- I call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington board of zoning appeals February 26th 2026 Could
- I please have a roll call? Fernandez here Throckmorton here We had minutes distributed. Do I have any
- changes or corrections? If not, I will accept a motion for approval Do I have a second?
- Call the question. Bowler. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Throckmorton. Yes. Before moving to the
- next item on our agenda reports resolutions and communications I believe we have a piece of old business
- the board would like to address. Second I have a motion and a second.
- The board to hear old business before going on to the reports resolutions and communications. Can I
- have a roll call? Ballard yes, Borel. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes, it's my understanding
- the old business is being presented by the attorney for the city of Bloomington and if so, could she
- please come forward state her name and I'll Have her present the
- I'm Margie Rice I'm the corporation counsel for the city of Bloomington of signing in here. This is
- a matter of old business. There was a lawsuit filed against the BZA on October 18th of 2022 related
- to a matter involving Lamar advertising and digital billboard that was placed in Bloomington.
- That cause numbers 53 CO 6 22 10 PL 0 0 2 1 5 6. Again it's several years old. I have been working with
- Mars council to reach a settlement of which we just discussed in an executive session prior to this
- regular session. You're not allowed to vote in in an executive session. However I would request that
- the board vote to delegate to
- the chair of the BZA the ability to sign a settlement agreement which I've negotiated and to then the
- signature of Lamar has already been secured. So by having the chair sign this that will show the and
- the board will vote tonight to allow him to give him the authority to settle this on behalf of the BZA.
- Then we will be able to finalize the settlement agreement and get it filed with
- Thank you. Anything further from the city? No, I'll entertain a motion I'll move that we Provide our
- provide delegated authority to the chair to execute the settlement agreement Any discussion seeing none
- call the question Ballard. Yes, bro. Yes, Fernandez Throckmorton
- Yes the motion is so moved in the signature will be applied. Now you can come in. Can I just quickly
- thank the legal department for working through this. I know it was a long slog and we really appreciate it. OK.
- We have tonight is a lot on our agenda. But first we do have a petition that's continued until March
- 26 2026 and that is the our 2026-01-0001 Michael Burnett and Heidi Beininger Burnett That will be heard
- next month. The petitions tonight are as follows in this order ZR 2025-12-00 I'm sorry dash zero one
- one for Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein We have
- Zr 2025 dash 12 dash 0 1 1 5 value-built ink Zr 2025 dash 12 dash 0 1 1 6 H&E Reynolds LLC Zr 2025 dash
- 12 dash 0 1 1 7 rusty Wampler Zr 2025 dash 12 dash 0 1 1 9 Monroe County School Corporation and Zr 2026
- Dash oh to dash zero zero zero to JC Bank Is that correct Eric? Yeah, we had one actual other item under
- reports resolutions communications from staff and that was discussion about an expedited agenda So this
- is something that the department has been looking into
- We've run into several situations over the past year or two or three where we have more cases on the
- agenda that can be heard And we're oftentimes encountering situations where we have to continue a petition
- before it can even be heard due to the length of cases that are on the agenda so the Planning Commission
- has a path that's called a consent agenda where items are allowed to be heard without any discussion
- However variances and other petitions that are before the board do have to have an actual hearing of
- sorts and so we are looking at instituting what
- what's known as an expedited agenda that would have
- Much shorter limitations on staff presentations presentations from the petitioner could be different
- time speaking limits from members of the public So items that would be possible candidates for this
- would be situations where we're recommending approval. There are no known remonstrators The petitioner
- is aware of the conditions of approval ahead of time So items that would be on this perspective expedited
- agenda would be placed at the top of the order with the hopes that these could be moved through much
- faster and
- To get through other other lengthier cases. So that does require An adjustment to your rules and procedures
- So we'll hopefully be bringing that forward in March and so we wanted to just make the board aware of
- this and certainly we're interested if there are any comments that You would like for staff to keep
- in mind in terms of any shorter speaking periods that you want us to take into account But we want to
- let you know that that's something that we're working on
- My my only comment is that would be welcomed by the board and it does Go along with how we have behaved
- as a board in the past where we've moved things up that we thought we could get off the agenda So it's
- nice to have an actual expedited system in place. Thank you. Any any other comments? But that will not
- be taking place tonight, correct? No, yeah, correct that it that's not being implemented tonight It
- there has to be an adjustment to the rules and procedures to allow for this So you do have to vote on
- those rules and procedures. So Hopefully that's something they'll be bringing forward in March
- My only comment I would love it I Really like the way you guys are thinking about this. My only comment
- would be to the extent possible under the law if that those presentations can be simply a statement
- of what the petition is what the recommendation is and Leave it at that Yes, I would envision no more
- than hopefully 30 seconds perfect Okay
- With that, we are at, let me get to the right page here. We will be on page seven of the packet. That
- will be case ZR 2025-12-0114. Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein. Can we have a staff report, please?
- Jamie Kreinler, Senior Zoning Planner. So for this case, there are a total of seven variance requests.
- And these are from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum side setback, tree and forest preservation
- standards, and riparian buffer requirements.
- And this is for the development of an 18 lot subdivision located in the residential medium lot R2 zoning
- district. So the four acre property as you can see on the screen is located on the west side of North
- Dunn Street. It's zone R2 and surrounding land uses include single family homes to the north and south
- and office park to the west and an assisted living facility to the east.
- The property contains a single family home at present, and it's proposed to be demolished for the new
- subdivision. There's a stream and a riparian buffer in the northwest corner of the site, and the property
- has a substantial amount of existing tree coverage, so that's subject to the tree preservation regulations
- of the UDO. The petitioner is proposing to subdivide the property to create 15 residential lots and
- three common area lots.
- Common lots one and three are for tree preservation and common lot two includes a stormwater detention
- area. The plan includes the construction of a new public road that connects to North Dunn Street and
- stubs to the Western boundary of the site. The petitioner is requesting variances from the R2 standards
- for minimum lot area, lot width and side building setbacks.
- The site currently contains 2.61 acres of tree canopy cover, and that's 65% of the overall site area.
- The subdivision proposes to retain .92 acres of tree canopy, which is 36% of the existing total canopy
- area. They're required by the UDO to retain 60%, and the petitioner is proposing to install additional
- trees to supplement the existing wooded areas.
- So the first variance is from the minimum lot area in the R2 zoning district, there's a minimum lot
- area requirement of 7,200 square feet, which is 0.165 acres. And the petitioner is requesting a variance
- to reduce the minimum lot area to 5,000 square feet. And this applies to 14 of the proposed lots that
- are less than 0.165 acres. The second variance is from the minimum lot width.
- The R2 requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The petitioner is requesting a reduction to 50 feet.
- And as you can see on their plan, 11 of the proposed lots have widths that are less than the required
- 60 feet. Next is the minimum side building setback. The R2 zoning district requires a minimum eight
- feet for the first floor, 10 feet for each story above the ground floor.
- and the petitioner is requesting a reduction to five feet. And that's for the side building setback.
- The fourth variance being requested is from the tree preservation requirement. The proposed subdivision
- retains 36% of the existing tree canopy and this falls short of the required retained canopy cover of
- 60%. So they would need a variance for that.
- The fifth variance request is from the tree protection fencing regulation. In some areas of the site,
- construction activities adjacent to existing trees planned for preservation will require tree protection
- fencing to be within three feet of some of the tree drip lines. And then the last two variances have
- to do with the riparian buffer and the disturbance activities that are allowed. So for the intermediate
- zone, the petitioner is proposing to remove some trees
- for the site development and that's considered a disturbance activity that's not allowed in this intermediate
- zone of the riparian buffer. And the same thing applies for the fringe zone of the riparian buffer as
- well. So now moving into the findings for the requested variances from the minimum lot area, lot width
- inside building setback. Staff did not find that all the variance criteria were met.
- In the UDO, the Sustainable Development Incentive allows a buy-write reduction to lot area, lot width,
- and side setback. And using this incentive would improve the general welfare of the community because
- it would create housing with a higher level of sustainable development features. The practical difficulties
- to not use the Sustainable Development Incentive are not peculiar to the property in question.
- For the requested variances from the minimum tree preservation, tree protection fencing and riparian
- buffer disturbance activities, staff did find that the variance criteria were met. The petitioner has
- submitted a tree remediation plan and they're proposing to add roughly 70 additional trees. And two
- of the common area lots on the plat are for tree preservation. New trees are shown within the third
- common area lot as well along the stream.
- and there are rows of trees along the north and south property lines. There are several environmental
- features that are unique to this property, including the stream, the riparian buffer, and the percentage
- of tree canopy to be preserved per the UDO. The tree protection fencing variance will allow for more
- trees to be preserved, and several conditions of approval have been included to ensure environmental
- protection,
- such as if damage or death occurs to trees that are not properly protected, the petitioner is responsible
- for replacing the impacted trees. The removal of trees in the riparian buffer intermediate and fringe
- zones will allow for the construction of a stormwater detention facility. It will also allow for a sidewalk
- and road connection to future developments to the west, which promotes the city's transportation objectives
- and connectivity goals.
- The practical difficulties are peculiar to the property because of the location, existing topography,
- and 75 foot wide riparian buffer. So the department is recommending that the board adopt the proposed
- findings and approve the variances from tree canopy preservation, tree protection fencing, and riparian
- buffer intermediate and fringe zone disturbance activities. The department is recommending denial of
- the variances from minimum lot area, lot width, and side building setbacks since there is a by-right
- path and code that would allow for those reductions. There are several recommended conditions of approval
- outlined in the staff report and shown on the screen and included with these recommendations are that
- the petitioner will continue to work with the staff and planning department on a satisfactory replanting
- plan to remediate the canopy loss and that final acceptance and approval from the city of Bloomington
- utilities department is a requirement. So that concludes my staff report and I'm happy to answer any
- questions.
- Okay, thank you. Before we go to the petitioner, this is a multilayered and complicated variance and
- I do want to stress if there are those here that are in the public wanting to make comment today, I
- do want to stress to you that what we as a board are considering are those seven items that were outlined
- by the city and that will be addressed by the petitioner and those items once again are the minimum
- lot area, the minimum lot width, the minimum side building setback, the minimum tree preservation, tree
- protection fencing, repairing and buffer in the intermediate zone and repairing and buffer in the fringe
- zone. Those are the items that are in front of us tonight. We welcome all comments from the public on
- other matters, but we do want to let you know that those are the items on which we are being asked to
- decide. What will happen is the petitioner will come forward and we will give them a total of 20 minutes
- tonight to speak. They can use a part of that initially and whatever they do not use they will have to
- finish using right before the board goes into a motion and any type of decision. The public will be
- asked if they would like to speak, both here and online. They will have up to five minutes to speak.
- And you will be able to speak uninterrupted. And what I will do, everyone who approaches the podium
- tonight, we will ask you to swear in, whether it's the petitioner or the public. And it's a very simple
- thing. I'll just ask you to affirm whether you're going to tell the truth. And you'll state your name,
- and we'll move on.
- All right, with that said, the petitioner, if you would, the petitioner in this case is Paul Pruitt
- and Keith Klein. And if you would come forward, will only one of you be speaking or both? Both. If you
- would both sign in, and both will take the oath at the same time. So please take a moment to sign in.
- Then we should have a clock up and ready to go, please.
- And if you would both each state your name into the microphone, please. Paul Pruitt. Daniel Butler.
- Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
- truth? Yes. I do. All right. You have up to 20 minutes. And I will repeat, whatever you do not use now
- will be held. And you can use it again before any motion is taken by the board. Please. As I just said,
- my name's Paul Pruitt. I'm the petitioner for this project.
- With me tonight is Daniel Butler with Bynum-Fanyo and my partner Keith Klein. Keith and I are lifetime
- residents of Monroe County. We've been building things together for nearly 40 years. As such, we care
- pretty deeply about the city. If you look around the city on the surface, it kind of looks like a boom
- town and has for the last 15 years or so. But if you look a little closer,
- you see that almost all that activity is related to student housing and hospitality. This is understandable.
- The universities increased their enrollment by approximately 10,000 students in that time frame. And
- they need to be housed, obviously. During that same time frame, the number of permanent residents has
- actually declined slightly in the city.
- Now why is that? I think one of the main reasons is that we're not building new subdivisions
- for single-family homes. The building department's only issued approximately 3,000 permits for single-family
- homes in the last 15 years. We seem to have prioritized urban density over families, and families to
- me are the foundation of a sustainable community. People do want to own a home and have a yard and a
- driveway to park their car in.
- That's all we're trying to accomplish here is 15 single-family homes. A little brief history of the
- property and how we ended up where we're at this evening. We purchased the property in September of
- 22. I originally tried to split it into three lots accessible from Dunn Street, but that was a non-starter
- due to the width depth ratio of the lots. Next I tried to
- divided into two lots and retain and remodel the existing house. That wouldn't fly because the newly
- created lot would be flag shape and evidently that's not something that's allowed. So about a year ago,
- I proposed a 10 lot subdivision with the street down the middle and a turnaround at the end of that
- street. After flushing that out with planning, the closed canopy and repairing buffer issues come to
- light, which are stick to how much of the property we could build on.
- Additionally, planning requested that the road and sidewalk to extend an additional 215 feet and stub
- at the west end of the property for a future connection. And CBU is requiring a new eight inch water
- line 320 feet down Dunn Street as opposed to hooking on to the existing 18 inch water line that's in
- Dunn Street. That additional work with the street sidewalk and water line
- add approximately $300,000 to the cost of this project. That's the reason we're seeking approval for
- 15 lots. That's about all I have. I'm gonna hand off to Daniel. He'll address any technical issues,
- and I'll be here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. All right, I'll just give you a
- little bit of a rundown
- Met with environmental Commission planning engineering city Bloomington utilities to Try to make something
- that on this property that everyone is happy with that has been a challenge and we've Believed that
- what is set before you tonight is kind of a culmination of all that work everything that we've done
- we have the
- The road that is extended all the way to the west That's one piece that was requested of us to do and
- we complied with that including sidewalks that would be on both sides of it also You know some of the
- environmental issues that are on the property that we Are protecting and protecting as many trees you
- can see right smack dab in the middle of the property. We're also
- Protecting some of the tree groves some of the tree stands as many trees as possible So certainly not
- the goal that you see tonight in front of you is to try to max out the number of lots That's not our
- goal. It hasn't been from the beginning. It's more to do with when we first came to the city we had
- a cul-de-sac that came through to stop in front of a lot of the environmental side of the site to try
- to protect more trees and
- We understood that the road was desired to go through at the same time. So it's a challenge for us to
- engineer At that time for the cul-de-sac design we had achieved 15 lots so the 15 lots where we get
- that from is We have achieved something that Originally worked with the lot sizes currently in place
- with the zoning and the current
- the current desire to extend the road, protect as many features as possible, then we compromised in
- such a way that we would need a little bit smaller of a lot size to be able to achieve still the 15,
- if that makes sense. We've gone through several iterations of design. Feel free to ask about any aspects
- on any of that.
- the unique size and shape of this particular lot with also the desire from the engineering department
- for the road to be, Tamarack Trail to be extended through to the west. Really, I think, put this in
- a place where we've kind of compromised on some things, but that's some more of the reason why we're
- asking for the smaller lot sizes and the width of the lots.
- A few more factors on that. I won't concentrate as much on the other variances that are being recommended
- for approval, so I'll just concentrate more on the lot size, lot width, and the setbacks. This was also
- a symptom of a few other factors besides what I just named. We would get on 11 lots if we were not to
- ask for any of these now. And so again, we're going back to the original design
- to achieve 15 but then working with the city to Meet some of their other goals. We believe warrants
- having the 15 so working with the city on the tree preservation the sustainability of the of this property,
- so we're not we're trying to Keep as many trees as possible. And then we're also doing a tree remediation
- plan a heavy tree remediation plan that you saw and
- The landscaping plan to try to make this as sustainable as possible The other piece with it is that
- 15 makes the homes a little more affordable so sustainability and affordability are something that we
- believe that is also a goal of the city and We do understand that there are incentives. There is a path
- through the current UDO for
- sustainability and affordability. But this is the path that made the most sense because if you took
- the strict language from the incentives given in the UDO, it doesn't make sense for a single family
- subdivision. And so we're still giving the nature or the heart, I guess you could just say the same intent
- What the UDO is saying in the affordability and sustainability portion in order to achieve a little
- bit smaller of a lot the strict language within the incentives talks seems like it talks more to a different
- kind of project and so we're asking that this would be applied in the same way with that we're keeping
- in the nature or the intent of what the UDO is saying to achieve a smaller lot and asking for variances
- rather than
- The other route of asking for a waiver of the language that it's stating I can go more into that if
- anyone needs more explanation on that but also the the kind of homes that we are building Do fit on
- these lots as we proposed. It's a mid century modern type home that will be I think look great and have
- Just a lot of appeal to them and it fits on these
- And so those are some of the reasons that we're asking for. I'll stop there and leave some more time
- for questions. Thank you. You will retain 10 minutes and 45 seconds for use later. Thank you. So at
- this point, we will be going to the end. If I could ask petitioners to be ready to answer questions,
- we're going to go to the board for questions to either the staff or to the petitioners. And as a reminder,
- after we do this sequence, that's when we will go back to the public for comment.
- Any questions Just a quick one to start You mentioned petitioner mentioned $300,000 in additional costs
- These without these variances that is what would be incurred an additional 300,000. Is that correct?
- No, the $300,000 would be no matter what or the request of the city. Okay, so that would be incurred
- anyway, but it would be over 11 lots rather than 15 and
- Okay, so easy math divide by larger number and you get a smaller number and so I think just because
- we can bring this into account now the cost of The cost to develop to the developer, but ultimately
- it's the cost to the consumer. So I think if Just to get clarity from the start here that cost at 15 versus 11
- Is then put onto who and in what way. In terms of. OK. If Paul would like to answer this too but certainly
- the just the natural home cost back to the consumer would have to be you know over cut a little bit
- in order to achieve more affordability. Absolutely. OK. All right. Thank you.
- Start there but come back later. Any other questions or even the staff petitioner So Steph is recommending
- a sustainable development incentive Can you describe to me what that entails to the developer? I
- Actually had several subdivisions come in utilizing the sustainable development incentives for single-family
- residential developments So basically just means that the houses have to be certified by a variety of
- third-party Organizations that it's built to certain design standards that meet affordability requirements.
- There are certain National Green Building Council Various organizations that have certifications and
- so those houses are just designed to that And like I said, we've had
- several subdivisions come in utilize that you're talking about land certifications different certifications
- that they can have like green house certification. Is that what you're saying. Correct. Yes. Like I
- said there's a National Green Building Council. There's a National Home Builders Association that I
- think has a similar certification and there are just you know obviously the house is designed to meet
- whatever those standards are. And then somebody comes out after it's built you know and looks and make
- sure that it was built to those
- Plans and specifications and so that is something that exists within the you do and so that's something
- that we wanted to make sure that we Pointed out in a staff report that you know, the variance is not
- the only process to get to that You know, there is a by right path within the you do that would allow
- for this You know a subdivision is not
- You know or the the depriving of a subdivision of some number of lots is not depriving somebody of the
- use of their property You know, there's no guarantee that you can get X number of properties from your
- property You can still use this one lot for a single-family lot, you know There's nothing that says
- that you have to be able to get 50 lots from it In order to be able to utilize it from the manner in
- which it's owned if you meet all the subdivision requirements then you can get additional lots from it and
- And so that's where we were challenged with the variance criteria for the minimum lot size and minimum
- lot area inside your setbacks is you know There's nothing that says you you have to have this number
- of lots, you know It's only something that is allowed if you meet all those additional standards And
- those all the other things that they are going to do Planting more trees doing the drainage retention.
- I mean the retention pond extending the road does that
- as Sustainability as well or that was no I don't think that those in and of themselves are a factor
- in each house Being certified, you know those other variances of things that are on the table tonight
- Are you know and it's important with all the variances to kind of look at them in and of themselves?
- You know, so the variance from the riparian buffer standards are mostly related to the road that is
- going through here that is something that a lot of our transportation documents our comprehensive plan
- as well as
- You know issues that the Plain Commission has seen over and over again of the years of lack of connectivity
- Establishing connectivity within subdivisions is extremely important. And that's why our subdivision
- standards were amended to not allow cul-de-sacs So that we're not dealing with these lack of connectivity
- So the fact that the road is going through here, which is a requirement from the plan planning UDO,
- you know that necessitates some of those variances and
- As a petitioner mentioned, you know, there's a great majority of trees that are on the site that are
- located in this central portion of the site that the very location creates a challenge in terms of developing
- the property without a variance from
- Tree preservation standards and so that's where we've worked with them to come up with a remediation
- plan That saves a lot of trees, you know there were you know one of the steps that the staff went through
- was identifying where some of the Stands were of existing nice trees Those are placed in common area
- lots and then those common area lots were supplemented with additional plantings And then we've also
- you know since the last hearing worked to establish additional plantings along the north and the south
- property lines to get more trees in to
- Offset what is being requested in that variance? So that's where you know as I was saying it's important
- to look at each variance kind of in and of itself Certainly staff acknowledges that there's a lot going
- on on this property in terms of grade change tree preservation a need for connectivity, but at the same
- time, you know a reasonable use of property to provide housing And so each of those variances has kind
- of been addressed separately in the findings So that's where we were presenting findings for approval
- for some of those
- but not for others. Thank you. So you know in the proposed findings it says that the minimum lot areas
- and the minimum lot with as proposed by the petitioner would be injurious to the public health safety
- morals and general welfare because there's an alternative path that uses sustainable development incentives.
