basis from those adjacent neighbors
- you know, if you you imagine you're that neighbor and you're looking out at a parking lot or a
- building or looking out at landscaping and
- Certainly the presence of landscaping
- It greatly improves your view and use of your property. So we did find negative impacts in that
- regard
- In regards to the strict application of the terms of the UDO
- In relation to practical difficulties that are peculiar to the property
- We did find that the that there is practical difficulty associated with meet the part meeting the
- parking setback variance
- Or meeting the parking setback requirement the location of the building on the property
- As it's centered doesn't provide any opportunities to really add parking on the west side of the
- building and no
- Opportunities to add it to the north side of the building
- The south side of the building drops off in topography and has a lot of drainage issues
- And a lot of grading problems as well. So there really are not any areas on the site that any
- parking could be added
- The petitioner did submit a somewhat parking study that was done over several months
- Showing the amount of cars that were parked along Adams Street
- indicating a very heavy usage and
- Heavy need for parking on the property
- So adding more parking helps relieve some of that congestion for the on-street parking
- Freeing up parking for adjacent neighbors to utilize that
- In regards to electric vehicle charging. We did not find that there were any practical difficulties
- in the use of the property
- That were peculiar to this they can still use it as a church with the electric vehicle charging
- stations
- You know, there's nothing unique about their property that prevents them from installing the
- electric vehicle charging stations
- So we were not able to make any findings to support that particular variance
- In regards to the buffer yard landscaping. We did find that there are some practical difficulties
- That are unique to this because there is a significant amount of property, you know, as I mentioned
- almost 900 feet
- To the east of this that would require that buffer
- But as you look at the site and how it's used only about half of that
- Is where the parking and building would be so we are recommending
- Approval of that variance with the condition and the limitation that the buffer yard is only
- required
- Along the portions of the property where the parking will be installed. And so I tried to show that
- on the screen here with this red line
- So that would be the area where we would be recommending the buffer yard be installed
- So with that we are recommending
- that the Board of Zona Appeals approve the variance from front parking setback and
- buffer yard landscaping as I
- Mentioned with this stipulation that is only required along the portions of the site where the
- parking is
- But deny the variance from electric vehicle charging stations
- With the three conditions that are listed in staffs report and I'm happy to answer any questions
- Thank You
- Petitioner and okay all of those who are going to speak, please come forward sign in and I'll swear
- you in and we'll go from there
- Go ahead and have you signed in? Nope
- you
- And then go ahead and state your first and last name Daniel Butler and Daniel
- Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but
- the truth?
- I do. Okay. Thank you. I'll go ahead and swear in your partner here
- I
- First and last name Reverend David Wiggington
- Reverend David David Wiggington, okay
- David do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and
- nothing but the truth
- I do and remember you speak as a pastor. Thank you. All right, you have 20 minutes
- And again, I want to reiterate what you don't use now will be reserved for later before the board
- takes action
- Okay, all right. I'll get two opportunities 20 minutes total
- Well, thank you very much. I know it's a late night for you and I appreciate hearing us Daniel
- bought with Bina fanning associates
- I'm a registered civil engineer here in the state of Indiana along with me David Wiggington
- pastor and represents leadership at cornerstone church
- We've met a few times with the city staff and met with the church about just the need for this and
- the church is growing
- And well if the needs been there for quite some time really and the as you saw they did a parking
- study
- So we're not asking
- for any
- Parking that is not allowed by code. So we're not asking for additional parking
- That's not one of the variances that we're asking for tonight. So everything that the UDL UDL
- allows right now
- We're just need for our sites. We're asking for that. Then the question becomes
- this triggers a limited compliance plan through the city's code and so that
- Doesn't cause you to bring everything that's necessary if you were to build it by right today
- But you have to you know, it triggers different
- requirements for the code and so
- We're we want to obey as many of those as we can
- So the three variances that are before you tonight just make it happen make it work
- For us and I'm just you probably read the letter everything that's the case that we're making for
- these variances
- but let me just give you a little more information of why we need these and
- Let me focus mainly on the landscape buffer and the EV parking spots
- We are in agreement with the with staff that the buffer yard on the east side is
- You know that they're recommending approval on that. I would just ask for one tweak that
- The landscape can you bring up the landscape plan Eric? Would that be all right?
- We're asking that
- instead of doing the type
- Three buffer along where the parking areas are
- We'd like to follow our landscape plan that we've drawn up that incorporates parking lot perimeter
- plantings
- it's a different type of
- Plantings where you get shrubs you get
- Trees along the parking lot. So we are proposing that so that it would benefit the neighbors that
- are cross-street right now
- There are there isn't any landscaping that would buffer them from the neighbors to the east
- And so we're not going to leave that undone, but we are asking not to do any buffer yard
- Because we feel like what we propose is a better solution
- The shrubs give that are under the UDO give headlight protection so that wouldn't shine in windows
- And then you also get the trees that are along there the buffer yard in this particular case
- Especially if we're gonna put them down in the drainage area would inhibit the the flow that's
- going through there
- This that drainage way that's between the properties is taking on flow from the east to the north
- and this property
- So we don't want to inhibit that so we've given you an alternative solution
- So that condition number two we'd like to put in the parking lot perimeter as we're showing instead
- of that
- If that makes sense, though
- EV charging stations
- We believe that this is a peculiar
- property and that's the use on it to
- The reason that you'd have EV charging stations
- We understand and we agree with you know needing EV charging stations and that would be with large
- parking fields
- for daily uses like commercial uses that you'd go to a
- Church uses being lumped into a commercial use and it is different by nature
- one difference by nature that a church is is you people aren't coming and going
- normally on a daily basis that it's for weekends and so one thing that I would say is
- They wouldn't really be used in the sense that
- Except for over the weekend. So the the need form is just really not there
- so that's one reason that I would add that this is different than a typical commercial business
- where
- we understand if you're going to the supermarket you need somewhere to plug in or
- Encourage somebody to have that type of vehicle a place to plug in in this particular case
- We feel like it's a little bit different. This is not a daily use
- This is over the weekend and asking for relief from this so that it's not
- we feel like having these charging stations is a bit of a burden to place because you know,
- We're there's a lot of costs going into a parking lot including
- astringent regulations of stormwater everything that is required to
- Produce with a new parking lot. We're not asking for any relief on some of those other requirements
- we're asking for this because we just
- also feel like
- This particular property also is unique in you've probably driven by there many times. Maybe some
