WEBVTT 00:00:01.122 --> 00:00:10.704 - I'm gonna call to order the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday, March 26, 2026. Would you please take 00:00:10.704 --> 00:00:20.102 - a roll call, please? Ballard? Here. Burrell? Here. Throckmorton? Here. We had minutes attached to the 00:00:20.102 --> 00:00:29.776 - packet. If I have any corrections or changes, we can do so now. Otherwise, I'll take a motion to approve 00:00:29.776 --> 00:00:30.974 - the minutes. 00:00:31.170 --> 00:00:39.168 - Motion to approve the minutes of February 26 2026. I have a first and a second please call the roll. 00:00:39.168 --> 00:00:47.325 - Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Throckmorton. Yes. OK. So before we get started Eric I do you want to just 00:00:47.325 --> 00:00:53.502 - brief us quickly on the changeover in format how it's presented to us so that 00:00:54.562 --> 00:01:01.734 - Yeah, a couple announcements from staff one one of the petitions will be continued tonight That is the 00:01:01.734 --> 00:01:08.836 - petition for 508 North Lincoln petition numbers ZR two zero two six dash zero two dash zero zero zero 00:01:08.836 --> 00:01:15.939 - four that has been requested to be continued to the April agenda so because that did happen after the 00:01:15.939 --> 00:01:19.838 - packet went out the board does need to vote on that and 00:01:22.178 --> 00:01:31.326 - So do I have a motion to continue zero twenty twenty six oh two zero zero zero four to motion to twenty 00:01:31.326 --> 00:01:40.298 - three minutes. Sorry sorry. Motion to continue the art twenty twenty six dash zero two dash zero zero 00:01:40.298 --> 00:01:49.182 - zero four to the April meeting. Second. Call the question. Throckmorton. Yes. Ballard. Yes bro. Yes. 00:01:52.258 --> 00:01:59.046 - and then Secondly staff just want to kind of give a little bit of information about what you may have 00:01:59.046 --> 00:02:05.767 - noticed is a change and how the packet or What was the packet has been prepared? So in order to come 00:02:05.767 --> 00:02:12.555 - into compliance with accessibility standards and requirements, you know what you'll find is an agenda 00:02:12.555 --> 00:02:18.078 - and then within that agenda are links to three different pieces of information and 00:02:18.210 --> 00:02:25.485 - One is a staff report. Second are exhibits that have been prepared by staff. And then a third folder 00:02:25.485 --> 00:02:29.086 - is for third party exhibits. So exhibits that are 00:02:29.730 --> 00:02:36.052 - Received from third party that is outside the city are not accessible And so though that is why those 00:02:36.052 --> 00:02:42.870 - are in a separate folder To designate that those are not excess. Those do not meet accessibility requirements 00:02:42.870 --> 00:02:49.191 - However, the staff report and exhibits or any other piece of information that come from staff do have 00:02:49.191 --> 00:02:55.389 - to be made accessible So those will be in specific folders themselves. So this as of right now will 00:02:55.389 --> 00:02:59.294 - be the format of agendas and packets being distributed for the 00:02:59.394 --> 00:03:06.952 - foreseeable future Yep, so one final one as we mentioned at the last hearing we were looking at incorporating 00:03:06.952 --> 00:03:14.029 - an expedited agenda We prepared the language for that that would go into the rules and procedures that 00:03:14.029 --> 00:03:21.244 - followed kind of what we described last time Where you would receive a very brief? presentation by staff 00:03:21.244 --> 00:03:24.542 - a very brief presentation by the petitioner and 00:03:24.674 --> 00:03:30.466 - Open it up for any public comment, if any, and then back to the board for hearing. We wrote that into 00:03:30.466 --> 00:03:36.257 - the rules and procedures. However, there were some other elements, other rules and procedures that we 00:03:36.257 --> 00:03:42.049 - had identified that needed some revisions and we hadn't worked through some of those other things. So 00:03:42.049 --> 00:03:47.954 - you will see that at the April meeting for adoption and approval for your rules and procedures and then 00:03:47.954 --> 00:03:52.894 - possibly a case on the expedited agenda, just depending on what the agenda looks like. 00:03:53.250 --> 00:03:58.814 - It will affect both the petitioners time limit that we've had in the past as well as the public time 00:03:58.814 --> 00:04:04.488 - limit So so that's a great question and certainly something that I wanted to get a little bit of input 00:04:04.488 --> 00:04:08.510 - from Certainly the rules and procedures right now allow for five minutes 00:04:08.578 --> 00:04:14.825 - for public comment if the board feels that an abbreviated time for public comment is something that 00:04:14.825 --> 00:04:21.260 - you would like to have incorporated in that we can we can try to incorporate that as long as the legal 00:04:21.260 --> 00:04:27.633 - department doesn't see any problems with adjusting that time for public comment. So you can certainly 00:04:27.633 --> 00:04:34.005 - adjust that to two minutes if you felt appropriate. So we're happy to seek any guidance or input from 00:04:34.005 --> 00:04:37.566 - the board on that item. What about the petitioners time. 00:04:38.370 --> 00:04:44.682 - Petitioners again that can be that can be adjusted as well as you know, the rules and procedures allow 00:04:44.682 --> 00:04:50.810 - for 20 minutes for that So both of those items if the board would like to give guidance to staff to 00:04:50.810 --> 00:04:57.122 - Abbreviate those time limits. We can certainly incorporate that into the rules and procedures for that 00:04:57.122 --> 00:05:01.534 - How would you like to receive those comments from us? You know, I think 00:05:01.954 --> 00:05:06.964 - You know in whatever manner certainly we can do that tonight if the board feels that you would like 00:05:06.964 --> 00:05:11.974 - for us to see if you would like for us to incorporate revisions to that you know when you feel kind 00:05:11.974 --> 00:05:12.926 - of unanimous we'll 00:05:13.378 --> 00:05:18.734 - to put something forward in those rules and procedures when you see those come to you in April if you 00:05:18.734 --> 00:05:24.405 - feel like it should be something different then you can say you know we would like to see this be something 00:05:24.405 --> 00:05:29.918 - different and vote on that perhaps. You don't really have a format for how that would look in this case. 00:05:29.918 --> 00:05:35.169 - But if you feel that it would be something that would be desired we can adjust those two allowances 00:05:35.169 --> 00:05:40.682 - within the rules and procedures. Well what we'll do is see where we land at the end of the evening after 00:05:40.682 --> 00:05:41.470 - the petitions. 00:05:41.762 --> 00:05:48.170 - If we feel that we want to have new business at that point Therefore the people that are here can go 00:05:48.170 --> 00:05:54.641 - and we can discuss those issues. Otherwise, we'll we'll address it next month Thank you. Sounds good. 00:05:54.641 --> 00:06:01.049 - Any any other reports resolutions or communications? No, that is that is it from staff. Okay. Thanks 00:06:01.049 --> 00:06:07.774 - So because we voted and changed that during the reports resolutions I will also then provide the petition 00:06:07.774 --> 00:06:11.454 - to be continued again for the record see our 2026-02-0004 00:06:11.650 --> 00:06:19.468 - Now on April the 23rd. So with that we will be hearing five petitions tonight in this order Z are they 00:06:19.468 --> 00:06:27.209 - all start with ZR 2026. I'll just give you the numbers zero one dash zero zero zero one zero two dash 00:06:27.209 --> 00:06:34.875 - zero zero zero six. I'm sorry. Let me Go back zero one zero zero zero one and that's the petition at 00:06:34.875 --> 00:06:41.630 - 618 West Howe Street that will help folks we have zero to zero zero zero six and that is 00:06:42.018 --> 00:06:53.832 - Concerning 1205 South Roger Street 02-0005 also at 1205 South Roger Street and we have 0 3-0008 and 00:06:53.832 --> 00:07:05.764 - that involves 1320 South Roger Street and then we have 0 3-0009 and that is 302 South College Avenue 00:07:05.764 --> 00:07:11.198 - 327 South College Avenue 302 South Walnut and 00:07:13.058 --> 00:07:22.617 - And with that let's go to the staff. Let's look at the first petition 0 1 dash 0 0 0 1. I will be presenting 00:07:22.617 --> 00:07:30.334 - that David Brent has a zoning planner and GIS analysts and I will just share my screen. 00:07:43.906 --> 00:07:54.528 - Okay, so this is 618 West House Street Zr 20 26 0 1 0 0 0 1 So there are two variances being requested 00:07:54.528 --> 00:08:04.943 - Variance from rear setback and max impervious surface coverage for a single-family home in our three 00:08:04.943 --> 00:08:11.646 - zoning district Just to keep it brief here This is the site plan 00:08:12.034 --> 00:08:19.662 - And what they're doing is in the back right or it says existing residents right here. That's a shed 00:08:19.662 --> 00:08:27.824 - roof that will be going up by about three feet so that triggers the rear setback variance and Then there's 00:08:27.824 --> 00:08:35.605 - a new second floor addition. There will be a patio below and that new impervious surface will trigger 00:08:35.605 --> 00:08:39.038 - the max impervious surface coverage variance 00:08:39.650 --> 00:08:49.076 - Here 45% is allowed and they're going over to 52.9% but it's still within the range that a brand new 00:08:49.076 --> 00:08:58.689 - lot of 5,000 square feet Would be held to So if it were a normal size lot That met the minimum for our 00:08:58.689 --> 00:09:08.862 - three then it would be allowed. So we did not find That it ran afoul of any of the criteria. So with that we 00:09:09.410 --> 00:09:19.198 - staff recommends that board approve both requested variances and the petitioner is here as well. 00:09:35.650 --> 00:09:42.847 - So the petitioner can come forward and you'll have 20 minutes to give it just give me a second here. 00:09:42.847 --> 00:09:50.043 - I'm sorry I'm sorry about that. I'm getting used to this new format and jumping. Okay, so Please let 00:09:50.043 --> 00:09:57.169 - me know if there's any yeah, it's the issue is the opening these other documentation pieces just to 00:09:57.169 --> 00:10:02.014 - cross-reference in there It's just a little bit more Difficult than 00:10:05.250 --> 00:10:13.540 - And then also could you just restate the recommendations one more time, please? The recommendation is 00:10:13.540 --> 00:10:21.831 - to approve both the rear setback variance and to approve the max impervious surface coverage variance 00:10:21.831 --> 00:10:27.358 - And just give me one more second then we'll go on to the petitioner 00:10:40.738 --> 00:10:47.367 - Okay. Yeah, I've caught up now. All right, we'll have the petitioner come forward, please For those 00:10:47.367 --> 00:10:54.063 - that are here there Petitioners for the others the way it'll work is after the report You'll have 20 00:10:54.063 --> 00:11:00.825 - minutes to present any additional information or to review the information that has been presented in 00:11:00.825 --> 00:11:05.598 - your petition that 20 minutes it can be used all at once and your first 00:11:06.242 --> 00:11:11.683 - In your first opportunity if you would like to save time and use it at the end you will be allowed to 00:11:11.683 --> 00:11:17.071 - use the remainder of your 20 minutes after public comment and after some questions so that you would 00:11:17.071 --> 00:11:22.566 - be able to then make comment on your own for the remainder of your 20 minutes before we then go to the 00:11:22.566 --> 00:11:28.007 - board for action. So I just want to let you know you don't have to use your 20 minutes right now. You 00:11:28.007 --> 00:11:33.555 - can use part of it and then retain some. I'll ask everyone to be the same thing. Would you please state 00:11:33.555 --> 00:11:34.942 - your first and last name. 00:11:35.490 --> 00:11:42.625 - Kevin do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but 00:11:42.625 --> 00:11:49.902 - the truth. I do Thank you. You have up to 20 minutes My name is Kevin Potter structural engineer. I'm 00:11:49.902 --> 00:11:57.537 - representing the homeowners Michael Burnett and Heidi biting or Burnett I did not have anything to present 00:11:57.537 --> 00:12:03.102 - beyond what the David presented as part of the staff report. I'd be glad to I 00:12:03.970 --> 00:12:12.627 - Answer any questions that the board may have Thank you With that we'll go back to the board with any 00:12:12.627 --> 00:12:21.198 - questions we have initially before we go to the public for comment No questions Seeing no questions 00:12:21.198 --> 00:12:29.769 - in we'll go back to the public anyone wishing to speak to this petition, please come forward you'll 00:12:29.769 --> 00:12:31.998 - sign in at the podium and 00:12:32.514 --> 00:12:42.952 - And then we'll give you five minutes to speak. Anyone online. If there is anybody online that would 00:12:42.952 --> 00:12:53.390 - like to speak to this petition please use the raise hand function and we can recognize your message 00:12:53.390 --> 00:13:02.366 - via chat. I'm not seeing anybody. OK. So then we go back to the petitioner if you do. 00:13:02.594 --> 00:13:12.513 - I don't have anything further to say, but it sounds like you're okay. Okay. With that, we'll go to the 00:13:12.513 --> 00:13:21.277 - board for comments, questions to either petition or the staff or to make a motion. This is 00:13:21.277 --> 00:13:31.870 - pretty straightforward. I'm just going to go make a motion to approve ZR 2026-01-001. I'll call the question. 00:13:32.578 --> 00:13:47.554 - Ballard yes, Burrell. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Motion is approved Okay, we're on to Zr 20 26-02-0006 staff 00:13:47.554 --> 00:13:49.694 - report, please 00:14:22.818 --> 00:14:30.612 - Sorry, could you could you clarify which which one we're doing next? I have us listed as 2026 to show 00:14:30.612 --> 00:14:38.634 - two dash zero zero zero six. Is that not okay? Yes. Thank you. Yep. Sorry, I was turned off by the sorry 00:14:38.634 --> 00:14:42.302 - the continuance here Just whenever you're ready 00:15:16.642 --> 00:15:27.601 - Okay, so this is Zr 20 26 0 2 0 0 0 6 and this is an administrative appeal at 1205 South Roger Street 00:15:27.601 --> 00:15:38.774 - So the administrative appeal is in regards to the determination That staff made about decorative stone. 00:15:38.774 --> 00:15:45.758 - So this property received a notice of violation for ground cover 00:15:46.114 --> 00:15:55.687 - Location where it was not approved and upon further review we found that This was not decorative stone 00:15:55.687 --> 00:16:05.167 - as we have been applying that standard to other properties so Administrative appeal is their Recourse 00:16:05.167 --> 00:16:15.390 - for that decision since we don't have really variances from definitions and in the future we are looking into 00:16:16.162 --> 00:16:26.730 - This is on the list in the future UDO amendments to clarify what we're looking for in a decorative stone. 00:16:26.730 --> 00:16:36.700 - So the standard that has been applied before is that the stones be washed and two inches or greater 00:16:36.700 --> 00:16:45.374 - across. So to the right, you'll see that is a picture of the one and a half inch stone 00:16:45.570 --> 00:16:53.535 - That is on the property And they gave us the petitioner provided Specs for that rock so it has already 00:16:53.535 --> 00:17:01.268 - been installed and then on the left is an example of something that would also something that would 00:17:01.268 --> 00:17:09.156 - Comply with our standard that we've applied for decorative stone. So it's washed in two and a half to 00:17:09.156 --> 00:17:14.878 - six inches so as you can see it's smaller than what we're looking for and 00:17:16.162 --> 00:17:26.786 - The reasons for that is to prevent washout or any obstacles falling into the roadway or the pedestrian 00:17:26.786 --> 00:17:37.307 - areas So also stabilization of the material itself so that it stays in place and then lastly There is 00:17:37.307 --> 00:17:44.734 - no formal recommendation from staff. It is up to us the board to decide 00:17:46.882 --> 00:17:58.506 - Whether or not to approve the appeal That concludes my staff report. Okay. Thank you. Is the petitioner 00:17:58.506 --> 00:18:04.318 - present and would like to speak When sign in please 00:18:18.210 --> 00:18:23.473 - State your first and last name, please. Yeah, it's Josh Ali Josh. Do you Affirm the testimony you're 00:18:23.473 --> 00:18:28.787 - about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir All right, you have up 00:18:28.787 --> 00:18:34.050 - to 20 minutes same. No, thank you. Thank you If you don't mind David, we put up the pictures that we 00:18:34.050 --> 00:18:36.030 - sent earlier that shows this property 00:18:53.890 --> 00:19:02.637 - If you don't mind actually I just Is it okay if I just give you guys these pictures yeah, yes, absolutely 00:19:02.637 --> 00:19:10.972 - Thank you Thank you Josh are those the same pictures that were emailed to us? Okay. All right. Thank 00:19:10.972 --> 00:19:19.471 - you the and what you'll see in in the handout that you got the first is just a letter from the Chamber 00:19:19.471 --> 00:19:21.534 - of Commerce supporting a 00:19:21.858 --> 00:19:28.799 - you know what we do and in Bloomington we've been fixing ugly houses or rundown houses for about 18 00:19:28.799 --> 00:19:35.879 - years and as you can see from one of the first pictures there is that's what the property looked like 00:19:35.879 --> 00:19:43.237 - when we actually purchased this there at 1205 South Roger Street and it was quite an undertaking actually 00:19:43.237 --> 00:19:46.846 - bringing this property back to life and when it was 00:19:46.978 --> 00:19:54.329 - Initially done you'll see kind of the before and after there and in what you're looking at and we had 00:19:54.329 --> 00:20:01.679 - the ground cover and the site plan that was approved, you know from from planning that we we tried to 00:20:01.679 --> 00:20:09.246 - make work and What happened over time? We actually planted this grass three different times. We actually 00:20:09.442 --> 00:20:15.959 - We put sod, we put fertilizer, we watered it every day, every week, but this area is a high traffic 00:20:15.959 --> 00:20:22.477 - area for pets. A lot of these spots that are on the property, they're really small, and they're all 00:20:22.477 --> 00:20:29.124 - surrounded by concrete, so they get really warm, and it's just not a real great environment for grass 00:20:29.124 --> 00:20:35.902 - to grow, let alone the pets. Every time an animal urinates on the grass, it dies. And so the money that 00:20:35.902 --> 00:20:37.662 - we spent here is more than 00:20:37.762 --> 00:20:44.180 - than I care to admit and we were over budget by quite a lot just due to some of the circumstances with 00:20:44.180 --> 00:20:50.785 - the property itself. And so I made a determination to actually replace the grass with the rock. Honestly, 00:20:50.785 --> 00:20:57.203 - I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. If you drive a block north where the new hospital or the old 00:20:57.203 --> 00:21:03.434 - hospital location, all the construction there, the rocks that we put at this site look exactly like 00:21:03.434 --> 00:21:05.054 - the rocks that are there. 00:21:05.218 --> 00:21:10.867 - And so I know we all bought them at the same place. Actually, I think that the fellows who installed 00:21:10.867 --> 00:21:16.516 - the rocks here at 1205 South Roger Street are the same ones who installed those. And that's actually 00:21:16.516 --> 00:21:22.501 - the reason I did it. And so hoping that just to maintain the integrity and the aesthetics of the property, 00:21:22.501 --> 00:21:28.206 - I want it to look good. I want people to feel proud about living there. I want to be a good neighbor. 00:21:28.206 --> 00:21:33.911 - And like I said, it was really hard to do this. And I wanted to continue the property looking the way 00:21:33.911 --> 00:21:34.526 - it should. 00:21:35.266 --> 00:21:42.298 - And so with regard to the actual rocks and the size, I think the picture that they put up is a little 00:21:42.298 --> 00:21:49.399 - misleading. The rocks here, they're the right size. I mean, anytime you get washed or decorative stone 00:21:49.399 --> 00:21:56.500 - from a gravel company, I mean, there's obviously, there's giant ones, but in the smaller version, this 00:21:56.500 --> 00:22:04.222 - isn't pea gravel. It's river rock like you see any, well, like I said, all up and down Rogers and First Street. 00:22:05.058 --> 00:22:11.461 - And so, and I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, I just was trying to protect the integrity of the property 00:22:11.461 --> 00:22:17.562 - and do something that I wasn't gonna have to continually spend money, grass, fertilizer, and a whole 00:22:17.562 --> 00:22:23.845 - bunch of water here at this site. And so, that's why. Would you like to keep the remainder of your time 00:22:23.845 --> 00:22:29.946 - retained for later? Yes, sir. Okay, sure. And just stay there, we may have questions. I'm gonna jump 00:22:29.946 --> 00:22:34.718 - in. Did you happen to bring a picture of your current rock, the disputed rock? 00:22:35.714 --> 00:22:41.466 - Do you have the pictures? Yes. While he's doing that, I just wanted to state I appreciate the letter 00:22:41.466 --> 00:22:47.161 - from the chamber. I do want to let those who are listening and those that are here in chambers know 00:22:47.161 --> 00:22:52.913 - that we'd love to see this. This is great. However, this doesn't have any bearing on a decision, and 00:22:52.913 --> 00:22:58.608 - I wanted to let everyone know why. We will be judging based on the UDO and whether we're allowed to 00:22:58.608 --> 00:23:04.360 - vary that or need to uphold that. So this is always nice to know, and it's great to have really good 00:23:04.360 --> 00:23:05.214 - developers and 00:23:05.346 --> 00:23:11.984 - Homebuilders etc in the community. So we do appreciate that. So thank you for that But I don't want 00:23:11.984 --> 00:23:18.754 - it to appear that we're not giving it attention So with that we will be addressing then the issues of 00:23:18.754 --> 00:23:25.392 - the rock specifically. Thank you for that Do we have a picture? I Was just curious because this was 00:23:25.392 --> 00:23:30.238 - good to show the grass but that's not your picture of the rock though. I 00:23:30.402 --> 00:23:35.950 - No, sir. Did you provide one to the city of what currently exists? Yeah, I figured they would have the 00:23:35.950 --> 00:23:41.337 - pictures and the 11 page violation document that they sent me You know just so for a clarification, 00:23:41.337 --> 00:23:46.832 - you know the picture on the right is a picture that the department took of the rock of the stone that 00:23:46.832 --> 00:23:48.286 - is on the ground today and 00:23:48.898 --> 00:23:55.065 - and then the picture on the left is a Comparison of a larger decorative stone, which is what we typically 00:23:55.065 --> 00:24:01.348 - see in other developments So these pictures were just to try to show a difference of the two The petitioner 00:24:01.348 --> 00:24:07.283 - did show pictures and we can we can certainly bring those up However, we were wanting to make sure as 00:24:07.283 --> 00:24:13.217 - we kind of surmised at the border want to see definitively like a close-up picture of what's actually 00:24:13.217 --> 00:24:16.126 - on the ground in order to try to help guide their 00:24:16.642 --> 00:24:24.215 - Decision making process here. So that's why we took a picture of exactly a close-up of what's on the 00:24:24.215 --> 00:24:31.714 - ground So you can have a good idea of the size and scale sure So that's so that on the right is the 00:24:31.714 --> 00:24:39.362 - actual stone. Do you are we able to see though how it looks in total? Yeah, so we can certainly go to 00:24:39.362 --> 00:24:43.486 - any other questions from the board For comparison sake 00:24:43.586 --> 00:24:52.126 - It would have been nice if the ruler was on the other one as well because it could be a close up. It 00:24:52.126 --> 00:25:00.834 - could be far away. So it just doesn't doesn't give the perspective to the scale. What I'm hearing from 00:25:00.834 --> 00:25:08.190 - you Eric is you're saying that you believe them to be accurate in comparison to scale. 00:25:08.418 --> 00:25:14.789 - So there's a picture on the left was one that was obtained from a website of just a typical supplier 00:25:14.789 --> 00:25:21.411 - Okay that had a size that was what we use as a typical baseline standard of one and a half to two inches 00:25:21.411 --> 00:25:27.971 - And so what was it depicted in that picture was the size and scale of what is common? So we didn't have 00:25:27.971 --> 00:25:30.494 - obviously since we didn't generate that 00:25:30.594 --> 00:25:37.861 - We didn't have an opportunity to put in a scale but the pictures on the screen is one the petitioner 00:25:37.861 --> 00:25:45.056 - provided And is of the property as it sits now. Thank thank you for bringing that up You guys did a 00:25:45.056 --> 00:25:52.322 - magnificent job and I can only imagine the money you probably put into it to make it what it is, but 00:25:52.322 --> 00:25:58.366 - to me it's it's one of the best-looking properties in all that neighborhood now and 00:25:58.786 --> 00:26:06.762 - And so to me, I mean, I'll just be blunt. This is splitting hairs. To me, it looks great. I understand. 00:26:06.762 --> 00:26:14.584 - And I think it's ambiguous in the UDO in terms of two inches. Put the ruler next to his so it's four. 00:26:14.584 --> 00:26:22.407 - And I understand the reasons for it. You don't want it spilling out. You don't want it going into the 00:26:22.407 --> 00:26:28.542 - sewer line. But I feel like in the scope, again, of a major, massive upgrade in 00:26:28.962 --> 00:26:38.071 - neighborhood in that area and He's going off of what the other developers are doing kind of down the 00:26:38.071 --> 00:26:47.450 - way. I Just I mean we would make them take it all up and put it put down 2 plus inch rock. I think it's 00:26:47.450 --> 00:26:56.650 - It's not worth that considering, you know the upgrade they've done so I Understand what the UDO says. 00:26:56.650 --> 00:26:57.822 - I think it's 00:26:58.690 --> 00:27:06.900 - Kind of ambiguous though still and unless we're going to go out and start putting a tape measure on 00:27:06.900 --> 00:27:15.275 - every few rocks. I think it's fine. So that's all I've got. So I guess my questions for staff. So the 00:27:15.275 --> 00:27:23.486 - reason we are here is because the staff feels the rock is too small or is it too much rock or is it 00:27:23.486 --> 00:27:25.374 - in the wrong location. 00:27:25.538 --> 00:27:31.159 - Well, so I just, I think that that's a great question. So I wanted to point out, you know, we've got 00:27:31.159 --> 00:27:36.947 - two petitions on the agenda tonight from the petitioner, both kind of dealing with two separate issues. 00:27:36.947 --> 00:27:42.512 - You know, the first petition, which is what we're hearing right now is the administrative appeal of 00:27:42.512 --> 00:27:48.077 - what is decorative stone? You know, the second petition is a variance to allow for that material to 00:27:48.077 --> 00:27:54.366 - exceed what the UDO allows for. So the conversation for this topic right now is simply what is decorative stone? 