- Is the rationale that you know the the incremental addition of four units compared to 11 or I'm sorry
- 11 compared to 15. So the four additional houses has a cumulative effect that becomes injurious or is
- it something about the nature of the quote green houses. I mean what about the standards would be different.
- that would mitigate having additional four homes compared to what's being proposed under the conditions.
- Certainly. Yeah. So the presence of the four homes in and of themselves aren't more interest. You know
- those four houses aren't more interest to the public health safety
- Morals or general welfare but the point that we were trying to make and that was that there is another
- path that they could still get these number of units and Would result in houses that have a higher level
- of sustainability component to them That would be an improvement for the overall health of the public
- and general. What are the specific? Characteristics of a house that meets Whether it's the building
- council lead standards or whatever that
- represents that improvement general welfare etc that would Distinguish it from what's proposed because
- as I understand it most of the infrastructure is going to be required anyway Yeah, so there's a checklist
- that each of these different certification boards have that deal with energy efficiency whether that
- you know through windows low VOC components for a carpet and paint higher insulation value, you know
- use of solar and
- You know a wide range of things that result in you know accumulating points and how you get those points
- It's kind of up to the developer or the builder. So that's that's how they go through and review those
- Daniel I'd be interested in your response to those issues Yeah, the the thing I wanted to add is when
- we had initial talks on sustainability generally on this property the unique
- Amount of coverage with trees on this property felt like we needed to help protect those and in order
- to do that We weren't able to go necessarily down a route route for full affordability or get that closer
- to attainability You could say by doing all of this plus additional things to the homes that just make
- them expensive in that sense now would we love to
- to have the additional sustainability that's in the code that's in incentives, absolutely, but that's
- the route that we chose to go down to do more to the property, allow for protection of the environmental
- features on the property rather than go down the route of the incentives. The other thing I wanted to
- add to that is even if we decided to
- go by the code for an incentive for sustainability, we'd still have to get a waiver because there is
- a piece in there that if you do not have access to sewer right now, then you would have to get a waiver
- from that anyway. So you would still be, I believe, heard at a public meeting in a similar fashion.
- So we chose to be heard here rather than a different light. And I do want to ask a question. So I'll
- try to get this from you in plain language. What would be the
- First of all, the first part of the question is, is it possible for you to continue the development
- if you were granted the four variances that the city has suggested we provide, but not the other three?
- Would you be able to continue developing this, or could you explain how you would not be able to proceed?
- You want to answer that?
- I'd take a shot at it but I think he can answer it better here. Put fairly simply the if we can only
- build 11 lots or 10 lots or whatever we end up with the cost of the development is still going to be
- the same. So it's going to increase the cost of those lots by you know I'd have to do the math but it's
- probably 10 or 15 thousand dollars per lot which would get applied directly to the cost of the home.
- And my quick calculations were it's 15 lots it distributes at 20,000 per and at 11 houses it distributes
- at twenty seven point three thousand. That's the difference just for the record that I understand from
- what you presented to us. Any other questions from the board to the staff or the petitioners. So if
- not what we will do is we'll go to the public for comment.
- And then the petitioners will have again just short of 11 minutes left to address any issues before
- we take a vote Any of those people who would like to speak will give you plenty of opportunity so you
- don't have to stand in line but the first couple if you would like to go up each one of you will be
- asked to sign that sheet of paper there at the podium and Then once you're ready, you'll state your
- name and then I'll swear you win. I
- Is that paper up there. Did you sign in. Yes. State your name please. My name is Jessica Will. Do you
- affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and the truth. I certainly do.
- OK. You have up to five minutes please. Thank you. Let me ask is this the issue about wanting to show
- the page 80 photos. Is that it. I'm sorry. Say that again. Oh I just wanted to make sure we address
- it. My understanding is that there was a request to show the photos there on page 80 of the
- Did you get that notice? Okay. Oh, I don't know about that. Okay, that might come up I just wanted to
- make you aware of it on the city side. So there might be a request for that Okay, thank you. Thank you.
- I'm sorry to interrupt please. No worries. Thank you My name is Jessica will and I live at 211 East
- Gilbert Drive in Matlock Heights I'm here tonight as a concerned Northside resident an advocate for
- responsible growth I'm also here to report the results so far of a petition opposing the proposed North
- Grove subdivision and
- A concerned group of Northside neighbors have been meeting frequently to discuss the development at
- 2511 North Dunn Street. Many are here with me tonight. As part of an effort to quantify the concerns
- of Bloomington residents, we fielded and are still fielding a petition to request that the Board of
- Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission deny the requested variances and waivers. We've included
- the petition language on this slide for your reference.
- So far, we've collected digital and print signatures from a total of 236 unique petitioners representing
- 205 households. With each entry, we verified the signature was unique, mapped the household address,
- and measured the proximity to the proposed North Grove subdivision. We learned 180 of these petitioners
- represent 151 households located within Bloomington City limits. We then sorted Bloomington City petitioners
- by proximity to 2511 North Dunn Street.
- On this map, each house icon represents a household from the petition. Gray indicates a household is
- outside Bloomington city limits. Yellow shows households within Bloomington city limits, but not on
- the north side. The dark crimson signifies petitioner households adjacent to the proposed development,
- meaning their property directly borders the lot in question here tonight. The light crimson signifies
- petitioner households that are not adjacent, but are located within 500 feet
- Orange signifies petitioner households that aren't adjacent or within 500 feet but are located on the
- north side within Bloomington City limits For simplicity, we are calling these groups adjacent within
- 500 feet and northside petitioners Seven petitioners representing six households live adjacent to the
- proposed subdivision 19 petitioners representing 14 households live within 500 feet 75 petitioners representing
- 54 households live on the north side within Bloomington city limits and 79 petitioners representing
- 77 households live within Bloomington city limits, but not on the north side. Notably adjacent petitioners
- and those within 500 feet are most likely to experience negative impacts from the proposed North Grove
- plans. We have collected signatures from all adjacent households with the exception of a home in Matlock
- Heights. Mr. Pruitt is in the process of purchasing.
- We have also collected signatures from approximately 42% of households within 500 feet and the signatures
- are still rolling in. In addition to collecting signatures, we gave petitioners the opportunity to express
- their concerns by leaving a comment. Top themes so far include ordinance and zoning compliance,
- infrastructure and utilities strain, public safety and traffic conditions, and environment and wildlife
- impact. This North Cider
- Petitioner cited concerns about showing preference to developers at the expense of property owners saying,
- quote, developers shouldn't be able to bypass ordinances that the rest of us already owning properties
- in the area have to follow. It's not fair treatment of your citizens and it's showing preference. We
- brought our properties essentially signing a contract to follow these rules, thus protecting the value
- of our assets. Developers shouldn't be able to break these rules either.
- Another Northside petitioner cited their concerns succinctly listing significant public expense to upgrade
- sewer and drainage facilities as well as increased traffic density, increased runoff from asphalt and
- concrete, removal of trees with a concomitant loss of habitat, unreasonable density changing the character
- of the neighborhood. And one Bloomington petitioner questions the value of the proposed development
- writing, quote,
- This variance enables a development that solves no problem for Bloomington's housing market, bringing
- new luxury housing to the city doesn't need and would adversely affect the quality of life in North
- Bloomington neighborhoods, including the Matlock Heights Historic District. Thank you for taking the
- time to consider the voices and households represented in this petition so far. We ask you to deny the
- requested variances and require a plan that honors the standards designed to protect current and future
- Bloomington neighborhoods. Thank you.
- Thank you. OK. Did you sign the paper. I could you please state your name Julia Livingston. You affirm
- the testimony you were about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. OK.
- You have five minutes please. OK. My name is Julia Livingston and I live at 26 41 North Dunn Street
- closer. OK.
- The four acres at 2511 North Dunn have been long in a process of development, but a very different kind
- of development than is being proposed here today. Long in development has been a magnificent grove of
- tall white pine trees. Ironically, it is the very grove of trees that gives the subdivision North Grove
- its name and the very trees proposed to be cut down in their prime.
- trees that have a lifespan of 200 to 500 years and cannot be replaced by 70 trees that are new and may
- not be cared for by the owners. This mid-century four acres has developed into an urban forest.
- This was the intentional plan of former owner and botanist IU Professor Johnson Clare, who was one of
- the first to realize the importance of native trees in Indiana and set out to plant every variety he
- could find on these four acres. His efforts have resulted in an urban forest that promotes biodiversity
- and is home to many generations of birds who nest in the mature trees.
- The large pines provide winter shelter to a variety of birds, including owls, piloted woodpeckers and
- that hatches and are integral to the migration path of migratory warblers. The trees provide a wind
- buffer, not only for their nest, but also for our neighborhoods. The acreage serves as part of a wildlife
- corridor connecting Griffey woods to cascades. Yet this proposal would cut down 103 trees, mature trees,
- and destroy the diverse ecology of that land. Bloomington's 2020 environmental action plan states that
- the city should update codes to maximize the preservation of the largest long living trees, encouraging
- species and diversity. It also states urban forests provide numerous environmental benefits by promoting
- wildlife along with water and air quality.
- They promote wildlife by providing critical habitat, contributing to biodiversity, and conserving soil.
- And very importantly to this issue this evening, urban forests reduce storm water runoff and pollution
- that threaten waterways by filtering and absorbing rainwater. It also warns that Bloomington's native
- wildlife populations are at risk
- due to current land development and management practices that destroy and remove habitats. Furthermore,
- the Environmental Commission's 2050 long-term vision prescribes the urban forest will be lush with green
- infrastructure, limiting the heat island effect while also sequestering carbon, providing habitats,
- and cleaning air and water. If allowed to survive, this urban forest will nurture the lives of us,
- both human and animal who call this neighborhood home. In closing, I would like to include the personal
- remarks of Professor Emeritus of Microbiology, Dr. George Hegeman, who was a friend and colleague of
- the former property owner, John Sinclair. He states, the property at 2511 is being prosed
- proposed for development. This parcel is home to a magnificent collection of trees. Professor Sinclair
- took pains to plan a diverse collection of trees and other plants. The trees proposed to be cut down
- in this development are in their prime, trees that have a lifespan of hundreds of years in some cases.
- They are at the peak of their lifetime's contributions to our air, soil, and water.
- as well as many at the peak of their natural beauty. The location of this property is an integral part
- of the biome, including Griffey Reservoir Woods, Key Park Land north of town. It is an important wildlife
- corridor component and houses many key indigenous species of fast disappearing wildlife.
- He concludes, I urge you to recognize Professor Sinclair's original hopes for this property and allow
- only plans for it that best preserve the old growth vegetation and wildlife that is so important to
- our community. On all of these grounds, I urge the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny the petitioner variances
- for tree protection and preservation. Thank you. Thank you.
- Joe we have one person online who wants to speak and then we can go back to council chambers real quick.
- That's okay We'll go to online if you just have a seat for a moment. Well, is that what you're asking
- Eric? Yeah Okay Who was in line? Hopi s you should be able to speak Thank you. This is Hopi Stossberg.
- I'm actually a council member and I'm also a member of the plan Commission as the council representative and
- And so that's one of the reasons why I'm tuning into this meeting tonight, and I'm not gonna express
- an opinion about what I think that the BZA should do in terms of the specific variance requests that
- they have. I just wanted to mention a couple things. If you could, could you pause for one moment? Yep.
- We have your name, so I just need to swear you in. Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give
- us the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay, you have up to five minutes, please. Okay, thanks.
- I wanted to mention the variance about the tree protection. And I appreciate the condition that has
- been put in to require replanting in case anything is damaged or dies. But I would encourage the commission
- to have a conversation and consideration of wordsmithing that a little bit to put in kind of like a date.
- With that, just knowing that sometimes this kind of land disruption could disrupt the root system in
- trees. So it might not immediately become apparent that the tree has been damaged by that. And so to
- put in some kind of a, you know, if it dies within a certain amount of time after the construction process
- is finished, then it needs to be replaced just to kind of make sure that damage that's done that's kind
- of invisible because it's underground has a consideration.
- And then, like, at least, like, discuss that. I don't know what staff would think of that or the petitioner
- would think of that. And then the second thing I wanted to mention had to do with what I heard the petitioner
- say about sustainability and that adding expense to the House. And I just wanted to point out that that's
- absolutely accurate. But one of the other things that it does is it can reduce long-term costs associated
- with ownership.
- So if you have better insulation, if you have better windows, if you have solar panels, then your utilities
- costs end up being reduced over time. So that can be, say, an argument for a higher purchase price on
- a house, because you know that over time you're actually going to save a little bit of money every month.
- And so in considering that variance, and I guess this is partly to the petitioner, partly coming from
- a planning commission member in the future, kind of thinking, depending on what they decide here,
- If you're coming back to the plan commission with a proposal for fewer lots and fewer houses that would
- then cost more per house. You could also maybe consider that idea of using the sustainability incentive
- to build the more houses with those incentives. So maybe they would end up costing the same initially
- as the fewer houses would
- but they would have those long-term sustainability benefits that would end up saving those future owners
- money over time. And that's just another element of that kind of sustainability I wanted to make sure
- was mentioned in consideration of the petitioner, like whatever the BZA decides moving forward into
- the future. And to also put that out as just a good thing for community members to remember that when
- you have that initial investment,
- That it's more than just how much it costs initially There's also that upkeep cost and how much it's
- going to cost over time and utilities and sustainability in general are a part of that overtime cost
- And that's all I had to say. Good luck with your decision. Thank you all so much for your service Thank
- you If you step forward, have you signed in? Okay, and state your first and last name, please Jim James
- Hart bring the microphone up towards you a little bit there in front of you so we can hear you the
- The microphone, can you bring it up? Can I hear you? Can you bring your microphone up a little bit?
- There we go. Thank you. All right. Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the
- whole truth, and nothing but the truth? OK, you have five minutes. Good. My name is Jim Hart, and I
- lived at 2641 North Dunn Street. As citizens and lawmakers, we are obliged to protect our common good,
- which includes the goods that benefit and indeed are necessary for all citizens of the political community,
- as well as the co-inhabitants of our common eco-community. One such good has to do with riparian areas.
- The standards of the city's unified development ordinance
- UDO indicate its concern to protect the common good of the riparian areas. The proposal for the North
- Grove subdivision at 2511 North Dunn Street requests variances in regard to the city's riparian standards
- and thereby disregards or perhaps even displays a form of contempt for this common good. Ripa is the
- old Latin word for the bank of a river.
- Such areas are the transition zones between fully dry land or terrestrial and fully aquatic systems,
- for example, stream banks, flood plains, and wetlands. Google sources inform us that the riparian areas
- are rich in organic nutrients and directly affect biodiversity of plant and animal species.
- In the United States, they provide the habitat for one third of the plant species and 60% of the vertebrate
- species. 10% of endangered species in the US depend on riparian systems to survive. At the northwest
- end of the four acres for which the developers, Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein, seek a variance waiver,
- there is a visible riparian area.
- This land where there is already a pond which is surrounded by a protected riparian buffer, this pond
- water flows through a wetland before it flows on the surface of the surrounding area, contributing to
- the flooding in houses on Fritz Street and then heads across Walnut Street towards the creek running
- through Cascades Park. City of Bloomington Utilities, CBU, has recently noted that the drainage way
- in this northwest part of the property needs to be placed in an easement that will address emergency
- overflows. CBU also notes that the developer's cognizance of this emergency overflow is deficient and
- that the placement of a detention basin within Riparian Buffer will almost certainly lead to disturbance
- of land placed in Riparian Buffer easement
- in the future as maintenance of the basin is most likely to be needed. The invasive construction site
- proposed for this four acre property would involve the covering of 30,000 square feet of land with gravel
- for construction vehicles. Later on, there would be the impermeable covering of the land surfaces necessary
- for 15 dwellings with the streets and alleys as well as the extension of the street surface of Tamarack Road.
- Added to this, there would have to be the new impermeable surfaces which make emergency and utility
- services possible, both for the new residents as well as the prior residents on North Dunn Street. Here
- I quote the City of Bloomington United Development Ordinance, UDO, chapter 20.05, quote,
- Preference for design of riparian buffer zones will be fitted to the topography and soil conditions
- of the site. And there'll be an effort to protect tree crowns and root zones within the drip line for
- all trees that are retained, end of quote. And the UDO exhorts perhaps even requires retaining and not
- cutting down trees, especially those of native species. Thus it also states, no alteration
- a forest understory except for a removal of non-native invasive species is permitted. This subdivision
- plan proposes cutting down over 100 mature trees. As other neighbors have pointed out in separate comments,
- this land has a unique representation of native species deliberately chosen by a prior property owner,
- John Sinclair, who was an IU professor of botany.
- I urge the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny the request for a variance from the requirements for the
- protection of the riparian zone. Thanks. Thank you. And if you could come forward and sign in. And once
- you sign in, just say your first and last name into the microphone. I'll swear to God. That's great.
- I've already signed in. My name is Tom Yiser. I live at 2330 North Fritz.
- Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
- truth? I do. You have five minutes. My name's Tom Yiser. As I said, I live at 2330 North Fritz. I hope
- the board will consider enforcing the existing zoning restrictions and deny the petitioner's request
- for variance. I would like to share some comments from one of my neighbors, Adam Will, and his concerns
- granting these variances will compromise the safety of the surrounding neighborhoods.
- And I quote, good evening members of the board. My name is Adam will, and I live in Matlock Heights,
- immediately south of the development. I want to begin by acknowledging that we're all aware of Bloomington's
- housing shortages. However, the solution to a shortage cannot be the creation of public safety liability.
- The North grow proposal is an attempt to fit an urban level density into a site that currently possesses
- rural grade infrastructure.
- The developers asking for significant bulk variances, dropping the minimum lot size from 72,000 square
- feet to approximately 5,000 square feet. The density is drastically out of step with the surrounding
- neighborhoods and the infrastructure that supports them. My concern is that by granting these variances,
- the board is ignoring the physical constraints of Dunn Road. Looking first at emergency access, the
- proposed neighborhood includes a dead end road
- with no hammerhead or cul de sac for fire trucks or ambulances to turn around. This is especially dangerous
- given our proximity to the stadium. On game days our streets are so congested that the city already
- has to post temporary signs just to keep a single lane open for emergency vehicles. Adding a new high
- density road that lacks proper turnaround infrastructure is a clear risk to public safety. Second consider
- traffic and enforcement.
- Many of our neighbors on Dunn Road report cars speeding over a blind hill approximately 500 feet north
- of the proposed development. We regularly see drivers fail to come to a complete stop at the intersection
- of the proposed development. The current speeding issues on Dunn Road will only be exacerbated by the
- increasing traffic at this already problematic sidewalk less intersection. This brings me to my final
- point, pedestrian safety. The nearest bus stop is over a half mile away.
- To get there a resident must walk over an 1,800 foot gap where there are no sidewalks and no shoulders.
- Forcing residents to walk in the grass or on asphalt of a hilly high speed road to access public transit
- is not a sustainable or safe plan.
- If the developer cannot meet the standard are to zoning requirements without compromising the safety
- of the residents and the surrounding neighborhood then the density is too high for this specific piece
- of land. I urge the board to strongly consider enforcing the existing restrictions to ensure the safety
- and welfare of our community. Thank you.
- First name Robin last name young do you affirm the testimony? I do you have five minutes. Thank you
- Good evening. My name is Robin helping young From the very beginning the developers of this project
- knew the property was owned r2 the huge list of variances that have been requested
- fall soundly outside the bounds of R2 zoning. They are requesting a variance to reduce minimum lot size
- by 31%, minimum lot width by 16%, side building setbacks by 25%, and the variance to retain tree canopy
- is reduced by a whopping 40%. These are not small tweaks.
- The developers contend that they will be able to manage the increase in surface water runoff that will
- be created by building on or paving over roughly 80% of the total surface of the property. This means
- that water that had previously been taken up by the soil and the trees must now be captured and sent
- to a retention pond that is currently a regular pond. Sorry, peepers.
- The developers admit that there will be more water, but they maintain they will be able to control its
- release. I think this is naive from the retention pond. The water will flow on the surface along and
- often through the backyards of homes along West Fritz drive. Two of the variances are in direct opposition
- to the city's iron environmental provisions in long range planning and the UDO.
- Bloomington has an established commitment to conserving and preserving the beautiful environment we
- are lucky enough to call home. I recently asked a neighbor biologist, what will happen to all the animals
- who currently live in the proposed space if they build 15 houses on it? They will all die, was the plain answer.