- of you live on the south side. I do
- Myself my kids go to summit elementary. So I do drive by there all the time. It's a very long and
- vulnerable
- I would say exposed piece of property
- There the church is already having a little bit of issue with people
- this church I've
- I have a church home myself and
- They it's pretty clear that these guys want to take care of the community. That's without a doubt
- They do a great job of providing for different place in the community. I'll give you a few stats
- here in a second
- but that also does draw in many that sometimes abuse that help to and
- so they have people parking vehicles leaving vehicles and
- Having EV charging stations is really for those who are coming to a business to build plug-in and
- then go on to the next thing
- We believe that in this case we feel like in this instead of being used on a daily basis for the
- right reasons
- We feel like it would be abused by
- You know people that aren't going to be using at their house and they would be for a different
- reason
- I think you're probably getting the gist of what I'm talking about
- so a
- Third reason for the EV charging stations, maybe a lesser reason if you will
- over they were I was talking to
- David today and they he quoted offhand
- He feels like they in the neighborhood of about 2,500
- Families were helped by this church in the last five years of grocery buying alone
- They feel like you know
- putting that money towards helping the community and not the the burden of
- EV charging stations again, we're not trying to get away with other regulations with this parking
- lot this one
- We're asking for because we feel like it can be put towards other uses better uses in terms of
- helping the community
- I
- was astonished by this and I
- He felt like a quarter million dollars was distributed in help to the community since kovat
- And so I think it's well documented you can ask
- Pastor here yourself if you have any questions about some of those stats, but some of that
- That helped to the community. I'm not saying it's the main reason I'm saying it's a reason to
- really
- Consider not putting this extra burden on a church that's being lumped in with other commercial
- uses that can more
- You know people can plug in at some of those other ones. We understand the need for that
- But then this particular case we feel like it's a little bit different in that in that case
- I'll leave it at that and if there's any questions for myself for David
- Let us know
- I just just two minutes. I just want to add Eric
- Could you put up the picture that shows the church between the the two houses in in the
- neighborhood there?
- We've been here 28 years. I planted cornerstone in 1997. So Bloomington's our home
- And when we built the church, there was none of that was there
- We were it was literally a field we paid to put Adam Street in when we put the
- When we built the first church in the year 2000, we want to be good neighbors
- We want to provide landscape buffering and things like that
- But if you could go to that picture that shows between the the shows the church between the two
- houses
- There you go
- What you don't see in this picture is the drainage area that sits
- well below the parking lot and well below the backyard of these homes and
- Much of what would be called for by the the landscape buffer would would not provide matter of fact
- One of the relief I think is a six-foot fence
- I had a colleague stand down in that hole today and tried to take his picture and
- Couldn't see the top of his head standing in on my parking lot or in the backyard of our neighbors
- So a six-foot fence wouldn't provide any sort of relief
- It would be years and years and years before trees would be tall enough to provide but you can see
- right there if we plant
- the the kind of landscape buffering that we're
- Proposing it would immediately provide relief for the neighbors who are looking at the back of that
- parking lot
- You would be able to see what we're going to plant in the proposal because it's right on the edge
- of the parking lot and
- Planting is down in that valley. Not only do I believe it creates significant drainage issues long
- term
- It wouldn't believe it wouldn't do what the the ordinance
- Proposes that it does because of the uniqueness of our property and I'll just say this on electric
- vehicle chargers
- Much of life is not a zero-sum game
- This is we don't have extra money to do these things and so any money that we put into
- EV chargers or into paying for people coming and charging their cars is
- literally money that's taken away from feeding local families and helping to provide shelter for
- For for the unhoused and helping to provide for unwed moms and things like that, and it's I'm not
- trying to be dramatic
- It's just this is a zero-sum game. We don't have another pocket that we pull these things from so
- if we have to put in
- EV chargers and we have to pay long term to to pay for the electricity of those
- It will have an impact and again, we try to be a good neighbor. We try to be good stewards
- Not saying this to brag is on the front page of the Herald Times when they still printed the Herald
- Times
- I don't know if they do or not
- But during kovat we literally converted our sanctuary into a distribution center for groceries
- We distributed over 150 thousand dollars with the groceries to our neighbors during kovat who were
- hurting at that time
- We've done the same thing one other time since then we have an ongoing pantry that provides for our
- neighborhood that our neighbors help add
- Food to and it's it's just an open thing where people serve themselves and every week people are
- being served by our church
- And so we want to be good neighbors. We want the property to look nice
- We don't want you know any the neighbors who are concerned about looking over right now. They have
- green space
- I talked to I believe I talked to the lady who sent a letter for the packet
- She came to church on Sunday to talk to me. She's very kind
- She actually has some concerns about the EV chargers and the people that might drive in and park
- and leave their cars
- And I do too because we background check every person who comes into our building to work with our
- kids
- Our buildings open during the week. So if somebody parks there and decides to wander through our
- building
- I don't know who's in our building and I have concerns about liability
- Because do I start walking my building so people don't go in and use the bathroom
- Or our children in our building being exposed to people that we don't know what their background is
- those kinds of things
- So I have concerns about those things as well
- But just generally thank you for your time. I know it's a late night. Thank you for hearing us and
- and we're open any questions
- Yeah
- Thank you to the board for questions of either the staff petitioner John
- To two questions one is what is the estimated cost of each of these?
- electric vehicle charging stations
- He's done some more recent research on that as our firm we've also done a little bit research you
- can go cheap or you can go
- Some of the better ones who hold you know, like superchargers, you know that some of the others
- offer
- But I think he's done a little more current research. So I'll let him answer that
- Yeah our understanding for any kind of commercial use that our insurance would allow we can't buy a
- residential charger
- So any any sort of commercial use if we buy it off of teamu like we can literally get it for about
- $3,000 per charger, but I'm not sure I would want that on my electrical grid. We're by the way
- single-phase
- We don't have three-phase power. We have single-phase power
- We have a residential so we don't even know if our if our panel has the capacity to do this
- We haven't even we haven't gone there yet
- Because we're single-phase. We're not a lot of commercial businesses or three-phase. We're not
- All the way up to a good commercial charger that's not gonna blow up
- You know about ten thousand dollars a piece for the good ones. So it can be fifty to sixty thousand
- dollars
- So it's it's significant
- Then I just want to do ask a question. I think it's
- For you Dan
- On the buffer line type three
- What's the distinction between what you would prefer? Is there an alternative to type three? Is it
- type something else or?