00:27:54.690 --> 00:28:01.801 - this specific petition, yes this yeah, yeah this specific one the very next petition will be then to 00:28:01.801 --> 00:28:08.982 - hear relief from what the udl allows for Spatial limitations for where that can occur and how much of 00:28:08.982 --> 00:28:16.445 - a property but this exact petition right now is just simply is the stone that is on the ground decorative 00:28:16.445 --> 00:28:22.782 - stone or not based on you know, what staff kind of relate in the report and how we have a 00:28:23.010 --> 00:28:29.108 - Apply this in other developments around Bloomington, you know when it comes to the question of you know 00:28:29.108 --> 00:28:35.148 - What would be required to bring this into compliance? You know, certainly we're not necessarily saying 00:28:35.148 --> 00:28:41.188 - they have to remove everything, you know, we can work with the petitioner to Balance what's there with 00:28:41.188 --> 00:28:47.169 - maybe some larger stones in some capacity? But the petition right now is just simply is what is their 00:28:47.169 --> 00:28:52.798 - decorative stone or not? Maybe we should find out if there's anyone in the public that wants to 00:28:52.930 --> 00:28:59.998 - And then because if we're gonna have to decide that that's a whole unless you did you have a Staff okay. 00:28:59.998 --> 00:29:06.729 - Well, is there anyone in chambers who from the public who'd like to speak to this or anyone online? 00:29:06.729 --> 00:29:13.595 - I Just wanted to jump past that so we could because these are great questions from the board If there 00:29:13.595 --> 00:29:20.798 - is anybody online, please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat. We can recognize you and 00:29:25.890 --> 00:29:32.997 - I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay, so The procedure here would be we would give you an opportunity 00:29:32.997 --> 00:29:40.034 - to address some things first And then we'll have more questions for you is there anything you would 00:29:40.034 --> 00:29:47.142 - like to say further from your 20 minutes Yeah, I mean those right I didn't I mean I stopped short of 00:29:47.142 --> 00:29:49.886 - bringing some in here for you to see I 00:29:50.466 --> 00:29:57.504 - Those rocks there. I mean they're most of them are majority. I mean, they're two plus inches I mean, 00:29:57.504 --> 00:30:04.682 - they're the larger like I said, they're exactly what every I mean, actually McDonald's on South Walnut 00:30:04.682 --> 00:30:12.068 - has the same rocks and so it's They're they're not small and so the picture that was up there is a little 00:30:12.068 --> 00:30:18.270 - misleading I Would say just because That's that's not the size that these are okay, so I 00:30:19.330 --> 00:30:25.595 - And that's all that's okay. So with that then I think we can dive into this. So then the question in 00:30:25.595 --> 00:30:31.922 - front of us then is going to be what constitutes decorative stone. My first question is is the VCA at 00:30:31.922 --> 00:30:38.497 - Liberty to set that policy or only for this particular case. Are we saying just for this or are we saying 00:30:38.497 --> 00:30:43.646 - once we say this this is going to be a standard that gets applied and why not from 00:30:44.770 --> 00:30:50.808 - Yep, so great so you can certainly give us guidance in terms of what you feel like might be the appropriate 00:30:50.808 --> 00:30:56.791 - standards as we mentioned the staff report we do have Some amendments to the udio definition of decorative 00:30:56.791 --> 00:31:02.493 - stone to help address this and give a little bit more clarity in there Such as stating what that side 00:31:02.493 --> 00:31:08.140 - what that aggregate size would be So if there are other characteristics that the board feels that we 00:31:08.140 --> 00:31:11.998 - should incorporate with that we can certainly take that into account 00:31:12.578 --> 00:31:18.237 - But yeah in terms of like setting a precedent, you know with us having amendments to the UDO that are 00:31:18.237 --> 00:31:23.784 - forthcoming and going to the Planning Commission next month You know, we hope to have clarification 00:31:23.784 --> 00:31:29.609 - within the code of what is decorative stone All right. Well, I I wanted to jump into that last paragraph 00:31:29.609 --> 00:31:35.268 - on page one of the staff report this starts with although And I just want to understand this although 00:31:35.268 --> 00:31:38.430 - there's no definition of decorative stone in the UDO and 00:31:39.010 --> 00:31:44.809 - The department is routinely applied to consistent standard to determine the proposed material. So you've 00:31:44.809 --> 00:31:50.110 - this consistent standard that's been applied. Where did that come from? How was it established? 00:31:51.554 --> 00:31:57.029 - So is that from the city or was that within the department that was it within the department? So, you 00:31:57.029 --> 00:32:02.558 - know those standards were based on you know, what what are we trying, you know with any standard? What 00:32:02.558 --> 00:32:08.410 - are we trying to accomplish and what are we maybe trying to prevent? You know, so the reason that decorative 00:32:08.410 --> 00:32:14.046 - stone has a very distinct term and it doesn't just say stone in general is to you know have a higher our 00:32:14.146 --> 00:32:19.804 - Aesthetic value for it to try to differentiate it between smaller stones You know as we mentioned in 00:32:19.804 --> 00:32:25.405 - the staff report smaller stones spread on the site on the sidewalks and their driveways and a storm 00:32:25.405 --> 00:32:27.198 - sewer so it's important to have 00:32:27.266 --> 00:32:33.193 - Standard that has a higher size requirement for it But then also the the aesthetic value of that stone 00:32:33.193 --> 00:32:39.177 - to differentiate that from limestone or gravel or other more common Materials that maybe you don't want 00:32:39.177 --> 00:32:45.161 - to see don't that don't have as great aesthetic value So when we've dealt with this situation for other 00:32:45.161 --> 00:32:50.915 - Developments, you know the one and a half to two inch standard is what we have used consistently in 00:32:50.915 --> 00:32:55.518 - lots of situations around town you know enforcement or occupancy inspection and 00:32:55.618 --> 00:33:01.380 - anytime that we have petitions that are coming forward and somebody is proposing decorative stone, we 00:33:01.380 --> 00:33:07.198 - always make them give us a sample of that so that we can kind of alleviate this before it gets started 00:33:07.198 --> 00:33:13.129 - to make sure that what gets put on the ground is consistent with how we've applied this. So the problem, 00:33:13.129 --> 00:33:18.778 - why that's problematic though, is even if they had provided that to you and you said, well, we find 00:33:18.778 --> 00:33:24.766 - it to be too small, because there is nothing printed that says it needs to be two, two and a half inches, 00:33:25.090 --> 00:33:30.638 - He could have violated that anyway and said, well, there is no policy. That's your, that actually is 00:33:30.638 --> 00:33:36.131 - your recommendation, right? Yeah, exactly. So that's, you know, staff's interpretation of what this 00:33:36.131 --> 00:33:41.733 - definition was trying to accomplish and what that term was. Um, so this is where the board comes into 00:33:41.733 --> 00:33:47.611 - play, obviously of, uh, an appeal of that interpretation. And was there a fine attached to this currently? 00:33:47.611 --> 00:33:53.598 - Um, there was a notice of violation. We have not fined them. And what does that find if it had gone through? 00:33:54.594 --> 00:34:01.702 - I would have to look it up. It's it's a daily number Daily number. Okay. Yeah, so it would have accrued 00:34:01.702 --> 00:34:08.673 - daily. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for For the petitioner. Do you have the specs? For you know 00:34:08.673 --> 00:34:15.576 - the receipt with the specs So it should on the specs for that it should say what type of rock you're 00:34:15.576 --> 00:34:23.230 - buying. Yes, ma'am It did and so I provided that to to planning throughout the process. Can we see the spec the 00:34:25.058 --> 00:34:32.482 - Receipt inspects for it Yeah, I would be curious as if the receipt stated decorative rock Well, it doesn't 00:34:32.482 --> 00:34:39.628 - but it does say two inch three inch. Oh, I see it says five inch Okay, you know, we will say what type 00:34:39.628 --> 00:34:46.635 - of rock you're buying septic rock. I mean whatever Shouldn't we count for weight and all this too if 00:34:46.635 --> 00:34:51.422 - we're worried about washout worried about the stuff eroding into the 00:34:52.162 --> 00:34:57.911 - Stonewater stormwater drains then doesn't it it's more about weight than it is about size of rock. Well, 00:34:57.911 --> 00:35:03.660 - so in terms of the physics of What you're trying to prevent? Yeah in the in the industry, you know stone 00:35:03.660 --> 00:35:09.244 - is is categorized by size You know it passes through a certain You know filter and so that's how they 00:35:09.244 --> 00:35:14.774 - determine kind of when you buy, you know It's a number three stone or number four number five or six 00:35:14.774 --> 00:35:17.566 - or whatever, you know, it's just based on size and 00:35:21.442 --> 00:35:28.086 - We'll wait and see if we can find the receipt. I Mean and just one thing to add that picture That that 00:35:28.086 --> 00:35:34.731 - rock had been there for a couple of weeks when they took that picture and you'll notice in the parking 00:35:34.731 --> 00:35:41.246 - lot There's none in the parking lot. And so there's none in the road there. It's where it's intended 00:35:41.246 --> 00:35:47.890 - to be It's not going anywhere unless someone actually yeah, I mean I understand that I also understand 00:35:47.890 --> 00:35:49.374 - the city side which is 00:35:49.538 --> 00:35:55.844 - Probably not on a normal rain day, but when we have those torrential, that's so that's what we have 00:35:55.844 --> 00:36:02.465 - to balance against. But, um, how long ago did, did these stones go down? Oh, probably three weeks before 00:36:02.465 --> 00:36:08.771 - I got the initial letter, sir. And so I don't know the exact date, but just roughly from today, how 00:36:08.771 --> 00:36:15.518 - long a month, two months, three months. Yeah, probably three months, right around three months. Thank you. 00:36:33.442 --> 00:36:40.769 - While they're while they're looking for that just to we have any further comments that we like to make 00:36:40.769 --> 00:36:48.025 - we can do that now where we see that receipt why we separated the two petitions with the same address 00:36:48.025 --> 00:36:52.862 - when we're talking about so that so let's say we decide this is the 00:36:53.346 --> 00:37:01.206 - Hypothetically that this is a decorative stone then the next petition we are going to be talking about 00:37:01.206 --> 00:37:08.837 - now. It's too much It's just it one has to be issued as a administrative appeal the other has to be 00:37:08.837 --> 00:37:16.773 - issued as a variance Yeah, that that's the only reason to separate them That was my understanding going 00:37:16.773 --> 00:37:21.886 - into it I Think that what's interesting about where we are is that 00:37:22.146 --> 00:37:31.340 - The petitioner has a very good case to simply say nothing's printed. There's no guidelines for that. 00:37:31.340 --> 00:37:40.535 - And I went by the spirit of the UDO and then to put forward what would be a financial burden because 00:37:40.535 --> 00:37:49.729 - of the ambiguity. And while I respect and like the fact that the city has a recommendation, it's not 00:37:49.729 --> 00:37:51.550 - it's not adopted as 00:37:51.938 --> 00:37:59.472 - So that's that's what makes this very difficult to Sure, not grant the appeal. Well, I think it's a 00:37:59.472 --> 00:38:07.231 - slippery slope the basings on ambiguity. Yeah, I think that's really like where I I don't think we can 00:38:07.231 --> 00:38:14.991 - do that and the city can propose it as such but We have the ability to say no, we want concrete things 00:38:14.991 --> 00:38:21.470 - and this is not concrete at all. And so I totally agree with you Yeah, this may be it 00:38:21.602 --> 00:38:30.266 - Is that giving you the information that And actually says one to two inch non-structural, is that right? 00:38:30.266 --> 00:38:38.517 - One to two inch non-structural decorative River rock is that yeah, there's another invoice in there 00:38:38.517 --> 00:38:46.686 - too from where they buy it from from the Rogers group. Okay that Will give another there's yeah, I 00:38:48.930 --> 00:38:56.972 - Yeah, because they certainly look larger there in that photo, but there's no scale. So small to read. 00:38:56.972 --> 00:39:04.856 - Can you read? I'm not seeing the size on the second one. So, you know, Floppy, just looking at that 00:39:04.856 --> 00:39:12.820 - for me, it looks like the spirit of the UDO was met on this particular appeal. What are the thoughts 00:39:12.820 --> 00:39:18.654 - of the board or comments at this point? Or I should say further comments. 