Called to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for December 18th 2025 May I have a call
of the role, please? Here here Fernandez kutsinka here Throckmorton here First we'll look for approval
of minutes to have motion to approve the minutes or do we have any amendments to those?
Motion to approve minutes. I have a second second Call it Ballard yes, bro. Yes, Fernandez kusinko.
Yes, Throckmorton. Yes We'll start with any reports resolutions communications. Oh, yeah
Nothing from staff. You do have a few members or letters from members of the public that were distributed
at the meeting These are letters that came in after the packet was distributed. So we gave those they
relate to I think two petitions Or three petitions that are on the agenda tonight So you should have
copies of those and then we have copies as well any members of the public need those it'll be for case
be 42 25 and See you 56 25. What's the third one?
One of the letters referenced two petitions it referenced the grace our petition as well as the Petition
for the Jessup. Okay, very good. Thank you. Do I have any other business? I Make a motion to move v-42-25 I
Which is right now scheduled to be heard first to be heard third after the CU. That's fifty four that's
twenty five and fifty six. Fifty six is the second one. Yes. And after fifty six that's twenty five.
I'm sorry I cut you off. I hadn't finished. OK. Got it. Do I have a second. Second call the roll please.
Yes Yes Yes Sorry to cut you out there Flavia. Thank you. All right. So all that means is it will hear
the CU 5425 and see you 5625 first First of all, I do want to make a note that we have two petitions
that will be continued to the January 22nd 2026 meeting and that is a a dash 17 dash 22 Joe Kent construction
Blackwell construction also the cu-33-24 hat rentals LLC again those will be moving to our next meeting
which will be on Thursday January 22nd with that tonight we will hear the following cu-54-25 Charlie
Joseph cu-56-25 unlabeled holdings David Roberts
V dash forty two twenty five gray star development central LLC and our last of the evening will be V
dash fifty seven dash twenty five city of Bloomington parks and recreation with that Let's go to the
first petition, which is CU dash fifty four dash twenty five and please staff report
Good evening. Joe Patterson zoning a long range planner for the city Bloomington before you is a request
for a conditional use to allow for dwelling duplex and a residential small lot are three zoning districts
that properties located at one one one nine West Eighth Street and is located in the near west side
historic district and neighborhood association. You can see there is a little bit of a mix of zoning
there in that immediate area.
The lot itself is a point one six acre lot. The comprehensive plan designates it as mixed urban residential
from the previous screen with that mixed with the different zoning on the far left is the White Oak
Cemetery a couple parcels to the east and north is mixed use neighborhood zoning that contains
Girls Inc. of Monroe County. Then just to the south and east of there is the Binnicker Community Center
located in mixed use institutional. So as you can see, this property currently contains a single family
dwelling unit as well as a shed on the rear of the property. And the petitioners are proposing to convert
the existing single family residence into a duplex. Part of that, as you see on the left, does require
a minimum parking
to be available on site, so they do propose to add a driveway, essentially for a parking pad for a vehicle
to satisfy that minimum parking requirement. The existing floor plan, 8th Street would be to the north.
You can see between the main floor and upper floor, there are five, currently five bedrooms, and they
are proposing to split those five bedrooms
create two dwelling units with three bedrooms in each one. The rear entry would be portioned off and
that would be the access for the second floor unit while the main entry to the front would be for the
main floor unit. As you can see here, this would be a approximate location of the proposed driveway
that could involve removing a street tree as well to allow for that driveway to be installed.
Looking at our criteria and findings for conditional use permit, the general compliance criteria, we
find that there are use specific standards that apply to the dwelling duplex within the R3 zoning district.
This petition meets those standards and in accordance with those standards, each unit has its own separate
exterior entrance and the exterior design of the structure will remain largely intact with the exception
of some potential modifications for some window replacement. The duplex will not exceed the six bedroom
maximum allowance
and property owner does not have any notice of violation on file. No other applicable regulations or
prior approvals are on record for this site. For consistency with the comprehensive plan, as I mentioned,
this area is identified as mixed urban residential for future land use. And this is largely in older
neighborhoods and redevelopment should be compatible with its surroundings. Comprehensive plan further
states that for approvals within mixed urban residential, it should allow
context-sensitive multifamily redevelopment along higher volume roads along district edges and near
major destinations and policy further encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment and Including
underutilized housing types such as accessory dwelling units and duplexes. We find this proposal is
congruent with the goals of the comprehensive plan Regarding that there are adequate public services
and facilities
We find that public service capacity does exist. The existing residence currently has those connections
and while no issues are anticipated, it will nonetheless be reviewed with the building permit process.
For additional criteria for minimizing and mitigating adverse impacts, we find there are no regulated
natural or scenic features that would be impacted. Property is located within the near west side historic
districts. And again, while the exterior design is planned to remain largely intact,
If that window replacement does require further exterior changes, the petitioners have been in contact
with the historic preservation program manager, and if approval is required, they will go down that
path with this historic preservation commission. There was a neighborhood meeting that was conducted.
Five people were in attendance at that meeting. Major concerns were noted to be with traffic and parking,
with the addition of the parking pad, as well as ongoing discussions with other
neighbors in the area regarding use of alleys and adjacent properties. We find that that impact for
parking and traffic and congestion is largely mitigated. No changes to trash or waste collection are
expected. And no phasing is proposed with this plan.
and therefore is the recommendation that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and
approve this petition with the following conditions. The conditional use approval is limited to the
design shown and discussed in the packet, with the exception if window replacement requires minor exterior
changes, those design changes shall be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable.
A one-for-one replacement for any street trees removed for the driveway installation is to be satisfied,
and this conditional use approval requires petitioner to pass a rental inspection
housing and neighborhood development and procure rental permit for any units that will be rented and
I'm here for any questions you may have Thank you Is the petitioner present Okay, if you would come
forward will you be the only one speaking to towards this petition or will there be other speakers on
your behalf Okay in that case go ahead and come forward and have you sign in
Asked because after you sign in I'll swear you in you'll have 20 minutes To present up to 20 minutes
any of the time you do not use will be reserved Until the end of public comment for you to make additional
comments before any action is taken by the board State your first and last name
Legal name do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth Yes, okay. You have up to 20 minutes. You don't have to use all of it now But you can
reserve what remains until later, okay? What's funny? I'm nervous tomorrow. I'll be performing in front
of 400 people at the busker chumlee and singing and yet this makes me ten times more nervous I
Joe already explained most everything that I would explain at this meeting. So it is a very large house
right now. The bedrooms are enormous. You walk in and each bedroom is twice the size, five bedrooms
that are all at least twice the size of a standard bedroom. And so it doesn't have much use for a normal
family. And we walked through and we recognized, wow, this would work really well as a
split duplex between the upper level and the lower level. And when I spoke with an architect, he said,
this is enough space to make a triplex. I mean, it's just a huge house. And so we feel it's walking
distance to downtown. It's walking distance to campus. And everyone knows how nice that is to have housing
that is that close to downtown. I recently moved within walking distance of downtown, and I use it all
the time. So it's really nice.
One of the constraints that came up during the process was parking. That's the main concern that everyone
has, whether it's the neighbors or the other people in the neighborhood worried about street parking.
And I understand that because it's very limited. A lot of these places around downtown where you only
have street parking and there are not a lot of driveways,
you're limited in that way. And so that was the main thing that we were trying to work around in this
situation. There used to be an unplatted alley behind the house. Behind this house there is a fence.
And then behind that fence we own another 10 yards of property. And that property's just overgrown now
and there are some power lines that run through there.
But at the back of our property, there's a bunch of old gravel that's been overgrown that used to be
a driveway and a large gate that opens up into the back of the home. So we were hoping that we would
be able to gain access through, through behind this, uh, this unplatted alley to gain access to the
back. It's not ideal that we put a driveway in the front because it just kind of lowers the curb appeal.
It lowers the, just the, the,
visual Appearance of the of the walkability of the of being in that neighborhood. I just like it cars
It's ideal to have them like kind of tucked behind houses But that's as far as we know that can't happen
as of now or it would potentially require some some Legal documents that were worked out amongst a few
neighbors if they're interested if not our plan is
A on here, but I ideally really our plan B would be to do that driveway in the front. And so it does
require a curb cut and it does require that we basically, um, take, um, up, I don't know, a third of
the front yard with a concrete pad, which is not ideal, but it's okay. The other thing is that the entrance
to the upstairs unit is the back of the house.