- Yeah, so this is the most the heaviest
- Buffer yard in the code right now and it's nine trees for every 20 feet
- And so we believe that a better alternative that the code
- talks about in terms of shielding
- Headlights and shielding cars from adjacent properties is what we're proposing is a full landscape
- perimeter planting plan
- And then you get shrubs with that that it's a little more dense. It almost will create a kind of
- hedge, you know row rather than
- Trees, you know plenty nine every
- 20 feet is
- more for the outskirts of your property and in this case, we don't feel like it makes sense because
- Of the low the uniqueness of this property. You have the drainage mix with that's real low down
- there
- So we want to move those up towards
- Our plan that has them right against the parking lot. And so then it would shield them in that way
- And then keep the drainage way open
- Does that answer your question? I think I talked. Yeah. Yeah, it does. Thank you
- Anyone else
- So John touched on the the buffer good question. I want to revisit it. Let me start with the city
- I will come back to you Reverend because it has to do with the chargers again. Let's just go back
- there
- They can put a six kilowatt charger, right?
- That meets do you have a minimum requirement of power?
- So six kilowatts typically the the smallest that goes in takes like forever to charge a car
- But they could put that in do you have as a city any idea what that would would cost?
- Okay, so Reverend did you
- Yeah, did you see a cost on the actual six kilowatt small charger?
- I don't I don't remember what the kilowatt was
- I just know that the cheapest ones were all marked for residential use only and
- So I don't I don't know what that means as far as if if there are commercial six kilowatt chargers
- I don't I also don't know a
- Little broadening of your question. I don't know that I want to put a slow charger in that causes
- people to leave their cars for longer
- Understand that's the sort of a concern as well. So well, the reason I ask is because of the there's
- a couple issues
- I do want to just explore this a little bit. So make sure before we make a decision
- But so there are commercial six kilowatt chargers
- They are the smaller ones and essentially you'd have to probably be plugged in all night
- And you would get a certain percentage you would never refill the car
- In I don't know if you did a survey or anything
- Hey, did you happen to look in and see where we lack chargers in the state in the city of Bloomington?
- No, I all I know is the I think what sets our property apart is it's in a residential area
- It's not a commercial area, you know, like if you were saying hey at home needs to put in chargers
- I'd get it like we're in a residential area
- We're not a place where people park and then go have lunch for example or park and go shop
- It's like literally there's in the middle of a bunch of there's one
- Station in the south southwest area and that's down by the Kroger down on the south side your area
- on tap road
- Is in that whole area that whole region on the west side. It has no chargers at all
- Sure, so I do understand what the city's trying to do, which is when you have these larger spaces
- I also have done a little research on this and I do know that there are
- Charging a car is a little different than pulling into a gas station
- all right, you do have to make sure you can go from station to station because we lack a
- We lack the infrastructure so that charging stations are closer
- So I do know that there are folks who would sometimes be quite grateful
- That the church would have a charging station there because they need it in order to get from
- station to station
- So I do understand the need and especially in an area when I'm looking at the map of the city
- That it's that it's it's just really it's missing. There's nothing there
- For a long stretch so anything we can do to to service that's great
- so I would encourage you if you're asked to do it to look at the slower chargers that are
- commercial because
- There is some value to it. It may be the thing that gets someone from point A to point B
- Sure, it doesn't have to be a supercharger from Tesla. So that's that's one point
- All right
- The other is I've been watching this trend and I'm seeing more and more electric cars
- So you're getting that I would bet among your congregation as well
- Actually, if I can address that we've been watching Easter Sunday and Palm Sunday. We had zero
- electric cars
- Okay, so I would be surprised if I went out and checked on a day on a weekly basis that there will
- be a conversion
- I'm saying you're going to get more and more you're welcome services in 9-eleven. We love we'd love
- for you to come join us
- So the reason I bring that up is because the the argument that was made which is you know
- The money could go elsewhere the money could do other things to could also be made about the
- parking lot because you are parking
- Cars on the street now, but you're choosing to move that parking onto your property
- So you are investing money that could also go elsewhere. So you are making choices about how you
- want to spend your money
- So I don't want to just immediately write off a need that that area has
- Based on our code. That's all I'm just saying and and that's and that's totally fair
- I would just say the reason that we are pursuing
- Additional parking is not to get cars off the street
- We will still be parking cars on the street because we're not adding enough if you look at our
- parking study
- Especially on our big days. We're not adding enough parking to accommodate everyone
- We're just trying to add enough parking to get where everyone who wants to come on a Sunday morning
- can have a place to park
- Yes, and I and I understand that and that's valid
- But also the discussion of you know, no charging stations because it's the weekend only but then
- you said that it's open every day
- There's things going on
- So I just want to draw attention that I want to use what you're talking about to say
- I think there might be a value and that needs to be exported and that's it. That's kind of the end
- of that
- You've answered that
- the
- The other part about the buffer
- I don't have an example to look at to see like what the two would look like so I'm not really sure
- how to
- Evaluate on my end what you know, what the difference is between what the city's
- And you're describing it, but I'm just trying to this would be more Daniels. Yeah, is there any
- imagery that you can show us of
- What that that buffer would look like that you're asking us to consider?
- You're saying the one that we're suggesting. Yes. Yeah, that's a that's a typical one that you
- would see around most new parking lots
- Now to make sure that there's no
- You can't see the cars. You can't see the parking and that would be again up near where the
- Parking lot is now so that you'd be seeing landscaping right now. The neighbors just see the park
- Yeah, you're talking about like shrubbery and entry
- I was just wondering if you had any visual representation because I'm trying to imagine
- They're too new for like Street View or something like that
- So I don't have any like on the ground, you know
- But the petitioners landscape plan basically reflects just like what code requires in terms of
- number of shrubs and trees based on the
- 154 parking spaces
- So the buffer yard provides more trees that are taller, you know, there's not really a shrub
- requirement for the buffer yard
- there are small trees and medium and large but you know, they grow and they
- Hide the area over a longer term
- Would the city have any objection to making that change?