00:39:19.330 --> 00:39:26.900 - You're saying drop the appeal. I mean you're saying oh I'm saying right now based on whatever motion 00:39:26.900 --> 00:39:34.769 - is made. I could see a valid I could see validity and Granting the appeal. Yes, I could see that there's 00:39:34.769 --> 00:39:42.788 - no specific guidance on size shape shape size and color if you will Yeah, I just don't think that position 00:39:42.788 --> 00:39:46.910 - to make that decision based on the financial burden of 00:39:47.170 --> 00:39:55.045 - I would feel comfortable saying this is decorative stone because it's not gravel. It's not gravel and 00:39:55.045 --> 00:40:02.842 - also on there at one to two inches So it looks like it was yes The size might be wrong based on what 00:40:02.842 --> 00:40:10.562 - the city expects but The only other question though that I would have for the city would be for the 00:40:10.562 --> 00:40:14.654 - staff is was the petition required though to bring a 00:40:14.850 --> 00:40:20.253 - To you that there they were going to make this change or was it within their purview to do it? If it 00:40:20.253 --> 00:40:25.764 - had been of the proper size could they have just done it Or even if it's of the proper size would they 00:40:25.764 --> 00:40:31.381 - still have had to come to you and say we're not Going to continue with grass or mulch or whatever. We're 00:40:31.381 --> 00:40:36.891 - gonna go to stone would they have had to come to you for a request? portions of the site that had when 00:40:36.891 --> 00:40:42.241 - we approved the permit for the initial construction There were some portions of the site that had a 00:40:42.241 --> 00:40:44.702 - decorative stone. It was kind of a slate that 00:40:44.802 --> 00:40:50.489 - Shown around some of the building. They brought us a sample of that We looked at that and proved it 00:40:50.489 --> 00:40:56.290 - and said they use that for some of the portions of the site around the building So the stone that was 00:40:56.290 --> 00:41:02.091 - placed later Was not brought to us before it was installed But was it it should have been though, but 00:41:02.091 --> 00:41:07.779 - was it were they required to do that and failed to do so we strongly advise people to give us these 00:41:07.779 --> 00:41:11.134 - samples before they put it down so that we don't deal with 00:41:11.394 --> 00:41:16.440 - after the fact situations where we're trying to enforce the removal of something once it's been put 00:41:16.440 --> 00:41:21.485 - down. Certainly we recognize there's a lot of challenges and burden is placed on somebody once they 00:41:21.485 --> 00:41:26.531 - put down a substantial amount of stone and then they have to remove it. So we try to work with them 00:41:26.531 --> 00:41:31.779 - and guide them on the early end of the process to bring us these things before you put it down, because 00:41:31.779 --> 00:41:36.875 - there's a wide opinion in the construction and landscape world of what's decorative stone and what's 00:41:36.875 --> 00:41:41.214 - not. Oftentimes things that are built as decorative are one person's version of that. 00:41:41.410 --> 00:41:47.681 - and so that that's where we try to come in of applying a uniform standard across all the sites and not 00:41:47.681 --> 00:41:53.770 - just Going by what somebody puts on their website of what they consider to be decorative Well, what 00:41:53.770 --> 00:42:00.042 - I was trying to get to is I want to ascertain whether the petitioner actually violated a stated policy 00:42:00.042 --> 00:42:06.191 - or whether it's only a recommendation or or or a Preference that they bring it to you know, it's not 00:42:06.191 --> 00:42:09.662 - a law that they have to bring that in to show us we just 00:42:10.434 --> 00:42:19.925 - I recommend you strongly encourage it strongly urge them to yeah. Okay. Thank you Any other discussion 00:42:19.925 --> 00:42:29.600 - or do I have a motion? Thank You Eric I Will say if emotions made a motion to approve the administrative 00:42:29.600 --> 00:42:38.814 - appeal would be to grant the appeal and to deny would be to deny it and he would be in violation of 00:42:40.930 --> 00:42:55.900 - to approve to ZR twenty twenty five twenty six sorry is it twenty twenty six twenty twenty six. Yeah 00:42:55.900 --> 00:43:08.350 - to approve the appeal for ZR twenty twenty six oh two triple zero six. That's good. 00:43:10.082 --> 00:43:22.024 - I have a motion to have a second second Any further discussion? Seeing none I call the question Ballard 00:43:22.024 --> 00:43:33.967 - yes, bro. Yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes with that the appeal is granted we will move then to 20 26-02-0005 00:43:33.967 --> 00:43:39.134 - which I believe is the next in the order for 00:43:39.522 --> 00:43:49.565 - Property is that correct? Yes, so for a variance from the maximum impervious surface coverage With that 00:43:49.565 --> 00:43:59.222 - you should have a seat. You'll remain swear sworn in So when you come back up, you won't need to do 00:43:59.222 --> 00:44:05.982 - that again and you get a fresh 20 minutes staff report, please You is 00:44:06.146 --> 00:44:16.608 - petition ZR 2026-02-0005 at 1205 South Roger Street, there are three variants requests due to the location 00:44:16.608 --> 00:44:26.679 - of The decorative stone or ground cover So the first is maximum impervious surface coverage the second 00:44:26.679 --> 00:44:34.110 - Kind of in tandem with that standard is the minimum landscape area and also 00:44:34.402 --> 00:44:44.633 - Ground cover standards which govern where decorative stone could be placed on the property So this is 00:44:44.633 --> 00:44:55.065 - this is the site it is zoned residential multifamily And it's about eight thousand seven hundred square 00:44:55.065 --> 00:45:03.390 - feet It's been developed with a multifamily dwelling and our understanding is that 00:45:03.554 --> 00:45:15.244 - in 2024, that is when the most recent site plan was approved. I believe that was a limited compliance 00:45:15.244 --> 00:45:27.049 - scenario. So it did not have to meet the standard for any new construction in residential multifamily. 00:45:27.049 --> 00:45:32.894 - So it is not following those exact same guidelines 00:45:33.474 --> 00:45:42.576 - So here this is the 2024 site plan and as you can see There are some existing areas With decorative 00:45:42.576 --> 00:45:51.951 - stone around the AC units And then beyond that There's grass around the trees. So we're looking bottom 00:45:51.951 --> 00:46:01.690 - right corner And then bottom left corner and then top right corner is where there's grass and then there's 00:46:01.690 --> 00:46:02.782 - landscaping 00:46:02.978 --> 00:46:14.526 - the rest of it and This is What is there now so this is the petitioners proposal and Those areas to 00:46:14.526 --> 00:46:26.190 - the bottom right the top right and the bottom left along Roger Street have been Converted from grass 00:46:26.190 --> 00:46:32.542 - or landscape area into stone So for the first criteria 00:46:32.706 --> 00:46:41.492 - We found that For the maximum impervious surface coverage the granting of the variance would be injurious 00:46:41.492 --> 00:46:49.864 - to the public health safety and morals And general welfare of the surrounding area as it would bring 00:46:49.864 --> 00:46:58.982 - the property further out of compliance And exacerbate stormwater and runoff impacts as this is now impervious 00:46:58.982 --> 00:47:01.054 - area In tandem with that 00:47:01.282 --> 00:47:16.512 - The landscape area also decreased so that is also determined to be injurious and the ground cover Standard 00:47:16.512 --> 00:47:18.078 - which is a 00:47:18.178 --> 00:47:24.522 - In the staff report as well. It says except in the parks and open spaces owning district turf grass 00:47:24.522 --> 00:47:31.120 - and other vegetative ground cover Shall be used for landscape areas except is listed below crushed rock 00:47:31.120 --> 00:47:37.528 - or gravel is not allowed its ground cover and then the Exceptions mentioned in that section refer to 00:47:37.528 --> 00:47:44.253 - the two locations where decorative stone can be placed near the foundation of the building and underneath 00:47:44.253 --> 00:47:47.742 - the stairs So those are written to minimize impacts on 00:47:47.938 --> 00:47:58.492 - you know, that getting into the street or getting into the sidewalk. So we found that that was also 00:47:58.492 --> 00:48:09.679 - problematic and injurious as well. For the second criteria, the use and value of the adjacent properties, 00:48:09.679 --> 00:48:17.278 - we found that none of these variances would adversely impact that area. 00:48:17.442 --> 00:48:26.325 - adversely impact the use and value of the adjacent properties. And then for max impervious surface coverage, 00:48:26.325 --> 00:48:34.555 - we found that there was no hardship or peculiarity about this property. That means that it should be 00:48:34.555 --> 00:48:42.867 - subject to a different impervious surface coverage maximum. No topographical constraints or things of 00:48:42.867 --> 00:48:46.942 - that nature, like environmental things. So in RM, 00:48:47.074 --> 00:48:55.279 - the standard that all new development is held to is that 40% be set aside for landscaping and 60% can 00:48:55.279 --> 00:49:03.484 - be covered with impervious surface and Under their limited compliance that was approved in 2024 There 00:49:03.484 --> 00:49:09.598 - used to be more pavement on the property. So when it was approved they only 00:49:10.146 --> 00:49:19.502 - Had to come down to 69% Impervious rather than 60. So what the petitioner proposed is 92% coverage of 00:49:19.502 --> 00:49:28.675 - that property But we did not find that there was a hardship that Necessitated that that be the case 00:49:28.675 --> 00:49:34.270 - rather than the 69% that was approved so in in the same vein 00:49:34.466 --> 00:49:40.945 - We didn't find that there was any reason that a different plants other than grass or a different type 00:49:40.945 --> 00:49:47.297 - of grass or you know, some other viable alternative could have been put here rather than the stones 00:49:47.297 --> 00:49:51.998 - that were replaced. So we did not find a hardship there. And then lastly, 00:49:52.226 --> 00:49:59.777 - For the location of where decorative stone can be placed around the foundation of the building and under 00:49:59.777 --> 00:50:06.969 - the stairs That is applied to all properties in our M our H and all mixed-use properties And we did 00:50:06.969 --> 00:50:14.161 - not find that there was anything different or peculiar about this property that meant That it would 00:50:14.161 --> 00:50:16.894 - be impossible to follow that standard 00:50:17.026 --> 00:50:25.279 - So we didn't find a reason to support adding decorative stone beyond those areas that we've allowed 00:50:25.279 --> 00:50:33.697 - it in code So with that the department recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed 00:50:33.697 --> 00:50:42.197 - findings and deny these three variances And but sorry one one last thing I missed This is the approved 00:50:42.197 --> 00:50:46.654 - site plan for 2024 this is the proposed site plan for 00:50:46.786 --> 00:50:53.342 - and I know that these are all in grayscale and it's a little bit difficult to see. So, I... I'll flip 00:50:53.342 --> 00:51:00.347 - those again. So, the two, the 2024 proposed, I'm sorry, and then continue after that. So, that was approved. 00:51:00.347 --> 00:51:06.903 - Okay, I wanted to know what the difference was in our packet. Thank you, go ahead. Yes, and then this 00:51:06.903 --> 00:51:13.459 - is proposed. So, again, the rock is in the bottom right, the top right, and then across Rogers on the 00:51:13.459 --> 00:51:16.094 - far left, and I've highlighted the areas 00:51:16.322 --> 00:51:25.819 - In red that have been turned from grass or mulch or landscaping plants of some sort into decorative 00:51:25.819 --> 00:51:35.506 - stone so this is that 69% coverage of impervious area to 92% Rogers is to the left. So north is up It 00:51:35.506 --> 00:51:40.350 - but but that particular image is not in our packet 00:51:41.986 --> 00:51:52.434 - No, this is okay. Just something for the I just want to make sure right I would I didn't want to look 00:51:52.434 --> 00:52:02.984 - for it if it were correct, right? You will not find it there Text Yes, if you give me a second to exit 00:52:02.984 --> 00:52:11.486 - Is that better There you go, okay and again the red it notes the changeover or yes 00:52:11.778 --> 00:52:19.459 - from from landscaping or grass or something to Stone, okay, and that completes the report. Yes. Okay. 00:52:19.459 --> 00:52:27.066 - Thank you for that Let's go ahead and jump to the petitioner then you have again up to 20 minutes if 00:52:27.066 --> 00:52:34.898 - you'd like to speak to this, please I Would say a couple of points here The the rocks that we put down. 00:52:34.898 --> 00:52:41.374 - I mean they're they're not impervious there's the same ground is under there and so I 00:52:41.698 --> 00:52:47.948 - Like I said earlier, I've replaced the grass. I tried to replant the grass three times. One of those 00:52:47.948 --> 00:52:54.136 - being sod was spending money on fertilizer, spending money on water, and the ending result was what 00:52:54.136 --> 00:53:00.323 - you see in some of the pictures that I gave you there. It was just a bunch of mud and crabgrass. We 00:53:00.323 --> 00:53:05.150 - just couldn't get grass to grow. It's the same pictures that I sent you guys. 00:53:05.282 --> 00:53:11.612 - Bush all the all the all the landscaping all the bushes like everything that was in the original plan 00:53:11.612 --> 00:53:18.129 - is still there. The mulch is there. All the trees are there. All the bushes are there. The exact species 00:53:18.129 --> 00:53:24.335 - that they want. They're all there. And so the only thing that we replace was the grass. And so just 00:53:24.335 --> 00:53:26.942 - because it was mud and I would imagine if 00:53:27.106 --> 00:53:33.136 - I just let it go one you know the property ends up looking a lot like it did when it started not to 00:53:33.136 --> 00:53:39.588 - the same extreme but it just it looks bad. But then to you know people are tracking in mud on the sidewalk 00:53:39.588 --> 00:53:46.462 - or tracking in mud to feast restaurant or to you know all of our neighbors to the north and to the south and then 00:53:46.690 --> 00:53:52.333 - Three, if I did nothing, if I just let it run down and go back to the shape that it was before and it 00:53:52.333 --> 00:53:57.921 - was just a bunch of mud there, what I've ended up right back here, what I've got the same fine, what 00:53:57.921 --> 00:54:03.730 - I've seen the same 55 pages of documents that said that I was doing something wrong. And the only reason 00:54:03.730 --> 00:54:09.595 - that I did what I did is one, because just trying to protect the property. And two, like I said, I didn't 00:54:09.595 --> 00:54:15.293 - believe I was doing anything wrong. Because if you go up and down Rogers and First Street, where a lot 00:54:15.293 --> 00:54:15.902 - of the new 00:54:16.130 --> 00:54:25.611 - The new the new construction is is they've got the same the same stuff. Yes. With that we'll go back 00:54:25.611 --> 00:54:34.999 - to the board. So stay there. We may have questions for questions from the board. I just got a quick 00:54:34.999 --> 00:54:44.386 - one to clarify. Because we you know we see these. Proposals all the time and I'll be honest and I'm 00:54:44.386 --> 00:54:45.982 - in the financial 00:54:46.594 --> 00:54:54.809 - I still have to do the math and redo the math to make sure it's not a very straightforward scenario 00:54:54.809 --> 00:55:03.434 - sometimes on these developments in terms of how to getting in compliance and then staying in compliance. 