- This proposal takes an invaluable and irreplaceable urban forest corridor, removes the forest, and shoves
- an unwanted, crowded urban corridor into the space. The variances the developers have petitioned for
- are more in line with R3 zoning. They say they cannot make enough money on the project without the variances.
- This sounds like a gamble hitched to the cart of the current drive for urban density. Unfortunately,
- this leaves Matlock Heights and North Dunn unprotected by the actual laws and provisions currently in
- place for just that purpose. Throwing out existing zoning regulations and ignoring established ordinances
- harms the interests of long-term residents and established neighborhoods in many ways.
- This concern that developers must make money is exemplified by the decision to force a right away to
- run the sewer line for their 15 home subdivision through my tiny side yard. I asked the developer if
- there was not another line he could hook onto. He told me there was nothing above or below the property.
- I have since learned that there is indeed a much larger sewer line up on Dunn. It appears that the developer
- would rather disrupt my property
- and my life in order to tie into a smaller, antiquated, and overburdened sewer line just so the project
- will make more money. Under this plan, I would look at the butt end of three houses along the back property
- line of my one-third acre lot. Do you think this might affect my property value? I do.
- I hear a lot of talk about the need for affordable single-family homes here in Bloomington. The developers
- admit that these will not be affordable homes. They are projected to start at $400,000.
- Unfortunately, there is a high probability that these properties will be purchased by investors wanting
- to capitalize on the proximity to IU. The chance that an actual single family will purchase and live
- in these properties is slim to nil. In closing, just to confirm, I think there are overwhelming reasons
- for us to lean into the protection of our current zoning codes and ordinances.
- Our R2 zoning is supposed to protect the character and stability of the neighborhood. For these and
- many other reasons, I respectfully ask you to deny all six, seven now, of the variances being sought.
- Thank you. Thank you. If you would sign in, please. I have. OK. State your first and last name. Marilyn Boshaw.
- Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
- I do Hi, I'm Marilyn Boshaw with the local Sierra Club my husband and I Moved to Bloomington five years
- ago and immediately became active members of our neighborhood by volunteering in Blue Ridge Griffey
- and other city parks often removing invasives and sometimes planting acorns
- We're thrilled to support efforts to increase the wildlife corridor here that continues to expand and
- support important native species by increasing the tree canopy. During this state legislative session,
- we have seen many bills that diminish safeguards for the environment, including one that disempowers
- IDEM, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. We see city and county ordinances being threatened
- to comply with rules
- that are no more stringent than state regulations. I believe this is the time to uphold Bloomington's
- unified development ordinance that lay out rules for development. These ordinances protect both our
- environment and the preservation of property values. So I oppose the variances and I would like our
- ordinances to be upheld. And I appreciate the city of Bloomington for being mindful and proactive when
- balancing new development
- with natural areas. Protecting nature protects us. Thank you. Just for the benefit, here we were discussing
- based on what you were saying. So I didn't want anyone to think that we were not listening to the public
- comment there. Thank you. Did you sign in? I did. OK, first and last name, please. First name, Greg.
- Last name, Grant.
- Thank you. Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth. I do. Thank you. You have five minutes. My name is Greg Grant. I live in the Blue Ridge
- neighborhood just to the north. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development
- plan and the developers currently requested variances from Bloomington's ordinances from all that has
- been published about the proposed development. I have many concerns including the city's present
- recommendations regarding the requested variances.
- basically the high density of the proposed development just does not fit at all with the surrounding
- and nearby neighborhoods and Leads to all or most of the requested variances And my concerns are as
- follows the proposed lot sizes are basically too small especially their width I believe that that stormwater
- Dan drainage and runoff will be worsened not improved as claimed there's no study that's been provided
- that shows any improvement in that
- basic problem, especially as more intense rainstorms are predicted to become more frequent due to the
- increase in heat trapping gases in our atmosphere. The resulting increase in traffic on North Dunn Street
- will reduce safety for all users, including motorized vehicles, bicyclists, runners, and walkers alike,
- due to the lack of sidewalks or multi-use pathways. Likewise, any future relief
- Resulting addition to the traffic safety problem by extending the proposed new road to from Dunn Street
- to walnut Seems impractical now, which is why it wasn't probably why it wasn't proposed in the first
- place It is unclear how cars can even be parked at the proposed houses as the width of the proposed
- lots appears far too small for off-street parking the plan to replace the destroyed trees
- of this urban forest with new ones is wholly inadequate for remediation or protection of the environment.
- Since the new trees currently planned will not have soil and water retention capability of greater than
- 100 maturing, greater than 75-year-old trees
- That are in their prime that will be removed Likewise the proposed variance from fencing to protect
- older trees that are not deliberately removed is uncalled for Since it's basically giving permission
- to the to the developers or in the construction people to damage and remove those trees as well Likewise
- any new trees planted should be specified to be at least 10 feet tall not sprouts to have any actual
- remediation potential
- In conclusion, I believe the developer should completely redo their plan with a reasonable number of
- lots with larger widths to properly address these concerns. Thank you for taking these noted concerns
- along with those of the other Bloomington neighbors into account as you seek to balance the interests
- in a way that improves our environment, our safety, and everyone's property values. Thank you. Thank you.
- Have you signed in as well? Okay, once you do sign in state your first and last name My name is Stephanie
- Dickinson Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth? Yes, you have five minutes My name is Stephanie Dickinson and I live at 2301 North Dunn
- Street. I would like to address the issue of preservation
- Nestled in the four acres at 2511 North Dunn is a classic mid-century modern well-built limestone
- single-family ranch home that is proposed for demolition. This home is in harmony with the style and
- size of the mid-century modern homes immediately next to it in our Matlock Heights Historic District.
- I now serve on the committee in the neighborhood to review proposed changes in the neighborhood.
- According to the Historic Preservation Commission guidelines, this home falls in the contributing category,
- which is defined as a local structure that has been determined to retain enough historic integrity to
- be included in a larger local historic district if a petition was ever filed to create a new historic
- district. As we know, the time it took for our neighborhood to become historic district is a process.
- The loss of this home and its remarkable mid-century modern features is a loss to the integrity of the
- adjacent neighborhoods. I applaud the city's efforts to build more single-family homes and increase
- the density in the city. I believe there are good places to increase the density while this four acres
- and its single-family home serve as a different yet important contribution to the city's goals for the
- welfare of the neighborhoods. I also share my neighbors' concerns
- About this developments high-density impact on the stormwater the traffic the safety the noise and the
- environment I Request the board of zoning appeals to deny the petitioners requests for variances Thank
- you Give you a moment to sign in have you signed in yes, I
- State your name Susan Sandberg. Do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth I do you have five minutes My Metlock Heights neighbors have met several
- times to consider the impacts of this 15 unit housing development on the surrounding area several of
- us have met with mr. Paul Pruitt the developer and
- While different neighbors have different concerns depending on their proximity to this project The basic
- criticism is too much density for an r2 zone The density has grown to this 15,000 unit proposal with
- multiple requests for variances by r2 zoning standards this project simply doesn't fit we trust that
- you will deny the variances and
- the exceptions to the rules as we urge planning and transportation to please consider compatibility
- with the surrounding neighborhoods and follow the standards that protect our two zones. Opposing this
- overly dense project does not signal bad faith or a reluctance to embrace change.
- Matlock Heights is known to stand up for stability and autonomy in making cooperative and respectful
- decisions about what is built here. Matlock Heights became a historic district because of our commitment
- to unite against inappropriate development threats that have eroded many core neighborhoods close to
- the IU campus or the downtown.
- Property owners who have invested in our north side homes are also invested in this community. We expect
- our elected officials and their appointees to follow the rules and respect the appeals from
- their constituents as they also consider variance requests from developers. Regulations serve a civic
- function to preserve sensitive land and protect established neighborhoods.
- My appeal to the city of Bloomington the Planning and Transportation Department and you on the BZA is
- this Standby the development requirements in our UDO that regulate appropriate density in our two zones
- including the property at 25 11 north done I conclude the remainder of my time with a few quotes from
- residents who responded to the petition. I
- The first this entire area of Matlock Heights and Blue Ridge was designed to have large yards and a
- woodsy feel. Neither the area nor the roadways were designed for compressed residential housing with
- small yards and few or small trees. I am not in favor of this land being developed for any more houses
- than what already exists. Upgrade what exists and leave the rest of the space alone. Next quote.
- This proposed development is destructive in so many ways. It would destroy over 100 trees, remove the
- natural drainage in the four acres, and increase the flooding problems in Matlock Heights. It would
- destroy the character of our neighborhood and dramatically increase noise and traffic. It will destroy
- the quality of life that defines our neighborhood, which is why homeowners have invested living here.
- It also asks for so many variances that
- are an affront to the hard fought for a UDO that is supposed to protect us. I have submitted more detailed
- concerns to the city already. This proposed development is only possible with this high number of variances.
- It falls outside the UDO is environmentally and climate wise problematic and will in the long term cost
- the city and the current homeowners while earning the developers money.
- Last quote the UDO requirements were put there for a reason Attention must be paid to the underlying
- reasons to preserve the health safety and environmental impacts of our city Thank you very much for
- your consideration. Thank you
- Just state your first and last name, please Megan Blair. Do you affirm 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.
- Thank you. Thank you. Good evening My name is Megan Blair and I'm a property owner at Matlock Heights,
- which is adjacent to this proposed development I want to be clear. I'm not opposed to responsible
- development. You're gonna hear that a lot tonight we I understand that growth is a part of a healthy
- community and
- What I'm opposed to is granting multiple variances that weaken the standards established in the UDO.
- The current UDO exists for a reason. You've heard that a few times today. When setbacks are reduced
- and lot size minimums are lowered, it changes the character and functionality. Granting these variances
- would set a concerning precedent if these requirements can be waived here, what prevents them from being
- waived everywhere.
- Reduced setbacks and smaller lots don't just change aesthetics. They impact stormwater, tree canopy,
- and long-term cohesion of the neighborhood. These are not abstract concerns. They do affect and they
- are injurious. If this land can be subdivided under the current code, which it can, then it should be
- developed under the current code. Maybe this was a bad business decision to purchase this property.
- Many of us purchased our homes at comparable price points. We did so with the understanding that the
- UDO would be applied consistently. This is about fairness. The UDO should not function differently depending
- on whether the applicant is a professional developer or a family of three. I respectfully asked the
- board to uphold the integrity of the UDO and deny the requested variances at 2511 North Dunn.
- Thank you. Is there anyone else here in chambers who'd like to speak? Is there anyone online, Eric?
- If there is anybody else online that would like to speak, please use the raise hand function and we
- can recognize you. We'll wait a moment. I'm not seeing anybody. OK, thank you.
- At this point you have 10 minutes and 45 seconds on the clock of remaining time And this goes back to
- the petitioner for final comments. This will be your opportunity for your final comments Then there
- will also be potential for questions from the board before any action is taken We do respect all of
- everyone's input especially all the neighbors and I we do appreciate that we did have a neighborhood
- meeting for
- Them to meet mr. Pruitt's and kind of go through some of the possible issues and kind of give clarity
- on some of those I won't I don't think go into depth on every single comment made but I'll try to answer
- some of them Just to clarify we did the math That if we were to do 11 homes instead of the 15 it would
- just be adding about $29,000 to each home. So that's the math that we Took through before
- We are we have tried our Absolute best to save as many trees as possible I mean we have gone through
- and even so if it went back to 11 lots You would still be losing those trees. It's it's not because
- we're having 15 that it would be a difference there I just want to make sure everyone understands that
- that we have tried to preserve and
- And have tree preservation areas on the site, even though it's a it's a smaller lot to be able to do
- that But we've done our best to take especially the stands the mature stands and preserve them along
- with the request from the city to extend Tamarack Trail, so there's just a lot of criteria all given
- to us to make sure that this works properly, but 11 lots or 15
- We've tried our best to try to keep as much as possible and we understand that there's a lot of desirable
- trees and we have We believe retained many we understand we're still the taking down also many as well
- We are protecting the riparian area so I don't that has a perpetual easement on it that will be put
- there for perpetuity and
- So we are protecting the riparian area and we will not be we're not allowed to touch that during construction
- and we on our plans will show Where they can and can't go on site and they're not allowed to with any
- equipment get in there for any reason And so that is a protected area at the northwest side of the site
- and that is a riparian area with a riparian easement there's also a drainage pond that will be put on
- the front side of that to clean all the water that's coming and
- that area to make sure that There's not you know any Anything coming off of our stormwater that would
- end up in there So that's what the pond is for it and also control the stormwater We do have a full
- drainage report and that has gone through two iterations of review with CBU at this time So there is
- a full report on that and it does show that we are Letting less stormwater rate
- I want to everyone to understand the difference. We're not adding stormwater We're adding stormwater
- rate and then it's controlled through a pond and lessened after our site So that's what the drainage
- shows and the engineering shows and that will go to CBU for final approval per their guidelines We are
- adding a sidewalk on Dunn Street with these plans along with sidewalks that are going to be going through
- our site for
- pedestrian connectivity and further access so we're trying to help that situation with these plans and
- the last thing we are providing a hammerhead on these plans for emergency turnarounds so That and that
- will be need to be approved and has already been approved by the fire department and needs to be approved
- by police as well so that is provided and that was Instead of a cul-de-sac then you provide a hammerheads
- for an emergency turnarounds and
- If there's any other questions, we have to happy to answer. But I tried to respond to as many as I can.
- And I will say you have just short of seven minutes. Is there anything else from either? OK, so that
- would then end your comment period. But you will be possibly asking questions. So it is back to the
- board for any questions. I do have one before we get started, which is the last item you mentioned was
- the hammerhead. And I'm looking at the diagram here.
- Where is that hammerhead going to be? It's about two-thirds to the west on the north side of the road
- and it's a place for emergency vehicle It's large enough for a you know fire truck to turn around on
- is what's in our packet. Is that representative of this hammerhead? Correct. Yeah, I just pulled it
- up on the screen, too Okay, thank you to the board any questions to the staff or the petitioner, please I
- Is Just a level set on this The current UDO was adopted In 2020, is that correct? There was there was
- an update that was done in 2019 and then update to the map in 2020. Yeah, and that update to the map
- if I recall was unanimously approved by the City Council and
- I don't I don't remember specifically but it was obviously approved So but that's when the r2 designation
- was placed on this property Yes, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say was probably zoned RS 4.5 Before
- this which was a somewhat comparable density. Yeah so under the r2 if The variance that was asked for
- on lot width and size
- Comports to the standards for an R2 zone. Is that correct? Well, so what they're proposing the lot size obviously
- Doesn't the density does you know if you were to look at the overall property as a whole the four yeah,
- that's kind of where I'm going Yeah, yeah, so the four acres as a whole, you know If you were to just
- take the 7200 into that four acres, you know would equal about 24 lots Obviously, there's a lot that
- has to come out of that. You know, you have to have roads to service that sort of modern detention So
- the number of lots that are being shown here fall within what the overall gross number would be allowed
- just based on roll on lot size
- Questions. So is there an existing mid century home property. Good. Yeah there is a home on the property.
- It's not in very good shape. I did consider remodeling the house but what you see there
- today is not how that house was originally built. It had a flat roof on it. It didn't have a garage.
- And at some point I believe it was Mr. Sinclair added a pitched roof to it and a garage on the front
- to bring it out. So it kind of has a snout sticking out the front of it if you will. And again I I like
- mid century modern houses I like
- historic preservation and I actually pulled a permit from the building department to remodel this house
- and add I was going to add a second story to part of it and it just didn't make any sense financially.
- It was going to I was going to be so upside down on the house that I would have lost a considerable
- amount of money. So you know it was a really cool house in its day but
- It's not now and to bring it back to that it would cost you know at least a few hundred thousand dollars
- and it's just not feasible. Does it fall under the historic preservation. Does that home fall into there.
- No it's not in a historic district. It would be considered a contributing structure I believe.
- OK thank you. I've got a quick question but.
- First, I just want to highlight a quick study that pertains to this conversation. This is from February
- 2025 that WE Upjohn Institute out of Western Michigan is connected to the University of Michigan. It
- says recent studies show that building more housing, even more expensive housing, actually increases
- overall affordability. This is because when wealthy families struggle to find homes, they often move
- into properties that would otherwise be available to middle or lower income families.
- building even expensive housing creates opportunities for a wide range of residents Including those
- who cannot immediately afford the newly constructed units but can now find options at other price ranges
- And again, this is a direct quote with ties the University of Michigan that puts out some pretty powerful
- Economic data and I see some heads kind of shaking and that's okay because my question becomes who absorbs
- the $30,000 in the in the costs
- Is that you know, I mean I will absorb it up front but it has to get passed along to property owners
- So how much of that gets passed along? Pretty much all of it. I mean, okay just to be perfectly clear.
- Yeah in terms of data to data and in terms of who is going to ultimately take on this cost as a consumer
- 100% be the end-user. Yes, it's the end-user. Yes. Okay, and I'm not trying to belabor a point
- Other than to say this is kind of I wanted to clarify when things are thrown in terms of luxury housing
- things like that like just kind of Clarify the conversation we're having so it's apples to apples type
- of thing. So thank you Well along those lines just to clarify I heard a number of a target market of
- 400 a unit is that I Mean that seems kind of low
- Yeah that may be a little low. They'll be in the fours. You know my intent is to build as affordable
- a product as we can. That gives you a greater the greatest number of buyers potential buyers. We're
- not really looking to build luxury housing. It's not what we do. So the average is in that area right
- now currently for the single family homes.
- No, I've seen houses in Matlock Heights for, you know, 300. There's one on the market now that was just
- remodeled for 649. Um, that's adjacent to this property. So they're kind of all over the place depending
- what repair they're in. I can say that there are three homes right now for sale with the average price
- of, uh, 491 300.
- This is for the petitioner I do I want to circle back and redirect towards this issue of build by right
- the idea of you buy the property stay within the UDO build out your property within those regulations
- in looking at the property and the property alone outside of all this stuff that we're talking about
- now how many homes would you be realistically allowed to build on that property if
- You were doing it by right, which means you would need no variances and you were well within the UDO
- Yeah, we've we've studied this a little bit as well they really That's a loaded question in the sense
- that you can't they don't want you to have new driveways They're coming to done. And so if you just
- took 60 feet and put them along done even though I don't think that the engineering department would want that
- It would only be about four Well Joe if I can kind of interject from a staff, please I think that you
- know you you kind of touched on this a little bit earlier when you Looked at you know the number of
- units that are proposed here And if you were to change those lot sizes to be compliant with the R2 zoning,
- you know, you would get you know the 11 lots that would result from making these
- The minimum lot size so that would probably be the most realistic number, you know Looking at because
- all laws have to have frontage on a public street, which they've shown going through here You know the
- stormwater tension has to be accounted for so, you know, probably those 11 lots would probably be close
- to In that right actually I was trying to formulate that next question so thank you for that Eric because
- I was going to ask if you had when I asked you what what's realistic within the but build by right and
- You talked about the driveway cut on undone But what if you you know did it in such a way that you put
- your own? Street in there and the whole thing like you looked at it. That was my question is what would
- be realistic? The tree canopy requirement is what would stop us from being able to Build many of those
- lots and so realistically it would still be a low number like I
- I believe it's it would still be only about the four or five six range if we were put an entire street
- through there But however, if you put an entire street through there, you still violate the tree canopy.
- You'd still need a variance. Is that accurate Eric? Yeah, I think most of the variances that are well
- I shouldn't say most half of the variances that are on here are related to just the street moving through
- here and the need for detention based on the topography of the site so, you know as I said in the initial
- portion of the presentation, you know, given that the majority of the good trees are in the center of
- the site and the street has to move through there, you know that necessitates a lot of that removal
- as well as the location of the tension. So those do present some practical difficulties with the use
- of the property. But you know, like I also said, you know, there isn't a guaranteed minimum, you know,
- the UDO doesn't say you have to have a minimum number of lots that you have to that you
- Can get it's it's if you can meet all of those standards. So, you know, one of the things that the board
- obviously is where you're considering is, you know, is this the number of lots here or the 11 that would
- be allowed by right is is that a reasonable use of the property, you know, so that's where we made findings
- against the minimum lot size and minimum lottery and setbacks was, you know, the
- Allowance to have 11 lots here still allows them to use for the property in which it's owned You know,
- you're not depriving them of the reasonable use of the property because they can't get 15 You know having
- 11 lots or whatever that number is still gives them the reasonable use of the property Right, and and
- I appreciate that. That's good information that I'm just trying to Try to align and
- in this whole thing, here's what would happen regardless if there was no hearing in front of the BZA,
- here's what could conceivably happen right now if every item in the UDO was abided by. And it sounds
- like there could be four, maybe five homes without any issues at all. Yeah, I'd be nervous to say four
- or five without any issues at all because any newly created lot has to have frontage on a public street.