- to
- to the petitioner suggestion well
- So our concern would be that it doesn't do anything for the areas that are immediately adjacent to
- that, you know
- Puts landscaping immediately adjacent to their property in their parking area, but it doesn't put
- that adjacent to the single-family residences
- That would impact their view more
- So the area work, excuse me there we're talking about as I'm looking at the
- The plan that's in the packet that that Biden fan you the associates put together and
- So directionally I may be a little off, but I think this area that's to these. What is it those?
- kind of
- southern
- southwest
- Diagonal at the back of the building. That's the photo that you showed
- Between the two houses and the churches there, right?
- I think he took that photo between the two houses that one that's from the city
- That's a north, okay
- You know we had to base our staff report on the criteria obviously and so that is where our
- challenge lies
- Is that you know?
- We did not find that there was anything unique that did not allow them to put in the buffer yard as
- required
- We were offering a compromise given the length of the property
- And what would be revolting required with that buffer yard to only require for half of that?
- For the portions adjacent to the parking area
- so I
- I'm sorry
- so Eric in your in the
- packet I
- Have no idea what page it is, but I think well that that image right there
- The who owns the land where the retention ponds are I
- Think that's owned by Westward ho which were the original developers. That's correct. Yeah, so then
- the
- The open space
- North of that retention pond that's just kind of barren right now
- that
- How much of what's being proposed?
- I don't see anything that's being proposed that
- Is that's where the city wants to see additional landscaping?
- Beyond what was submitted by Bannon fine thing
- No
- so so on the screen here where that red line that kind of indicates the extent of where the
- Existing parking is and then where the existing or their proposed parking extends north
- So our condition of approval was just the buffer yard along those portions of the property where
- the parking is
- yeah, okay, I
- Did have a question on the setback which is what was the rationale for building it so close to the
- street
- But since it's so long way, why not build it towards the back of the property and longer?
- Yeah, so we we studied
- The entire property and chose the best possible place that would
- Connect the current parking lot and provide it closest to the doors
- There was a need especially for an older crowd to not have parking down the street
- So we're connecting the existing parking lot to it
- But also it's the best place to hide the parking that was the reason for one of my photos in the
- packet
- Is that when you're driving along Adams it would be below
- Adams Street and then if you put it on the south side, you would you would it would be exposed you'd
- be able to see it more
- That was so after study. This was felt like the best possible place to
- For all parties and for the general public. Yeah
- I was looking at that north eastern section there between the existing parking lot and the tree on
- the north park
- I just wondered why that wasn't expanded there and that way you didn't run into the setback
- Because I do think the city's been trying to stay away from pushing parking out to the street. So
- But Eric, you're saying the city is okay with that
- Yeah, yes, so we were supporting the parking setback parents
- And you said that because why because it is in
- Several factors here one was the corner location
- So I could not do anything on the north side of the building because you've got countryside to the
- north of this
- You know, you've got to topography drop off to the east of this
- That doesn't really allow that to be utilized and then again to the south
- You've got a topography change and drainage issues
- So, you know where the petitioner was choosing to put it to parking was the only really available
- spot, you know
- And as I've mentioned, you know, they're not requesting variances from parking numbers, right? So
- they're within that allowance
- Okay, that's what I want to clarify. I believe that was all said in in the presentation
- I just want to make sure that's really clear. Yes, because that is something that people will look
- at
- Yeah, and why so close to the street so that that's helpful
- Thank you
- And the fact that they were able to meet all of the landscaping requirements for that new parking
- area that helps visually buffer that
- one of the question then for city and this goes to address the petitioner, which is if if someone
- were to make a motion and
- they wanted to address the idea of allowing for a change on the
- the type of
- plantings
- You were talking about I what are they the buffer zone?
- Would would someone be able to add that to the motion
- Yes, so you can certainly modify the condition of approval
- You know the condition of approval says that a type 3 buffer yard is required along
- You know the the section of the property you can modify that condition and say you know a type 1
- buffer yard
- More type 2 or something is required and then modify whatever of course we'd have findings to go
- along with that
- I just want to well you don't have to necessarily make findings, you know
- As long as you are approved, you know
- We made findings to support the variance for the buffer yard
- but with the limitation of the condition that it's only for that this portion on the red and you
- know a
- Type 3 but you can modify that condition without modifying the findings
- Okay, because I do think we could actually if we needed to so that's why I was asking
- So I don't know what the motion will be but I wanted to get that out of the way should it occur any
- other questions
- real quick, I think
- Coming back to the EV stations and I totally agree with what what Joe's saying
- We need more of them obviously, but I guess to staff or an Eric
- Is this something that we considering that it is a residential neighborhood? That's the thing about
- it. Are we encouraging?
- I think there's a fine balance with this maybe putting a couple in because then we have some but
- also
- It's a city encouraging if things like this continue to evolve in residential neighborhoods. Are we
- going to encourage EV stations?