00:55:03.434 --> 00:55:11.813 - So you're wanting relief from these things because you're saying you didn't know you were going to be 00:55:11.813 --> 00:55:15.838 - out of compliance on all three. Is that correct? 00:55:16.098 --> 00:55:22.825 - I didn't know. My intent wasn't to be out of compliance. It wasn't to mislead or be devious or anything 00:55:22.825 --> 00:55:29.293 - like that, sir. It was just to fix the situation that people were complaining about, and I couldn't 00:55:29.293 --> 00:55:35.826 - get grass to grow. That was it. Honestly, the compliance thing, when I saw everything up the street, 00:55:35.826 --> 00:55:42.424 - it never entered my mind that I would be here and having to spend a bunch of money redoing site plans 00:55:42.424 --> 00:55:46.046 - and things of that nature. I never dreamed I'd be here. 00:55:47.330 --> 00:55:55.969 - Talking about rocks sure and then can I ask that real quick question who caught this and how How did 00:55:55.969 --> 00:56:04.523 - how did somebody on staff? driving up and down Rogers See this property after was developed and say 00:56:04.523 --> 00:56:13.162 - They're probably out of compliance on these three things or how to how is that monitored? I guess is 00:56:13.162 --> 00:56:17.182 - my question or is it just a Is there a process 00:56:17.378 --> 00:56:26.877 - Ensuring compliance once everything's been approved So yes, we have to Enforcement staff that do inspect 00:56:26.877 --> 00:56:33.662 - properties and give like an occupancy inspection In this instance, I'm not 00:56:33.922 --> 00:56:43.461 - Sure when that 2024 plan had an occupancy inspection but reports could come through your report for 00:56:43.461 --> 00:56:53.287 - example to note when there are violations of the udio, but it could also be staff observation for this 00:56:53.287 --> 00:56:54.622 - one I did not 00:56:55.266 --> 00:57:02.047 - Come prepared to tell you how it yeah, I believe this came about because we were doing the occupancy 00:57:02.047 --> 00:57:08.895 - inspection So it had not received that final so we were we were doing that final occupancy inspection 00:57:08.895 --> 00:57:15.609 - That's incorrect. So okay state your point and then I'd like to hear his Give me a minute and I can 00:57:15.609 --> 00:57:17.086 - look into that Thanks 00:57:29.410 --> 00:57:37.730 - I guess my question is, may I ask a question? While you're looking at there, Eric, just a quick question 00:57:37.730 --> 00:57:45.653 - to the petitioner. When you have a plan, you know where the landscape goes, you know where the rock 00:57:45.653 --> 00:57:53.022 - goes, you know where plants will go, where the structure will go. Did you ever thought about 00:57:53.442 --> 00:58:00.830 - talking to the city and asking, what is the solution here before you put rock down there? I mean, because 00:58:00.830 --> 00:58:07.940 - ground cover is not just grass. It could be, there are several types of ground cover that you can use 00:58:07.940 --> 00:58:14.909 - that it's plants that it would not be, you know, that it would detain from being muddy and it would 00:58:14.909 --> 00:58:22.228 - grow. No, did I, did I, did it enter my mind to call them? No, ma'am, it didn't. And like I said before, 00:58:22.228 --> 00:58:23.134 - one, because 00:58:23.650 --> 00:58:29.654 - up the street had the same stuff, so I didn't anticipate it being a problem. And then, two, I just wanted 00:58:29.654 --> 00:58:35.545 - to fix a problem. Like, I wanted it to look better, and I didn't want to spend any more money on grass, 00:58:35.545 --> 00:58:41.267 - and I didn't want, you know, the tenants that live there that wanted to enjoy the property. I wanted 00:58:41.267 --> 00:58:46.988 - the complaints to stop, so my staff didn't have to fill out any more phone calls. Yeah, because when 00:58:46.988 --> 00:58:52.766 - you did the plan, there was impervious area. You knew that how much impervious area who's going to be 00:58:52.766 --> 00:58:53.502 - on the plan. 00:58:53.794 --> 00:59:01.975 - And the plan was approved for such. So when you change anything on the plan that was an approved plan 00:59:01.975 --> 00:59:10.076 - you're out of compliance. When we put down the rock rocks are still I mean there it's the water runs 00:59:10.076 --> 00:59:18.497 - right through the rock the same as it would the grass. Well in this case it was mud. And so the I didn't 00:59:18.497 --> 00:59:23.550 - believe I was doing anything wrong man. And like I said before 00:59:23.874 --> 00:59:30.366 - Every single aspect of what was approved and when we got our CEO is still there like every bush every 00:59:30.366 --> 00:59:36.986 - tree You know all the mulch like it's it's all there The only thing that we corrected was was the grass 00:59:36.986 --> 00:59:43.605 - that we couldn't grow that we actually tried to grow So we were doing a final occupancy inspection It's 00:59:43.605 --> 00:59:50.161 - possible the building department may have given an occupancy, but the city planning department did not 00:59:50.161 --> 00:59:53.662 - give a final occupancy So that's what we were doing So 00:59:53.826 --> 00:59:59.974 - Building Department gives the final occupancy They should wait for us. We issue a recommendation of 00:59:59.974 --> 01:00:06.183 - right, but they didn't so he's got the final occupancy He can put people in those units, right? He's 01:00:06.183 --> 01:00:12.761 - I I can't testify if he's got final occupancy from building I'm just saying from the planning department's 01:00:12.761 --> 01:00:19.155 - perspective. We had not issued a final occupancy what I'm trying to get at is if final occupancy should 01:00:19.155 --> 01:00:22.782 - not have been granted because he was out of compliance and 01:00:22.946 --> 01:00:30.633 - And that should have happened. He should not have been given those occupancy permits. And that's between 01:00:30.633 --> 01:00:37.954 - planning and building. Oh, sorry. Is that right or no? Am I wrong on that? Yeah. Jackie came out of 01:00:37.954 --> 01:00:45.348 - nowhere. You can't come out of nowhere, Jackie. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Yes, I can. I just wanted 01:00:45.348 --> 01:00:48.350 - you to introduce yourself. I'm so sorry. 01:00:49.218 --> 01:00:54.057 - I didn't mean to scare you. Yeah, we didn't know you were there. You can get occupancy from the Monroe 01:00:54.057 --> 01:00:59.177 - County Building Department on a temporary status. So I'll double check. But if he got a temporary occupancy, 01:00:59.177 --> 01:01:03.922 - the only things we're checking are safety for pedestrians to get to the building and striping of the 01:01:03.922 --> 01:01:08.666 - parking. And then he can occupy the building. You do not need a final occupancy or a final occupancy 01:01:08.666 --> 01:01:13.411 - recommendation from us to have tenants in there. So we didn't like miss a step. He's allowed to have 01:01:13.411 --> 01:01:17.310 - people in there. What I think happened, but I'm trying to confirm, is that then we 01:01:17.410 --> 01:01:24.038 - that we saw that he did that and said, hey, you can't do this, but that's not what we're checking here 01:01:24.038 --> 01:01:30.666 - at temporary. But just so you know, this is going to have to be fixed at some point. And I do not know 01:01:30.666 --> 01:01:37.294 - if final occupancy inspection ever occurred, because what we normally advise people is, if we know you 01:01:37.294 --> 01:01:43.728 - have a violation there, don't spend your money on an inspection, because we're not going to be able 01:01:43.728 --> 01:01:46.238 - to give it to you. Is that in writing? 01:01:46.626 --> 01:01:54.726 - Recording stopped which part well, he's shaking his head. No here. So I guess we'll let And Yeah, go 01:01:54.726 --> 01:02:02.746 - ahead and speak your part Planning actually came back during the whole process. We had the the last 01:02:02.746 --> 01:02:10.686 - and I remember talking to the mic. Yeah. No, I'm sorry planning came back twice actually because I 01:02:10.818 --> 01:02:18.058 - Wants to do the the final occupancy and and we were recording in progress We we recited because we didn't 01:02:18.058 --> 01:02:24.957 - have the correct species of a bush and it was later deemed that we did have the correct species of a 01:02:24.957 --> 01:02:32.060 - bush and so That whole process, you know without all that stuff happening They they did come back again 01:02:32.060 --> 01:02:39.710 - to inspect the property the second time and and they should have given us Again, like if you go to open gov dot 01:02:39.810 --> 01:02:46.624 - Or whatever in the portal we have our final certification of occupancy and if we hadn't done what we 01:02:46.624 --> 01:02:53.371 - were supposed to and had at the time It was I believe it was in the early spring that the grass Was 01:02:53.371 --> 01:03:00.320 - growing but then it all died But they they did they made us wait before some of that ground cover came 01:03:00.320 --> 01:03:07.134 - in and some of those bushes grew before they would actually give us the final the final approval and 01:03:13.474 --> 01:03:20.125 - I just I wanted to walk through a couple of these things. I want to start with the staff So the three 01:03:20.125 --> 01:03:27.037 - items are the maximum impervious and then the minimum landscape Area and then the ground cover standards. 01:03:27.037 --> 01:03:33.883 - Okay, so I'm a little confused on the maximum impervious So that the additional coverage of these stones 01:03:33.883 --> 01:03:40.925 - resulted in it being impervious Yes, so we have a definition of impervious surface coverage and it includes 01:03:40.925 --> 01:03:42.686 - gravel and stone is gravel 01:03:42.850 --> 01:03:49.628 - That was my question. So that definition then states that that gravel is not something that allows water 01:03:49.628 --> 01:03:56.083 - to run through. Correct. Okay. That's what was confusing to me because I did not, I'm looking at 15 01:03:56.083 --> 01:04:02.731 - different things. So I just didn't see a definition that said that was that in here. That's in the UDO 01:04:02.731 --> 01:04:09.380 - right now. It's not an interpretation. It very clearly says, right? Gravel. That is the UDO statement. 01:04:09.380 --> 01:04:12.414 - Yes. And, and we would have to, by definition, 01:04:12.642 --> 01:04:18.784 - Abide by the fact that that much gravel is considered Impervious. Yes, that was my question. That's 01:04:18.784 --> 01:04:25.234 - the first part because that confused me without having the UDO in front of me. Okay I'm also then trying 01:04:25.234 --> 01:04:31.376 - this is for the petition trying to understand the minimum landscape areas So you're telling me that 01:04:31.376 --> 01:04:37.641 - you feel that all of the let's take grass out of it, but all of the plantings Met your site plan. Oh, 01:04:37.641 --> 01:04:40.958 - yeah, they're still there. Yes, sir. So what were the 01:04:41.314 --> 01:04:47.285 - Dealing with here is the the loss of the vegetation which would be grass that is landscaping. Yes, that's 01:04:47.285 --> 01:04:53.256 - that's That's that allows water and everything to seep into the ground as opposed to the gravel So that's 01:04:53.256 --> 01:04:59.114 - what we're dealing with. I want to make sure that's clear and then the ground cover standards are still 01:04:59.114 --> 01:05:04.916 - going back to the that stone the the stone is not the grass doesn't supersede it and also Even now you 01:05:04.916 --> 01:05:09.310 - could look at it say the stone isn't within the recommended standards, right? 01:05:09.666 --> 01:05:15.872 - Yeah, so the UDO says, you know only the gravel I'm sorry that decorative stone or mulch can only extend 01:05:15.872 --> 01:05:22.256 - a certain distance from trees and shrubs So that's the third variance because the largest issue to consider 01:05:22.256 --> 01:05:28.284 - for us is the need for that gravel to be underneath drip lines, etc. So That's an important aspect of 01:05:28.284 --> 01:05:31.358 - why that is allowed out so far from the building. I 01:05:31.746 --> 01:05:37.914 - Yes, the general intent of the UDO is we want living materials on site to the extent possible We recognize 01:05:37.914 --> 01:05:43.390 - that certain limited areas underneath landscaping, you know for maintenance purposes, you know 01:05:43.618 --> 01:05:49.411 - Do oftentimes need mulch or stone in order to or decorative stone in order to? Kind of protect the plan 01:05:49.411 --> 01:05:55.093 - a little bit and just be realistic of where grass can grow You know, but this is a standard obviously 01:05:55.093 --> 01:06:00.831 - that applies throughout Bloomington in all situations You know everybody tons of situations would love 01:06:00.831 --> 01:06:06.569 - to cover more of their property with stone or mulch But you know this standard is there and is applied 01:06:06.569 --> 01:06:12.362 - consistently throughout the city I'm looking at the at the updated plan You showed me the 2024 and then 01:06:12.362 --> 01:06:13.086 - the proposed 01:06:13.314 --> 01:06:19.966 - So walk me through looking at that proposed the updated one how much of that would have to be Of what 01:06:19.966 --> 01:06:26.619 - I'm looking at would have to be replaced with grass to come in compliance of the impervious all of it 01:06:26.619 --> 01:06:33.532 - No, not all of it. So decorative stone or mulch is allowed six feet around trees and then one foot beyond 01:06:33.532 --> 01:06:35.358 - the drip line of shrubs and 01:06:35.458 --> 01:06:42.255 - So, you know the the initial approved site plan the 2024 site plan had a very limited mulch ring Around 01:06:42.255 --> 01:06:48.857 - some of the trees had mulch shown around some of the shrubs that was compliant So, you know, you can 01:06:48.857 --> 01:06:55.458 - you can look at that, you know, in essence the drip line of those trees You know three foot diameter 01:06:55.458 --> 01:07:02.255 - six foot radius is What's allowed there? Could you put up the proposed one not the 20 sure so it sounds 01:07:02.255 --> 01:07:02.974 - to me that 01:07:03.458 --> 01:07:10.551 - That what we're talking about is if you look at that approved ground planting and landscaping design 01:07:10.551 --> 01:07:17.573 - is you're essentially talking about everything that's away from the building by however many inches 01:07:17.573 --> 01:07:24.736 - it is. So you've got the drip line area there around the building that can remain as gravel. And then 01:07:24.736 --> 01:07:30.846 - underneath those items that are noted as trees, they could have the gravel stay there. 