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.