- Given the depth of this property there is a four to one maximum depth the width ratio within the subdivision
- section So it's arguable. You'd only get one lot to be honest Given that depth to width ratio restriction
- Understood. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that any other questions
- No, you can debate further before if you have any other questions or comments we can have those now
- or else I will entertain a motion. Yeah, I mean I would just say I think that Well, I'll just make a
- motion that we Let's see Make a motion that we Let's see approve the proposed findings by the staff
- for case and
- ZR 2025 12 0 1 1 4 and approve the variances from the tree canopy preservation tree protection fencing
- and riparian intermediate and fringe zoning disturbance activities but deny the variances from minimum
- lot area minimum lot width and minimum side building setback with the
- eight conditions as set forth in the staff recommendation. I have a motion to have a second. I'll just
- second so we can get discussion. We have a motion from the board discussion please.
- I'll go first. I mean, I you know, I appreciate the issues in that been put forward by the petitioner
- as well as the the neighbors It strikes me that the staff has come up with a set of recommendations
- That strikes the balance it doesn't make anybody happy which sometimes is You know the result of a decent
- compromise I mean this was zoned
- by the City Council for medium density. And I think the conditions that are put forward the way the
- staff's handled the recommendations I think it actually does take forward the intent of our legislative
- body when they adopted the U.D.O. Tim did you have something.
- Yeah, I appreciate all the engagement and we can all agree to disagree. I think that's what democracy
- allows for. That's good thing. I just want to bring and not not stretch this out any more than needs
- to be but the Hopewell South PUD and I want to put it alongside this development and I've got some thoughts
- here. I just collected it to me. That's that's a well thought out example the Hopewell PD for those
- who are aware of it.
- Probably all of us are it's an example of the ability to give developers which includes the city of
- Bloomington latitude from much needed housing within the confines of the UTO which as we continue these
- discussions are Very very challenging to balance affordability and sustainability I think like this
- petition that doesn't necessarily fit for the zoning and as well outside of the zoning
- in the current area. But again to me it's a byproduct of the city's hand much like a lot of developers
- their hand being forced to get creative to meet a need in housing that I can say along with Mr. Breaux.
- We've got about 35 years of real estate experience between us. You know we see it firsthand. I think
- my point coming back to this is
- The hope appeal to use highlighting the ability to spread infrastructure cross costs across more units.
- So I guess the question in my mind is why not maximize the number with the balance of everything else
- they're doing because I kind of see the environmental approach and I'll just say this as to me that's
- more that's true or conservation and preservation and I know people will disagree with that.
- Because it's keeping intact this natural environment which the petitioner is willing to do and that
- is better in this situation to me than the sustainability incentives that I think we all know can kind
- of get bogged down like with the red tape of the UDO. So I'll just wrap it up by saying I think John
- your point is well taken in terms of this being about as close as we can get again within what we're
- allowed to do.
- within our purview we can agree with a lot of projects. Bottom line we have to vote per the purview
- and we're kind of constrained in that and how we kind of back that up. So I think I kind of stand where
- you are as this may be the best balance between two very kind of opposing points. Yeah and I think that
- listening to what you're saying here for the benefit of the public
- I think it might be valuable to talk about this idea that if as a board we say we want to go against
- the recommendations of the city on those especially those four items we would need to come up with a
- rationale for why we were why we were within our purview allowed to disagree and we would have to provide
- a finding the fact. So it sounds at this point what you're saying is that
- Nobody on the board can find facts that would allow us to Go against the wishes of the city on their
- recommendation. Is that correct? I mean we could obviously sit here and go through that we've done that
- many times, you know kind of before on petitions, but me simply saying from the economic perspective
- of housing attainability and the things we we talk about and projects like this which I think are very
- very much needed and
- In areas like this Yeah, I think if we could come up with I personally would try to come up with three
- to meet the denials to try to get the 15 units But I Leave that to the rest of us to Be able to discuss
- and come up with the findings of fact like you said that would be able to support that and I'm not sure
- if that would be possible
- By the way, I read it from the city's presentation. It's those the bearings as they recommend for the
- tree Canopy and the tree production and the bearing it really has more to do with being able to allow
- the building of a street And I do want to ask a question of the city Is there some is there some planned
- in the future for a Tamarack to continue all the way over to North Walnut is Is that street going to
- eventually open up?
- So that goes through the property behind on the West The new road that's being put into this Yes, so
- so with this approval with the street stuff that is being shown to the West there is language within
- the UDO that talks about when stub streets are placed to a property line those are required to be extended
- through a property when that develops Certainly will also put this on the list of possible inclusions
- on the transportation plan to make sure that that's clearly shown as there is on there as well and
- But the very fact that there is a stub that is place here and the language in the you do that requires
- that to be extended what happened then with Development especially subdivision on the property to the
- west You know the property to the west and looking at the map and driving by there to take a look it
- appears that there's somewhat of a drive already there on the west side that runs between that property
- and in North Walnut and
- Am I seeing that it runs I believe just directly to the south of the furniture store It looks like so
- there is a drive that runs there are several drives that kind of run there And there is one driveway
- main entrance on Walnut Street And certainly as you look at that property and see in the next 10 20
- 30 40 50 years, you know redevelopment and
- Potential for that, you know, who knows what that might look like So we would look to get that street
- stub through there and having that on the transportation plan just helps that even more Thank you. Any
- other comments or questions? Appreciate the public coming in expressing their their views and
- their sentiments about this proposal and also giving a little bit of a history of the law and that it
- was the intent was the law was to be a preservation except the owner that owned the lot never made it
- official correct. So it was just a piece of land. So anybody could have bought it and done once you
- buy it then you have the right to develop according to
- the city ordinances but I do appreciate you sharing. I grieve with you. I just want you to know that
- I grieve with you that unfortunately the previous owner didn't set up a deed restriction on the land
- which so then the land becomes part of a regular land that could be used for any purpose.
- according to the U.D.L. So that is one one thing that happens if the land is not does not have a specified
- use. So but I just want you to know that I heard you but based on what we see we are here to look at
- only the seven criteria
- that are presented in front of us and the city has what the city has presented tonight makes sense and
- we don't have anything to contest the denial of the other ones. Thank you. Before calling the question
- any other comments from the board. If not I call the question and again as a reminder a vote of yes.
- Would mean to accept the recommendations by the city passing the the four items of the tree
- canopy preservation the tree protection fencing repairing buffer intermediate and fringe and denying
- the lot area lot width and side building setback a vote of yes would Would allow those conditions to
- go through a vote of no, of course would be to deny the petition altogether
- Sorry, I called the question. Okay. Thank you Ballard Borel. Yes Fernandez. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Okay,
- we're gonna make a motion to adjourn for five minutes We'll come back and we will hear upon our return
- ZR 20 25-12-0 1 1 5 Back
- Board is the board is back and we are now in session and before the board at this point is Case number
- Z are 20 25-12-0 1 1 5. This is value built Inc. May I have a staff report, please? Certainly As I get
- it up, I'll just say my name is Gabriel Hobel zoning planner for the city of Bloomington That's up there
- So this is a petition for variance at 614 North Grant Street. The property is located in the old Northeast
- downtown neighborhood. It's at the Southeast corner of Grant Street and Cottage Grove Avenue. The property
- currently contains a four-bedroom single-family detached dwelling with an active rental permit.
- as well as a small portion of closed canopy wooded area. It's got 6,600 in some square feet. It's zoned
- residential high density multifamily, RH in the Conference of Planets, mixed urban residential. So it's
- got that single family dwelling. Petitioner is proposing a triplex dwelling, so with three units in
- a townhouse configuration, which is an allowed use in the district.
- issue is that there is... This is an aerial photo, which maybe you can kind of see. The trees you see
- in the middle of the picture, we're looking from the north, sort of, at the house. Cottage Grove is
- underneath the closed caption words, so we can't really see it. Grant Street is there on the right.
- The house is just to the right of centre, and you can see all the trees around it.
- Pretty much all of the property except for the house is a small closed canopy wooded area that's subject
- to tree and forest preservation standards. As part of the proposed redevelopment, the petitioner is
- proposing to take down quite a few of those trees in order to make room for the allowed structure and
- and allowed driveway. What they're taking down is a little more than is allowed under the tree and forest
- preservation standards. So they're asking for a variance from those tree and forest preservation standards.
- This is a view. This is from Google Street View. We're on Cottage Grove Avenue looking south into the
- property. This isn't such a great illustration, but just shows you we can see some trees. Some of them
- will be retained.
- Site plan as proposed by the petitioner Does show tree preservation Fencing around some existing trees,
- although many of the trees are proposed to be removed and nine Trees are proposed to be planted back
- as remediation for the tree removal This variance petition was heard by the hearing officer on January 14th
- but at that hearing the hearing officer noted that the demolition of the structures on the site including
- the house and also the brick sidewalk along Grant Street is subject to demolition delay and review by
- the Historic Preservation Commission and specifically so one feature that is There's a brick sidewalk.
- It's a long Grant Street along the west side of the property that the petitioner is proposing to remove and
- and there are trees going in where that sidewalk was. So they're taking out, they're proposing to take
- out the brick sidewalk, construct a new concrete sidewalk just inside of that and the area where the
- brick sidewalk was will become a tree plot with some trees in it. So the hearing officer noted that
- that's subject to demolition delay and if through that process the brick sidewalk
- cannot be removed, then some of those trees would have to move. So the site plan would change. So the
- hearing officer said, you know what, we need to postpone this until the HPC historic preservation commission
- looks at it. So that happened on February 12th. Uh, the HPC reviewed the proposed demolition of the
- house and the brick sidewalk and release the demolition delay. So, uh, there's nothing in the way of,
- The petitioner removing the sidewalk so the proposed site plan can move forward so the location of the
- street trees and mitigation trees Are are now possible So with that Staff recommends findings that the
- Tree removal will not be injurious so long as at least nine new trees of large canopy species are planted
- back on the property which is shown on the site plan and
- Staff recommends a proposed finding that the use and value of areas adjacent to the property are not
- expected to be substantially adversely affected and that there the strict application of the terms of
- the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property and that the small size of
- the property an amount of closed canopy coverage substantially restricts the ability to use the property and
- Peculiar features on the property include the relatively large portion of the lot covered by closed
- canopy compared to the size of the lot. The footprint of the existing structure at 1,276 square feet
- is small for a lot of this size, but not unusually so. However, it is unusual for the entire remainder
- of the lot beyond the building footprint to be covered by closed canopy. This peculiar feature limits
- the buildable area on the property.
- The granting of the variance will relieve the practical difficulties by allowing for an appropriately
- sized residential building and driveway to be constructed without the department recommends that the
- board adopt these proposed findings and approve the requested variance with one condition. The summary
- of the condition is the petitioner has to plant the nine trees as shown on site plan and that those
- must be inspected within six weeks of
- occupancy Thank you Thank you and If we could have the petitioner there's a petitioner here with us
- if you would come up to the podium and please State your first and last name Hello, I'm Ernest
- Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
- I do and again, you'll have 20 minutes use what you want now You'll also have that retained what you
- do not use before a motion is entertained. Excellent. Thank you In light of the last petition, I'm gonna
- keep this really please step forward close to the microphone. Sorry can you hear me? Yep in light the
- last petition. I'll keep this really short. Thank you Gabriel for the summary as Gabriel mentioned
- We're looking to redevelop 614 North Grand Street. We've gotten HPC approval to demo the property as
- well as a sidewalk The trees on the property do cover the majority of the property It's important to
- note that the current structure could not be rebuilt without a variance From the tree preservation just
- because of the drip lines and the true protection required That's about all I have
- Much for the rest of my time Thank you. We're back to the board for any questions of the petition over
- the city staff Seeing none and we'll go to the public anyone in the public in chambers or online wishing
- to comment on this petition if so, please come over to the podium sign in and
- Is there anyone else to that that are in chambers that would like to speak? If so, you could start your
- own. Okay. State your first and last name. Amy Butler. Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give
- us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- Yes you have five minutes. All right. So I apologize I'm extremely nervous. Anyway so I know the decisions
- have likely been made already concerning this variance request but I am speaking truth because it needs
- to be done for whatever that is worth. What they are taking down in trees is more than just a little
- more than what is allowed per the U.D.O. It is significant.
- Gabriel said it's just a little more. It's not. They're only going to be leaving about just under a
- thousand square foot of canopy on this after they remove a total of 11 trees from the property. There
- are 16 trees on the property within just that block alone from Cottage Grove over to 10th and from Grant
- to done. There are only nine other trees.
- on the whole block. Now, there's also some street trees. A total of, let's see, so that means there's
- a total of 25 trees in this block that are privately owned. There are only one, two, three, four, five,
- six, seven, eight, nine, 10, about 10 street trees. We don't have many trees in this area. If you go
- to the next block over to the north, there's 13 privately owned trees.
- There's one privately owned tree in the next block beyond that. If you go over to Dunn and 12th over
- to Indiana, there's two trees that are privately owned. Then there's one tree that's privately owned
- in the block between 11th and Cottage Grove and Dunn and Indiana. And then there's zero trees that are
- privately owned between Dunn and Cottage Grove and 10th and Indiana.
- There are some street trees in there, but this is a tree desert that has been created by the zoning
- that you guys have done. And the thing is, is there's been multiple, if you look at the map that Gabriel
- has used showing tree canopy coverage, that's not accurate actually. There have been three properties
- removed out of that map that he's using to show tree canopy. And of those three, all those trees were removed.
- So the big green blotches, there's like one big green blotch left, and that's on 614 grant. There's
- only nine other trees that will be left. So that map is inaccurate, which I don't think is really fair
- if you're trying to decide if these trees should be allowed to be removed. Environmentally, creating
- hot zones in our city is a really bad idea.
- especially with how we're having, you know, worse weather. It seems, I don't know. I mean, I'm anyway,
- but if they go ahead and do the variance, it will take, if he replaces nine trees where they're taking
- down 11 mature trees, it'll take 20 years to get back to what the minimum requirement is of the UDO
- for the trees to be retained on this. This saddens me.
- And if you look at this whole zone that I'm talking about, if you walk through this area from Indiana
- over to Grant, it's significantly different from the next blocks beyond that. It's sad. And I think
- you guys should consider that before you just go ahead and approve these variances. You know, you're
- talking about all these trees that people are trying to save here just now on North Dunn.
- In the city limits, like in downtown city, like towards campus, we don't have many trees. If you could
- save the tree, the poplar on the corner that is right behind that brick sidewalk, if that brick sidewalk
- is retained where it is, you could save that poplar on the corner. And that would get you closer to
- what the UDO requirement is. The neighbors have to pay a deep price for 20 years until we get anywhere
- close to what the UDO really wants it to be.
- I would really like you to consider that before you make your decision. You know, these lots that are
- being, you know, filled, you know, they're taking old houses down. They're saying it's peculiar that
- there's a lot of trees on these, not when you have a hundred year old house that's been there. You know,
- that's not peculiar. Those trees haven't just grown up overnight. It takes a long time for that to happen.
- So any tree that is removed does a lot of, you know, it's a significant change for the area.
- And I would really like it if you would consider that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in chambers.
- Go ahead and sign in. State your first and last name. My name is James Ford. You affirm the testimony
- you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do.
- Thank you, you have five minutes. This neighborhood is slowly turning into a giant parking lot. The
- houses and the trees are all being demolished and are being replaced by large, overly large student
- centered housing, which is fine in the UDO. If you look at it by the letter, I think it follows the
- UDO. But I don't feel like there's any mechanism to ensure
- that any trees that are replanted will actually survive a year from now or two years from now. There
- was something mentioned earlier that six weeks after residency that they'll be checked and if they're
- still alive then they'll be fine. But what if the next year they're all gone? Who then replants them?
- Who checks on the health of them? Who really does ensure that this canopy be restored in the next couple
- decades? I don't see the mechanism for that.
- I also, maybe this isn't part of this body's concern, but I'm also concerned about parking. There's
- no more parking on the streets. And the way the UDO says they don't have to put for every bed a parking
- spot on the site. They can just assume that the streets are a big black hole that can take up all of
- the parking that is generated by these maybe 15 students who are going to be living on this little hut,
- on this little lot.
- So I don't have the formal citations in the UDO that I can reference. So perhaps my comments are not
- so relevant. But I did want you to at least think about ensuring that there is a mechanism to, if there
- is tree replacement, that that mechanism allows the trees to be checked sometime in the future. Side comment.
- There is a screech owl that is in resident right now in one of the trees and I'm sure it's building
- a nest for this spring and I'm concerned about where that screech owl is going to move to when they
- bulldouse their trees. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in chambers like to speak to this petition.
- Anyone online.
- If there's anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function
- and we can recognize you We'll wait a moment Seeing none, correct Eric. No, I'm not seeing anybody.
- We'll go back to the petitioner for final comments Is there anything you would like to take out of your
- remaining time, which is about 19 minutes? Yeah, just address a couple of the comments
- us moving the brick sidewalk and putting in the concrete sidewalk away from the curb is a requirement
- of the UDO and that's why it's being done. It's not because I wanted to kill the poplar tree. We are
- also adding 10 street trees along Grant and Cottage Grove along with the nine trees. And we did not
- choose nine trees to be replanted. That was a condition of staff and from Rachel Johnson.
- But I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you If you would just be ready to answer any questions We might
- have back to the board for final comments before we entertain a motion any questions comments Seeing
- none do I have a motion? Sorry, and I meant that says last petition and it slipped but I'm curious about this
- And I imagine I can anticipate the answer having something to do a difficulty of just kind of you know
- enforcement or whatever. But this notion of the timeline for by which we review the I guess the success
- of replacement trees. Is that something you all have talked about at all in terms of extending that out.
- So you're responding to The condition talks about checking it once that they're planted and then the
- condition doesn't mention anything about following up. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a you know, I mean
- I appreciate what the Just meant mention about that and hope he mentioned that in the prior
- Councilmember Strasburg mentioned that in the prior petition to you. I'm just curious about that.
- I mean, I imagine there's administrative issues whatever but just Interested in the staffs kind of reaction
- to yep. So this is something that that's come up several times over the past decade And as you mentioned,
- it's certainly a staffing issue of not just any situation where there's required landscaping and it
- is is something that's somewhat on our long-term
- List of things to try to get more staffing and do routine inspections of sites to make sure that landscaping
- that was required with site plans is still existing and thriving and You know it in essence revolves
- around a staffing issue But it is something that we're aware of and do hope to try to address at some
- point in the future You know with maybe a budget allowance for a staff member who's a little bit more
- specialized for this So we hear what the board is saying
- When you look at the aerial images of this neighborhood I mean it is pretty stark and you know I totally
- hear what folks are saying about that and this sounds like a total cop out but the appropriate body
- where that gets addressed is really the City Council not you know the BZA.
- And this property was zoned. This is a permitted use. I imagine the only alternative would be, you know,
- build a much taller structure. But that's not going to be permitted either. If you were going to try
- and preserve the existing trees. So it's totally appreciate where the demonstrators are coming from.
- I think in the context of the jurisdiction of this body those are issues we can't really address. Any
- other comments. If not I will entertain a motion move that we adopt the proposed findings for the year
- 2025 dash 12 dash 0 1 1 5 and approve the requested variance
- The following condition as stated in the packet. I have a motion to second. Is there any further discussion.
- Call the question. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion pass or the petition passes for zero. Moving on to zero twenty
- twenty five dash twelve dash zero one one six. This is H and
- Rentals LLC Eric Mastin. May I have a staff report, please?
- Patterson's zoning long range planner for the city of Bloomington before you is a conditional use to
- allow for a duplex in the residential small lot zoning district. This property is located near
- the intersection of Allen East Allen Street in South Henderson just across the street from Brian Park.
- The long range comprehensive plan designation is mixed urban residential. It is currently a vacant lot.
- For the site plan here, you'll see that the new duplex is flipped to east and west half, both has facing
- South Henderson Street. You'll see a driveway there onto the north side of that, which will have the
- drive cut off of South Henderson. South Henderson is classified as a secondary arterial thoroughfare.
- Looking at the floor plan, we see that the upper floor
- for each half of the duplex will contain two bedrooms with each having its own bathroom. Bottom floor
- containing one bathroom, open living space, kitchen, and another bedroom. So the duplex will have a
- total of six bedrooms. Looking at our use specific standards, we see that each newly constructed dwelling
- will have to have a separate exterior entrance facing public or private street, which I showed you that
- it just does so that condition is met.
- For design elements, we have to consider roof pitch for front porch width and depth, the front building
- setback, vehicle parking access, and again, that no duplex structure shall contain no more than six
- bedrooms. Looking at the elevations, you'll see that there is a variety of roof pitches. You'll see
- both of the entrances are covered with a awning. Again, with the east,
- Excuse me at the north and south elevations. You'll see the variety of roof pitches and materials being
- used and when we compare these two Structures immediately to the north and south. We'll see that the
- lots immediately to the north and south are more of a single family similar roof pitch design to each
- other But when you go further from these two lots if you go one more lot to the south you'll see that
- there is a much larger two-story structure and
- with larger roof pitches, more parking area. Again, different types of materials used. And when you
- go north of the intersection there, again, you'll see another two-story structure, another one-story
- structure, a one-and-a-half-story structure. Again, varying design elements, varying roof pitches. So
- the immediate area of this proposed site does have a variety of elements from the design perspective.