01:07:31.458 --> 01:07:37.126 - But it looks like everything else someone had to be taken out and planted with some kind of ground cover 01:07:37.126 --> 01:07:42.578 - whether it's grass or an ivy or something, correct? Yes, some approved ground cover could be flowers 01:07:42.578 --> 01:07:48.138 - could be I could be something that's non stone or Malt yeah impervious, right? Okay, so you're looking 01:07:48.138 --> 01:07:53.536 - at all of that kind of gray area that doesn't have something over the top of it would would have to 01:07:53.536 --> 01:07:54.238 - be converted 01:07:55.490 --> 01:08:01.539 - Yeah, so you can see here they've shown mulch, you know, that is the darker shaded areas around some 01:08:01.539 --> 01:08:07.648 - of the Landscaping so that's compliant in terms of you know, what's allowed adjacent to there? So the 01:08:07.648 --> 01:08:13.697 - the lighter gray is the areas for the most part that would have to be returned to grass. Okay. Thank 01:08:13.697 --> 01:08:19.866 - you Any other question, Mr. Thorpe Morton, can I clarify for mr. Ballard what I said before I was able 01:08:19.866 --> 01:08:22.142 - to find records of the inspection Yes 01:08:22.786 --> 01:08:29.453 - So we did do a final occupancy inspection, as Mr. Alley described, where there was only some plan changes 01:08:29.453 --> 01:08:35.869 - that need to be made. And that was in October of 24, which I think Mr. Brandt has probably covered in 01:08:35.869 --> 01:08:42.347 - his report. And then we received a complaint in October of 25 about the rocks. And that's what started 01:08:42.347 --> 01:08:46.750 - up the conversation about the NOB that was issued. Thank you, Jackie. 01:08:48.930 --> 01:08:55.090 - If we don't have any questions we can go to the public for comment and then we can continue this too. 01:08:55.090 --> 01:09:01.310 - Do we have further questions at the moment. No. You sure. OK. Is there anyone in public here that like 01:09:01.310 --> 01:09:07.712 - to speak to this petition. Seeing none anyone online. Yes we do have one individual online. CG you should 01:09:07.712 --> 01:09:14.174 - be able to speak. Could you could you could you please state your name and wait for a moment. Casey Green. 01:09:14.466 --> 01:09:22.064 - Thank you, you'll have five minutes, but do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth 01:09:22.064 --> 01:09:29.588 - the whole truth and let them at the truth Yes, I do. Okay, you have up to five minutes Hi, so I first 01:09:29.588 --> 01:09:37.555 - like to say I really appreciate any challenges that You know, they're facing on this property My experience 01:09:37.555 --> 01:09:43.678 - is that I have an environmental science degree I'm a member of MCI risk and I am a 01:09:44.770 --> 01:09:51.663 - certified pesticide applicator, in addition to having foster dogs that are being loud right now. 01:09:51.663 --> 01:09:59.054 - I'm so sorry. So it's my understanding that a lot of this has to do with preventing people from simply, 01:09:59.054 --> 01:10:06.160 - yeah, replacing brass with stone. And it kind of sounds like that's what's happening here. And so I 01:10:06.160 --> 01:10:12.414 - would just like to speak to, I know that it doesn't make intuitive sense that bare dirt 01:10:12.738 --> 01:10:20.753 - or even turf would be treated like an impervious surface. But I can assure that if you're doing the 01:10:20.753 --> 01:10:28.849 - calculations of how much flood water is, like how fast that uptake is happening, how much fertilizer 01:10:28.849 --> 01:10:35.902 - runoff is getting into our waterways, it really is comparable to an impervious surface. 01:10:36.098 --> 01:10:42.194 - And so I guess I'm wondering, I love that there are shrubs there. I love that there are trees there. 01:10:42.194 --> 01:10:48.350 - It sounds like there was attention to getting the right species. But I guess I'm wondering if there's 01:10:48.350 --> 01:10:54.566 - been any attempts to use some drought tolerant landscaping. I'm thinking of, you know, yarrow, there's 01:10:54.566 --> 01:10:57.886 - native white sage, there's false agave, buffalo grass. 01:10:58.434 --> 01:11:04.961 - Is very very drought tolerant. It's used in the plains out west and it actually only gets to like six 01:11:04.961 --> 01:11:11.616 - inches anyway So you won't like you never have to mow it That's a really resilient one, especially with 01:11:11.616 --> 01:11:18.207 - pets I would like to note that ivy is highly highly invasive. So that would not be recommended but I'm 01:11:18.207 --> 01:11:24.990 - thinking that even if there's just a little bit of that around the edges that would alleviate the concern 01:11:24.990 --> 01:11:27.806 - of the water backup and washing the smaller 01:11:28.834 --> 01:11:36.554 - decorative stone gravel kind of hybrid off of the property. You know, because it sounds like we're kind 01:11:36.554 --> 01:11:44.349 - of stacking the issues here, which is we're stacking the propensity for runoff and we have smaller stone 01:11:44.349 --> 01:11:52.366 - size. Maybe the petitioner is just not aware of some of these options or maybe it was a financial decision, 01:11:52.366 --> 01:11:56.894 - but it does sound like a lot of finance has been poured into 01:11:57.602 --> 01:12:06.492 - you know, fertilizers and conventional grass. I guess I'm wondering if maybe one of these other alternatives 01:12:06.492 --> 01:12:14.730 - that are drought tolerant would be a good option. And that concludes my comment. Okay, thank you for 01:12:14.730 --> 01:12:22.886 - that. And anyone else online who would like to make comment? If there's anybody else online, please 01:12:22.886 --> 01:12:27.454 - use the raise hand function or send a message via chat. 01:12:27.778 --> 01:12:34.729 - Try to help you I'm not seeing anybody else. Okay, so where we are here is We can come back to you now 01:12:34.729 --> 01:12:41.815 - and you can use the remainder of your time for any additional comments, okay After that point then it'll 01:12:41.815 --> 01:12:48.631 - come back to the board and then you'll only be able to address questions that we give to you At that 01:12:48.631 --> 01:12:54.908 - point, but no additional just free-form comments. Okay, so you have I think like 18 minutes. 01:12:54.908 --> 01:12:56.190 - Is that correct? I 01:12:56.450 --> 01:13:02.868 - Do you have anything you'd like to say? No, just the only thing I would like to add is in terms of just 01:13:02.868 --> 01:13:09.102 - my thought process, I didn't want to deviate from the plan just because I had the issue where it and 01:13:09.102 --> 01:13:15.582 - to be honest, some species, I don't know what species of a Bush is and what's not like if the landscaper 01:13:15.582 --> 01:13:21.753 - shows up and it's on a plan that we give them, that's approved. We pay them to do the work and they 01:13:21.753 --> 01:13:25.950 - generally do a really good job for us. And so in this situation, we 01:13:26.242 --> 01:13:32.596 - We made sure everything else was good. It was living. And the only reason I took the grass out is because 01:13:32.596 --> 01:13:38.891 - I couldn't really get it to grow. And I put the rocks down that I didn't think would be an issue because 01:13:38.891 --> 01:13:44.885 - they're everywhere else. And so that was that's honestly that was my thinking. And so that's that's 01:13:44.885 --> 01:13:51.000 - all I'd like that. My only question is this isn't the only thing that you've built or developed in in 01:13:51.000 --> 01:13:52.798 - the city. Correct. No no sir. 01:13:53.186 --> 01:13:58.562 - I'm trying to understand though. Were you unaware that stone did not count as impervious? I didn't I 01:13:58.562 --> 01:14:04.045 - mean in my mind It's the water was gonna run. It's still gonna end up in the same spot whether there's 01:14:04.045 --> 01:14:09.581 - grass or stone That's what I'm trying to ascertain is that in all the time that you've done other stuff 01:14:09.581 --> 01:14:15.011 - You've never run up against that that piece of information that you were told not Honestly, no, okay. 01:14:15.011 --> 01:14:20.493 - I mean I I know what gravel is I know what fill gravel is I know what we use, you know when when we're 01:14:20.493 --> 01:14:22.942 - digging and laying foundations and things and 01:14:23.170 --> 01:14:29.934 - This is very obviously not that and so No, I really I didn't believe it'd be an issue. Okay. I was just 01:14:29.934 --> 01:14:37.024 - trying to ask today So that was a decision you made there was no nothing from the city that at all Indicated 01:14:37.024 --> 01:14:43.788 - to you that that was appropriate you you looked at other properties or you just felt that it was gravel 01:14:43.788 --> 01:14:50.357 - and okay, sir Thank you any other questions from the board While they're thinking I mean I will tell 01:14:50.357 --> 01:14:52.894 - you that it's it's difficult for us to 01:14:53.346 --> 01:15:01.768 - to grant a variance on not knowing the code. Not knowing it on your end is difficult for us then to 01:15:01.768 --> 01:15:10.275 - provide a variance because that's not an unusual or peculiar situation that really warrants us being 01:15:10.275 --> 01:15:18.866 - able to say, well, we can grant you that. I wanna explain that to you as we consider this, so what to 01:15:18.866 --> 01:15:21.982 - do. I know it sometimes seems unfair 01:15:22.402 --> 01:15:27.719 - And it's also difficult because you also don't know how many of those properties down the street were 01:15:27.719 --> 01:15:33.089 - grandfathered from years ago. We don't know that. Um, so that's why we, we only look at the particular 01:15:33.089 --> 01:15:38.510 - property in front of us. So I just only want to explain that to you. So, you know, I'm sorry, go ahead. 01:15:38.510 --> 01:15:43.828 - No, and like I said, I knew like just because it's, it's the rock, it doesn't make it impervious. And 01:15:43.828 --> 01:15:49.197 - so impervious versus pervious like that's, I know, I know what that is. I know how that is in the code 01:15:49.197 --> 01:15:51.230 - and that's why I didn't believe that I 01:15:51.330 --> 01:15:58.790 - I was doing anything wrong sir is I appreciate you letting us know that that's what we're trying to 01:15:58.790 --> 01:16:06.400 - wait. Thank you. The other thing that I was I mean in the approved plans there's a bunch of mulch and 01:16:06.400 --> 01:16:13.934 - there's no mulch there correct. Oh no no all the mulch is still there man. Exact to the in that area 01:16:13.934 --> 01:16:20.350 - because from the photo it looks like that whole entire bottom part is is is rock now. 01:16:20.642 --> 01:16:27.148 - No, all the mulch and where the where the mulch originally was the mulch is still there and it's been 01:16:27.148 --> 01:16:33.527 - replaced put up the picture with the red Yeah with the red we can see the contrast. Oh Yeah, so the 01:16:33.527 --> 01:16:40.096 - rock is taking over parts of them where the mulch was no The only place where the rocks were added was 01:16:40.096 --> 01:16:46.730 - where the grass was all the mulch It's the mulch. It was originally there. All the mulch is still there 01:16:46.730 --> 01:16:50.302 - all the bushes all the trees. Everything is still there 01:16:52.962 --> 01:16:58.761 - So the the picture that you provided to us that had the actual sign cream and crimson management You 01:16:58.761 --> 01:17:04.502 - see a small oak tree there and you see the face of the stairs You're indicating that only all along 01:17:04.502 --> 01:17:10.473 - underneath those bushes and around that tree. That's all still mulched Yes, sir And it's just the areas 01:17:10.473 --> 01:17:16.214 - that we're looking at that's kind of dying or or somewhat green grass. That's all been changed Yes, 01:17:16.214 --> 01:17:21.726 - sir. So essentially you dug out just the grass areas that died. Yes and replaced them. Yes, sir 01:17:22.690 --> 01:17:29.684 - But but when you look at the one that showed the curb With the utility box they were buried in the ground, 01:17:29.684 --> 01:17:36.220 - I mean that's all stone now Yes, sir. So that's a great deal of stone. That's right there along the 01:17:36.220 --> 01:17:43.018 - road surface. Okay, I Just want to show and I'll tell you that that's actually not my property sir that 01:17:43.018 --> 01:17:48.574 - specific where that that's not okay So that we're not dealing with that. Okay. No, I 01:17:50.050 --> 01:17:57.918 - I just want to make sure I'm seeing it and reading it the same. I see the mulch now that it's pointed 01:17:57.918 --> 01:18:06.095 - out. This is not you? No, that's not my property. But when planning came back the final time, they wanted 01:18:06.095 --> 01:18:13.886 - me to improve that area. Is this one yours? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. They wanted you to improve it? Yeah. 01:18:13.886 --> 01:18:18.206 - Are those side by side there? No. I've got a side note. 01:18:19.714 --> 01:18:29.515 - How is that allowed? How can we request a petitioner whose it's not his property? If he's saying this 01:18:29.515 --> 01:18:39.413 - is not his property, this is not his property. I'm sorry. Can I see that picture? I don't know exactly 01:18:39.413 --> 01:18:48.926 - where that is. It's on the north side. Is that right? Yep. It backs up to the feast. That's right. 01:18:50.178 --> 01:18:59.793 - So that's not you. No, sir, but I want you to improve it. They did Did you I did? I had to So yep, so 01:18:59.793 --> 01:19:09.219 - looking at the the site plan here You can see just a little bit of the sliver that northwest corner 01:19:09.219 --> 01:19:18.174 - based on their survey that has graphs on their on their property the majority of that is not a 01:19:18.338 --> 01:19:24.945 - The petitioners property so I don't without speaking to the rest of our staff I I cannot verify anything 01:19:24.945 --> 01:19:31.300 - that we the petitioners is stating that we have said in terms of what Improvements they have to make 01:19:31.300 --> 01:19:37.718 - certainly we can't require somebody to make an improvement on property. That's not theirs. So Then to 01:19:37.718 --> 01:19:43.570 - the petitioner Did they ask you to improve this section of land? That's not yours. Yes, sir. 01:19:43.570 --> 01:19:46.590 - Did you do it? Yes, sir So that's on the record 01:19:47.554 --> 01:19:55.677 - Find that very troubling that that we allow a Planning department to go in and dictate to non-owners 01:19:55.677 --> 01:20:03.880 - of properties. I've been in real estate a long time That that crosses a real line So that being aside 01:20:03.880 --> 01:20:12.003 - you did improve it because I draw I'll drive by there tonight I'll know you know you improved it you 01:20:12.003 --> 01:20:17.150 - I'm trusting you're telling you're you're being honest about it 01:20:17.826 --> 01:20:25.610 - That just that just kind of makes this even more Questionable to me in terms of how we how we want to 01:20:25.610 --> 01:20:33.242 - say to petitioners. You're gonna go in and do all these things But we still want this But that's he 01:20:33.242 --> 01:20:41.102 - doesn't own it, but we still want you to improve it, but I don't own it But you need to improve it and 01:20:41.102 --> 01:20:47.742 - he did That's that's a problem sure I don't have any information to support that or or 01:20:48.162 --> 01:20:58.129 - Refute that in any man, but it's it's I think we can all three agree It's not the first time we've come 01:20:58.129 --> 01:21:07.904 - across this kind of situation. Am I wrong? It in terms of Asking them to improve land on land. That's 01:21:07.904 --> 01:21:09.342 - not So anyways 01:21:14.658 --> 01:21:22.050 - Understand what you're saying. So that was hypocritical that was improved to grass, right? That was 01:21:22.050 --> 01:21:29.589 - improved to grass by the petitioner at the time, right? Right. It just seems it seems hypocritical to 01:21:29.589 --> 01:21:37.128 - me that we can do that That we can require petitioner who's made a vast investment a vast improvement 01:21:37.128 --> 01:21:44.446 - bringing up all property values all around That's where I think I'll just say that I disagree with 01:21:44.866 --> 01:21:52.048 - I think staff one time said we don't negotiate With petitioners and I think we do and this is the very 01:21:52.048 --> 01:21:59.091 - reason we do that. So That kind of changes my viewpoint in terms of I understand how we have to vote 01:21:59.091 --> 01:22:06.064 - on this We have to vote within what the UDO says not what we wish the UDO said and so As Joe's kind 01:22:06.064 --> 01:22:13.246 - of mentioned like our hands are tied to a point. Yeah, you're out of compliance That's the bottom line 01:22:13.378 --> 01:22:19.951 - There's not enough compelling evidence findings a fact for us to overturn that But as a side note, I 01:22:19.951 --> 01:22:26.590 - just want to be on the record saying I have a I have an issue with requiring improvements on property 01:22:26.590 --> 01:22:33.163 - that's not owned by the petitioner and That's it. Yeah, and I think just to follow up to what Tim is 01:22:33.163 --> 01:22:39.736 - saying is I think we've had other situations where I know Just in the last probably six months where 01:22:39.736 --> 01:22:42.014 - petitioner said well, I'm happy to 01:22:42.306 --> 01:22:48.196 - Take care of this part portion of a sidewalk or whatever that kind of went off their property. So What 01:22:48.196 --> 01:22:54.030 - I what I don't know is whether it was a negotiator whether it was offered and so that's In that case, 01:22:54.030 --> 01:23:00.034 - but I get your point here is if the city goes to this petitioner says, you know We you can do this plan, 01:23:00.034 --> 01:23:05.982 - but we want you to we want you to do this on someone else's property that I can see where that would be 01:23:06.370 --> 01:23:12.054 - problematic, but at the same time if it was from the other direction saying hey, I'm doing that I'll 01:23:12.054 --> 01:23:17.795 - go ahead and just do it so Knowing the facts of that would be helpful. But Tim's point is very valid, 01:23:17.795 --> 01:23:23.873 - which is it could be troubling Sure, and I'll just say from staff's perspective. We have never in reviewing 01:23:23.873 --> 01:23:29.502 - a site plan Required somebody to do something off of their property So I would want to know who the 01:23:29.502 --> 01:23:34.398 - staff person was that stated this to the petitioner. I Think that that should be known 01:23:34.946 --> 01:23:41.895 - And I have no idea what these improvements are I have no other information to back this up on any way 01:23:41.895 --> 01:23:48.707 - other than to say from our Perspective when we are reviewing site plans We've never looked beyond a 01:23:48.707 --> 01:23:55.588 - property line of something unless there are drainage issues, you know first Yeah, we're going into a 01:23:55.588 --> 01:24:02.605 - lot of unknowns here That's a topic that's a conversation for a later date probably with David to have 01:24:02.605 --> 01:24:03.422 - I would say 01:24:07.554 --> 01:24:15.987 - Well back to what is in front of us what is in front of us is the maximum impervious service coverage 01:24:15.987 --> 01:24:24.338 - that has Gone from 69% to 92% It's the minimum landscape area All the bushes are there all the trees 01:24:24.338 --> 01:24:32.936 - are there the correct species, but once you remove the grass now you remove vegetation the ground cover 01:24:32.936 --> 01:24:36.574 - standards, you should have ground cover and 01:24:36.834 --> 01:24:48.029 - I think our situation here is it's just the wrong ground cover for where the where the grass existed. 01:24:48.029 --> 01:24:59.333 - So looking at this I can't I cannot find a way to work around it. You know I can't I cannot find a way 01:24:59.333 --> 01:25:05.918 - to justify approving it. Yeah I think we have hard numbers. 01:25:06.018 --> 01:25:15.525 - There's the approved plan. It's everything. It's what the U.D.O. says in terms of impervious service 01:25:15.525 --> 01:25:25.597 - surface. Now I appreciate what the the public today has shared but it's not it's not what is in the U.D.O. 01:25:25.597 --> 01:25:35.198 - right now. So we can't go against the U.D.O. Right. Which is 69 percent correct. Right. And that was. 01:25:37.538 --> 01:25:45.087 - the gist of my earlier comments, which was trying to establish whether the petitioner knew that that 01:25:45.087 --> 01:25:52.561 - was actually classified. And, and I was just curious. It's, it's, it's heartening to know he wasn't 01:25:52.561 --> 01:26:00.260 - aware of that, but it's disheartening because that still then makes him responsible for it regardless. 01:26:00.260 --> 01:26:05.118 - Correct. And if you have built anything in Bloomington, Indiana, 01:26:06.178 --> 01:26:13.299 - You know that the impervious surface is a critical critical part of the UDL part of your plan. So I 01:26:13.299 --> 01:26:20.633 - think I'm aligned with you in that the first request for a variance which is of the maximum impervious 01:26:20.633 --> 01:26:27.825 - surface. I don't think that that could be granted based on how clear the UDO is. No. OK. So then the 01:26:27.825 --> 01:26:35.230 - question becomes the minimum landscape area. So we have minimum landscape areas that seem to already be 01:26:36.226 --> 01:26:42.037 - within compliance of the plan that was put forth. We're being told, now does the city object to that, 01:26:42.037 --> 01:26:47.734 - we're being told that the plan that he showed us, and I'm not talking about grass, I'm only talking 01:26:47.734 --> 01:26:53.602 - about the remainder, anything outside what was listed as grass, so the mulched areas, et cetera, those 01:26:53.602 --> 01:26:59.356 - are all within what the petitioner promised, correct? So it looked like on the mulch rings, at least 01:26:59.356 --> 01:27:05.566 - for the trees, there was additional area that mulch could have been added, they were showing a tighter ring, 01:27:05.826 --> 01:27:11.768 - Probably then you know what the udia would have allowed for so there's probably some extra area that 01:27:11.768 --> 01:27:17.827 - they could have some mulch. You know possible solutions to remediated are plant some additional shrubs 01:27:17.827 --> 01:27:23.711 - or something within those areas to you know expand that area where mulch is allowed to be in within 01:27:23.711 --> 01:27:27.358 - that area. So it's not a situation where they have to remove. 01:27:27.618 --> 01:27:32.907 - All of the gravel or the stone is there they can supplement that with some landscaping and it would 01:27:32.907 --> 01:27:38.566 - be compliant You know, certainly we're willing to work with the petition to bring the site into compliance 01:27:38.566 --> 01:27:43.908 - And and find a way to kind of get to a happy place Yeah, but i'm looking at I just want to make sure 01:27:43.908 --> 01:27:49.619 - that it's not incorrect for me to say the city is not saying that he has not Put in the plant the plantings 01:27:49.619 --> 01:27:55.014 - aside from grass that that were promised on the site plan Which is what he maintained. I want to make 01:27:55.014 --> 01:27:55.966 - sure that in that 01:27:56.482 --> 01:28:02.230 - Specific instance that were aligned. Yes. Yes, and I understand you could he could expand some of those 01:28:02.230 --> 01:28:07.867 - mulch areas So that's the first part. I was just trying to get that clear and then we've you know now 01:28:07.867 --> 01:28:13.670 - we have to deal with the ground Cover standards as well. We have to decide what are we going to do about 01:28:13.670 --> 01:28:19.251 - the minimum landscape? Are we going to require that stone to be you know, are we going to deny that? 01:28:19.251 --> 01:28:24.833 - variance because he needs to take out that stone and replace it or Extend the current areas of mulch 01:28:24.833 --> 01:28:26.270 - in order to overcome that 01:28:26.562 --> 01:28:32.981 - 69% or to reach that 69% threshold. So I think that's where we're at because I don't know if Tim agrees 01:28:32.981 --> 01:28:39.153 - But it sounds like the first issue is a yes, we're good on that. That's a denial Okay, so if that's 01:28:39.153 --> 01:28:45.387 - the case, then we need to find a way for the petitioner. He needs to come down to the 69% All right, 01:28:45.387 --> 01:28:51.682 - and the way to do that is either Adding mulch adding mulch is Eric was saying that could be added and 01:28:51.682 --> 01:28:55.262 - then plantings could also be added to that mulch area and 01:28:56.226 --> 01:29:03.317 - Well, so we have a couple different variances that are on the table. So the impervious surface and the 01:29:03.317 --> 01:29:10.271 - landscaped area, those are in essence the same things. And then the second, third variance really of 01:29:10.271 --> 01:29:17.293 - how far can mulch extend from a piece of landscaping? That can be solved in a different capacity. But 01:29:17.293 --> 01:29:24.177 - we're talking about having a motion that, the start of a motion, this is not a motion, this is just 01:29:24.177 --> 01:29:26.174 - for discussion, it could be, 01:29:26.338 --> 01:29:34.603 - we move to Approve the variance item number two and three with stipulations on it and denies Variance 01:29:34.603 --> 01:29:42.868 - number one we could have language such as that by saying okay. No to the impervious We will grant the 01:29:42.868 --> 01:29:51.213 - variance on the minimum landscape area so long as these conditions are met to bring it back within the 01:29:51.213 --> 01:29:56.318 - 69 percent and We will allow for variance on the ground covers 01:29:57.186 --> 01:30:05.834 - I have a question on the landscape area though, but those landscape is not just plantings. Yeah. Correct. 