So the other thing that would be nice about having the parking in the back is that then it would create
a more convenient way to enter the house through the back. As of now, we'll have some kind of permeable
pavers that are going along the side of the house, and they would park on the street and walk around
the house and enter through the back. Everything else is pretty straightforward. We're dividing up some
rooms, putting up a few walls, taking a bedroom, turning it into a kitchen.
the bathroom upstairs is staying. There was already laundry upstairs and downstairs. It was a lot, a
lot of what was there was already conveniently placed to turn it into a duplex. So it's a relatively
minor, um, change, all things considered. Um, one thing that came up through the process is that I don't
know whether we were grandfathered in, um, uh, but there, the windows of the, of the front downstairs
unit would need to be, um, um,
I think because we are doing renovations, it has to meet current code. If correct me if I'm wrong, but
I think there's something like that. So the downstairs bedroom would require slightly expanding some
of these window rough openings so that it would meet egress. So it's a brick exterior facade. And so
we would have to potentially remove a few layers of brick in order to expand that window.
which also is not ideal, but that's the extent of the exterior changes that would be happening. So yeah,
those were a few of the things that were kind of hiccups along the way that made it seem like it was
gonna be a little bit more challenging, but besides for that, everything seems straightforward. Okay,
thank you. So you'll retain 14 minutes and 30 seconds for later if needed.
Okay. Okay. So what we're gonna do now is if you just remain there We'll ask the board if you have any
questions For either the staff or the petitioner at this point before we go to public comment So I've
got a quick one to staff, can you pull that picture up of the driveway cut they're proposing I'm just
curious about how many cars could fit there Just one Okay
So you're talking three bed one bath potentially six individuals, but one spot Okay Currently a five-bedroom
house turning it into a six-bedroom house. Yeah, and adding one one total bedroom and adding one Parking
spot. Okay. So ideally I wouldn't make a change in terms of the sum total of of cars parked got it
So just another follow-up to staff on that is what is the issue behind? Them not being able to put this
in the back Well, they certainly can put it in the back if they have permission from adjacent owners
There's not a platted alley that runs through the back. So they'd have to secure access to that from
the adjacent owners Okay, it had to be granted an easement from the adjacent owners to get to the back.
Okay, so an easement into that cut alley that's like to the east of the house and
The well, so it's there's an alley one past the house one west of us That runs north south and then
it would be an alley off of that alley, right? So that's the weird part about the whole thing the two
adjacent homeowners to that alley are here present and I would need to have access to the alley as well
as passing through this current overgrown void at the back of the property and
Okay. Yeah, I think that answers. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board before we
go to the public? Please. The question is for the petitioner. So is this home used currently as a rental?
Do you have every room occupied at this point? No.
We're hoping to do this construction now. It's not it hasn't been occupied for the last month.
Okay Well, I was just trying to figure out the transportation I mean the parking if it was already inhabited
by five different individuals in five I believe there were There were three between three and four cars
there at a given time. Okay So that has already happened in the neighborhood in terms of
That was what was as of two months ago. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you The other questions for petitioner
or for the staff at this point With that we'll go to the public for comment. Is there anyone in the
public in Attendance in chambers who would like to come forward and speak if so come forward and sign
in and we'll give you five minutes
So just one, okay. So please step forward there, sign in on the sheet please, and then when you're ready,
I'll have you state your name. There may also be some people on Zoom. We'll check on that next,
thank you. I like that. Very concerned about those that are online, that's good. Okay.
Bill Boust, I'm... One second, so Bill Boust? B-A-U-S. Okay, 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 have five minutes.
Okay. Thank you. I'm one of the nearby landowners. I live just down the street and I own one of the
houses that is very close to this one.
That that house which is a rental Has a private drive that goes to the garage in the back of that house
I keep hearing this private drive referred to as an alley The city sometimes think it's an alley, but
it's not it's actually a private drive There is another drive that runs South to 7th Street. I don't
know if that's a
Public property or not, I've never checked into that. It's often used like an alley, even though it's
not. A very major concern is parking. There is very limited parking in the area. If you park on both
sides of the street with even moderate-sized cars, a fire truck could not get through.
pick up trucks on each side of the street, a normal car couldn't get through. Narrow streets, they were
built before modern transportation was common. We were very concerned with the fact that the previous
tenant in that house and the previous owners had one car. This will mean there will be somewhere between
two and six cars.
very likely to the higher number because they probably will not be families in the house, they'll probably
be individuals. Even families usually have two cars nowadays. This is a very major concern. Now, we
talked to Mr. Joseph about this with the Neighborhood Association.
Treasurer of the neighborhood association currently. I'm also on the design review committee for the
historic district for that neighborhood and We discussed the possibility of providing access to the
back of that house And that this would require Agreement with with myself and with one other landowner
and we would
hope to be able to work this out so that we could get vehicles to the back of the house. There is actually
a very large garage back there on that property. Right now, there's no way to get to the garage. I think
it's probably would hold two cars. So if this could be worked out, we could definitely improve the parking
situation. Another problem is the access.
In the neighborhood we believe that the city was incorrect in deciding that this did not have to go
before the design review committee It seems sounds like to me they're going to they want this to be
approved to have The current design and then Change the windows and then bring it up for the design
review committee for the windows. We think it should be the other way around the
Design guidelines for the historic district specifically say that the entrances need to be from the
front, not rear entrances. And it would be a little more difficult to have two front entrances, but
it could be done. And we believe that having the rear entrance
Is not in compliance with the design review and and then and so this would be considered along with
any upcoming changes for the windows, so we do the neighborhood board Did not specifically say we're
against this proposal but
I think I'm correct in saying that we believe that the Approval of this is premature and that we should
work out some of these details before before it's finally approved. Thank you. Thank you Is there anyone
else in chambers who would like to speak to this petition? Please come forward sign in and I'll have
you state your name and I will swear you in My name is Tom Flynn, please sign in there Oh
Okay And Tom do you affirm or attest the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth Yes, you have up to five minutes. Okay, I'll be I'll be much briefer Thank
you. My wife and I own the property immediately to the west 1131 and we're
Definitely not opposed to the idea of a duplex there. But the alley is a problem that Mr. Bauss had
mentioned. He referred to it as a private drive. If that alley, or whatever it is, I don't actually
know the legal definition of that driveway alley, let's call it a drally, is within about two feet of
our house. And we hope to retire there someday.
And if that became the thoroughfare to get back to the other proposed alleyway, we'd be surrounded on
three sides by traffic, which is kind of a non-starter for us. So that was really all I wanted to comment
to. And I would love it if it was true that four to six adults only drove one car, or even better, none.
But I just don't think that's real.
Everyone in town drives unfortunately, so thank you. Thank you anyone else here in Chambers, you'd like
to speak to this Did we put out a notice online for those who would like to speak? How many do we have
waiting? I see one individual Tom pain you should be able to Unmute
Tom Payne, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear. I didn't know if I needed to go on video or not. Well,
that's okay. Now, Tom, do you affirm or attest the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. You have up to five minutes, Tom. Thank you.
I'm the president of the Near West Side Neighborhood Association. I will start by echoing Bill's concerns
already raised. As I look at that property, again, due to my concerns with access and parking and, you know,
The idea of achieving a gentle increase in density is to be desired, right? We have no opposition to
that in any way, shape or form. It's good for the city to have gentle infill without destroying the
character of the near west side. When I look at the area, especially behind the house, where the utilities
run, I mean, not only are there poles, there are trees,
one of the concerns I have, however, such an alley were created through these properties. I mean, not
only would it have to go through two people's property, but there could be further compensatory tree
plantings that may be needed depending upon where this access is to be placed. And that was the only
additional concern I wanted to raise. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Did anyone else sign in online If there is anybody else online that would like to speak to this petition,
please use the Raise hand function or send a message via chat and we can recognize you We'll wait a
moment for that And do we see anything I don't see anybody else with their hand raised. No. Thank you
Now we have others in public. That's of course, we're still daring public comment. Please come forward. I
We'll go ahead and then check again online after these comments go ahead and sign in please State your
first and last name I'm Jude Flynn. Do you affirm or test the testimony? You're about to give us the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do you have five minutes to present your comments
But I want to talk also about the fact that you might have people come visit you you might you know
For dinner or for whatever or your parents want to come stay with you for a couple of days And You know
if there's already four cars that live there and now you have five more people coming over for dinner
Where are they gonna park and I? I hope that there can be a way to figure this out because I also like
the idea of it being a duplex. It is a huge house and
And I can't speak, you know, I we have the house 1131 Definitely no alley access, you know behind that
house Plus there's telephone poles all along there the other side. There is a little bit more availability
but I'm I do question how the neighbors are gonna feel about
having their now they have a lot of traffic too, so It would be nice if there could be a way for it
to be figured out Somehow in in that little back corner that's kind of not being used and I don't know
what you're gonna do with that garage But anyway, I think that's all I got I mean I just feel like we
need to kind of remember that I
You know, even if you only own one car and you live there, there's gonna be people coming to visit you.
Where are they gonna park? Thank you. Thank you I'll go back again to the public. Is there anyone else
in the public in chambers who'd like to speak to this petition and Anyone else online will check one
more time, please I'm not seeing anybody else online with their hands. Very good. I
All right, this is I'm sorry. We have someone else from the public. Please come forward sign in My name
is Matt Gleason
And Matt do you affirm or test the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth Yes, you have five minutes to present your comments so I noticed there's been a lot of
discussion about a drive to the shed in the back of the unit and you know the ramifications of that,
but I wanted to point out that the proposal text only discusses a parking pad that is a cut from the
curb and you know would not be close to a neighbor's house and would not
not provide as much parking, but it would also meet the staff's recommendations as proposed in the text.