- With that being said, looking at the
- Compliance criteria for the conditional use. We find these specific standards that apply and this petition
- meets those standards. In accordance with those standards, each unit has its own separate exterior entrance.
- The design incorporates many elements similar to existing and surrounding residences on the block face,
- including the roof pitch design, front porch width and depth, building setback and vehicle parking access.
- Again, it is not exceeding the six bedroom allowance. The property owner does not have any notice of
- violation and there are no other applicable regulations or prior approvals for this site.
- For consistency with comprehensive plan and other plans, we find that since comprehensive plan identifies
- this area as mixed urban residential for future land use, the redevelopment should be compatible with
- the surroundings and that for land use approvals within mixed urban residential, it should allow context
- sensitive multifamily development along higher volume roads, along district edges and near major destinations
- and appropriately integrated with adjacent uses and styles.
- Policy 531 further encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment across Bloomington
- with consideration for increased residential densities, complimentary design, and underutilized housing
- types such as accessory dwelling units and duplexes. We find this proposal is congruent with the goals
- of the comprehensive plan. Regarding adequate public services and facilities, we find adequate public
- capacity exists with water and sanitary sewer provided along Henderson Street. Again, while the property
- is currently undeveloped,
- We believe sufficient capacity for water and sewer connections and services are present. But again,
- we will nonetheless be reviewed upon application for the building permit. For minimizing and mitigating
- adverse impacts, there are no known regulated natural or scenic features to be impacted. The property
- is not located in a historic district. No significant adverse impacts are expected from the establishment
- of the duplex. No changes to trash or waste collection. And while there were some concerns raised
- With the Neighborhood Association meeting, we find that the overall design and proposed use,
- duplex use, are not found to significantly alter the overall character of the area. For rational phasing
- plan, there is no phasing plan proposed with this, and therefore it is the recommendation that the Board
- of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with the following conditions,
- that the conditional use approval is limited to the design shown and discussed in the packet, and the
- conditional use approval requires
- Petitioner to pass a rental inspection from hand and procure a rental permit for any units that will
- be rented Thank you, and I'm here for any questions you may have Thank you as petitioner here in chambers
- Is the petitioner present thank you if you please come forward and sign in I
- State your first and last name when you're ready. Eric Mastin do you affirm the testimony you're about
- to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Can you have the 20 minutes. You
- whatever portion you don't use now will be retained for later. Okay. I'm Eric Mastin. I've lived in
- Bloomington my whole life. I'm just excited to contribute to community provide some housing during the crisis.
- And I've worked with Joe through this whole process. It's my first time. He's helped me greatly and
- he's helped me pick out something that fits all the criteria. And I plan to build a really nice structure
- high quality and that will look really nice in the neighborhood. And that's about all I have because
- I'm sure they'll be like thank you. Thank you. And if you'll give us a moment to just stand by in case
- we have any questions any questions from the board.
- for the staff or the petitioner. OK. Seeing none we will go to the public for comment is anyone in the
- chambers who would like to make comment on this petition. So please come forward to the podium. Sign in.
- Please please state your first last name. My name is David Stewart. I live at 1015 South Dawn Street
- Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing with the truth?
- I do you have up to five minutes Okay Well, you know about my house there a long time ago. I've lived
- about 30 years and Brian Park is a very special place as Eric Mastin said when he gave a nice proposal
- to our Bloomington be Brian Park neighborhood Association and
- And I'm glad that he didn't say in front of this board that he is building it because he hoped that
- his daughter would live there. She went through master's school and his other child might live there
- and maybe two families could live there. I thank you for your honesty because this is obviously student
- rental and we're going to change the character of the neighborhood from single family homes and we're
- going to have a duplex that has six bedrooms with six
- the bedroom of six bathrooms attached, so it'll be for six people to live there. It's not for young
- professionals to live and maybe get a family as they go along their professional path. It's for student
- housing. And once you change the character of the neighborhood, then he said, somebody at the neighborhood
- said, well, maybe you could think about making it into the two families, like you were thinking of,
- a different design. And he said, well, I have to run the numbers. And I think, again, I thank you for
- your honesty, because he ran the numbers.
- And he found that he can make a lot more money running it to students. And you know, that's just a fact.
- So we're changing with this, this, uh, right here, this duplex is going to change the character of the
- neighborhood. Brian park is a very special place because people walk to the park and they get to know
- each other. People know each other in this neighborhood and people in this student housing. Well, we'll
- get to know them too. Maybe they'll be, uh,
- you know, graduate students that are really serious and want to, you know, integrate with a neighborhood.
- I don't mean that in any other way other than to be good neighbors. Maybe they'll be like that. That'd
- be wonderful if they would, but maybe they won't. Maybe they'll have beer pong parties. Maybe the proximity
- to the park might be such that they can have big parties there. And if they do, hey, then maybe there'll
- be a study out of Michigan or something saying that,
- We'll just have student housing outside of the city. We'll just move it, move an encroach down into
- the single family neighborhoods. Maybe it's good for our neighborhood. I don't think so. It's gonna
- change my personal life because this structure will be right near where I live instead of looking and
- seeing another family living near the park. It'll be a bunch of students living near the park. Again,
- if it was a bunch of students that were living in a
- situation as there are in our neighborhood. It's students who want to live in shared communal type of
- activities where they kind of share a house and rent a house together, but this is not that. This is
- six units of people in luxury student housing and it changes the character of the neighborhood. Therefore,
- since it's changing the character of the neighborhood, I think that it doesn't fit into the zoning
- It will change our neighborhood and I'm against it and I hope that you'll vote against it, but I'm not
- Not saying in anything other than that. I'm against it Thank you
- State your first and last name, please. I'm a little shorter than Dave Hi, my name is John Lawrence
- and I live at 525 East crimes. Do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth. I do five minutes, please Thank you. Well, good evening. My name is
- John Lawrence and I live in the Bryant Park neighborhood near the proposed duplex I Want to begin by
- clarifying something important our neighborhood does not oppose duplexes. I
- In fact, the next petition is another duplex in our neighborhood that we support. I wish they had been
- reversed Last year we supported a duplex on Grimes because they respected the look and feel
- of the neighborhood and fit its site well And by the way, that was a duplex built by Ernest who was
- up at the previous petition And we recently opposed the duplex on Wiley for many of the same reasons.
- We're here tonight Our position has been consistent We support projects that fit the neighborhood and
- function well on its site. I
- Unfortunately, this proposal creates predictable impacts because of its intensity and parking limitations
- This is a six-bedroom duplex in a small lot Potentially six unrelated adults with multiple vehicles
- the property relies on the 70 foot long single width driveway Vehicles cannot pass one another this
- requires stacking Stacking may work in theory, but in practice residents become blocked in and
- When people cannot easily leave for work or daily activities, they look for parking elsewhere. But this
- location has strict physical constraints. There is no parking allowed on Henderson. And the parking
- lot across the street at Bryant Park cannot serve as overflow because parking there after dark is illegal.
- So excess parking pressure moves into surrounding streets. This brings me to what I believe is the most
- important issue, the Allen Street Greenway. Allen Street has no sidewalks.
- The city intentionally created the greenway as a safe pedestrian and bicycle corridor. When the greenway
- was constructed, the city installed bump outs that intentionally removed on-street parking spaces to
- calm traffic and discourage vehicle use. We were discouraged to drive and park on that street. Parking
- capacity in this area was deliberately reduced as part of the public safety and planning decision. We
- participated in lots of city planning meetings about this greenway.
- The Greenway represents a public investment prioritizing people over cars. When a development introduces
- parking demand that cannot be handled on site, that pressure shifts toward nearby public space, including
- infrastructure specifically designed to discourage vehicles. Approving a project that predictably increases
- vehicle pressure on this corridor undermines the purpose for which the Greenway was created. These concerns
- relate directly to the findings this board is required to consider. First, compatibility with the surrounding
- neighborhood.
- Where the scale of occupancy and parking demand exceeds what nearby infrastructure supports second public
- safety Especially pedestrian safety along Allen Street, which lacks sidewalks and relies on the greenway
- as its primary safe route third adequacy of public infrastructure parking is already limited by design
- and the proposal depends on overflow that cannot legally or real realistically occur and finally consistency
- with city planning goals and
- which intentionally prioritize pedestrian movement and traffic calming when creating the greenway. Good
- planning asks not only whether a building fits dimensional standards, but whether the daily activity
- generates fits the surrounding environment. In this case, the impacts extend beyond the property and
- onto neighbors in public infrastructure. Once those impacts occur, they are very difficult to reverse.
- For these reasons we respectfully ask the board to deny the petition require substantial revisions that
- allow the site to function realistically. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in chambers would
- like to speak. We see your first and last name.
- Hawkins you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
- truth. Yes Thank you. You have five minutes. My name is Cory Hawkins. I'm the owner of 506 East Allen
- Street On the Greenway that John just mentioned I'm writing to formally oppose the conditional use request
- submitted for the two-story two-unit duplex my full opposition is in the packet and
- But I did want to address a couple of questions that have not been answered by the city or by the builder
- I respectfully urged the board to deny this request because of the proposal does not meet standards
- required for approval by a conditional use one incompatibility with the surrounding development pattern
- the pattern not the roof lines public safety and traffic concerns and
- The proposal includes a parking strip. Yes But 70 feet by 13 feet fits approximately four to five cars
- stacked one upon each other Of concern particularly is the nearby Allen Street Greenway an entrance
- to Brian Park at the playgrounds where my five-year-old daughter plays every day and every single day
- we cross the intersection and
- Allen and Henderson and the city Actually put in a stop sign at that intersection Because it was so
- dangerous because there's a hill that people fly south on and Henderson down and as families are walking
- down the greenway that the city designed to walk in the middle of the street to one of the most beautiful
- parks in Bloomington Bryan Park
- That intersection is adjacent to this property and as five or six cars back out of that driveway to
- let each of them out of that single wide driveway to work, they will back into this intersection of
- which families are walking and cycling down to get to Brand Park and get to Templeton Elementary School,
- which is right up the street. There is also a lack of demonstrable affordability.
- Six bedrooms at what the petitioner has indicated at our neighborhood association meeting to be approximately
- a thousand dollars per bedroom Being two houses down my four-bedroom house would rent for approximately
- 400 And if the proposal is not income restricted or tied to any affordability commitments the board
- should consider what public benefit justifies approving this level of density and
- intensity in a small residential district So I respectfully request that the following questions be
- addressed Today clearly on record at this public hearing first How many off-street parking spaces are
- proposed and how does that compare to the expected occupancy levels for six bedrooms? again estimation
- of a 70 by 13 driveway
- In theory only hold five cars What is the projected number of residents for this property? has a traffic
- impact analysis been conducted specifically to this site's proximity to the Allen Street Greenway How
- does the petitioner demonstrate that this proposal will not adversely affect adjacent property values?
- In what way is the level of density consistent?
- with the intent and character not just roof lines of the Arthur residential small lot district in this
- specific block context is the proposed development income restricted or subject to any affordability
- commitments. And if not what specific public benefit justifies approval of a six bedroom duplex at this
- scale. These questions are central.
- Determining whether the required findings for conditional use approval can legitimately be made respectfully
- ask that the BCA denied this request In light of increasing affordable housing in Bloomington Alternatively
- a one-and-a-half story structure with three or four bedrooms with sufficient parking that did not create
- increased hazard of
- Traffic on the Allen Street Greenway would be acceptable for this neighborhood Thank you Thank you Go
- ahead and sign in please
- You would state your first and last name Jan Sorby. And do you affirm the testimony you're about to
- give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. You have five minutes.
- Good evening. My name is Jan Sorby and I live one block from the proposed duplex. I want to begin by
- saying clearly I support duplexes and missing middle housing. I understand the need for growth and additional
- housing options in Bloomington.
- This is not about whether a duplex belongs in this district. It is about whether this particular design
- is compatible with the established character of the block phase, specifically in scale, massing,
- and yes, roof form. This block is not architecturally identical. The houses were built at different
- times. Some have additions. Roof pitch varies.
- There is a clear organizing feature that unites the block. Yes, the roof. The primary roof ridge on
- all of the homes along this block face run parallel to the street. That shared ridge orientation creates
- a consistent horizontal silhouette. It keeps the visual mass restrained. Even where homes include predict
- perpendicular additions that gable into the main roof, those additions are subordinate. They do not
- change the dominant ridge orientation or the overall horizontal emphasis along the street. That pattern,
- the ridge running parallel to the street, is what makes this whole block feel cohesive.
- It is this visual rhythm that you experience when walking or driving along it. The code is very clear.
- It states duplex design elements shall be similar in general shape, size, and design to the majority
- of existing structures on that block face, including roof orientation. The key phrase here is similar
- to the majority.
- That requires us to look at what actually defines this block. On this block face, all of the houses
- have side gable configuration with a primary ridge parallel to the street. The proposed duplex departs
- from that established pattern. Rather than maintaining a dominant ridge parallel to the street, it introduces
- multi steep street facing gables.
- That shift changes the visual emphasis from horizontal to vertical. Instead of one simple roof plane
- defining the mass, there are several peaks and projections. The result is a building that reads as taller
- and more complex and more visually prominent than the surrounding houses. Even if the footprint meets
- zoning requirements,
- Massing is not just about square footage. Roof form significantly affects perceived scale. Multiple
- forward-facing gables amplify height and bulk. They draw the eye upward and increase the apparent size
- of the structure within the modest block. Compatibility is not simply about meeting pneumatic standards
- like setbacks and density.
- is about whether the general shape and the design align with the prevailing pattern. If the organ, if
- the organs, excuse me, if the organ is organizing root form of this block is replaced with a more vertical,
- more complex configuration, the cohesive rhythm of the street is weakened. Growth is appropriate here.
- Duplexes can work on this block, but they must respect the established form that defines the block face
- according to code. This is not a request to prohibit development. It is a request to apply the code
- as written. A duplex design that maintains the dominant ridge orientation parallel to Henderson would
- be consistent with the pattern
- requirements of similarity in general shape and design. For those reasons, I respectfully ask you to
- reject this design as proposed and require a form that aligns with the existing roof pattern and maintains
- the modest visual scale of this block. I think duplex would be appropriate here, but it has to look
- right. Thank you for your time.
- Thank you. Anyone else in chambers you'd like to speak, please come forward and sign in please And state
- your first and last name yeah Hayden blink and ship you affirm the testimony you're about to give us
- the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
- I do. You have five minutes, please. Thanks. Yeah, I'm hidden blanket chip. My partner Mackenzie and
- I recently purchased 1000 South Henderson Street, the house just next door on the corner with the big
- hedges and the images shown at the beginning. While I do have some affordability concerns about this
- proposal, my most practical concern to this group is also about the Greenway on Allen.
- We're really happy and proud to live on the corner of the park and the greenway and we've personally
- scaled back our personal vehicles to just one car that we share Out of respect for keeping cars off
- of the greenway and using it as pedestrians as often as possible The greenway does often naturally become
- overflow parking mostly for the park, but also sadly sometimes for tenants nearby and
- For example, across the street from us is 93 to South Henderson. And there's actually a mirrored situation
- where there's a rental unit in the house on the lot that's just north of them. Over the span of the
- last few years, the tenants in that house haven't had the space in their driveway to accommodate their
- just three vehicles and regularly used the greenway for parking when their driveway has been full or
- just like when it's simpler to not park in your roommates. In the proposed build next door, there are
- six rooms.
- Whether or not this is the plan to begin with I think we should expect and prepare for the possibility
- of there being six vehicles tied to the house or potentially even more Which I think would result in
- a lot of regular overflow parking into the greenway I do totally understand the greenway being used
- as overflow parking for events at the park But I do have some pretty serious concerns about this being
- a step toward turning the greenway into less of a pedestrian path and more just like regular street parking
- Given this yeah, I do ask that the board consider our beloved pedestrian greenway and our newly adorned
- Arboretum directly across the street when considering this proposal. Thanks Thank you anyone else in
- chambers would like to speak to this petition Is there anyone online? Please check If there is anybody
- online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you
- Seeing anybody. Okay With that we're back to the petitioner if the petitioner would like to use the
- remaining portion of their time You could do so now, please I'm just here to try to answer any questions
- you guys might have I appreciate everybody's input and I Just like to proceed
- Okay, so that you're done with your time allotment. Okay, then we'll go on to And if you'd stand by
- there, please so back to the board For final comments questions before we look for a motion But my first
- was could I do want you to walk me through this parking again? There's there's no carport or there's
- no garage but you said something about a Drive of some form which side of the house is that going on
- on the north side? So it's a
- On the north side along Alan, no, it's it's it doesn't touch Alan. It goes you back out across Henderson
- You sit up is along the north side it's on the north end of the lot right Joe It's the driveway goes
- there's a drive cut off of Henry Henderson, all right
- I mean I'm looking at I'm just trying to understand because we're gonna pull it up on the north. So
- the lot fronts on Henderson and so there's a driveway that runs along the north side of the house. Okay.
- All right. And it's just it's going to just be a pad. There's no is it a single driver. How's that going
- to work for the potential of six cars. It is and I was wanting to add a turnaround in the front yard
- there possibly too.
- Yeah, so turn around would not be allowed between the building and the street and so the petitioner
- is showing a 13 foot wide Approximately 50 foot long driveway. So that meets the minimum requirement
- for duplex You're only required to have one on-site parking space So they've provided, you know at least
- two that are on the site
- So there's not there is a maximum of four but for a driveway, you know, it's a little bit more challenging
- to measure, you know definitive spaces, but they can accommodate at least two cars on the driveway,
- you know how People living there, you know orient their vehicles or you know backing in or backing out
- and how do you coordinate that with your roommates is You know typical for any house, you know, regardless
- of rental or owner occupied or whatever
- You're telling me that it's that drive is Would would be able to handle two cars At least two cars.
- Yes, at least. Yeah, it's 13 feet wide about 50 60 feet long. Would it be able to accommodate six? I
- doubt it Yeah, there's a maximum of four like I said, you know with the driveway for parking for driveways
- is a little bit challenging to to delineate number of spaces
- But it wouldn't be allowed to have more than six. And it's not long enough to accommodate that. You
- need to drive at least 120 feet long to get six cars. But like I said, the minimum is only one, which
- it meets. I know it's a lot of, I'm just looking here
- Is there a possibility to put parking in the backyard of the house that goes all the way back so we
- can They can turn around in the back They could I think one of the challenges the petition was running
- up against was impervious surface coverage But certainly, you know if they were willing to install a
- longer driveway, you know the challenge with that You know if they install a driveway turn around at the end
- You know would have to be that would be the number of parking spaces So it might get a little bit more
- challenging in terms of how that is Counted in terms of number of parking spaces on the site, you know
- with a hundred foot long driveway and then to pull off spaces at the end I Mean we could Possibly work
- with them to Adjust some other things but they could do that. They could have spaces at the end. I
- The driveway could be adjusted. There's there could be areas of the driveway that are not concrete.
- It could be something else that it can. I think it would all have to be permeable because they show
- the driveway and permeable papers now. Yeah. So I mean this would be up to the petitioner if they wanted
- to install a turnaround at the end and delineate to spaces there or something to that effect. That would
- be something that they wanted to agree to that they could.
- So something you're interested I guess. Please. I did for sure. Are you open to that idea. Yeah. Because
- then you bring the cars to the back so you're not stacking them. I think it's a great idea. Tim did
- you have something. Yeah my main concern you know is this is how this is stacking up in terms of the
- code code.
- Allows three unrelated adults in this in each one of those sides, correct? Yes Okay, so you're really
- looking at it if his student housing most most likely you can anticipate as many as six cars Theoretically,
- this is all theoretic. We don't know what's gonna happen. I I am concerned about How this is going to
- blend in with the neighborhood? It doesn't seem to me that it is meeting that the spirit of the code
- I am concerned about the parking. I think that's going to be a nightmare for that
- Neighborhood and that property I'm concerned about that I am NOT concerned at all about there being
- a duplex there if it were a duplex for single-family that would probably be much more for a single family
- on each side would be much more accommodating based on the space that you have for vehicles, but this
- doesn't appear to be a Structure is being designed for that purpose. Not many People are gonna families
- gonna move into a three-bit bathroom individual bathroom. I mean, it's just
- That space that's being sacrificed could be used for family use. So it does kind of concern me a little
- bit. There's some issues there that I just think it's just seems to be out of the spirit of what we're
- trying to do with these duplexes. I don't like that. That's where I'm at at the moment. Tim I'm sorry.
- Go ahead. No I appreciate that. I think I just want to make a couple of notes here. One is I think we
- have to be very careful. The Fair Housing Act is a very serious piece of legislation.