- Because I think there is a there's an oddity to that if you have people just cruising through a
- neighborhood to plug in
- overnight
- Is the city considering that as a back? Yeah, so, you know, I'm always careful with the word
- encouraging, you know
- So the UDO requires them when you have parking lots over 50 spaces
- So, you know when you have a use that has that many parking spaces, you know, hopefully over time
- You're gonna have a certain percentage of people driving electric vehicles and so you want to
- provide services for those folks
- So not every use has to do this
- You know, it's just multifamily for the most part commercial, you know industrial employment things
- Where you're going to have a large amount of surface parking areas
- And so you provide for people that will be provided parking there and you needing that service
- So, you know likewise across the street for Regency
- Apartments, you know if they were to expand and do something because they've got more than 50
- spaces
- They would have to install those and so, you know, there's a wide range of uses that came in
- obviously before this
- Provision and the code was in place
- But we want these to happen and so that's that's how you get them is certain triggers
- That somebody is choosing to do or that they're going through that requires us to be installed
- So, you know the UTO encourages those as a requirement. Okay. Thank you for that
- So, you know, I want to piggyback off that there's there's two sides to this. It's a problem for
- the for the church, which is
- The larger issue that the Reverend brought it which is the idea of let's just say nefarious folks
- coming in
- During the day when you're open on a Monday, you have child care something going on
- They part the car there if it's a slow charge doesn't matter what kind of charge it is. They look
- around
- Is there a bathroom da-da-da? I mean because that's what you would normally find at a charging
- station at some
- parking I'm sorry
- Shopping mall area. Okay, so I think that's a very valid issue to be concerned about
- But on the flip side you have the issue of it's a residential area and most people who are looking
- for a charger are not
- Really looking for a slow charge in a residential area. They're looking for a
- Fast charger in a parking lot of like blows
- So my point there is that if chargers were to go in if we were to request it
- My belief is because of an influx of more and more people buying those
- it actually would be doing a service for the residential area for those who need it until such time
- as they get their own or
- They just may need it for the short term
- So it's a really difficult question because of what you just brought up is this is an odd
- Location for these to be to exist. I'm sorry. Did Reverend would you have something to add to that
- in those two conditions?
- No, I appreciate that. I appreciate seeing both sides of that
- We certainly see both sides of that, you know as as a guy who has to pay the insurance on the
- property
- the liability is one of my biggest concerns and also a guy who have four grandkids who were in
- there on Tuesday nights because
- their parents have small group and and so I'm concerned about
- people wandering around the building and those kinds of things and and and I certainly don't expect
- that anybody other than me is going to
- Be liable for anything that happens. So that's a that's a serious concern for us
- But and we've stated that so I appreciate that how many are we asking for three or six?
- Electric chargers six six. Okay, mr. Thorpe Morton if I can make a point these don't have to be
- public
- It's it's not like we're setting up a charging station for the public, right?
- So like when you build an apartment complex and the code requires electric charging stations
- The idea is right that the people who live there who might have vehicles that need that can be
- charged can charge them while they're
- Home so in the same vein
- These can be put in and only be for people who are using the church you beat me to it
- Because they they don't have to be like on the shell network
- They don't have to be on the EV that you can have it restricted for the people that have a code or
- a card
- access granted like the point you made it would be maybe it would be nice for this to be a spot on
- a chain of
- Car charging stations, but they don't that's not what the code is asking for
- It's just saying you have to put them in and then if you have enough users that you require this
- extensive, you know parking expansion
- It seems that over time you may have six people who would like to plug in while they're there for
- small group for two hours
- On Tuesday night or whatever. That's so it's the option for it's like
- Realizing that if you're driving an electric vehicle places that you frequent like your home or
- your church or a business
- Can offer you the ability to charge like I said, so you beat me to that point which was that's the
- that's okay
- That's great that you brought it up. But that is the next point which is
- You can certainly drive into a charger anywhere and that doesn't mean that you're gonna be able to
- use it
- Because they they have different ways of payment and access so which which is to Jackie's point.
- Yes
- And that we have we are aware that we could restrict that and that
- If we were to restrict it to the point where we feel like we're not allowing to use it
- That's partially why we we would just ask for them not to be there if there wasn't
- Because we feel like if this was at a commercial business where there is a regular user
- It's a daily use or there's people that would regularly come in and out in this case. We feel like
- the number of
- Charging stations that are being proposed
- Just based off of the number of proposed parking spaces alone isn't
- We don't feel as representative of what the need actually is or what and so that's why we're
- partially what she just mentioned
- So if we're gonna go that route and then restrict them, we would just ask
- If we would do little or none, that's that's partially my point
- I mean sense and it does fall under that idea if it may not be
- Obvious or a big need or a need at all currently but it is this idea of looking forward because
- things are changing
- I'm seeing it and that's why I'm taking the time to
- Discuss it is that you know even a church
- with those these valid arguments you have to
- Realize that their congregation will be changing along those lines as well. The the statistics just
- indicate it
- So I'm just trying to balance that I get what you're trying to do. Are you trying to balance the
- economics?
- Also the current need I get that but looking ahead
- Yeah, and just I think there's been a few different reasons why and I think sometimes we're hitting
- heavy on it's financial
- But remember there's three things
- Financial we feel like the use is not conducive to a normal commercial use because it's more of a
- weekend heavy deal for even the use of the entirety of the parking lot and then also
- just the intent of what they will actually be used for where normal people would say that let's go
- and plug in as we're
- going, you know to a business or going inside in this case, we feel that it may be
- used in a act of just neighbors coming around and not really being too interested in the
- business per se but just kind of coming from the neighborhood and inviting more people in that
- Maybe would abuse that so that's I feel like there's three reasons just right. I understand and and
- I think we've hit all those
- So thank you for that at this point
- Let's go to the public for comment and then we'll still remember we have time
- Still for you at the end is anyone here in the public who'd like to speak if so all of those that
- are interested
- Please come over towards the podium sign in and then we'll take it one at a time each of you'll
- have five minutes to talk
- and
- Also, if you could ask online if anyone's online would like to get in the queue would be nice
- Give me your and go ahead and hand the the sheet back so he can sign him while you're talking
- And give me your first and last name Derek Britt Derek
- Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but
- the truth?
