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") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance") ("Pomp and Circumstance")