So I would hope that the proposal is not rejected based on what could be, what the builder may want
in the future, but maybe if that was a separate proposal, it could be approved in addition to this that
meets staff recommendation. Thanks.
Anyone else from the public in chambers? Okay with that it's back to the petitioner to use the remainder
of your 14 plus minutes if you'd like to have any additional comments to either address questions that
have come up or comments or new information for us No, I don't have much to add
but I do understand I just want to say that I understand because I recently moved to a home on a On
a street that has zero street parking I moved from a home that had ample parking on to a street that
Had that shares two spots of public spark parking and we have a single lane driveway and it is a total
hassle so I totally understand and respect your guys's concern and
And I I do think that our proposal of putting in a single driveway in the front would meet the requirements.
I'm potentially open to although it would really lower the curb appeal of the house to do a two wide
lane parking driveway right in front. So the entire front of the house would just be covered with two
cars. That's not completely off the table if that meets
code as long as it might potentially push the limit of permeable surface on the whole property. So that
would be a concern. But if that was the make or break, I'm happy to discuss that. But it does seem like
that's the main concern. So I think I'll just leave it at that unless there are any other questions
for me. Okay.
So that'll conclude the petitioners comments and just stay there for me, please. It's back to the board
for action. We'll either take a motion or additional discussion before a motion is made, please. I do
have a question about the near west side historic district commission not commission, but the group that
They are talking about that they have to make the design approval before we approve this. So I wanted
to I want to understand that a little bit and I believe it was one of the comments that talked about
that. So the way the condition is is expressed right now and the way it's written right now on number
one talks about that it will be
is just talking about the Historic Preservation Commission approval. And I think in this case because
they are a historic district they have it has to go before them. And if I don't know do you know that
Eric has a fact. So there's not necessarily a sequence of events that has to happen in any particular order.
Obviously, you know, both things happen independent of each other. So you have the near west side historic
district guidelines which have to be met, but also the unified development ordinance requirements that
have to be met. So, you know, in our report, we acknowledge that this is in historic district and is
subject to those guidelines. If there are any changes to the outside, those have to be reviewed by the
historic district guidelines and the HPC. So this is just granting the approval of the use. You know,
as I mentioned, we've got a condition of approval that, you know, references the
them. So those need to work through that approval process separately. OK. So we don't have to state
specific on the conditional on one of the conditions that they have to go in front of the historic district.
Well that already is listed as.
Reference says the condition of approval that if there are any changes to the exterior those have to
receive approval You know when we specifically reference the windows that the petitioner mentioned as
well that might need to be modified So that's built into our approval. Okay, I'm just I'm just making
sure. Yeah. Thanks It's another quick question since you brought it up that was gonna be what I was
gonna inquire about is how big of a pad driveway pad and
Could they potentially put in the front because I'm definitely supportive of the duplex. I think we
we need things like this But also, you know the concerns are there If staff knows that or could find
out or if the petitioner if you know Yeah, so the UDO would allow for an 18 foot wide drive cut
Along the front of the UD only requires one parking space for a duplex which the site plan meets know
the petitioner mentioned that they certainly can Widen the driveway if need be they could even possibly
lengthen it, you know subject to the impervious surface coverage requirements But they're not required
to so that would be their choosing if they want to extend that parking capacity on the site You know,
it doesn't necessarily affect this approval Okay, because I appreciate the willingness of the petitioner
to be even, you know open to that and
And I know we've seen several of these before where obviously You know you want to weigh the concerns
of your neighbors But that is something you're open to if you could potentially fit, you know three
or four cars depending on what's allowed In the driveway, there's not enough depth. Okay, there's not
and because we have to still leave the sidewalk because there's a sidewalk there clear so in between
the sidewalk and the house there's only room for one car so it would have to be side-by-side and I know
that we were within ten percent of
of the impermeable surface of the whole property I think was like 43 percent or something but something
within striking distance of that number. So I am hesitant for that and for the curb appeal. But I am
open to it. OK. So the most you could probably get is to and that's not definitely the most we could
possibly do is to unless we use the back which is off the table at this point. OK. All right. Thank you.
Any other questions comments from the board. I will make a motion that we approve CU 5425 adopt the
findings as written in the staff report subject to the three conditions that are set forward in the
report as well. Do I have a second.
We have a motion in front of the board before we Take the call the question. Is there any further comments
from board members before the vote? Then I call the question Ballard. Yes, bro. Yes, Fernandez. Yes,
Katsenko. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Motion passes your petition has been granted Thank you. Have a good
show Thank you
730 p.m. Tomorrow night, let's go chumlee full band gonna be great All right, we will now move on to
the next see you and that is get to my pager That would be That's us See you 56
125 and That is he stated correctly That is David Roberts 121 Kirkwood Avenue suite 300. Can I have
a staff report, please? Yes. Thank you. Good evening to the board. My name is Jamie Kreindler. I'm the
senior zoning planner and
And the petitioner for this case as you mentioned is David Roberts. The request is a conditional use
approval to allow a duplex in the residential small lot R3 zoning district. The property is on a corner
lot at the southwest corner of South Clark Street and East Fifth Street and it's in the green acres
neighborhood. The surrounding properties are also zoned R3 the size of this lot is.
2.14 acres and the lot currently contains a small one-story detached single-family residence The property
is surrounded by a mix of single-family homes and the comprehensive plan designation is mixed urban
residential The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing residents and develop the site with a
new duplex each unit has a separate exterior entrance with the entrance for unit a facing South Clark
Street to the east and
and the entrance for unit B facing facing East Fifth Street to the north. The proposed duplex includes
a new one and a half story structure with two three bedroom three bath dwelling units. The plan features
a gable bungalow design and is similar to the roof pitch front porch size front building setback and
vehicle parking access of surrounding properties in the neighborhood. The existing driveway on East
Fifth Street to the north will be removed and a new carport and parking area will be installed. There
is an access improved alley access to the west of the site. So the petitioner is working with the engineering
department to have access off of that alley. The proposed duplex is set back at the required 15 foot
front build to line. And this applies to both of the frontages along South Clark Street and East Fifth Street.
The submitted site plan is compliant with the maximum impervious surface limitation of 45 percent in
the R3 zoning district and this petition was presented to the Green Acres Neighborhood Association in
October of this year. Notes from the neighborhood meeting were provided in the packet to the board.
We did receive one public comment after the packet was distributed and that was provided this evening.
They were expressing concerns about.
trash specifically where the bins will be stored and if enough trash bins will be provided I know on
the plan the petitioner did show sidewalks out to the streets there but maybe they can address that
in further detail this evening for the general compliance criteria it was found that the petition meets
the use specific standards for a duplex in the R3 zoning district the proposal is in line with the goals
of the comprehensive plan
And the petitioner stated that new water service and sanitary connection will be coordinated with city
utilities and new electrical service will be coordinated with Duke Energy. No significant adverse impacts
are expected from the proposed duplex. No phasing is proposed with the plan. So the department's
recommendation is that the BZA adopt the proposed findings and approve this case with the conditions
stated in the staff report. And I'm happy to provide any additional information or answer any questions
that you have.
Thank you All right with that is the petitioner here in attendance Will it just be yourself? Yes, okay.
Go ahead and sign in and I'll swear you in I
You ready state your first and last name Yeah, Matt Ellen would with Matt black architecture. Do you
affirm or test the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth I do Okay, you'll have 20 minutes and any of the time and use during this portion of the process
You'll hold in reserve to use again before the board Takes action after the public comment Thank you
David Clark with enabled holdings is on the zoom call for
Are there any specific owner related questions but I'm just going to speak briefly to the question about
the trash collection I guess or storage if you could pull up the site plan Jamie please. Thanks.
Thank you. So probably what we would propose is an area between the Main structure in the carport in
the rear or in the West. We've got about 10 feet there Between the structures and the walks from each
unit and we'll go to that parking area So we'd look to place trash bins and in that general area to
store them that's where tenants will be coming and going most the time between their vehicles makes sense to
to have them there and then they would you know wheel them out to the street for pickup. That would
all be part of the tenant agreements and instructions. So we didn't show it in the site plan but as
a good question by a neighbor to ask that because I know it does become can become an issue when you've
got multiple tenants. So that's our plan to address that. Otherwise Jamie cover everything should be
obvious in the design. But if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them.
Thank you, you'll hold Was it 18 minutes something? Roughly 18 They used about a minute and 40 seconds.