- Yes, go ahead. You have five minutes. Please. Thank you. I live actually in the neighborhood near
- the church
- About a five-minute walk away from the church. I'm a parent of two
- I have two boys that are 11 and 8 and they've lived in that neighborhood their whole lives
- So I have a little bit of context on some of those issues as a member and I'm a dad that cares
- about the safety of
- My kids obviously and the kids in our community and there's some unique reasons for that in our
- community
- Specifically with parking and traffic and things like that some of the history there
- So I wanted to speak to that and some of the safety issues with why I feel like the parking is
- necessary
- But then also I want to speak to the EV issue as well
- But first the expansion for me when I heard about it is about safety not just convenience for the
- church
- Specifically the second entrance and some of the things that they're trying to work through
- Anybody who's had to navigate the church parking lot on a Sunday could tell you that this is a
- challenging environment and really
- I I guess because I think you understand that and see some of those things. I won't belabor that
- point
- I would just use summit elementary as an example
- Some you may remember that summit was set up very similarly and had a an entrance and exit that was
- all in one place
- And the crossing guard that was there Terry that we that I knew well because I walked my kids to
- school every day
- Actually got hit by one of the cars coming into that lot
- And I mean this is a little graphic but I mean I'm walking my seven-year-old to school and there's
- blood stains on the ground
- And you know, so it's like one of those things where it's like man. This is crazy
- This is crazy. And then one day something happens, you know
- And I do feel our our security some of them are here that that work on this every Sunday
- which I'm really grateful for but they're just up with some unique challenges because
- It really narrows the road a bunch because you've got parking on both sides
- Then you've got you know people exiting and they try to space the services out and make sure that
- all that is good
- My kids like to ride their bikes to school. They can't really do that
- at least for me if it's too close to you know to an
- Dismissal time or whatever just because it's too it's too scary
- I I love the idea of being able to control that traffic a little bit better. I've lived actually
- all around the church
- I lived on the backside and shared property essentially with the church my kids played soccer back
- there on the
- Well on one of those pictures you can see all that grass
- You know using the pond fishing in the pond that kind of stuff. That's the way the church is in
- this neighborhood
- So I appreciate you're bringing up that residential component because it really is unique and
- different
- But it makes me think differently if you know the makeup of the community's a bunch of condos a
- bunch of young families
- Kind of on one side and they're building more and more out that way
- Which some of them are probably disappointed that they got more and more parking lots going out
- that way when they look the other direction
- But you have a lot of kids in that neighborhood a lot of people walking their dogs
- I mean this church sits right in the middle is hundreds and hundreds of homes and for me the EV
- charging
- Stations and I can appreciate that last comment
- about
- How you know you can put in different charging stations and you don't have to make them available
- to the public
- And actually there's a lot of communities around the country that have installed them and then
- communities have said hey
- Why are we doing this?
- You know when it's right next to an elementary school and then they've made a restriction that only
- the people that work at the institution can actually use the the chargers and
- So they start shutting them down in the in the school year and you can only use it in the summer
- And I think if we're looking at Joe's
- suggestion specifically which is about
- The west side which you know, I'm for that expansion
- But I think it if that's the to me, that's a great argument that we need this
- I don't know if it's a great argument in my this is my opinion to have
- You know six chargers there just in case somebody wants to use them
- I don't know if that's like the intent here
- I think the intent of the code is is that we're expanding this for public use
- Well, we're using it in a public way in my opinion
- With that many kids in the neighborhood and you got people that are using
- The playground you got people that are just all around in this space having chargers that people
- are using for a couple hours at
- A time you're now messing. I mean, I don't want to be you know
- Alarmist or whatever about you know, what could happen and that the insurance things are for him to
- deal with but for me
- It's it's thinking about
- Kind of just the influx in and out strangers in that residential area where people all know each
- other's names
- And it's just a weird dynamic to play out and for me
- I don't I don't totally understand why this on the west side would be the expansion point in the
- center of that space
- and so for me I
- Personally would feel pretty strong. I think and the other thing is you're not really asking the
- neighbors
- Right now we're talking about well, you know the church you might want to do this and you might
- want to serve people in
- This way, you know
- But are people really interested in inviting this and kind of messing with the character of that
- neighborhood when we don't really know what it's like
- Yeah, I mean we don't you may not know, you know what that's gonna do to that community and it is
- unique in Bloomington
- So that's my piece, but I appreciate the time
- Thank you and
- State your first and last name
- My name is Dennis Turner and do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth the
- whole truth and nothing
- But the truth I do. Absolutely. Thank you. You have five minutes
- thank you so much for taking the time not only to hear us tonight, but all the others that you hear
- and
- Dealing with the the detail and the precision that makes Bloomington the kind of welcoming
- community that it is
- I have been attending cornerstone for 25 years
- I was a young man then and I'm part of that older crowd that was referenced earlier
- And so my presence here tonight is to is to appeal to you as you hear
- this presentation to understand that Bloomington is is a is a
- throbbing
- Spotlight out for retirees and I know you all have worked hard and your colleagues have worked hard
- To make Bloomington the kind of place that welcomes, you know all ages
- And one of the things I've enjoyed about cornerstone in my 25 years is that it is it is beautifully
- Bloomington
- It is diverse. It is it is
- there the ages are all across the board one of the things that I appreciate as a veteran human is
- being able to rub
- Shoulders and to share heart and to share concerns with those generations that are younger than me
- my wife teaches we've been in education all of our years and my my wife has gone back to help out a
- second grade class and
- And she was surprised delighted and a bit
- Exacerbated when when one of the students said to her you even taught my grandmother
- So so I have been able to see in my 25 years how not only the community has grown but as the church
- Has served and has been a steward to the community
- So my presence here tonight is to thank you for entertaining this this request and the fact that
- that it
- Harmonizes with everything that Bloomington stands for and that is the fact that you are
- I if I understood correctly from the email that I get from your your senior community newsletter
- Is that you may become the first?
- country the country's first beeline trail collaboration collaboration for a lifetime community
- district and
- Also, you're one of the five
- National community not just agenda, but a gender
- sites and I certainly fit into that as being a part of the the
- generation that can appreciate
- everything that's happened in Bloomington over the years in the 25 years that I have been here not
- only as a student but as a
- as an educator and now as a member of
- cornerstone and
- When I think of extra parking space not all of those contemporary not all of my peer group has a
- Sticker in their their their dash that says, you know, they their vault they can park anywhere
- because they're disabled
- But I can't tell you that of the I will say a hundred and fifty to two hundred is probably a small
- Exaggeration not really a hundred and fifty to two hundred in my peer group that do come on
- weekends and in other events and so having additional parking will certainly make it easier for
- for them to
- To access the church again. Thank you for your service and for the time here tonight. I
- Do know that we have one hand raised I believe I saw it earlier. Is that correct?