- That I think we as real estate agents with the two of us we adhere to that to the letter of the law
- because we have to so I want to give caution to how we evaluate such projects and try to ascertain who
- we think is going to live in them. We can conjecture all we want. The reality is we don't know. And
- so I just because I think sometimes comments kind of come out. This is going to be
- a bunch of maybe undergrad students. And it was actually Western Michigan University tied to the University
- of Michigan Business School, just to clarify, to go on the record with that. But I think the other note
- I want to make is we've had many of these now in similar faces and appreciate the time you take to come
- up and it's your neighborhood.
- It's your homes. I get that. I think the point of clarification as we've seen maybe nine or 10 of these
- now was from last year when we went like three rounds on one of these and Barry Clapper was still here
- as as president and we got to a very distinct kind of line in the sand that we are not an architectural
- review board. And I do think there's something potentially missing.
- That we don't have within our purview to control and I understand some of the comments but really that
- kind of goes to the planner that's been discussing the project and obviously that planner saying this
- checks all the boxes and we may have our kind of own take on the architecture the roof pitch and whatnot.
- But again coming back to the purview through which we make decisions about all of this. That's really
- a moot point and I and I just wanted like
- reemphasize that because it took like three rounds of one of these with Barry as president to where
- that was really established in that last meeting on the record of we really can't dictate as much as
- we would like to if even Barry is an architect herself said in that meeting that third round. What are
- your thoughts on the parking. What's that. What are your thoughts on the parking issue.
- Mean again, I kind of come back to I guess Planning on this to say what's required again as the minimum
- So the minimum parking is one Maximum is four. Yeah, and the petitioners obviously open He's already
- said it to the permeable pavers to kind of allow for a greater turnabout I mean that's kind of what
- we continuously look for in these kind of petitions is the petitioner being able to say I understand
- what you're asking
- I can look into this change to kind of try to make it continue to make it a win win you know kind of
- scenario. So I feel like the fact that the petitioner is open to that as a potential option to help
- alleviate the concern which I I understand it's valid. City remind me again in an event of a tie to
- 2 to 2 the petition can come back next month and represent.
- Yes. So certainly if you want to continue to give guidance toward any changes they can review those
- and make any adjustments and then come back next month. Yeah. As opposed to if it was voted down it
- would be six months to wait. Correct. Yes. Thank you. John. Yeah I got a couple comments and I you know
- I'm still the relative newbie. So I went here for some of those historic debates but I do think I have
- a decent understanding of what many of the council members intended as a legislative body when they
- said we want to advance this notion of addressing the missing middle and they made duplexes you know
- permitted as a conditional use in certain kinds of zones but I think the language
- That I focus on are two key things. One is it's conditional and there's criteria that's different than
- our typical BZA request. I mean for the folks who watch the previous stuff I mean we're very constrained
- on does this have a finding of fact or not. And we don't have a whole hell of a lot of leeway with the
- conditional permit process.
- We are empowered to use judgment. And in this case, when I think of that neighborhood in the context,
- you know that the notion of the missing middle and doing duplexes, I don't think people were thinking
- of it in context of how can you take some kind of a maximum bull approach if that's a word to density.
- for a duplex in this neighborhood. But what would be a more appropriate do plots that is congruent with
- the context of the surroundings. So when we apply the criteria I mean the only disagreement I have with
- the language in the staff report around the additional criteria applicable to conditional uses.
- is that very last sentence in number two maybe is it too. No it's number one or I don't think this is
- congruent with the goals of a comprehensive plan because I think the context of this particular property
- and its neighborhood is not congruent.
- And I mean we can all have opinions and I'll respect anybody disagrees with me on this. But you know
- the code actually says that it allows context sensitive multifamily redevelopment along higher volume
- roads. And I don't think this is context sensitive. And that's just my opinion. And like I said other
- people can disagree with me and I won't take it personally but I mean I
- I personally don't think it's consistent and I would as submitted I would not support it. Can I just
- make a quick note because I appreciate that and I think this is part of the gray that we are trying
- to kind of define. But I mean I just say I think I think there's a slippery slope here too of the weeds
- we could potentially get into when we're presented and as we've said within the purview to
- See an approval and then swing that the other way like a denial and try to swing it that you have to
- have very strong findings of fact to do so I don't see that here and to me this has gone through the
- standardized process that we entrust to the city planners who have the greatest qualifications I would
- say of knowledge of the UDO and the BZA in our in our purview and even the gray area
- So I mean to me I support this I continue to support these if you want to bring an architectural review
- element to it then you have to change our purview then what then clarify if you would for my sake of
- understanding. I mean if you just look at the scale of the homes that are adjacent and in that area
- you know they're not.
- four bedroom units. They're not three. I don't think most of those houses even have three bedrooms.
- We have approved several of these that have gone along the same. I know but the code it's conditional.
- It's not absolute. If it was absolute we wouldn't be even having this on the agenda. Let me ask this.
- What's the by right projects potential on this. Well it's obviously a single family residence would
- be the by right.
- Use. So, you know, just to kind of get one of the what I'm hearing the board kind of struggling with
- are some of the sections here. So the conditional use language really is looking at is a duplex use
- appropriate here.
- You know that's that's what it is really evaluating and that's what this request is is to allow for
- a duplex at this location. So the things that we cited were the citations we cited within this related
- to the comprehensive plan that talks about these uses are appropriate on neighborhood edges. You know
- this certainly is you know it's along a classified street Henderson it's an arterial road. So you know
- the other aspects that are within the board's review here are the use specific standards that do talk about
- The four elements that are listed in staff report the roof pitch front porch width and depth front building
- setback and vehicle parking access. And so we kind of struggled with this as well as staff. You know
- you've only got four houses along Henderson Street to really kind of look at you know one is a two story.
- Another is a one story. Another is a story and a half kind of two story. So you don't really have a
- really defining architectural style along Henderson Street.
- You know, certainly we understand, you know, the orientation of the roof pitch might be something that
- the board is queuing in on But that isn't specifically One of the seniors it just talks about roof pitch
- and being similar, you know So what that was trying to get out was, you know You've got a flat roof
- building and you want to go it into a neighborhood where you've got pitched roofs You know, that's certainly
- not similar
- Um, so, you know, given the variety and, and really kind of low number of sampling to, to look at along
- this block face, um, you know, the roof pitch, the different elements is similar to the buildings that
- are along here. And like I said, again, there, there aren't a lot. Um, but certainly if the board feels
- that this is not, um, meeting the use specific standards for that, um, you know, you have several choices.
- Obviously you can continue it with recommendations to make alterations. Um, you can deny it, um, or,
- Approved This isn't rhetorical if it's a real question, so I mean When we think about compatibility
- or being congruent There's the form element of it for sure But does the code envisioning the notion
- of scale? I Mean, so I'm not talking about architecture. I'm talking about scale You know
- You know going from I mean it's one thing if you're talking about duplex that has two two-bedroom units
- to a duplex that has You know two three-bedroom units. I mean the scale matter is when we're looking
- at the conditions and the criteria So the scale kind of really only applies to those four things that
- I mentioned the use specific standards the roof pitch Front porch depth building setback so, you know,
- we can kind of step through each of those, you know the vehicle access
- All the lots here have access from Henderson Street, so they meet that. Front porch depth, you know,
- there's only two houses on here that even have front porches, but this does have a front porch, so it
- meets that. You know, as I said, it's oriented, it matches the setback from the two houses to the north,
- so it's in line with that block face. You know, so the area, I guess, where there is some disagreement
- might be the roof design. And it doesn't, like I said, it doesn't specifically say roof orientation.
- You know, it just says roof pitch.
- General saw shape size and design so design would be you know picture of this is a flat roof You know,
- there's a wide gamut there and as Mr. Ballard indicated you get on a slippery slope when you start talking
- about specific pitches and we got into that with a different petition So yeah, that's where staffs coming.
- Yeah, I mean, I totally agree I don't want to get into becoming the architect police. That's I don't
- want us doing that
- I mean we know that just two blocks up there's a apartment complex or two blocks south their apartment
- complex. I mean you know what I mean. If you're when you're talking specifically neighborhood are we
- looking at just one block. Are we looking are we looking at this whole area. No. So it just says block
- face. So that would be running from street to street.
- So you've got Allen Street to the north and and I think maybe Davis to the south So it this block face
- is defined by those four houses that are there So I think I might Tim maybe you can help me with this
- because in in looking at at this particular Petition you know, I'm
- Keep looking at this idea of increased residential densities and I and I think about residential and
- I think about that as as people that move there to live there and While there's apartment complexes,
- those are built as apartment complexes and they probably have adequate Places to park etc based on that
- type of development And then the idea of You know underutilized housing
- So there's those apartment complexes are nearby. So I don't think it's you know that this is a need
- in order to to try to build up more You know since there are apartment complexes actual complexes, so
- I'm that's what I'm struggling with it Just when I said I don't think it fits within This idea of it
- being within the goals of the comprehensive plan. I think the goals of the comprehensive plan I would
- see that or it it sees me you're gonna be able to help me with this because You know, you've been involved
- with planning
- is it seems to me it means this is a residential area with with families. And so if you build a duplex
- or triple it should be focused on maintaining that you know that residential makeup there. So that's
- what I'm struggling with. So how do I how do I address that. You know from a standpoint of you know
- approving this because even though we can't say well we know who's going to move in there I think it's
- reasonable to assume that
- This is not really designed as a family unit because this is not common to have a bathroom in every
- in every bedroom. But we do see that all the time in those duplexes that we have agreed to in past that
- are in more of a student housing area. That's that's what I'm struggling with. It just doesn't seem
- that it fits with what the if the comprehensive plan is to increase housing that meets that makeup of
- that area. I don't know.
- I'm not in planning so I don't know but I mean I think Flavia and I I mean if not to speak for you but
- in terms of being in housing and in the years that we have and the data we collect on a daily basis
- as real estate agents I can tell you I know families that move into these I have date like so and that's
- proven because I work with them so this isn't being you know that I don't know yeah what's that myself
- So yeah, we don't I'm not going to debate this with the public. This is a conversation here. Gladly
- debated all day long outside of this meeting. Yes. Continue what you're saying. So you that's kind of
- what I'm struggling with because it doesn't feel like that it's meeting what the what the goal of the
- comprehensive plan. Okay. Well let me talk about.
- family you cannot define family. So when we're talking about fair housing what is family. It could be
- a single person with a child a single person with another single person. It could be it's impossible
- impossible to define especially because there are a lot of blended
- type of situations. So I don't think we can go there. I don't think we can go. It's fair housing protects
- this. It protects things for a very legitimate reason every you know every every type of person. So
- I don't think it's something that we can define or design to receive a certain type of person. And I'm
- asking simply because when you read the language I mean
- Seems that it's from the city report. It just seems that it that there might be to me there were some
- questions, but Because of the way it's phrased. It's not really as clear, you know Yeah, I think that's
- part of the gray and that's part of the struggle that we're you know, that's why I ask Yeah, kind of
- get our heads around too. I mean I think I Know we've done this many many times, but in this case, I
- don't remember Looking at something like this, right? You know that
- butts up against the park like that. I know that we've done a couple like a block. Yeah. You know very
- close to that went through the multiple rounds and came together. We could probably go find out who
- that was three bedroom. Right. But again I think Flavius point is very valid. This is again where this
- is a slippery slope of is our purview the Fair Housing Act and the discussions around that as real estate agents.
- Upholding the law the way we do daily we take it very seriously and I think that's just where I can
- speak to it I can back it with data. I can give you names I've been doing it a long time Flavia has
- as well So you people can question that that's fine. I welcome it But I think sticking to the purview
- sticking to the design If we want to make changes to the purview, let's make changes to the purview
- or the UTO
- But what we have is what we kind of have and I think it checks the boxes and I don't want to undermine.
- I think that's another slippery slope of the astute nature by which planners study these things reflect
- deeply on them with the UDO come to the decisions not lightly at all the way they do and then present
- present to us to say here are our findings of fact if you find contrary viewpoints
- as findings of fact present as such until that last part. Because yeah because I think you know I mean
- it's a conditional use there's criteria and the criteria that set forth is not black and white. It requires
- judgment. And you know I deeply respect this staff. We've disagreed on some stuff as a body with the
- staff so that's not
- you know, an absolute either one way or another. But it's not about it being a rental and it's not about
- it, you know, defining who's going to live there or not. I think it's more about there's just some oddities
- of the scale that make it in my judgment from it just an opinion because it's requiring an opinion not
- it's not a math problem.
- with the right answer is the fact that you're creating a scale that's going to you know it's not going
- to have adequate parking. Maybe it could I guess hypothetically it could but our experience is that
- is the probabilities are that it will not have
- adequate parking. It doesn't mean that absolutely won't but just you know you can't ignore the just
- the probabilities and the experience we have in this community that having a six bedroom rental with
- parking for two is going to be adequate. But you know I mean I don't think this is an easy one by any
- stretch so I mean I'm
- I'm open to persuasion on this thing I'm sorry, but I do think it comes back to if we're going to vote
- against it. What would be the findings of fact? Yeah, so it does come down to Despite misgivings. This
- is why I'm asking these questions
- But despite that ultimately at the end of the day if we're going to to legitimately be able to vote
- against this there would have to be findings of fact that would substantiate that vote. So if we're
- unable to find those facts then it is clear. And so my question then would be to well to John I mean
- I have concerns about the parking as well. However based on what the city has told us it meets.
- The requirements correct. Yes. Okay, so that that's my one of my big objections is I don't like how
- that's looking but if it meets the code it meets the code. So then the only other question is there
- anything else that's happening here that that would be that would substantiate voting against it with
- finance effect because if not then it's a moot point because we are not allowed to
- Pass or deny a motion without having the appropriate finance effect. We have to have that Yes, one question
- to staff. So Looking at the driveway when they're gonna back up back their cars into I mean if they
- don't have the ability to if we put the Parking in the back and they have the ability to turn around
- and come out facing the street That is one thing but if they're gonna back up
- So just answering the question of Corey that brought up the intersection. How far are we from
- that intersection. Is that a safe turn around. That's what I would like to know. Give me just a second.
- I'm looking at something because there is something that I recall in the code about
- Drives on arterial streets. Correct. That's what I wanted to And it does does require a turnaround if
- you're if you're on an arterial so give me Give me just a second. I'm trying to trying to find that
- Well, and I think while you're looking for that Eric, so that's That was the basis of my question about
- the tie to be able if
- If we could have that address that it goes a long way to alleviating my concerns about parking that
- would also That would also allow a much more speedy return to ask for approval of this Well the the
- paver the pavers, yeah, if he's up if he's open to the permeable pavers what you said he was that Well,
- I wasn't concerned about the coverage I was concerned about just the
- Aspects of the drive and it being complicated. Oh and you and you present and floppy I think was the
- one talking about parking in the back or something so what I'm saying is rather than turn this into
- a six-month turn around you can if there were to be a tie if the petitioner doesn't withdraw to say,
- okay come back next month and Essentially the time makes it that or else Yeah, we could ask them to
- continue To address some of the concerns because I I
- That's that is to me an issue for that Just to clarify with maybe I'm late nine o'clock with the pavers and
- If they put the pavers in all the way to the back with that alleviate any They can't turn it they can't
- turn around it's about the turn around it's just a matter of making that because that will in my mind
- some of my concerns about in and out and
- With the two car access. Oh, you have a question for. Erica, are you still looking for? Yes, I was.
- I'm not finding it. But I'm pretty sure that there was something that talks about driveways on arterial streets.
- Say that again. Do we have to vote to continue the online hand? To introduce a new petition, we will.
- Yeah. If that's what you like to do, yes. So do we want to wait for this answer, or do we want to make
- a motion? We don't have a motion from the student. No. It's one minute. So let's extend the time. Oh,
- you're asking about that. We do have to do that. Right. For the sake of the other positioners. Yeah,
- yeah. Yeah. We suspend the rules.
- to extend the time of presenting past nine. I'm fine with that. Then I would move to to spin the rules.
- Okay. Can we take a quick vote to suspend the rules so that we can continue to hear. Yes. Ballard. Yes.
- Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Throckmorton. Yes. So suspended. So we're going to wait for this answer here.
- The other the other one I think even at this point before a motion is made the petitioner can just simply
- withdraw and In presented to us next month because no action has been taken I believe so either way
- I think it can be done I'm not finding that section Swore there was something that talked about required
- turnarounds So can I ask you a question Eric and this will help me understand because the
- The way this is set up in terms of conditions, and I may have misinterpreted this. So the way the code's
- set up, it says there's additional criteria, and then it articulates exactly what those things are,
- being adequate public services and facilities, minimizes, mitigates adverse effects.
- Are those the conditions that become kind of the constraints of? Those are the review criteria for the
- conditional use itself. Okay, we can add conditions. I'm sorry. We can add conditions. Well, so so the
- condition so so those are the conditions that are conditional use are evaluated on and then we would
- then we make findings of how this petition is meeting
- those conditions that are laid out in the UDO. I don't think the board can implement new review criteria.
- You know, these. Sorry, I mean, there's two conditions right now. Conditions of approval. Yes, conditions
- of approval. OK, sorry. Yes, you can certainly add conditions that we've done that many times. So and
- I kind of misstated my I kind of lost my train of thought on that question. So when I was reading the
- code and it says allow context sensitive
- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. What's set out in the rest of the code under adequate facilities, minimize,
- mitigate, and it has a criteria for adverse effects. Those are basically the definition of the context
- that we're considering, or is it something more than that? That's to you, Eric. Oh, OK. I'm so sorry.
- Can you just say that? Yeah, so it says that in the
- Comprehensive plan it says that these are permitted uses in these zones but It should Allow context
- sensitive multifamily development along higher volume rows of blah blah blah blah blah what I'm asking
- is that context and effect has been further defined within the code by the
- Yes, so the conditional things that are specifically clarified with those you specific standards are
- here are the standards that you are evaluating that context sensitivity on got it That's and and keep
- in mind, you know, the language in the comprehensive plan is very broad trying to address a wide range
- of situations And again, you know the conditional use requests here are those standards are specific
- to you are a duplex is a duplex appropriate at this location
- So we're in a position here. I'm sorry. Well, no, I was gonna say maybe if you could clarify just so
- the petitioner fully understands like I'm gonna say way I see where we are right now is We have the
- As a board we have the decision do we want to make a motion or Do we want to discuss an alternate finding
- the facts that would allow for a
- there to be the possibility of denying okay, and if I understand the way it's gone so far we have no
- findings of facts that would allow for us to Deny this we don't have that in front of us that would
- allow us based on What we're allowed to do. So therefore then it becomes do we want to make a motion
- here by the board to say we would like to continue this to next month and we would like to see
- some of the concerns addressed in the Petition or at this point the I think it's still up to the petitioner
- He could withdraw if he'd like right now before we make a motion. I believe that's so allowed Just to
- we did find the citation that says that for single-family you're not allowed to back out onto arterial
- so they would have to accommodate some sort of turnaround within the site and
- To resolve that and I'm fine with doing that in the back. That's fine by me. I'll do that. All right,
- so So can it be approved with an extra condition that says that it will need to be that a Third condition
- can be added to what you already presented. Yes to turn around and work with staff to Provide parking
- that does not require back out parking on Henderson So at the bottom of page 87 where the recommendations
- are you would add a
- Point number three, which would be the language you'd like there. Does that make sense Eric? Yes. Yeah,
- so you just need to craft that to whatever condition you wanted to add to this So if you if you'd like
- to make a motion at this point on that on those grants Sure, you can absolutely do that and you guys
- help me with the third so motion to approve ZR 2025-12-0 1 1 6 with the following conditions the 2 as
- stated in the packet and then a third being
- petitioner shall work with city planning staff in order to Design a turn around a driveway that turns
- around so there's no backing up in the on the arterial road to meet the To meet the code code And I
- have a motion
- And second so just again Overall, I mean I struggle with this. However, there is no alternate findings
- of facts. We have no grounds on which we would be Able to legitimately cast a no vote and we've got
- a petitioner willing to work with staff to to make the changes come up with the solution That's the
- way for the parking and drive. I just want to make sure I'm right. Yeah parking turn around I'm more
- interested on that That the cars are able to turn around
- So they do not back up into the arterial. I think it's great. So this comes back to you on a larger
- issue. It comes back to just the way the codes written and how we're restricted. It does seem like it's
- then it does. If we were able to find alternate facts that would be different. We would be able to.