So we have 1825 left. Okay 1825 So you'll have that much time for comments again before after public
comment now, we're back to the board for comments or questions, John Yeah, I just had a question. I'm
you know And looking at the
Kind of like the Google map of it. I'm just confused about the the access the alley access from the
city What alley are we talking about? Or right away. I guess I'm confused by that Yeah, it's a good
So there's a planet alley that runs along the west side of the property that the petitioners proposing
to utilize for the driveway access So they need to coordinate any improvements in the right away with
the engineering department. So that's the main
Behind that particular condition It's one of our infamous platted allies. That's never been an alley
Yeah, so it's platted just hasn't been improved. So the petitioner would be improving it for the portion
along there Right, yep, we just we reached out to the city Contact us. Yeah Any other comments or questions board
Seeing none if you'll have a seat, we'll go to the public for comment Is there anyone in the chambers
who'd like to speak to this as members of the public? Seeing none we'll go to the online Version to
see if anyone there is waiting to make comment If there's anybody online, please use the raise hand
function and we can recognize you or send a message via chat and
Not seeing anybody Okay. So with that if the remaining time we'd go back to the petitioner if you have
anything further you'd like to state If not, we're back to the board for action. We'll take a motion
or continued discussion All I move that we approve see you 5625 Adopt a proposed findings as forward
in the staff report and adopt the
The four condition or five conditions also included in the staff report of a second. I'll second And
at this point any further comments no questions been any comments from the board If not, I'll call the
question Ballard yes, Burrell. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, could Cinco. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes, the petition
passes and the petition is granted and
Thank you for your time. Good luck Now with that we will go to be dash 42 dash 25 It'll be the graystone
Let me get to that page here and that will be great. I'm sorry gray star development central and May
we have a staff report? Certainly
I'm Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner. I'm here presenting the staff report for ZR2025-09-0097 for 503
North Roger Street. This might look, this might be a familiar location. It has come before the board.
This property has been before the board two times recently. One under a previous petitioner for a similar
project, got variances, and then
came back earlier this year with the current petitioner for a package of variances, another back for
more variances. So this is 503 North Rogers Street. It is currently, well, let's see. It's 5.2 acres
between Rogers Street on the east, Fairview Street on the west,
B-line curves along the north property. It also has frontage on 9th Street to the south. It's in the
mixed use downtown zoning district within the showers technology character overlay. So we abbreviate
that MD-ST. The comprehensive plan designation is also downtown. It's currently a salvager scrap yard
being run as Bloomington Iron and Metal, also known as BIM, also known as Fell Iron and Metal or Fell Iron.
so I'm gonna skip over the The details of the proposal other than to say that the petitioner proposes
to redevelop the site as a mixed-use multifamily development And the petitioner is requesting three
variances at this time they all have to do with trees and the
planting trees and the constraints that the petitioner identified after they began detailed work on
the landscape plan for the development. So the first one is relief from tree and forest preservation.
This is a photo looking, so generally there are trees along the perimeter of the property, generally
speaking, that
currently serve as sort of visual buffer around the scrap yard. They have the characteristic of appearing
as if the trees there were not intentionally planted but grew up over time. We don't have verification
of that, but it sort of has that look to it. This is a photo from the inside of the site of a portion
of that existing
treed area This is from another portion of the site It looks similar from the other side Just to give
you a sense of it so all in all there's about just over an acre 1.09 acres of existing closed canopy
wooded area that is subject to tree and forest preservation standards in the unified development ordinance
in order to make way for the development the petitioner is proposing to remove all of it and
which is more than the tree and forest preservation standards would allow. The second request is about
how many interior trees they plant back. This is a image up there is the landscape plan that was included
in your packet with tree planting locations identified in the colored
areas that snake across the site are different utility constraints where it's either not possible or
difficult to put trees. So I think this chart, which comes from that same landscape plan, is the best
summary of what's going on. So there's the first two lines, existing tree canopy, 1.09 acres, and then they'd be
the UDO would require 0.872 acres of existing canopy to be preserved unless you grant a variance. So
then there's proposed off-site plantings and proposed on-site plantings. To go to the bottom first,
proposed on-site plantings, 73 large canopy trees, 20 ornamental trees, 844 shrubs. So that fulfills
all shrub planting requirements, tree requirements for
parking lot landscaping and also street tree requirements But they're short on the number of interior
trees and they also aren't providing any trees on the site to make up for the Removed existing trees.
So instead they're proposing to do off-site planting which is the the one in the middle. There'll be
97 large canopy trees planted off-site in 46 Sorry, 97 that count as replacement for the
to be removed and then 46 to make up for the deficit. So how do they get to 97 trees to count for the
removed area? Well, this is a calculation proposed by the petitioner that boils down to how much canopy
would be covered by trees planted 25 feet on center once they get large enough
to be a closed canopy from that. So that's where the 97 comes from. I wanna point out that there's nothing
in code that says how you calculate that, because code does not envision an offsite planting like this.
If code did envision that, they could just use that and they wouldn't need a variance. So they're coming
to you with a variance, so this is not, this doesn't have a basis in the code already,
However staffs Analysis of this is that staff recommends this seems appropriate For the number of trees
to be planted back to account for the removal that they're doing So, how are they what is this offside
planting the petitioner has proposed to To do a memorandum of memorandum of understanding an agreement
with the city
Parks Department, City of Wilmington Parks and Recreation Department, and then also Planning
and Transportation, our department would be involved as well to do the offsite planting. A draft of
this MOU was included in the packet. It may be revised according to the needs of parks, the specific
legal things. Everybody's lawyers have looked at it, but they haven't signed off on it, so it might
change a little bit in the exact wording.
However, everyone's in agreement on the intent. And the big picture of what the intent is is that the
Parks Department will identify planting locations on parks managed city owned land and right of way
street tree planting locations in the right of way. Then Grey Star will propose what species they're gonna put
where in those planting locations. Planning will approve those. Then Grey Star, the petitioner will
go plant them or have a contractor plant them however they want to do it. And then Parks and Recreation
will make sure that they were planted according to specifications, communicate that to planning,
And then that'll be the sign off. While we're talking about parks and recreation, I do want to mention
that our urban forester Haskell Smith is here this evening. If you have any questions for him directly
about parks role in this or about the urban forester's role for the urban canopy in Bloomington. The
third variance is about street trees. This is something that
is often handled at the staff level, but for transparency, they're bringing it forward to look at. So
the issue is they're proposing the total number of required street trees, but not necessarily in the
locations that the UDO requires. So there's various requirements about locations, how far apart the
trees can be, how far they have to be from utility lines,
The proposals is following all the requirements of distance from utility lines. So that's, we're taking
that as given because even a variance wouldn't get them around that. They would have to get approval
from the gas company from CBU if they wanted to violate those. So they're planning on meeting all those
distance requirements, but not necessarily the spacing requirements. So this is a view of along Fairview
Street, north is to the right, the red-ish
line that goes north-south horizontal across this image is 10 feet on either side of an existing gas
line that is running underground along there. So you'll see that all the street trees are out of that
area, but it doesn't mean that there's some smaller trees on the left and some small trees along the
right, and in the middle there's kind of some large trees, and then where all those colors come together
in the middle, that's a big gap that's I believe about 130 feet where there's no street trees. So normally
that gap doesn't meet those distance requirements. So that's one of the challenges along Fairview, along
Rogers, so now north is up again, Rogers is there on the right. They're proposing one street tree actually
in the right of way because it's very, the width of the frontage is not,
very great. So there's not a lot of room and they need to get in a path and entrance. So there's one
tree instead of two. And then over on ninth, we're packing in a lot of trees because of our number.
But then if you look really closely, there's a water line that's running approximately seven feet from
the trees that are closest to the street. So those might need to be switched out for small trees. So
The main takeaway about the street trees is they are proposing the required number, but some of them
are farther apart than the code ordinarily requires or farther from the right of way than the code ordinarily
requires. So there's three criteria. I will summarize them briefly. The full proposed findings are in
the packet. For the first criterion, tree and forest preservation,
that the proposal is not injurious so long as the petitioner plants at least 97 large canopy trees offsite
as remediation. Interior planting trees having a deficit will not be injurious since the petitioner
will be required to plant trees both on the site and offsite, which will mitigate and reduce the number
of trees on site, which will mitigate the reduced number of trees on site. For street trees, not injurious
since the petitioner will be required to plant the same number of trees in appropriate locations.
Second criterion, the effect on adjacent properties, the recommended finding for tree and forest preservation
is no substantial adverse impacts, including that adjacent properties are either separated from the
existing wooded area by streets or trails, or located to the south or at higher elevation than the wooded
area, so the removal will result in minimal loss of shade.