- Okay, anyone else in in chambers who'd like to address
- Petition otherwise, I I do believe I saw someone raise their hand
-
- Alright, thank you very much. My name is Mark Teller. I live at two five eight three South Addison
- Okay, my and mark hold on. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth the
- whole truth and nothing with
- the truth
- Yes, you have five minutes
- Thank you as I was saying
- I live across Adam Street
- my front door overlooks
- What will be the parking lot and right in front of me will be the entrance?
- To say that my family is against this is an understatement
- I've never heard a church so disparagingly refer to
- Strangers, I'm shocked and appalled to be honest about that
- People needing a charge on their on their cars aren't criminals
- so that first second off, I just want to apparently I have to
- Justify myself. I am a
- Sorry, I got my daughter on my lap. I am a founding board member of the Bloomington homeless
- coalition my wife who?
- owns the house
- Works at Shalom Center
- If you guys want to play the righteous game, we have you be she runs the homeless shelter here in
- town
- So if you guys want to play the the righteous
- Game, it's on both sides. We're all righteous here. Okay
- A lot of stuff was said that kind of hints to why I'm against all of this
- Church use is different. My nature was a phrase that was used earlier used only on weekend
- So this is a temporary problem that they are proposing permanent solutions for that affect
- all of us around
- They want to provide for the community, but they don't want to provide electricity for EVs for the
- community
- They want to be good neighbors. None of this was run by us. We bought this house because of the
- green space
- possible loss of you know
- That plus we park on Adams Street, that's where we have to put our cars and if I'm not able to park
- on Adams Street
- What am I gonna do start walking to work?
- When people start pulling out of this parking lot and hit my car because it's right there
- It's gonna be an issue. I see nothing but issues here. They say that they did a parking study
- I'd be very interested to find out when that study was done because it was around Easter. It's skewed
- a
- Lot of people go around Easter. It's just like after after New Year's you see a lot of people jogging
- for a week
- It's not that bad. I have an 18 month old daughter. We take walks
- every day
- I've never been hit by a car. I remember when that unfortunate person was
- What's hit and it was it sent ripples around this small community around here
- But that was a one-off instance where somebody messed up and I don't think we should be
- Affecting this much change based on something that happened years ago
- It's congested on
- Monday through Friday right before school starts and right after school ends, but it's not there's
- parking on the street
- for
- Sundays and it works
- Also, another thing that could happen is there could be multiple
- Services throughout Sunday, they literally stated 9 to 11 in service a whole lot of day a whole lot
- of day left
- Everything I'm hearing is we've been forgotten. We're homeowners here. We're taxpayers here
- We've been forgotten on the other side on the on the west side of everything
- Everyone's talking about the east side, but we're not happy with this and everybody that we've
- talked to along this road
- Isn't happy with this but they couldn't show up because they have kids and they don't have the
- multi-tasking abilities that I have
- Or they're still at work because these are townhouses and we work for a living
- That's all I've got I staunchly against every single every single part of this
- Okay, thank you for your comments we'll go to the second
- person
- Who had their hand raised? Could you state your first and last name?
- Hi, my name is Jeffrey Stafford. Hey Jeffrey. Do you affirm that testimony? You're about to give us
- the truth
- The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. All right, please you have five minutes
- Okay, like the previous commenter, I am a homeowner of an adjacent property
- and
- Just to be clear. I am NOT one of the ones who already sent in a letter or a phone call
- but I
- Am also opposed and my family is also opposed to
- Expanding the parking there for many of the same reasons that the previous commenter was which is
- basically
- not in favor of expanding a
- Park turning this nice green space, which is one of the reasons that we bought this house
- into a parking lot when it's only a once-a-week issue and you know, yeah, they park on the street
- and
- Its street gets full and you know, it's once a week
- and I think we don't need to build a parking lot for that and especially the church's arguments
- about
- Against putting in the electrical field electric vehicle chargers
- Saying that money could go to better uses
- Like one of the board members said that argument could apply to this whole thing. Why are we
- building the parking lot at all?
- It's a big expense
- You know that money could be spent in better ways
- I was also a little bit
- confused about all of the talk about putting in electric vehicle chargers
- Attracting strangers to the neighborhood and all of this stuff. That seems very strange to me. I
- would have never considered that
- It's just it's just a car charging station and but
- Yeah, I don't know to me. I guess the charging stations. Yeah, they're super expensive and maybe
- there's not a huge demand for them now
- But there's a reason that law is there if you were going to allow some variants on the chargers
- I would say it seems like a reasonable compromise would be to allow a smaller number
- If they have zero, you know people that need them in the congregation right now
- maybe allowing two or three instead of six would would be a good compromise on that but
- Overall we would prefer to keep the green space and not have a parking lot at all is our comment.
- So, thank you. I
- Will pause a moment to see if there is anyone else online who would like to make comment
- Seeing none I'll go back to the chamber anyone
- Okay with that we will return to the petitioner how much time do they have left
- We'll go ahead and put that up for you and as that's coming up I'll just reiterate this is
- This amount of time you have in order to address any previous comments
- You may be asked questions after this but this is your last opportunity to present any new
- information to us
- You have eight minutes, please
- There's a few
- things that were said that I just wanted to address and make sure it's clear for the
- Neighbors across the streets and also for just to clarify the statement
- Maybe we had said it but we didn't mean for it that there's never going to be
- Nothing happening during the week. It's the amount of parking needed is for over the weekend
- and so that for that reason those wouldn't really be used and it's mainly pertaining to the
- EV parking
- Stations that they wouldn't be used for that reason because it was only be over the weekend
- Not that there would never be anything happening. It would just be very seldom and lightly used
- Perhaps used by other people coming in. So that was that point to that
- That study that parking study was done over a year period and that's in your packet
- So that's actually over a year period
- That was not done just over that's a balance of every single Sunday throughout the entire year of
- showing the need for it
- so that's
- That's that one
- Again the the placement of the actual parking was
- In conjunction to create the most compact area possible and not to disturb
- As as little amount of green area we do understand that you know people look out upon this property
- Especially the town houses directly to the west so we understand
- So a good half of that is still being kept. We're not disturbing all of that. We're not
- Going there's tree mature trees up there to the north that
- Directly across from that the west side
- So if you pull up the map again, you can see that and that's part of the reason that we chose again
- after study of
- This placement so that you could it's the the placement is least amount of invasive that you can
- see but also
- The most compact area to get in the amount of parking spaces that are allowed under the code
- So that again just to address we understand that there's a little bit of green area
- Being taken but when we put it in conjunction with the parking that's there now
- It's we felt it's also compact but at least invasive that will be seen the least
- to reiterate that one anything you want to
- Just want to add, you know
- My son and daughter-in-law lived in one of those town homes. So I've been in those town homes
- I understand they do have garages and parking in the back in addition to parking on the street and
- Also what they look out on currently right now is a street
- There is a street between our property and my understanding from one of the people who sent a
- letter or called
- Was they were told when they bought that that would always be a green space
- So someone was made perhaps making them promises about somebody else's property
- And so, you know, I feel bad that that they're saying. Hey, this is green space and it's being
- taken away
- But it's this is this is privately owned property and and we do want to be good neighbors
- We're not trying to virtue signal or or you know, we're not trying to play a righteous game
- We're just trying to say there it is a zero-sum game in terms of like we're trying to put in the
- minimum amount of parking
- That I'd like to have more I'd like to I'd like to have more than what the ordinance allows
- But that was yet another variance that we would have had to ask for
- So we're trying to again compromise in a way that is amenable to everyone
- There's any more questions we're happy to answer
- Okay, so with that
- That'll use up the remainder of your time. And then if there's any questions will
- Will address you from the board?