- I'm just going to make my semi regular editorial comment for the benefit of our planning director because
- I know they're contemplating
- further changes to the UDO. I find it troubling that our legislative body wants to accomplish things
- like this. But rather than just having the debate in the code and deciding we're going to do it or not,
- they pump these things as conditional uses to the BZA. And it puts us as a
- a quasi-judicial body in an extremely limited posture that people come before us expecting some kind
- of relief that we can't give. And they leave here as upset citizens because they feel like they haven't
- been heard when they absolutely have been heard and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. And
- so I just wish that as the staff moves forward with changes,
- that conditional uses need to be cleaned up. Either you want something or you don't. And let's have
- a debate at that level of do we want these things or not because it puts a staff in a terrible position,
- it puts a BZA in a terrible position, and it leaves so many people absolutely dissatisfied with governance
- because they don't think they've been heard. And they've been heard and we're sitting here going, hey, you know,
- We have constraints. We don't have a lot of we're not a legislative body and I just wish that we would
- fix our code so that there's clarity and certainty and have a debate about whether we're going to do
- things or not and not dump things on the PCA when we're you know constrained. So I'd like to thank the
- board for taking the time to
- talk this through, help everyone understand. And it helped me understand the code better. I appreciate
- it. And I think I'll just go one step further and say, I think David is very much open to this very
- thing. I think we had the person in position as director who has done a whole lot in a very short period
- of time, taking us in the right direction that we've needed for 15 probably years. And so I do think
- I appreciate that very much because it's passion and it's what we need to see happen.
- And I believe we've got the leadership and I would say David is definitely the person to help us get
- there. Do we have any further comments from the board or questions before we call the question. Anything
- further. No it's to this is actually a motion in front of us to approve the motion as stated by Mr.
- Ballard with an extra condition with that third condition as stated about the turnaround. Any further
- discussion. If not I call the question.
- Ballard yes, bro. Yes Fernandez Throckmorton. Yes We're in a position where We suspended the rules,
- but are we allowed to hear another one if we want or we're we we can recess sorry Yeah, can we can we
- take a three-minute break and then continue let's try to get another one in please. Yes. Thank you. I
- In session. Thank you for that break. It's now 20 minutes after 9 we will be going to ZR 2025 make it
- to the right page 2025 dash 12 dash 0 1 1 7 correct. Yes as an expedition. We just want to make sure
- we understood the board suspended the rules. Were there any clarifications on
- Adjustments to the schedule timing. No, we we will be hearing and At this point, there's no additional
- addendums at this point, okay If that changes we will We'll address it. Okay, so we are at 0 20 25 dash
- 12 dash 0 1 1 7 and that's page 102 on our Packet if you're following along let me just get the name on this
- That is Here we go rusty Wampler and if I could have a staff report, please Sure thing David Brintez
- zoning planner So this is a petition at 105 East Driscoll Street The request is a conditional use duplex
- on a residential small lot So that would be our three zoning district
- So here you can see that to the north and the east and the south It's zoned are three and to the west
- is mm There are multifamily dwellings to the west and there are other single-family dwellings in our
- three So the comprehensive plan designation is a mixed urban residential so that
- Is single-family residences and larger two to four story apartment buildings as described in
- the comprehensive plan Says that there are lots of bungalows less than two stories that were mostly
- built prior to the 1950s And the district is essentially built out to the most appropriate development
- of the activity is the rehab of older structures for residential uses and
- So here's the site plan. We've got a very minimal exterior changes other than the driveway so we were
- just looking at this plan and making sure that it did not exceed the Maximum drive cut And there is
- now going to be an entrance if you can see my mouse here So it's a two-story building
- And I believe it will have two beds on the bottom and one on the top The petitioner can clarify that
- further so there's existing three bedrooms and then the stairs will be taken out and the units walled
- off from each other as required and then there will be three units or I'm sorry three bedrooms and
- There were before the work. So that part is not really changing to the west There's a door that kind
- of exits into the driveway. So that that's another reason that the Parking space is moving. So it's
- moving north along that alley. That's to the west of the property and it is a Compliant size and it
- provides the one required parking space That's the west elevation of the door East elevation there changes
- And this is the north and the south existing house. So far we can see that this meets the specific standards
- for duplexes. The petitioner, Rusty Wampler, presented to the Bryant Park Neighborhood Association.
- The amount of bedrooms is well under the maximum allowed. And the entrances are
- Properly located the units are separate from each other This is also congruent with the comprehensive
- plan designation of mixed urban residential It is as the petitioner has stated It is going
- to be a rehabilitation of this structure and It fits very well in that it won't
- really change substantially on the outside. In regards to utilities, no major issues have been identified.
- It will stay connected to all the existing city water, sewer, and everything. As far as the natural
- and scenic features, nothing will really change. The current house will remain mostly the same.
- But there will be a minor aesthetic improvements on the front porch and the back porch The petitioner
- proposes to construct a six foot tall wooden privacy fence along the north property line The structure
- is historically contributing, but the scope of work Is not impacted at all by demolition delay And there's
- no phasing proposed so the department recommends that the bza adopt the proposed findings and approve CR 2025
- Dash 12-0 1 1 7 with the following conditions. The first one is that they need a hand permit before
- the units are rented a Permit from the building department The construction of the front porch if any
- repairs or replacements are done must meet the applicable standards in the udio namely setbacks and
- a maximum of one Drive cut is permitted
- so that's just going back to the removal of the one driveway and the addition of One to the north and
- it must be located on the alley as is shown in the plans. Thank you. That's the end and Thank you.
- All right, we'll go to the petitioner. You've already signed in give me your first and last name rusty
- Wambler Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but
- the truth? I do. All right, you have 20 minutes. I
- Yes I think David said pretty much everything. Thank you. I'm not changing too much just about you know
- shortening the front porch up to make it more uniform with the house getting the sides away from the
- windows for the railings just moving them what the drive that went to the garage to the backyard.
- Other than that looking forward to making it in the nice little house. Thank you. Sorry I didn't mean
- to cut you off. I thought you were done. That was for staff. So with that work we're back to the board.
- You're finished right. Yeah. Sorry. No at this point we're back to the board for any questions the petitioner
- staff. Any questions.
- So we're to the public for comment. Anyone like to comment on this please come forward sign in You already
- signed in correct, okay. Yeah, you don't need to do it again nor do you need to swear in go ahead you
- have five minutes, okay Thank you. I want to thank this developer for taking this little house. It's
- burnt out and
- And something he did not say, but he said to the neighborhood association is the reason why right now
- it has three bedrooms and he could go with that. If you wanted to, he could go with more, but he said,
- I'm changing it around because I want to make a nicer living situation for my renters. And that little
- house I could see in the future. Maybe he gets old like I did. And he, um,
- would want to live on one of the floors and have a caretaker there. I can see all kinds of ways of that
- having adaptive reuse into the future. And I applaud that. And I know many of the neighbors, some that
- were here, some that never showed up tonight said, oh, I'm so glad he's saving that sweet little house.
- It's actually a Sears and Roebuck kit house. It was built in 1928.
- It is on a historic registry of sorts. And so I just want to compliment him and say, good. All right.
- And we have someone else. Did you already sign in as well? Go ahead, please. John Lawrence. I just wanted
- to say, this is what I think a duplex should be like. This is what it should be like in the neighborhood.
- And it's a shame that we couldn't have had this outcome before.
- Totally support it. I think as Jan said the neighbors really liked what they saw when they came to our
- neighborhood meeting. And so we support this. Thanks. Anyone else in the public that's in chambers like
- to speak. Come forward and can we also check online. If there's anybody online please use raise hand
- function and recognize you. Is that chat up there. Is that OK.
- There's nobody in the chat so far All right with that go back to the petitioner if you have anything
- further now is the opportunity to speak use the remainder of 20 minutes I just want to say I really
- appreciate the comments and All the neighbors just just really nice people if they ever want to come
- forth and give me their opinion and on anything I definitely will take it
- Okay. Thank you. Back to the board for any questions for the discussion or emotion. Adopt the proposed
- findings and approve ZR twenty twenty five dash twelve dash zero one one seven with the following conditions
- as stated in the packet for conditions. Second. I have a motion and seconds to further discussion from
- the board.
- Just one comment. I just want to thank the petitioner for making the investment in this neighborhood.
- I know that there's a lot of issues and your willingness to do that is appreciated. Any other comments
- or questions before we take a vote. Seeing none I call the question. Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez.
- Yes. Yes. Passes for all. Thank you.
- This is variance zero twenty twenty five dash twelve dash zero one one nine page one seventeen in the
- packet. And this is Monroe County School Corporation. Can I please have a staff report. Yes this is
- a request from the Merrill County School Corporation for property at thirty nine no one North Kinser
- Pike. This contains the Bloomington High School North.
- School, so the petitioner is coming forward tonight to request a variance from the maximum number of
- electric vehicle charging stations that are required for a use The property is being has been developed
- with the school and many outdoor recreation areas The petitioner is looking to relocate an existing
- parking area on the property in order to allow for an expansion of outdoor recreation facilities with
- the installation of the new parking area it is required to meet all of the requirements of the UDO and
- including landscaping and the installation of electric vehicle charging so the UDO requires Parking
- lots over a certain size to install electric vehicle charging stations based on the 268 parking spaces
- that are proposed in this lot They would be required 11 electric vehicle charging stations So the petitioners
- requesting a variance to not require any electric vehicle charging stations on site so with the various various
- Various variance findings. We did not find any injuries to the Public health safety morals or general
- welfare with the condition that's listed in the staff report that at least a minimum of three Electric
- vehicle charging stations are required. We did not find any negative impacts on adjacent use and value
- of the petition
- In regards to the use or the strict application of the terms of the UDO, which is always the hardest
- one with these situations You know given the large amount of the property that is that is used for outdoor
- recreation facilities sporting events and Limited area that is available for parking There are also
- various constraints on the site as well in terms of where parking can occur limiting these few spaces to
- Because they are restricted to electric vehicle charging only would impact the number of spaces available.
- However, there is a very important need and this was something that was the main reason why electric
- vehicle charging stations were implemented in the zoning code was when you have large parking lots.
- We want a certain amount of electric vehicle charging stations to promote that use within the community,
- especially situations where these are destinations, people are driving from far away. We want to promote
- the use and accessibility of electric vehicle charging stations. So while we do recognize that having
- 11 might be a little much for this use, we do feel that having at least three is a very simple and basic
- request condition of approval that helps have electric vehicle charging on the site
- for people that will be traveling here. So the board is recommending approval with the one condition
- that is listed in staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Petitioner present.
- If so, have you signed in. Yes. State your first and last name. Andrew Canoost. Do you affirm the testimony
- you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You'll have 20 minutes.
- You may use all that time now or hold some in reserve. Thank you.
- I'm Andy can used civil engineer with blood so rigorous Cooper James representing Monroe County Community
- School Corporation for this project. The primary purpose of the project is to expand athletic facilities
- for Bloomington High School North. We'll have a new soccer complex built with this project new throwing
- sports facilities and new concessions and locker room facilities adjacent to the football and
- track and field stadium, so That's the primary purpose but sort of secondary Function of the project
- is to relocate the existing lower lot up to this space between the football stadium and the school and
- and really, you know, that's Necessary to get the new soccer complex is going to replace part of the
- lower lot and but also like the lower lot has been
- Kind of a problem for North High School over the years it's more remote and you know therefore a little
- more challenging to supervise and so there have been you know safety and security issues associated
- with lower lot so bringing it up closer to the school closer to the football stadium brings it closer
- to the intended uses and also actually really provides for much better accessibility like new ADA parking
- will be provided for the football
- events at the football and at the school and and it's important to note that we're not actually increasing
- the total parking on the campus like the new lot will have almost exactly the same number of parking
- spaces as are in the current lower lot and and during large events which frequently happen at the school
- all those parking spaces are needed like the
- Commencement ceremonies football games concerts, etc. So there's not a surplus of parking on the campus.
- So every one of those spaces is important and The UDO requires EV parking which you know, we understand
- the goals of you know of electric vehicles more sustainable transportation like MCC SC supports those
- goals and Sam's going to tell you a lot more about how MCC SC does that but requiring
- Exclusive availability those are the words used by the UDO exclusive availability of those parking spaces
- is you know really that's kind of where the problem lies here because You know MCC SE it's our community
- school corporation like the mission is to provide equal educational access and facilities for everybody
- the entire community regardless of what kind of car you choose to drive so
- requiring 11 EV parking spaces exclusively for drivers of EV is kind of counter to the mission of MCC
- SC and and you know one detail of that is like one of those EV parking spaces also has to be at an ADA
- parking space and the consequence of that is that you know for all the infrastructure required the conduits
- the wiring the for all these EV
- charging pedestals like then all those EV pedestals to make efficient use of that infrastructure end
- up being co located right next to the ADA parking which is of course preferred parking right up close
- to the front doors of the facility. So so there all this results in sort of a perception of preferred
- treatment for
- People who choose to drive EVs, right? So whether that's really the goal or not, it's it's there's this
- perception of privilege, right? so that's part of the reason that we're arguing against the the requirement
- for EVs on on this project and in addition to that like it comes with real cost like in order to Serve
- even one EV parking space it will require a whole nother
- Transformer to be installed a whole nother service point from Duke Energy to provide even one EV parking
- space and we understand the cost like we've Bid this project out public bidding we had an alternate
- on the bid You know specifically for the EV charging spaces. So we know the real cost MCC SC for 11
- parking spaces
- Would be ninety two thousand five hundred dollars. That's the real price tag. So Depending what we choose,
- you know, depending how it is decided tonight, you know, we'll either have to take that ninety two thousand
- five hundred out of the project budget to install these EV charging spaces or not and Reducing it to
- three Does not it's not like a third of the cost, right? It's well more than half so
- Because of the transformer the service like all that is a lot more than just three percent of the cost
- right or 311 so I guess any in any case like the cost is real and that's just to install the charging
- pedestals like there's also the question of the monthly billing because all the use on each of those
- charging pedestals will be billed by Duke directly to
- our community school corporation and like MCCSE can't afford to like provide free charging to whoever
- chooses to you know come into the high school parking lot and park their car overnight and charge up
- the battery right. So then there's this whole issue of how does MCCSE recoup that cost like they have
- to come up with a billing system to charge users of the EV charging pedestals.
- Like this is a whole burden on our community school resources that is I mean it's an unintended consequence
- of the requirement but it's comes at a real cost to our community schools. So but all that said like
- MCC yes he is a strong proponent of of electric vehicles and sustainable transportation. And I'd like
- to introduce Sam Fleener he's the director of
- Construction for MCC. Yes, he he's gonna tell you more about Sam if you go ahead and sign in Yeah, I'm
- signed in. Okay, state your name Sam Fleener your friend the testimony about to give us the truth the
- whole truth and nothing but the truth I do all right continue you have 13 minutes left. Yeah, I'll try
- not to bore you I've been up since 430 chasing a snowstorm that we weren't expecting so just to kind
- of piggyback off of what Andy said and
- The school corporation is a is heavily invested in Evie. So we currently have 44 Evie school buses.
- That's leading the state in terms of K 12. We've got 54 chargers on the transportation lot. The main
- component to this is that those chargers that we have at transportation do not have to have a payment method.
- We're able to charge because it's our own buses. So this does like Andy said, even if we have to put
- these there, now we have to pay a service of some sort to be able to collect payment. And then there's
- also the equity piece, like we have 23 schools. So the only school that's going to have chargers is
- North High School. And we do have, you know, the vision would be to grow EV throughout our district,
- but we feel like this is kind of rushed into this project.
- And we would want to be able to gather more time to make sure that the EV chargers are in locations
- that are in alignment with all the other buildings. I just think that there's a lot of factors. And
- like Andy said, it doesn't matter if we put in three or 11, the cost is the infrastructure that we have
- to include to put them in. So we would just ask that you take that into consideration whenever you make
- the decision and just know that we are heavily invested in EV
- in that we're trying to also juggle everything with the Senate bill act that cut our budget by a significant
- amount. So I appreciate your time and thank you very much. Thank you. We're back to the work. Please
- be standing by in case we have any questions for you. Back to the board for questions of staff or petition.
- I have a question for the petitioner. So if I understand what you're saying is that you oppose the condition
- for the three
- charging stations. Yes that's correct. We would we would prefer to install zero charging pedestals at
- this parking lot for this project. And you know the reason for that is really the you know if we're
- going to implement charging for public use like MCCS we would want to do that in a strategic way.
- Thank you across this corporation any other questions just real quick. What's the cost then three three
- versus 11 I Don't have an exact number for three chargers, but it's it's gonna be well more than half
- of that 92,000 like let's say 50,000 Right, yeah Any other questions
- Go to the public for comments and anyone in chambers wanting to comment on this. Anyone online.
- Yes we do. We do have one member Hopi. You can you should be able to speak. She's already sworn in.
- So please go ahead. Great. Thank you. This is Hopi Stasberg again commenting solely as a resident community
- member who owns an easy and also has two children at North High School.
- And those kids are like sports kids, they run. And so I've regularly driven to other destinations in
- order to see them run. And I mean, I own an EV. I'm really a strong proponent of this concept. But in
- this case, having kind of done that experience, I guess, as once again, purely a resident who's thinking
- practically about our school system,
- and not wanting them to spend money on things that are going to be lightly utilized. And the normal
- course of this parking lot, once again, like I have kids in the school, this parking lot is normally
- during the day pre-used by kids who are driving less than 10 miles, probably, for the most part, to
- school parking and then home.
- And similarly with teachers, they're not going to be driving so many miles that not charging during
- the day is going to be this hardship. As an EV owner, that's just kind of part of it. And it feels to
- me like that would, in a lot of ways, be a misuse of their funds in this location because of how seldom
- they would end up being used. And I really appreciate that argument of wanting to be strategic about
- how they would implement something like that. And they cited that cost.
- I'm not sure if that cost includes any of the ongoing yearly costs of maintenance and management of
- that payment system that they would have to do. And I'm not sure in such a lightly used area that would
- actually, I mean, that might actually end up spending them more money than they would make in terms
- of recouping any costs from fees. So I guess I'm supportive of the school system in this regard.
- Thank you and have a great night and thanks for staying late. You guys are troopers Anyone else online
- wishing to comment If there's anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize
- you I'm not seeing anybody You're back to the board. I'm sorry back to the petitioner If you have any
- final comments now is the opportunity. Otherwise, we'll go to the board for motion. I
- Thank you. Back to the board. I have questions. So I guess have have this is for the petitioner. Have
- you researched about having some sort of I mean there are charging stations everywhere and you know
- in supermarkets supermarket is not paying. I mean you have to go and you pay. Is there.
- Any kind of program that it's out there that you investigated that might work with schools or public
- situations like this. So it's not it does not cause maybe they help pay for the infrastructure to install
- their chargers in your on your property. I don't know. And I don't know about it. I'm just asking if
- you investigated anything or if you just did the math and said oh this doesn't work it's too much.
- If please come to the podium Yeah, I would say that our main focus as of right now over the last five
- years has been strictly on the buses So there hasn't been the time to be able to go out and branch to
- the buildings we do have hopes to get there at some point and I think that our The amount of money that
- we've invested I hope shows some trust that we we are moving in that direction. I mean I
- Far as even going as small as the last zero turn mowers that we've bought have all been electric mowers
- I mean we're that's a that's a goal of ours So we have not looked into those specifics, but we're not
- against that. It's just that time hasn't come I know that we the goal originally was to try to get through
- the transportation and make sure that we were as close to being a complete EV fleet with the buses and
- Thank you. Any other questions or comments. So to the petitioner what's your argument to have none of
- these other than costs incurment just because we had to do the findings in fact to back this up. Well
- there's the the notion of having exclusive access for the parking space even if it's just three. Those
- are three spaces that
- can't be used by anybody else unless you drive any vehicle which are becoming more common for sure.
- But it's just kind of philosophically counter to the mission of MCCSE to provide resources that serve
- everybody regardless of what vehicle you choose to drive. So there's that argument also like providing
- charging in school on the school grounds like there's no
- gas station on MCCSE property is why should there be fuel for EV cars. There's just philosophical arguments
- but code required. Okay. That's not philosophical. That's good. Okay. Just so we're talking again talking
- to apples to apples kind of terms because we have to have concrete facts findings of fact we can't we
- have to base that on.
- To overturn what the cost of the infrastructure is it's not the cost of the infrastructure the charging
- like MCC is furthering the goals of electric vehicles and sustainable goals for our community through
- their investment in the buses and solar panels on many of their facilities like on North High School.
- roof is covered in solar panels like there. And that's great. That's great. That's wonderful. We all
- want to see that. I guess I'll just. I didn't mean to cut you off. The facts of finding. I'm just kind
- of having a hard time on that. See, I guess on this one, Tim, I would I don't have a problem with it
- because I think the if you're looking for, you know, a finding as it relates to would it be
- not injurious to the public health, safety, and morals, I don't see how you can say 11 versus 3, there's
- any distinction. I mean, if it's really injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general
- welfare, I don't see how requirement 3 versus 11 is going to have any kind of material difference in
- that kind of impact.
- What I find compelling and is the the school corporation has made significant investments to advance
- the goals of in driving more towards a EV infrastructure and transportation system. I think that if
- we ask them to look more holistically about how we address that and encourage that there's probably
- some better solutions.