For the interior planting trees, no substantial adverse impacts. The plant provides trees at all feasible
planting locations on the site, including along adjacent streets and shared property lines. For the
street trees, no substantial adverse impacts. The plant provides trees at all feasible planting locations
along adjacent public streets. So then to the third criterion, for tree and forest preservation, unique
site conditions that create
Practical difficulty includes steep grade changes, the need to accommodate utilities, fire lanes, public
connections to the beeline and Butler Park. Make the meaningful preservation of the existing
trees infeasible. Large size of the property in the presence of tree canopy coverage is very atypical
for a property in the downtown. And the requested variance provides the minimum relief necessary. So
because they're planting stuff off site, it's the minimum relief that
that could be offered. For interior planting trees, multiple underground utilities, grade changes, easements,
buildings, parking areas, and green stormwater detention facilities, all of which limit space needed
for tree survival. The large size of the property requires on-site detention that would not be required
for smaller, more typical properties in downtown zoning districts. So I think this is a key thing here
that most properties downtown are under a size threshold
where not all, but most properties downtown are under a size threshold where there is minimal or no
on-site stormwater detention required. There's certain assumption that the existing stormwater utilities,
stormwater infrastructure in downtown is enough to handle it. This site is larger and there's room to
handle the stormwater on-site. So it's perfectly reasonable through CBU standards to have them retain
that stormwater.
The UDO counts areas for detention basins and things like that as landscape area, which in downtown,
the UDO's assumption is if there's landscape area, it is planted chock-a-block with trees, nothing but
trees. Because for a typical site downtown, there's like this tiny little postage stamp of green area
and there's one tree in it. So that's where there's this mismatch between the standard tree planting
requirements in downtown
This particular site now for a hypothetical comparison if this were in the RH residential high-density
multifamily zoning district, which it is not but if it were Well their current proposed plan couldn't
be couldn't possibly done But if a site of this size were developed in the RH district the requirement
would be 44 interior trees So they're already providing 73 which is way more than that
So, which isn't to say that they're providing more than they're required to. No, they're actually providing
less than they're required to. That's why they're coming to a variance. But the size of the site is
unusual for downtown. And a site of this size elsewhere in the city under a different zoning district
would not run into this difficulty. So, I'm pointing out that there's something peculiar about the property.
That's the whole point of that little digression there.
Large size of the property is a peculiar feature of the property, which creates practical difficulties.
And again, the requested variance provides the minimum relief necessary. And finally for the street
trees, there's limited right of way along Rogers and the presence of underground utilities and easements
along other streets create conflict with tree planting locations without relief from the location
requirements. The project would be unable to comply with both street tree minimum planting numbers and
utility clearance standards.
I do also want to draw your attention to a number of letters that were included in the packet that staff
received. So those are in there. We also received two letters about this petition that came in after
the packet was already sent to you. Those are provided in hard copy to you here. Anyone who from the
member of the public wants to have those, there's copies here in City Hall or you can contact planning
afterwards.
So the recommendation, the petitioner's solution of offsite remediation planting has an essential nexus
to the goals of the UDO tree and forest preservation standards and landscape standards. It
also is proportional to the goals of the UDO's tree and forest preservation standards and landscape
standards. So based on the report and the written findings of fact that are found in your packet, the
department recommends that the BZA adopt the proposed findings and approve all three requested variances
with three conditions. So the first condition is repeating a condition that was in the previous variance
approval and staff's recommending including because this is relevant to how much space is available
for tree planting. And that is the site shall provide a new multi-use trail with access easement that's
open to the public, providing a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection from Rogers Street at the B
line to Reverend Butler Park as shown in the submitted
Conceptual site plan and that shall be demonstrated in an approved site plan the reason to put it here
is because if that wasn't there Maybe they could plant a few more trees in the location of it But this
is something that they are proposing that the city is supportive of and provides a public benefit the
second second one is the summary is this this is where the MOU comes in this is this is how we ensure
that off-site planting gets done and
Prior to final occupancy for the proposed development, the petitioner shall plant large canopy trees
as remediation at offsite locations. The number of offsite remediation trees shall be at least the sum
of 97 plus any deficit in the number of onsite interior planting trees. Prior to issuing a site development
permit associated with this development, the petitioner shall execute an agreement with the City of
Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning and Transportation Department
in a form acceptable to both departments, which commits the petitioner to the offsite remediation plantings
required by this condition. And finally, the site shall provide at least as many street trees as required
by the UDO along the front dishes in the general areas shown on the submitted plan. And that it's spacing
distances that comply with UDO standards to the maximum extent practicable, as demonstrated in a site plan.
You'll notice that this one says what they have to do, but also says what wiggle room they have. So
this is going forward with the idea that the final landscape plan might not be exactly what you're looking
at tonight, but it'll be very similar to, and will have at least the number of trees, and that there
will be trees, there will be street trees in the general locations as they are shown on here. They just
might move a little bit left to right,
Be a small tree be two small trees and several large trees something like that With that that's the
end of the staff presentation. Thank you. Thank you petitioner present and How many people will be speaking
on behalf of the petitioner if we could get all of you up at the same time now And I'll go ahead and
square you all in and that way you can free form it
So while you're signing in, let's get everyone to get their names in there for me, please. I'll go ahead
and explain what's gonna happen here. So we have multiple petitioners, I'm sorry, multiple presenters
for the petitioner. They will have a total of 20 minutes. Those petitioners can use that 20 minutes
in any way that they would like. Any unused time of that 20 minutes during your initial presentation
can be reserved and used to address any comments or questions that come in after the public comment.
I say like a point of order on this please. I mean, I just want to be patient. I mean we previously
heard this petition and granted approvals to the uses and all the other design elements So for the purpose
of tonight's discussion, we're really just talking about this tree issue, correct? Okay, that's correct.
Okay. Thank you Gabriel
One point also if you have questions about hey, when does when do we address this other issue? I'd be
happy to answer when that's gonna happen. But if it's not about trees, it's not tonight that it's happening
Yeah, I mean the point I'm trying to make is that we're having a debate about trees, right and We had
to stay within the scope of what's in front of the trees As I'm sorry is if you're in the public you'll
have the opportunity to comment on what we've said here
We'll give you an opportunity to speak during the public comment now. I don't have to have you all say
your names out loud I'll just ask do you each affirm or test the testimony you're about to give be the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth verbal I do Okay, we'll start the timer you have 20 minutes
Good evening, everyone. My name is John Anist and I'm with gray star development and Want to start by
thanking you all and thanking staff. We've been working together for several months to come up with
the best solution here we believe that the redevelopment that we're proposing here on the 5.2 acres
and focusing on The existing trees that are in place. We really wanted to have a very thoughtful way
of mitigating the removal of those so our
Site plan that you all saw back in June Could best be implemented Through the design process. We looked
at a lot of different schemes for this site. It has a lot of unique elements like Gabriel mentioned
earlier and we also evaluated several alternate designs through staff comments and through our process
and I'll share a little bit about that but just overall want to touch on a
Goals here and that's to redevelop this site. That's currently a scrap metal yard into multifamily housing
something that we believe would be a benefit to the needed housing here in the community and Our goal
is to meet the intent of the UDO we want to plant trees on our site we want to do that in the best way
we can but also be mindful of
Some unique constraints. There's a lot of utilities here There's a limited amount of area and then there's
also a large number of trees required So we plan of plant all of the trees required What we're what
we're asking for is the ability to do that in a combination of on-site planting and off-site planting
which we've worked with the Parks Department and planning to come up with a
Memorandum of understanding that will allow us to plant trees in the most desirable locations for the
city So it's anticipated that the majority of the site plannings will be where those trees are most
needed there also be a lot of thought put into how The Parks Department spaces these trees so that way
there can be a reestablishment of a closed cell canopy area and
Currently on the site, as was shown in the photos and mentioned by staff, there's a large amount of
perimeter screening trees. Walking in the area, it's not very thoughtful landscaping. It just is what
has grown over the course of the recycling yard operating. It currently serves a good purpose of help
screening the recycling yard. What we're proposing is as many trees as we can fit on site. We want trees
on the property.
Know that they're a benefit to the property and we want to put as many as we can Unfortunately, there's
just a number of constraints that we have between utilities fire access lanes The connection from the
beeline trail to the park There's just a limited amount of space where trees can be planted. Well, they'll
have the ability to thrive and survive and so
Our landscape team is here tonight as well, but we really worked hard to identify as many planning locations
as we could on site At one point we evaluated an alternate Location of the fire axis lane which runs
along the beeline trail and We're currently a large number of existing trees exist The fire axis lane
is needed for the fire department to provide life safety to the buildings we evaluated
Having that fire axis lane be In the same alignment as the current beeline trail We talked to the parks
department to see if that could be an option based on some fat some feedback. We've gotten from the
environmental planner and ultimately the Use of incorporating the beeline trail in a fire axis area
just did not work for the parks department, so we've
We went back to the original design that you all had seen in June and Largely what you're seeing today
and the trees were proposing are very similar to what was seen and approved in June and Our goal here
really is to work with The city the community and staff so that way this can be a successful project
Overall our intent is to plant as many trees. You'll see that
the way staff had written the Approval criteria is that it we want to plant as many trees on site as
we can and any trees that we fall short we will plant a hundred percent of those off-site as part of
the MOU so Happy to address any questions comments and We'll take the remainder of the time to do that.