- The one thing that we did not talk about with the staff is there's going to be that new curb cut -
- is that correct?
- Yeah
- One new drive cut and I can show that on the screen. Yeah, I thought it was there on the north side.
- So
- So that should alleviate some of the in-and-out
- Kind of congestion yeah, okay
- Back to the board either for action or for additional questions of the staff or the petitioner
- Do we have any questions or comments or a motion?
- So
- For a case V 1725 on the proposed findings
- number one, I
- Would like to change it to read
- the granting of the variance
- I
- This is related to the electrical vehicle charging is the granting of the variance will not be injurious
- to the public health
- safety
- Morals or general welfare of the community that would just replace everything else
- I'm finding proposed finding number three. I
- Would amend it to read
- the
- BZA finds that the strict application of the terms of the unified a development code
- Comma given the nature of their nonprofit
- Comma community serving mission comma will result in a practical difficulties in the use of the
- property and
- Then I would say, you know based on the report and the amended findings of BZA
- approves the requested variances from the
- front parking setback
- Electric vehicle charging stations and buffard yard land staking requirements
- With the following conditions keeping number one and number two but eliminating the one on the
- electrical I
- Guess eliminate number two. Yeah, I'm keeping number three keep one and three
- So that's the motion. That's the motion. Do I have a second?
- Okay, thank you then if I could as it relates to the electrical vehicle charging
- I mean, I think there's really compelling arguments to be made on either side of this
- I
- appreciate that
- That portion of Southwest Bloomington is a bit of a charging
- You know desert if you will I would just note that the city has
- a couple of lots along
- The road that two different trailheads, I know that they're not as big
- but if you wanted to you know add one or two charging stations if it's such an important thing to
- the morals and
- Safety of our community. It seems like that would be an appropriate thing for the city to do I
- Think you know and I get Joe's point. I mean things are changing
- I would just say I think that in the context of the congregation
- Let the demand drive that
- Rather than us just presuming it and forcing them to spend the money
- Because it doesn't make that much sense to me to say
- You know, I mean and I get I don't own a leach electrical car right now
- But I'm not really interested in super slow charging either
- So I'm just not sure in the context of the neighborhood setting
- that it makes them much sense to say well just do a couple of
- You know inexpensive low charge ones when that it's not what the market really wants
- So that's my comments
- Yeah, and I was actually going to address that after a motion was made which was you know to me
- I asked a lot of questions about the EV and I asked that because I just wanted to get a really
- clear picture in
- My head about what what I think might be a wise thing to do and I also think it's important
- For the petitioner to hear those questions, especially from the standpoint of it's a it's kind of a
- desert out there
- I
- my biggest the most compelling thing for me on the EV is is I am
- concerned about requiring that of this type of
- Use I
- Really get it for large parking lots in a commercial space makes a lot of sense because it you know
- It actually does drive people to certain places to shop
- So I wanted to take a little bit of time to explore that to just see in my head whether it was
- really viable
- To put that there. I do think well, I agree with let the demand drive it
- I do think there is something to plan ahead, which is if you're gonna have the expense
- You could certainly
- pass this
- motion, but I do think the church should consider say man even if we put one or two because
- You know, we do want to think ahead and there might be a use for it
- That was the the really the driving factor for asking so many questions about that
- Because there will be an increase in infrastructure that's gonna happen over time anyway
- So that's that's why I ask and I was looking that there are some very low-cost options
- But I also agree with what John said which is a lot of people aren't really interested in the six
- kilowatt charger
- They're interested in much faster. So
- That is the only thing I'm completely on board with the with the changes or with the the other
- Variance request, you know for the setback and for the landscaping etc. It was just that one
- question
- I really wanted to think about because this is really an unusual
- Circumstance just based on the fact that you have so much parking so good point. Thank you. Any
- other questions comments?
- So a vote of yes would be to approve
- The request for bearings is outlined by John
- Which essentially is to to do away at its essence to do away with the electric charger
- requirement and to accept the rest of
- the
- Conditions that were provided by the the staff
- That's so a yes would be to approve that a no would be to deny that request for bearings
- No other discussion. I'll call the question
- Yes
- Ballard yes
- Okay, so the variance passes four to zero as stated in the motion. Congratulations. Good luck
- A couple things I didn't want to put on this is old business. Did we have I'm sorry. Do we have
- another position today?
- That's it. Okay. So in terms for the city for old business, I had a question about that
- parking lot at
- Across from the graduate and there was a three-year there was a three-year
- Sunset on that is what I thought and I just wanted to clarify that it was not a three-year sunset
- It was they had to tear down the building that was there the old Monroe County and build it within
- three years. That was the
- So that was the confusion I had I have not had an answer on I did have an answer on the People's
- State Bank
- Which was it was granted. So alright, that was I just want to clear up those two piece old business
- With that were adjourned
- ("Pomp and Circumstance")