- than requiring three EV stations at this particular location. I think there's probably a comprehensive
- way to do it that actually could become a, you know, candidly a revenue source, but it wouldn't be at
- these three locations. It'd probably be somewhere else. So, I mean, I'd like to make a motion that we
- amend the proposed finding one and simply delete
- the last sentence of that first paragraph, and then also amend the recommendation and put a period after
- findings so that it would read the department recommends, well, strike department, and amend
- the recommendation to say that the BZA adopts
- the proposed findings and approves the variance period and to lead everything else. That's kind of my
- motion. So in other words to get rid of the need to put any in because I think if we really feel that
- this is quote unquote injurious to the public health safety morals general welfare it's either all or
- nothing. I understand that. I can speak to it from a different side which is
- The question of votes even if I was a teenager Two miles down the road and my parents had me driving
- an electric car You'd be surprised how many times sometimes you fail to charge overnight and You don't
- have a choice You can't sit at your house and charge it up so you can go there and back, you know having
- one or two I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. I have certainly been in a situation as an EV driver that I
- It's a matter of there. It's again. There's nothing around and Having one or two to me is I don't see
- a need for 11, but I also wouldn't mind having one or two if you have Families who drive there for a
- football game or for track that are driving EVs. They would appreciate it now the question really becomes
- how do you make it affordable and that is yeah, you would I
- Maybe you have to find someone that's willing to put that in because you know you swipe a credit card
- all that stuff if they're gonna put it in as an investment You know, I get that so I mean I'm not inclined
- to do away with it altogether However, if the motion is made I'll simply vote against it, but it will
- probably pass and that's okay But from my from my standpoint having even one Is valuable and I've been
- in the situation more than once I've had to go to Fort Wayne and if they didn't have chargers in a hospital or
- You know parking lot I would have been in trouble, you know, so I get it. But that's again, that's a
- selfish personal anecdote. That's Not something where you know, I want to necessarily put the burden
- on Especially a public school. Yeah, no, and I appreciate you saying that because I think that helped
- get me there which is right What just like I did with why would you add $30,000 onto a house? Right.
- Why wouldn't we incur this on?
- school when you're on the cutting edge of Evie would you've proven and that's Yeah, but you know, I
- would I would say well why even provide parking spaces, you know I mean you could for me as an EV driver
- You can always spin it out, you know, and I get it. So that's why I say I'm not going to try to stand
- in the way of a motion that John just made but But in good conscience, I can't go for it, but that'll
- be fine. It looks like it'll passed I
- I mean, I wouldn't mind if you change it to one, but having something on site. I just think that the
- practical economics of it are such that requiring one or even three, you're still going to incur the
- majority of the cost of the infrastructure. And if you're going to require them to do EVs, is that the
- location we would want them? That's a good question.
- So going back to our code and the comprehensive plan has been established. So we move towards a goal.
- And the goal is that we want to promote people to drive electric cars, correct? So that has been a goal.
- Everywhere, any commercial building that is done, any apartment building that is done, we require them
- to put electrical chargers.
- So here we are. Oh, no, we're not going to require in this case because they're being good because they're
- doing that. I don't think we should. I think it needs to be it needs to be objective. This is something
- that the city of Bloomington is promoting. I think it's I drive an electric car and there are several
- times that you are on a bike and if
- If you drive to see somebody competing in another school and you get there and you're low, are you going
- to have to miss the meat and go to Walmart? You know, I mean, it's just, I understand it's $92,000 for
- 11 spaces, but I think if we're going to promote this, it's time for figuring out what works.
- So what works, that's why I was asking, you know, the petition, have you thought, have you asked anybody
- else? Have you done any research about this? I'm sure there are programs out there, federal programs
- that will help install, I mean, everybody's trying to do, you know, to have clean energy. So I'm sure
- there are programs or some sort of grant,
- something that can help with the financial difficulty. I'm having a hard time here because the only
- argument is finances. That's the only argument that was presented and the way it is inclined. I will
- not vote against what the petitioner is asking. I'm looking at it too from
- Having three you're gonna have a marked increase in the number of students that are driving electrics
- It's just gonna happen and again, it's a matter of You know just the nature of the way it works is having
- EV cars sitting in your lot that can't be moved because they're out of juice is Quite conceivable for
- students now. That's not to say that you should incur that cost because of that. I'm just saying that it would
- It would serve the student population down the road. I don't think 11 is necessary, but that's why I'm
- saying I don't have a problem with asking for three even one because It will serve it will serve the
- students down the road Especially if they're there late at a track meet or late at a football game or
- football practice and they need a charge They need a charge and if you look around there's no charger
- in that area at all So I get why this I get why the city wants to do it
- And I see what their idea is, which is to expand the service. Why they don't subsidize it, that's a
- different issue. And I would task, I think, the petitioner. These are all valid, very good points. But
- I would almost ask you guys with, like, Flavio and really Johnson in a different way, it's on you guys
- as petitioners to potentially go supplement this, go dig into finding. And as a former educator, I know
- it's extremely hard in this environment we're in.
- Finding the funds for this to be able to support Yeah, what the code really does require us to do I
- think that's a critical aspect of this because Yeah, I think that could be part of I'm just talking
- kind of out loud in terms of both sides of this where's a common ground and But also what's left?
- The work that's left for you guys to do to find some kind of funding to support this whether it's private
- business or public endowment grants. I'm not sure that's it's not our world up here but that's just
- kind of where I'm trying to reconcile I guess. And as you go to electric you know more and more electric
- buses and things that the school system they've got to have charging set up anyway. Can that be if you
- know there's
- So a lot of things there. So I mean I know how I feel about it but I don't think I can. I'm with me.
- I don't think I could say no no charges. You know I don't really have no intent of offending people
- or anything but you know
- EVs are not readily available for the mass public, just economically. And we're imposing on the school
- corporation additional costs at a time when we know they're going to lose like $30 million over the
- next few years. I think it's reasonable to put that in context.
- of whether, you know, is this going to serve, as it was said before, the broad objectives of
- the comprehensive plan. I'm not sure the marginal expense that we're putting on taxpayers in the support
- of the school is going to really outweigh the benefit, or the benefits are going to really be justified
- by that. I just don't, it's just my opinion.
- We don't have a second for my motion, so it is what it is. Do we have a second? I mean, can I second
- so the discussion can continue? You don't need a second if you're not going to vote for it. Well, I
- don't know. I mean, if you support it, we can discuss it.
- I don't disagree with what John just said. It makes a lot of sense. It's just I know that five years
- ago, I wasn't in the market for one. But I found it for the same price that it would have paid for my
- car, so my gas car. I get it. I really get it. And I think maybe that is an argument that you should
- look at. Is this the best use of public funds at this moment? Is that enough to go against code?
- Because again it's cost. Yeah my. But this is this part. I know it's part of the complex the
- Sports complex that's being built correct. So then you're relocating the parking lot to enhance that
- correct Yes, the parking lot is being relocated but it's right in between the school building and So
- it will it will serve the school it will serve Educational purposes just as much as sure athletics.
- So what is the cost of the entire?
- Build that you're doing right now. The entire project is eight million dollars eight million dollars.
- Yes, so we're talking Fifty thousand out of eight million Yes, or four thousand eight million dollars
- is for new entirely new soccer complex and likes concessions and restrooms Yeah, no, I understand. Yeah. Yeah so
- I mean typically in a project when you do a project of that size you expect some sort of how my home
- what is the percentage above of what you know that goes above and of what you expect that you would
- spend. Yeah like the contingency. Yes sure. But like there will be other things coming up that we know
- I understand. But what is the percentage that you usually have.
- For a project of that size like five percent five percent I'd say it's more but Yeah, I mean, yeah typically
- ten percent is like Yeah, pretty standard I would say Yeah in terms of big development projects. Well,
- we try to design our projects a little tighter And I appreciate that
- I'm just trying to put this into perspective. Yes. Right. It's a large project and we're talking about
- you know three spaces. So that's why I and do you that money for the project has been allocated already.
- It has. Yes we already have the money for it. Yeah that's point zero zero six percent. That's a fraction
- of a percent.
- For three for three Yeah, and as I said to me it wouldn't matter if it was one You know, it's just it's
- just a habit there. I think there's a value but again, I don't have students there It's hard for me
- to talk on that But do I think my money that I pay in taxes that do go to the public schools would be
- It would be useful to funnel the point zero zero zero six or whatever to it. I would say yeah I do think
- it's valuable. I think that they're
- isn't is a need to continue to do these types of things. But I could be I could be swayed if there were
- a good finding a fact that made sense. I don't want to stand in the way of what the board thinks is
- the best way to proceed. But we do need a motion in order to know which way we're going to go here.
- I'm going to restate my motion as soon as I can pull this up.
- I am going to I'll make the motion that the BJ adopt the proposed findings improve the variance with
- the one condition recommended by staff. That includes the three. Yeah. I mean let's just put a second
- to that. My second. OK. We have a motion with a second. Is there any further discussion. I do want to.
- bolster and reinforce what Tim was saying it makes a lot of sense and I would say right now that if
- it had come back in this in the city said to get up at 11 and I wouldn't vote for that either but I
- do appreciate a very small amount going to this because I do think in the end there'll be a value I'm
- gonna vote for this because I think two things are true at the same time here I think this percentage
- matters and I also think as John stated as what's happening on a federal level I have a
- deep ethical stance on public education and the support of public education and what we burden them
- when they're already in an extreme environment under duress. But I think both things can be true in
- this. And I think both things matter deeply. And I think I would task your group with getting very creative
- because that's what educators are forced to do in these times.
- Any further discussion. Yeah, I'm sorry any further discussion All right, I'll call the question Ballard
- Ballard. Yes, bro. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Motion passes They get a variance with a total
- of three charging stations. Let's go to the last item on our agenda we're gonna
- Get through this here. It's the our twenty twenty six dash two dash zero zero zero two and this is Page
- 128 of our packet and it is Marvin s Beach and may I have a and the owner is Jackson County Bank I'll
- wait a second. You guys okay? You're good. Okay and staff report, please
- Okay, thank you. This is Jamie Krenner, senior zoning planner. So this request is a administrative appeal
- of a staff determination regarding two wall signs above the roofline of the building. And this is for
- the JC Bank at 3002 East Third Street. It's zoned mixed use corridor, MC zoning district. And as I mentioned,
- it's the site of the new JC Bank. So the applicant applied for a sign permit on November 25th, 2025.
- The permit submission included the request for two wall signs on an architectural feature that extends
- above the roof on the north side of the JC Bank building. And you can see here what it's proposed to
- look like. Each of the proposed wall signs is roughly 40 inches tall by 126 inches wide. They're each
- 35 square feet in size. And staff was unable to approve these two signs because the proposed signs are
- located above the roof line of the building.
- UDO section 20.04.100 F3 regulates prohibited sign locations and it reads that signs shall not be installed
- at any of the following locations on the roof of a building or extending above the EVE roofline or parapet
- of a building. In reviewing the sign permit request, the department also reviewed the UDO definitions
- for a wall sign and a parapet. A wall sign is defined in code as a sign attached to and or integral
- with the exterior wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel
- to the plane of the exterior wall and that does not project more than 12 inches from the exterior wall
- surface. And a parapet is defined as that portion of a wall that extends above the roof line. Staff
- determined that since the location of the signs on the architectural feature of the building was not
- in a plane parallel to the plane of the exterior wall beneath it, nor on a parapet,
- The location was identified as a prohibited sign location. The location of the signs is above the roof
- line of the building and the roof line was determined to be the width of the facade facing East 3rd
- Street. So this is the site plan that was submitted by the applicant and the red circle shows the location
- of the two proposed wall signs on architectural feature facing East 3rd Street. On January 27th of this
- year the applicant was informed of the formal staff determination which
- read at the staff level, it has been determined that the proposed signs are in violation of UDO section
- 20.04.100 F3. If you disagree with this determination, do not wish to modify the plans accordingly.
- You may administratively appeal the determination under UDO section 20.06.080 D, which must be filed
- within 10 days of the staff decision.
- January 29th this year two days later the applicant confirmed that they would like to proceed with an
- administrative appeal for the wall sign So that was within the 10-day period Since this isn't Administrative
- appeal the staff report the code says we cannot make a staff recommendation So I'll just leave it at
- that and happy to answer any questions Thank you This to the petitioner I saw you both signed in can
- you state your first and last name?
- Marvin beach do you from the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth I do is someone else going to speak as well on Yes, so can I just please do that as well?
- State your first and last name Melody you're now and do you affirm the testimony you're about to give
- us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you. Anyone else? Adrian Reed you
- affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes,
- and that's it or one more I
- Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- Yes Okay, so that takes care of that you have 20 minutes. I do think we have one online I don't know
- if you want to take care of that now or not Okay, no problem. No problem. No. Well again, good evening
- And again, I certainly want to thank the board for the continuance this evening I know you all are working
- overtime to hear the remaining cases. So that is very much appreciated and
- As I stated, my name is Marvin Beach. I'm president CEO of JC Bank. I have some other colleagues with
- me here this evening. Melody Arnell, who serves as our senior vice president, chief risk officer and
- management services officer, and Joe Green, who serves as our assistant vice president and facilities
- officer. You know, we are actually, JC Bank's excited to expand our presence in the Bloomington area.
- after having taken possession of this property in December of.
- 2023 our team met with city officials and to begin the preliminary site plan and going through those
- stages as a matter of fact during those initial conversations there were some conversations regarding
- the signage so but before I get I'm gonna let Melody talk more in detail along those lines but again
- I think you saw in your packet we did have letters of support from you know our professional partners
- which included our general
- General Contractor Strouser Construction and GI consultants with Adrian and our signage vendor as well
- which is Tim Overmire. So I'll turn over to you if you please. Also thank you for the opportunity to
- meet with you all tonight and for staying late to hear our appeal. So as Marvin mentioned.
- We did purchase the property at 3002 East 3rd Street in 2023 and we are now in the process of renovating
- that building and the property which was formerly Joel is hot chicken. We are here to appeal the city
- of Bloomington planning and transportation.
- Transportation Department's decision to deny JC Bank's permanent signage application Because the two
- wall signs facing East 3rd Street are not allowed per the UDO section 20.04.100 as mentioned earlier
- When I'm talking I'm going to talk about the wing which is the architectural Structure that is on the
- front of the building. So when you hear me mention wing, that's what I'm referring to
- So the reasons for our decision to appeal the planning department's decision is that early on when we
- were planning this project we did have a meeting with a staff member at the planning department on August
- 1st one because we wanted to make sure that we were our site plan and our ideas were within
- the confines of the U.D.O. And during that conversation we did discuss permanent signage requirements
- of the U.D.O. in which we talked about square footage requirements placement and such during
- that conversation. The staff member obviously had drawings that were presented to them that showed the location
- of where we would like to put our signs and it was never brought to our attention that the placement
- of the sign on the wing would not comply with UDO. So had that been brought to our attention we definitely
- would have tackled that early on in the project because we do want to make sure that you know we are
- complying with the UDO to the best of the best way that we can.
- Also, the proposed location of this signage is the approximate location that Joe Ellis hot chicken had
- the signage. So, you know, we're not looking to make any major moves to what Joe Ellis previously had
- also mentioned that the wing is a structural part of the building and has been in existence since the
- building was constructed in 2004.
- So the wing does enclose occupiable space within it on the interior of the building and it has a roof
- membrane to prevent stormwater from entering the building. So even though the signage is above the main
- roof line it the wing still has its own roof line.
- And then you may also recognize that there are several businesses in the same vicinity of our building
- that has signage above the main roof line So I'm going to now turn it over to our general contractor
- who is online Ryan Strouser with Strouser Construction For him to share a few thoughts and then turn
- it over to Adrian Reed with GAI, which is our civil engineering firm All right, Brian, would you state
- your name?
- Who's online. Ryan you should be able to speak. Okay. Can you hear me now. State your name. Ryan Strosser
- was Strosser construction. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Continue. Yeah. I was asked by J.C. Bank just to kind
- of present my thoughts on the existing
- existing building, the structure, how it was constructed, because a big part of this is the bank is
- trying to reuse what was already there. So from a construction standpoint, the existing building has
- its perimeter walls. It has a main roof line that kind of goes over the top of the main body of the
- building. But this wing that is an architectural element also has
- a perimeter wall and has its own roof structure above. It extends back over top of the existing building,
- occupiable space. So it in and of itself does have its own upper roof that to me could be defined as
- the roof of the building, which when it was permitted was under the allowable height. So I kind of encouraged the bank
- to look into that and see, okay, why is the lower roof line the one that's being determined to say the
- sign is above it? Why is the roof line that provides the thermal barrier for the building in that spot
- that is upper not being determined as that? Then the other part of it is if it's not gonna be considered
- a roof up there,
- then this is still the exterior wall with the cladding on the building, even though it's perpendicular
- to the primary face, it still has a face that fronts towards 3rd Street. So if that is not a roof up
- there, that has to be a wall, and the wall would contribute as a parapet. And as the definition was
- put on the screen earlier,
- Your sign is allowed to be on your parapet to be a wall sign not a rough sign. So Just from
- a pure construction standpoint and what is built there I feel like there's definitely an upper roof
- level and then there is also an exterior Parapet wall that's still part of the building. So that's all
- I have right now Thank you anything further are you going to hold your time in reserve I
- Thank you. You'll have twelve and a half minutes left if you choose to use that. With that we are back
- to the board. Any questions for the city staff or for the petitioner. Can I ask a procedural question
- please. So since this is administrative appeal we're going to either make a motion to approve the appeal
- or deny the appeal. Is that kind of the binary structure here.
- Rather than correct. Yes, you would you would make a motion either approve or deny. But you don't have
- to make findings per se. Right. It's just there's no amendments allowed. There would be no amendment
- to the to the appeal. Like we would not worry. No, correct. Thank you. Yeah. Well, go ahead, Tim. Just
- the first obvious question. Who is the meeting with?
- Who is present and what's in writing who you reference in the beginning you said this staff person didn't
- bring this to our attention. So who who was there who was present at that meeting who was the staff
- person who is we're talking about and then what was in writing from that meeting that's buying it's
- just trying to figure out the legality of what's binding here. So the meeting was with Mr. Grulich.
- And as far as anything that's in writing there is nothing in writing. It was just a formal convert an
- informal conversation we had with him just so that we understood what we needed to comply with. I have
- a question for the petitioner. You mentioned I think it was that mentioned that this wing is has usable
- Usable space on the inside. So it's part of the floor plan Correct. Can you share that? If you remember
- the old bake house, I think it's where the fireplace was Okay, so so it's part of the floor plan Okay
- Any other questions Public comment
- We're to the public for any comment. Is there anyone chambers who'd like to speak to this petition?
- Seeing none. Is there anyone online who would like to address this petition? If there is anybody online,
- please use the raise hand function we can recognize you With that the petitioner does have twelve and
- a half minutes if you'd like to make any additional statements Before we go to the board for action
- Thank you now
- Drive a second second any further discussion In that case, I'll call the question wait real quick well
- I'm confused because so this is heat. This is one word one person's word versus another Yeah, so Tim
- I can address that real quick so certainly I was involved with all the discussions on the site and
- Looking at the signage that didn't immediately jump out to me that that was a roof sign Because we had
- approved previous signs in this location So as we discuss it further at a staff level It was determined
- that it would be counted as a roof sign and we couldn't allow for another sign to be placed up there
- So the petitioner certainly correct, you know the initial hearings. This was not something that was
- that was highlighted as a problem Okay, thank you. Thank you. That's all I needed So we do have a motion
- and we have a second any further discussion. I
- No, I said they they they did not file for variance. They chose to appeal our determination.
- So regardless that's the question. Yes basically you agree with the staff determination that we can't
- approve the sign permit because it's above the roof line of the building. Or do you agree with what
- the petitioner is saying and they're saying it is part of the building. That's basically the decision.
- Yeah when I look at this this is unique to me because
- It's part of the floor plan. It goes. I know it goes above the apparent roof line. And I think Mr. Strouser
- explained very, very well that it also has its own roof. So it's and it has internal use on the inside.
- So when so he makes to me like it's part of the building. And so yes very confusing because when you
- look at it you think them.
- The majority of the roof would be what sits behind and this it's also above that roof line because that
- structure goes above the roof line as well. So it is and that's why I vote yes on this situation because
- it is unique. It's not just an appendage to the building. So yes would be to.
- to grant the appeal, but a no would be obviously to deny the appeal. So any further discussion?
- Seeing none, I will call the question. Ballard? Yes. Borrell? Yes. Fernandez? Yes. Throckmorton? Yes.
- The appeal has been upheld. I did have a question in the packet. The last three or four pages had something
- for the Trade Hotel.
- just a stray something there. That was there was a petition that went to the hearing officer on Wednesday
- of this week. And so if the if the hearing officer chose to forward that to the BZA that information
- needed to be in the packet now in order for you to be able to hear that tonight. But the board the hearing
- officer did approve that. So it was not necessary for the board. I also didn't see a formal like staff
- report that was attached to it. That's why I asked there was a document
- But it didn't look like it was a staff report. Was that a staff report. Yep. So that's a great question.
- And this is something that you're going to be seeing a different version of as we move to make all of
- our documents accessible. So the format of the staff reports will start to look like what you saw for
- that report. OK. Understood. Is there any other business before this board. Seeing none we stand adjourned.
- Thank you. Thank you.