So thank you all very much. Appreciate it Anyone else from the petitioner would like to speak at this
point? Okay with that
Make sure my rules of order Do we have any questions from the board to the staff or to the petitioner
at this point? please So what is the total this is for staff? What is the total amount of trees? How
many trees that they are planting on site and how many they should plant off site? Yeah, so the easiest
way to answer that is to pull up a
that slide. This is a table from their lands, oh, there it is. This is a table from their landscape
plan. Where it says propose onsite plantings that groups trees for meeting different requirements, so
the parking lot requirements, the street tier requirements, but
The current landscape plan shows 73 large trees plus 20 ornamental trees on sites for a total of 93
on site. But that leaves a deficit of 46 that would be required to meet interior plantings. So there'd
be 46 off site plus 97 off site for remediation for the close canopy.
for a total, going by these numbers, a total of 143 offsite. So that's, keep that number in mind. They're
proposing 143 large canopy trees planted offsite. That number could change if they fit more trees on
the site. Or if it turns out that something comes up and oh, this one tree we wanted to put over here
in this courtyard
Won't work because there's got to be a waterline under it or something like that So in that case, maybe
that number off-site will go up a little bit. But in the end the number would be Between what planet
on-site and off-site it would equal the requirement plus 97 trees for the removed existing close canopy
Thank you any other questions from the board at this point except one when I first of all, you know,
I think you're
Staff report is very thorough. So I don't want to push that aside, but I I just want to clarify I thought
I heard you gave her out the beginning of your comments Say that this is something that could have been
handled at a staff level specifically the street tree one Not the other ones. There's there's no staff
authority to grant off-site planting at all I mean it's something we might look at in the future. Maybe
if this goes well, I don't I don't want to promise us to do anything, but Thank you
Any other comments or questions of the petitioner or staff at this time? Seeing none we are going to
move to comments from the public So those wanting to make comments anything, please you can come up
to the podium And we'll take our time here. Make sure we get everyone covered Please sign in And again
each of you will have up to five minutes you've already signed in and you are under an affirmation of
testimony if you would
Go ahead. I just state your name again for the record. All right Bill mouse, please you have five minutes
I'm on the board of the narrow side neighborhood association which adjoins that our neighborhood adjoins
this area We have a very serious problem with this proposal First of all We did not know
that this was happening until we heard about the trees. So if there are problems in addition to the
trees that we object to, particularly the increased traffic on Fairview Street, which is a very narrow
street, two blocks from a grade school. And I'm not aware of anything in this proposal that will mitigate
that serious situation. As for the trees,
The idea of not planting trees on this site and planting them somewhere else is a scam. The purpose
for having requirements for trees in developments is so those areas will have tree cover. The problem
in this city is that our parks don't have enough trees. If our parks needed more trees, we would have
planted them.
The cost of buying small trees and planting them and letting them turn into big trees is rather small.
I'm sure the Parks Department appreciates not having to buy trees and letting somebody buy them for
them. However, this doesn't solve the requirement for planting trees on site. There will never be any
trees on this site
Well, not never any trees. There will be always forever be fewer trees on-site than the current requirements
are. And so by permitting them to plant trees off-site instead of on-site, basically you're just saying
they don't have to plant, they don't have to meet the requirements. The reason is because of utilities
and access, fire lanes.
Every site has those problems. That's not a real excuse The reason they don't want to plant that many
trees is Because they want to cram as many buildings on the site as they can and they don't care what
does to the Long-term viability of the city. Thank you Thank you. Go ahead and sign in there and when
you're signed in state your first and last name and I'll swear you in I
I live at 703 West 9th Street, which is very close to. Okay, do you affirm or attest the testimony you're
about to give us, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Of course. Okay, you have five minutes.
Well, I am quite surprised to see that the fact that the neighborhood and I have submitted a letter
to the zoning department, and Gabriel is here, that there was no mentioning about the traffic issues.
Session is about trees. The park has already trees. I live in the neighborhood that I cannot get out
of my driveway when the parents come to drop off their kids in the morning and in the afternoon.
I live on, my house is on the corner of West 9th and Fairview. When I come out, I cannot drive north
to south on Fairview
to go to where I need to go. I have to come and make a turn, go on 9th Street, go to Maple or other
streets in order to be able to go to downtown. Traffic is a major problem there. We all complain about
that. Now having a five-story building, people living there, I'm sorry, affordable or for family housing,
having a swimming pool for the people, really, that's questionable for me.
We have problem with traffic. We have trees there. Just two years ago, teachers came with students.
They planted really nice trees in that park. Traffic is an issue. We are against that. No variance.
Please consider that. We live there and we see that every day. Imagine if somebody has a heart attack.
Ambulance cannot come in to save them.
Is a big issue there having five stories there. Everybody's gonna have one or two cars there Imagine
what will happen there? I would request that the city thinks about it We are very happy to hear that
the company would like to plant trees wonderful great But what are you going to do about the traffic?
That is the main issue for me. Thank you for your attention Yeah, thank you. Go ahead and sign if you
would please I
Okay, I'll wait for you there to sign in And do you affirm or test that the testimony you're about to
give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth you have up to five minutes for your comments
Thank you. I am not immediately connected to the immediate neighborhood. I don't live near enough to
discuss the question of traffic, but I wanted to discuss the question of viability in general of this
particular plan. It seems to me it's a pharaonic plan in the most negative sense. It covers up the entire
available surface of this property. It jars with the general environment.
it removes native trees and native green and I do not see how even that could, it's applicable to, it
already violates and it requires exemptions from a series of code rules. I do not believe that the city was not,
our citizens were not apprised of this earlier so we can provide some more feedback. I do not know why
we need such a huge development there. I do not know why the area could not be rezoned so it would have
a milder footprint in terms of the surface covered. For example, the garage they proposed to plant to
put in there, it's huge. There are already parking garages surrounding
within walking distance in other parts of the area. And they're not fully utilized. I do not know why
the particular garage area that they've planned could not be used to simply have green there. I am a
little shocked, actually, when I fully want to urge you to read the letters of my fellow citizens that
are included in the packet. I do not have anything to add. They've already made the point for me.
I am truly shocked. And also the company does not have a very good legal past. Nine different attorneys
general from other states already suing this company does not have credibility in terms of what it promises
to do. I do not think that it will be any different in the case of the city of Bloomington. I do not
wish to be learning from the news that we have to sue them for any other violations.
I do not believe they keep their promises. Please do not grant them these viruses or other exemptions
which is the proper name for this particular. They've already been exempted, it seems to me they've
received plenty of exemptions. I do not want to see the expertise and the knowledge and the education
of people who work for this city utilized for free by this company for all I can see.
these wonderful people working for the city, that I would like to see them working for us and not indirectly
for a company that is not very credible. Please do not do this. Do not grant these variances. They do
not deserve it. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Your first and last name Tim Dwyer and do you affirm or attest the testimony? You're about to give us
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do You have up to five minutes for your comments
Thank you. Good evening. My name is Tim Dwyer, and I'm a resident of Bloomington. Now, admittedly, I
don't live particularly near this site, but as a resident engaged in the community, I care a lot about
housing affordability and long-term economic prosperity, and I appreciate the opportunity to share my
perspective here. I urge the BZA to grant these three variants requested related to landscaping and
tree coverage. The property currently houses Bloomington Iron and Metal, which is a bit of an odd
semi-industrial site, given it's near downtown, and this is an area that the city is targeting for long-term
growth and economic development. If the city is successful in bringing in new employers into the trades
district, there will be the need for new housing nearby, and converting this site into something productive
seems like a reasonable path forward. The variances requested here seem pretty reasonable to me, and
they don't seem to pose any significant risk to the neighborhood. Based on information in the meeting
packet and some of the other folks,
who've testified and from the staff presentation, it seems like swapping out current tree coverage for
off-site is a reasonable path forward, given the site restrictions. It also seems like a lot of the
opposition isn't really germane to the tree issue, but related to other issues, and while I think that's
important to hear, obviously when we're talking about tree variances, we should be talking about the
subject at hand.
For these reasons, I support granting the variances. I also wanna highlight the willingness to construct
a new multi-use trail connection between the beeline and the park on the west side of the property.
You know, folks mentioned traffic issues. Well, a new bicycle connection could potentially alleviate
some of those issues and provide some accessibility for neighbors to more easily get into downtown,
to City Hall here, and even to the farmer's market on Saturdays.
I think that we should focus on the fact that the BZA here is being asked to weigh these right that
existing regulations pose particular burdens on this site. I really appreciated mr Holbro's comments
about how the Other zoning districts wouldn't apply such a strong tree planting requirement. That's
just a facet of the downtown zoning I think that's important to consider and we should also
Be mindful that this site has previously been targeted for redevelopment in a pretty long and drawn
out process. Indiana Public Media reported in October of 2023, a different developer wanted to build
a site project here. And I'm not exactly sure why that didn't come to fruition, but it seems like this
site does pose unique challenges. So on the whole, given our need for workforce housing near an emerging
employment center, the public benefits and the commitments from the developer, I respectfully urge the
BZA to approve these requested variances. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here in chambers from the public who would like to speak to this petition.
Seeing none let's go to online to see if we have anyone in the public who would like to make comment.
If there is anybody online please use the raise hand function or send a note via chat and we can recognize you.
Okay Seeing none we do go back to the petitioner at this point to be able to address any comments or
questions up to this point in the petition process And how much time do they have again Gabriel or Eric?
Okay, please Good evening for the record. My name is Tim Oaks. I'm an attorney at ice Miller representing
the petitioner tonight I'll be very brief here
First we've got a number of people here that can answer any questions that the board might have in terms
of some of the technical issues But I want to point out a couple things one a lot of the comments that
Were stated particularly those involving traffic are not relevant to tonight's considerations
There there is another approval that will occur here Which is development plan approval at the Planning
Commission and certainly there will be time to address some of those issues that pop up in a public
format That's number one to there was a notion that this is some kind of scam that we're avoiding some
responsibilities here with respect to to trees in the neighborhood and
We respectfully disagree with that conclusion for a couple of reasons one We're not avoiding the planting
of any what we view required trees here You're looking at a total of 216 large canopy trees 20 Small
ornamental trees in 844 trubs. It's over a thousand plantings for this project More significantly the
study that a certified
You know person did the study of the of the trees it was done in a haphazard way the the current landscaping
then It was noted that there were 36 trees Of significance that were six inches of caliper larger The
plan that we're proposing anticipates 73 large canopy trees on site. So we're taking 36 and
Going to 73. Um, so I think a suggestion that somehow this we're, we're trying to avoid having, uh,
significant amounts of trees on the site, uh, particularly as compared to what exists there now is just
not true. Um, as John stated in the primary presentation, um, gray star is trying to plant as many trees
on the site as they can. They really are.
And the constraints that exist here are such that they are they've got as many as they can and we're
full and we think the idea of Planting them off-site at locations not that gray star selects But locations
that the city selects that the Parks Department selects and says this is where we want them this is
where we think they will have the best benefit to the
You know the people of Bloomington as a whole plant them here at Grey Star's cost That is the best way
we could come up with to try to mitigate this situation So with that we respectfully request approval
and we'd be happy to answer any questions that the BZA might have Are there any other comments from
those on the petition team that are with us Okay. Well that'll conclude
Official 20-minute comments and we will have questions for you. I'm sure we're back to the board For
action. We're looking for either a motion or continued discussion on this petition, please I'll move
that we approve v 42 25 adopt the Proposed findings including the staff report and
Approved the request of variance with the three conditions included in the staff report. I Have a motion
in front of the board. Do I have a second? I'll second that And before any action is taken on this.
Is there any further comments from the board before a vote is taken? I
You know, I want to make the point that you know, we see a lot of these Multifamily developments come
in I have to say I think this is one of the best proposals we've seen and You know, they're they're
they're meeting really the requirement just in a different way. So I understand the public's concern
to a degree, but it's also Our board is very limited in what we can do We have to have like overwhelming
evidence to overturn something that's already approved that checks the boxes of the UTO so while we
may be concerned to a degree as well as
I feel like the scope of this the housing it's going to bring in which we we definitely need I think
any supply any supply to the housing situation we have is helpful that may be debated by others, but
it's I think it's a significant well thought-out well plans Project that could bring in some desperately
needed housing and the trees are To me we're gonna get them. So I support it. I
Any further comments from the board before any action is taken on this motion? Just a one quick comment
similar to what Tim was saying I you know, I think it's important to kind of put this kind of project
in context I mean essentially we're removing a non-conforming use Particularly a scrapyard which for
those of us have been around a while, you know, that was a PCB cleanup site
It's been a functioning business. I've known the owners. It serves a purpose but that is not the kind
of use that's consistent with our city's comprehensive plan our vision for the empty showers district.
And you know it's just going to be a major
transformation of a site that is long overdue for redevelopment that's consistent with our plans. And
you know I think the staff report speaks for itself in terms of the scope of the tree canopy replacement.
I think it's the way they work together to come up with a plan for maximizing increasing the canopy
in our city is a good one. So I'm going to support the proposal.
Will ask again if there are any further comments from the board before action is taken Seeing none I
call the question Ballard. Yes, bro. Yes Fernandez Kutsenko. Yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes petition passes.
The petition is granted I would also like to extend my thanks to our
Petitioner for allowing me to move the continued Conditional uses forward to hear those before your
scheduled time. Thank you for your patience with that we will move on to B-57-25 it's a page 82 of the
packet for those that are following along with the packet and Let me get there Is that 82 page 82
And this will be I'm there now be b-57 just 25 Rebecca Swift Bloomington parks and rec. May I have a
staff report, please? Certainly I will pull it up
they have.
Just gonna take a quick moment for One of our members So
Oh.
Okay, I'm ready.
I worked at like 505 when I tested it, but I don't know if it'll work at like 80. I don't think so.
Maybe you shouldn't.
What's his name again? Thank you, Eric. You knew exactly what I was asking. I did. But it had been our
impression in the past.
We're going to make the motion to deny them the continuance because they've been on it for more than
three. And they either have to withdraw within 24 hours or they have to be heard. So to put them on
notice, let's get this heard. And that may push them. And what we can do is,
Okay, thank you we are now ready to hear at the last What are we on V dash 57 dash 25 Excellent staff
report, please
My name is David Brantes zoning planner and GIS analyst before us is petition v-57-25 at Browns Woods.
This is roughly between 500 and 760 South Basswood Drive the community foundation of Bloomington and
Monroe County owns the property the Parks Department is the petitioner for this variance case representing
them today is operations and development director Rebecca Swift and
the petitioner requests variants from riparian buffer steep slope karst preservation standards and required
easements in BMC 20.04 030 for the use of park and the mixed-use institutional zoning district As shown
on the right the properties to the east and the south are zoned residential
a high density multifamily RH which is developed with multifamily apartments. The property is adjacent,
a railroad to the north and an interstate to the west. So shown here, this is the wooded lot with no
structures or roads. There's a 10.9 acre parcel. The comprehensive plan designation is
parks and open space. Right now it is set aside as a conservation area managed by the Parks Department
and it will continue with that use. This is the original plat. The property is located on lot two. North
is to the right here.
Lot two of the Canterbury Park subdivision that was plotted and approved in 2000 under case SP-27-00
and was set aside from other developable lots because of the environmental features on the site. There's
currently a Karst Conservancy easement that was plotted for two Karst features on the south side of
the site. So this is closest to the South Basswood Drive frontage.
And the Parks Department, as I said before, manages this, but it has not been developed with any formal
trails or vehicular access. So according to the Parks Department, to address recent public health and
safety concerns, there's a proposed access road that will be installed on a portion of the property
to access the site later.
A limited internal trail system will be installed. The access road will consist of a short land bridge
to cross an intermittent stream using two culverts that are 10 feet long and four feet high, so four
foot diameter. The bridge will serve both future trail users as well as allow the installation of the
temporary limited access road. So according to the petitioner, it will
it will address their urgent public safety concerns. So the trail here is quite faint. It's shown in
green. You also have elevation showing how far down the trail goes from Basswood Drive. And the point
with the arrow is showing the location of the culvert. So we have a number of exhibits here. The temporary
vehicle access path
will need about nine feet of clearance. Once it's no longer needed, the parks department proposes to
construct a six foot wide natural surface trail that for the majority of that, uh, uh, the majority
of that vehicle access path, um, will be used for the trail. Um, but they will deviate slightly from
each other. Um,
So unfortunately, given the limited access to the property from Basswood Drive, a location of the road
must pass through the riparian buffer zone and through the karst area near Basswood Drive and the steep
slope as you descend towards the interior of the property. So the trail is shown is roughly 1200, from
start to finish is roughly 1200 feet from the Basswood Drive entrance headed north.
So the vehicular access point will have a direct connection to South Basswood and pass through all of
those environmental features that I mentioned, riparian buffer, karst and steep slope. So if we're looking
at the exhibit to the left, it shows the trail that's headed towards the middle of the site in purple.
And then the vehicular access road is shown
in blue. So on the right, there's an inset that shows the culvert location approximately. And the vehicle
route takes a slightly different path to accommodate the larger vehicles. And then moving forward, the
more sustainable descent includes switchbacks for trail users to be more
cognizant of that slope there and it's a safer way to get down. So along with the trail, these exhibits
show elevation karst buffer slope and riparian buffer. The petitioner proposes to restore any part of
the vehicle access trail not used in the route for the hiking trail. The petitioner requests a variance
from the requirement to establish easements for each of these features, the riparian buffer
karst and steep slope that would be required due to the proposed land disturbing activity in those areas.
And here is the culvert. This is taken probably November. Um, and there's the, the one on the right
is a picture, uh, looking essentially south towards that, um, the, the path that a vehicle could, could
take to get up to Basswood.
and this is a lower area that we've determined is a stream and thus has the graduated buffer zones,
the riparian buffer zones from that point. So I'm gonna cover all four of these areas, the stream, the
steep slopes, riparian buffer zones, karst and easements.
going one criteria at a time of the three. So staff found that the disturbance of the steep slope area
will not have a negative impact on public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Parks proposes
to stabilize and restore the vehicle route that's not used for the surface trail. And the culverts were
deemed by the city of Bloomington utilities to be a sufficient size for the intermittent stream.
and are not expected to clog or impede the flow of water going forward. And the trail route is routed
to minimize the destruction of vegetation in the buffer zones. In regards to karst and easements for
karst, the variance to allow disturbance within the 25 feet of the last closed contour of the karst
feature is not expected to negatively impact the community. The petitioner does not propose any disturbance
in the karst areas beyond what is necessary to provide access to the site from Basswood. The route minimizes
disturbance and the plan is to have a silt fencing to protect that karst feature as well. In regards
to the easements, the petitioner and the property owner plan to protect the sensitive environmental
features during construction and stabilize the affected areas.
Disturbance is minimal and unlikely to affect the other properties. These are just the areas that we're
talking about again. For the second criteria, use and value, no adverse impact is expected for the steep
slopes as the vehicle route will be temporary and restored with erosion control blankets. The hiking
trail switchbacks will be constructed in a sustainable and safe way for hikers.
and the staff finds this will not have an adverse impact to the adjacent properties as any erosion or
drainage concerns are mitigated. And for riparian buffer zones, the variance of work in the riparian
buffer allow for only the culvert in the bridge and there will not be a substantial impact as structures
are proposed. And the drainage has been deemed sufficient
and eventually it will provide a new public amenity. And as for the Karst, no adverse impact is found.
This is a relatively minimal disturbance and temporary. They also request relief to construct the vehicle
access in the current Karst easement near the front of the property and
once they installed a hiking trail that is already in allowable use for the, for the current easement.
Um, so granting relief from the requirement to establish easements, uh, is not expected to be injurious
to the public. It is already set aside as a, um, as a passive park. Um, the petitioner plans to protect
these features going forward. Um, so the neighboring properties are not expected to be adversely impacted.
Platting of the additional easements creates an undue burden on the property that is not necessary at
this time, given that number one, the UDO restrictions that prohibit certain land disturbing activity
already, and this would cross much of the property due to its unique topography. And the placement of
this lot as a separate non-buildable lot provides adequate protection as it stands now.
As I stated before, the sinkhole near Basswood is already protected in an easement and we propose minimal,
or staff finds that minimal disturbance is happening and it is being properly mitigated during construction.
For the third criteria, the strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties.
We find that there is a practical difficulty for the steep slope as in there's no practical way to access
the property without crossing these deep slope areas There is currently no vehicular access, which is
a reasonable expectation for managing the property and Same goes for the riparian buffer zone. There's
not a great way to access the property without crossing through this zone as it kind of makes a
a horseshoe shape that encircles most of the property. So not being able to cross it essentially means
you can't drive into the property at all because it's got the railroad to the north and the highway
to the east, which has no access. And for the Karst features, again, the Karst feature is immediately
adjacent to Basswood Drive.
So there's not really a way to access the site without crossing that existing easement or passing through
within 25 feet of the last closed contour of the cross features there. And lastly, for establishing
new easements as required, we find that this is not a proportional
not proportional to the limited scale of the project. So we find that establishing easements for all
of these is not necessary. It would place much of the property into various restrictive easements that
create practical difficulties in the use and maintenance of the property at a future time. And the scope
is not threatening those environmental features now either.
So moving on to recommendation, based on the written findings above, the department recommends that
the BZA adopt their proposed findings for V-57-25 and approve the requested variances with the following
conditions as listed on the screen. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Okay, thank you, David. As petitioner in chambers come forward, sign in.
We'll get you started here in a moment state your full name when you're ready Hello, I'm Rebecca Swift
on the operations and development division director for city Bloomington parks and recreation Thank
you. Do you affirm or attest the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth I do you know the rules of this order which is you have 20 minutes what's not used initially
can be used after public comment
I definitely won't need 20 minutes and I won't read word for word what I've put in my petition or letter
but just here to make the case that you all know Parks and Recreation the city is all about stewarding
our national resources. We don't do this lightly. We don't just go in there start cutting trees and
bulldozing down things. We're doing this in a very sustainable very thoughtful approach. And so as our
planning department has told you
Some of this is unavoidable disturbance, but I do assure you that we will go in there and restore any
disturbance around the riparian corridor, the karst sensitive features, as well as just the steep search
in general. As well as I was stated, this was pretty unavoidable. We did look at every other opportunity
to come in in different sections of Browns Woods. This was the most straightforward and reduced the
amount of disturbance in other areas, including a much larger floodplain off of the
Railroad corridor. I did try to approach the railroad. I did try to approach in dot They're not as easy
to work with either. So working with also notifying the apartment complexes on the north and south I'm
sorry east and west portion of Browns Woods They have been notified of what's going on out here and
just to acknowledge again What was the reason for this the health and public safety concern? We were
going in there trying to actively manage Encampment that was torn down that was no longer active anymore.
But still the
You know the impact of that couldn't just be ignored either. We needed to be able to get equipment in
there in order to do a cleanup. So again, I wish I could say I brought everybody on foot traffic, but
that was just not possible here. So again requesting a variance from the disturbance going in through
the riparian buffers the karst the steep slopes and for future easement. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Easements when I go in and put in a permanent hiking trail So I know I'm disturbing it and another reason
why the situation Became what it is is because it was a dense set of woods that nobody was able to get
into So this hiking trail will both be a benefit to the community and also for the park manager as well
as our first responders Happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you You'll withhold 18 minutes that
you may use after public comments at this point Are there any questions from the board to the staff
or to the petitioner?
Quick question It's not so much about the technicalities of the variance it just What's the intended
purpose here? I mean it I mean you guys have had a management agreement for this land for a long time
His goal here to make some modest improvements to create more access and activity within the park for
the general public not just the basswood residents but
Absolutely, correct. So it is a public park and will remain publicly accessible and this trail once
it's all said and done with the cleanup operations will become publicly available and so it's an added,
you know amenity to this property that for the most part has had none other than being a protected green
space Great Any other questions for the staff or the petitioner? seen none We'll go to anyone in chambers
from the public who would like to speak to this petition
Seeing none anyone online who would like to address this petition as members of the public Again if
there's anybody online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you more send a message
via chat Not seeing anybody seeing none we're back to the petitionary Would you like to use any of your
18 minutes that remain to make any further statements comments or responses? I
No, thank you. Okay. Thank you. That brings us back to the board for action seeking a motion or further
discussion I'll provide a motion for the dash 57-25 to approve the requested variances with the conditions
as stated in the staff report. I Have a motion in front of the board. Do I have a second second any
further discussion from board members before this vote or comments for the record? Seeing none. I call
the question Ballard. Yes Borrell
Yes Fernandez. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Your petition passes the petition is granted 5 0.
Now there is one piece of additional business before we adjourn tonight. You want to just bring up something
I'm going to make a motion here but I do want to draw attention to where this comes from.
So from the city Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals rules procedure in Article 5 Section G it reads
whenever a zoning petition is continued for three consecutive hearings any further request for continuance
requires a majority vote by the board. If the board denies such a request for continuance the petition
shall be treated as a denial unless the petitioner elects to formally withdraw the petition within 24 hours.
So, I'm going to make a motion that we deny continuance to AA-17-22 Joe Kemp and CU-33-24 Hatt Rentals.
Do I have a second? Okay, further discussion on this is as follows. Please be aware that they have 24
hours to withdraw. If they do not, they need to appear before us next month with their petition.
If they fail to do so then they have officially withdrawn Further is in consultation with the staff
They are allowed to come to us and say they'd like to hear that It within two months because the rules
do allow that they come back within after six So any petition is denied any action. They have to wait
six months before they return, correct? Yeah, and by making this motion in this vote we would be denying
it but I do want to stress that
Article 9 section D If further public discussion is warranted in the opinions, I'm sorry. I just read
the wrong one section 9 is The suspension of any rules may be ordered at any meeting by a unanimous
vote of those present so if we choose that we want to hear one of these within the next six months it
can be presented to us as a request by the city and we have that ability and
If it's unanimous to then hear it but this way it'll get these that are continuing to get off the books
this these two have been on for 12 months each. So it's just kind of labor. I know there's been some
assurance from the city that they both intend to be here next month. But this will this will actually
push the point forward. So a vote for this motion will be to deny them continuance. Do I have any further
questions or comments with that. Could we take a vote on that please.
Ballard yes, Burrell Yes, Fernandez. Yes, could sink him. Yes, Throckmorton Yes, so they have 24 hours
to withdraw and then return or show up next month and present a petition with that Is there any further
business in front of this board? We are adjourned. Thank you