01:30:05.834 --> 01:30:13.992 - Landscape is plantings plus mulch plus ground cover. Yeah. So landscaped area basically in instance 01:30:13.992 --> 01:30:22.477 - is anything that is grass mulch landscaping shrubs not an approved improved surface. Yes. Gravel. Yeah. 01:30:22.477 --> 01:30:25.822 - You see what I'm saying. Yes. Yes. Yeah. 01:30:26.114 --> 01:30:33.241 - I think we all agree with Joe's Crafting of deny deny approve approve but conditions on two and three 01:30:33.241 --> 01:30:40.438 - Yeah, I think where I'm going with that is that I do think that we need to get this property back into 01:30:40.438 --> 01:30:47.425 - the 69% threshold That's that's number one. I do think that we still have discussions about we know 01:30:47.425 --> 01:30:54.412 - what constitutes ground cover and things like that What we're willing, you know to vary can we give 01:30:54.412 --> 01:30:55.390 - that over to? 01:30:55.714 --> 01:31:00.923 - You guys. Yeah, we don't. We don't have to. Yeah, those aren't with. Yeah, we don't get literally that's 01:31:00.923 --> 01:31:05.934 - getting in the weeds. We don't. So it could be. It could be a much more general. So deny number one, 01:31:05.934 --> 01:31:11.043 - but a grant to so long as it meets the 69 percent and grant three so long as the ground covering comes 01:31:11.043 --> 01:31:15.806 - within compliance of what the city recommends. Is that what you're saying? Something like that. 01:31:16.194 --> 01:31:22.764 - Yes. So one at one and two kind of go hand in hand. Yeah, they go hand in hand. That's what I'm thinking. 01:31:22.764 --> 01:31:29.149 - One and two minimum landscape area. Yes. Yes. A minimum landscape area refers to how much it's not how 01:31:29.149 --> 01:31:35.533 - many bushes. It's an area. It's a it's a you know. Well, I'm just saying you have a maximum impervious 01:31:35.533 --> 01:31:41.855 - you need to have 69 percent. Yes. So then you will need to have the other. Well, I'm saying if you if 01:31:41.855 --> 01:31:45.822 - we're denying a variance on that we're we're just denying that. 01:31:46.722 --> 01:31:52.283 - We're denying the right for them to not have to abide by or we say it depends on how it's written. I 01:31:52.283 --> 01:31:57.843 - didn't look at it as it's saying that they must meet the maximum impervious. Is that what number one 01:31:57.843 --> 01:32:03.459 - is? Yes. So the first variance is to request more of the property to be covered. That's from the city 01:32:03.459 --> 01:32:09.020 - though. I thought the petitioners I thought the most I thought the petitioners was to receive relief 01:32:09.020 --> 01:32:14.581 - from that. Yes. Okay. That's why I'm saying so you have to vote. No he cannot have relief from that. 01:32:14.581 --> 01:32:15.902 - That's what I'm saying. 01:32:16.834 --> 01:32:23.464 - So that that's correct if I say you have to vote no on on item one to deny the petitioner the right 01:32:23.464 --> 01:32:30.359 - to To go against the maximum impervious. Yes, that's my point And so what we're saying though is number 01:32:30.359 --> 01:32:36.988 - two goes hand in hand with that Because that deals with again how much of a property can be covered 01:32:36.988 --> 01:32:43.751 - by something that's not grass or landscaping or mulch, right? But I thought that that the point of us 01:32:43.751 --> 01:32:45.342 - How did you state that? 01:32:46.818 --> 01:32:54.418 - You said a I'm honest here. I thought it was to have the petitioner go back to the city and work out 01:32:54.418 --> 01:33:01.942 - how that minimum So so, you know where we can work out would be number three of how far away from a 01:33:01.942 --> 01:33:09.994 - tree or a shrub mulch can extend from right, right so that Put down mulch right and still be in compliance 01:33:09.994 --> 01:33:16.766 - with the minimum landscaped area because mulch does not count as impervious surface cover 01:33:17.122 --> 01:33:23.972 - Understand that but are you are you are you maintaining that you would deny number two? How you can 01:33:23.972 --> 01:33:30.823 - deny it because it won't if it doesn't live up to the minimum landscape areas is not going to reach 01:33:30.823 --> 01:33:37.673 - the 69% is what you're saying. Okay, that's that's more clear So essentially, you know the question 01:33:37.673 --> 01:33:43.838 - comes how do we Well, he would just have to come in compliance and that's it yes, okay, I 01:33:45.186 --> 01:33:51.678 - I was looking at a different way based on that conversation of can you expand what's there little by 01:33:51.678 --> 01:33:58.106 - little? That was where they can expand it with molds, you know, not with the right. So that's why I 01:33:58.106 --> 01:34:04.340 - was separating too. I got it. Got it. Okay. Any other, uh, notions here? Yeah, that's very good. 01:34:04.340 --> 01:34:10.832 - Thank you. You guys clarified that. Thank you. We get to the same spot. Thank you, Eric. Does Jackie 01:34:10.832 --> 01:34:14.046 - want to weigh in? Is this her case? Oh, okay. Um, 01:34:14.466 --> 01:34:27.039 - Do I have a any further discussion or do are we ready to make a motion? We're ready to make a motion 01:34:27.039 --> 01:34:39.737 - make a motion for Z are 2026-02-005 on Maximum impervious surface We we propose a denial on a minimum 01:34:39.737 --> 01:34:44.094 - landscape area we propose a denial 01:34:44.194 --> 01:34:59.058 - the ground cover standards and residential multifamily we propose that The petitioner coordinates with 01:34:59.058 --> 01:35:12.478 - the city with approved ground covers for those areas So you are denying variants one and two 01:35:13.634 --> 01:35:21.847 - Conditional on three with a new with city approval of the ground cover standard Or is it just easier 01:35:21.847 --> 01:35:29.979 - to deny it Yeah, I we're not gonna tell you I guess I'm confused you so I'm confused on what you're 01:35:29.979 --> 01:35:39.006 - that you would approve the ground cover the yes, so you would deny the variance and we would work with them to 01:35:39.138 --> 01:35:45.171 - Make sure the property is in a compliance whether that be the installation of grass Whether that be 01:35:45.171 --> 01:35:51.264 - installing shrubs that have mulch around them to cover those areas, you know We would work with them 01:35:51.264 --> 01:35:57.358 - within the confines of the UDO and he does not have to remove the rock, correct? Well, he would have 01:35:57.358 --> 01:36:03.451 - to remove the rock beyond what was shown the rock what is showing but removed to another location He 01:36:03.451 --> 01:36:07.614 - would have to move it to another location Not on the site. Okay, but 01:36:07.778 --> 01:36:14.262 - He can use the rock is that he has there because we approved the size of the rock on the previous He 01:36:14.262 --> 01:36:20.747 - doesn't so in the in the situations where stone would be allowed on here So in those, you know, we'd 01:36:20.747 --> 01:36:27.167 - have to go back to the original site plan If there are areas where he could use stone, he could use 01:36:27.167 --> 01:36:33.587 - that stone that is decorative stone that he has in place right now Can be reused in approved areas. 01:36:33.587 --> 01:36:36.926 - Yes. Okay. He doesn't have to buy new stuff No Okay 01:36:37.698 --> 01:36:44.318 - So we have a motion and we have a second and before I call the question, so then does that third item 01:36:44.318 --> 01:36:51.133 - stand as per city approval that you're going to grant the variance per city approval? Grant the variance 01:36:51.133 --> 01:36:57.689 - per city approval. Does that work? I'm so sorry. I'm not. I'm not falling when you say here's here's 01:36:57.689 --> 01:37:04.309 - what I understand, which is if we deny all three, he's got to go back to the city and work out a plan 01:37:04.309 --> 01:37:07.230 - anyway. Okay. So what I'm hearing from Eric. 01:37:07.586 --> 01:37:14.483 - Okay. So deny all three. Then he just goes back and starts from scratching. Can we add a condition that 01:37:14.483 --> 01:37:21.578 - the existing rock can be used even though we have the approval from the first that that would be attached. 01:37:21.578 --> 01:37:28.409 - That would be attached to item three. I believe yes. You can't add conditions to a denial to a denial. 01:37:28.409 --> 01:37:34.974 - Okay. You guys will be obviously everybody's going to use logic here and not make him remove rock. 01:37:35.298 --> 01:37:40.844 - Could be reused on the same site correct. We will we will work with him to Yeah, we want to make sure 01:37:40.844 --> 01:37:46.281 - that that's reused and so yes doing the denial which is what you're saying is yeah, you wouldn't do 01:37:46.281 --> 01:37:52.152 - that That's why we were doing the approval with the conditions that that floppy was stating So the question 01:37:52.152 --> 01:37:57.698 - becomes what's the proper way to do this if the city agrees to? Work with the petitioner to see to it 01:37:57.698 --> 01:38:03.407 - that that material can be reused and makes that Makes that assertion here then we would then just simply 01:38:03.407 --> 01:38:04.766 - do a denial of all three 01:38:05.186 --> 01:38:11.356 - Yes, so if the question is in a place where decorative like in a location where decorative stone is 01:38:11.356 --> 01:38:17.588 - currently allowed Under code could he use the rocks that are there now that is already taken care of 01:38:17.588 --> 01:38:23.326 - by the administrative appeal which you did approve so we would allow like the areas near the 01:38:23.938 --> 01:38:30.524 - Under the stairs or near the air conditioners next to the building They could take out what is there 01:38:30.524 --> 01:38:37.110 - and put in this rock that we've been talking about the new one Exactly Understand that the rock that 01:38:37.110 --> 01:38:43.891 - is in place can be reused for where the rocks are allowed To be honest, I'm still confused on how mulch 01:38:43.891 --> 01:38:50.412 - in in rock or any different bottom line I think the thing is you're out of compliance. So you do is 01:38:50.412 --> 01:38:51.390 - very clear and 01:38:51.970 --> 01:38:56.902 - You have to give us strong findings of fact overturned denials. You haven't given us that so you're 01:38:56.902 --> 01:39:02.031 - out of compliance We're denying all three You've got to bring it into compliance and they're gonna work 01:39:02.031 --> 01:39:07.407 - with you to do that at a minimum cost Because I will say again as I said from the beginning vast improvement 01:39:07.407 --> 01:39:12.487 - You've made a solid investment and it's improved everything around it and we can appreciate that I can 01:39:12.487 --> 01:39:18.110 - personally appreciate it because I live in that neighborhood but again our purview with the BZA is very tight and 01:39:18.818 --> 01:39:25.126 - You have to give us strong findings of fact overturn things and you haven't given it to us those So 01:39:25.126 --> 01:39:31.624 - you'll work with them to come into compliance. Does that is that? understandable Even though you don't 01:39:31.624 --> 01:39:38.059 - agree with it Sure and and further we do understand the confusion about the rock. Yes Yeah, don't get 01:39:38.059 --> 01:39:44.494 - us wrong. This is a confusing petition. Really? Yeah, we understand that you don't see the difference 01:39:44.494 --> 01:39:45.566 - and that is what 01:39:45.698 --> 01:39:51.756 - We completely understand where you're coming from on that. However, it is stated clearly in the udo 01:39:51.756 --> 01:39:57.875 - and builders in this community should know that And so regardless of whether it makes sense. It's in 01:39:57.875 --> 01:40:04.055 - the udo And so we can't violate that That's our point and having a further discussion between you and 01:40:04.055 --> 01:40:10.173 - the city to say could you please explain to me? Why this particular doesn't work or which which type 01:40:10.173 --> 01:40:13.566 - of thing would work that that's where you would go next 01:40:14.274 --> 01:40:20.460 - And and Flavia is is making sure that the city is going to work with you to be able to reuse that material 01:40:20.460 --> 01:40:26.356 - So it's not money wasted at least it could be reused elsewhere on the property for where it's allowed 01:40:26.356 --> 01:40:32.426 - So the city will work with you on that so that you're not throwing away material That that's where we're 01:40:32.426 --> 01:40:38.669 - stuck at this point Okay, if we have any further discussion we'll have that if not, we'll call the question 01:40:38.669 --> 01:40:43.294 - anyone any further discussion Call the question vote of yeses to deny all three 01:40:44.066 --> 01:40:52.077 - Ballard yes, Burrell. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes so that's that request for variance is Denied And thank 01:40:52.077 --> 01:41:00.485 - you for your patience. We're trying to just understand this because it is Complicated and we're apologies 01:41:00.485 --> 01:41:08.575 - for that But we do appreciate you giving us the time so we can figure this out So we can get to where 01:41:08.575 --> 01:41:12.382 - you need to go on the next step. Thank you Okay 01:41:12.642 --> 01:41:21.651 - Break we're gonna take a two-minute three-minute break for bathroom and we'll be right back. We stand 01:41:21.651 --> 01:41:30.659 - adjourned for the moment The BZA is now back in session and what we will do at this point is go to Zr 01:41:30.659 --> 01:41:40.286 - 20 26-03-0008 and may I have a staff report, please? Yes, so this is a request from the petitioner built and 01:41:40.418 --> 01:41:47.156 - LLC for a property at 1320 South Roger Street The petitioners here tonight requesting conditional use 01:41:47.156 --> 01:41:54.686 - approval to allow a driveway and structures within the floodplain to allow for the construction of five buildings 01:41:54.754 --> 01:42:02.523 - on the property for the use contractors yard Within parcel C of the Thompson planned unit development 01:42:02.523 --> 01:42:10.368 - So this site is part of a six. It's about six point four two acres And is part of the Thompson PUD and 01:42:10.368 --> 01:42:17.451 - parcel C This particular section of the Thompson PUD received site plan approval in the late 01:42:17.451 --> 01:42:24.382 - 2000s Envisioning a general office park within this section of the Thompson PUD there were 01:42:24.674 --> 01:42:31.300 - two buildings that were built as part of that. However, the remainder of the property has sat undeveloped. 01:42:31.300 --> 01:42:37.555 - There is a good portion of the property that is encumbered with a floodplain of Clear Creek that you 01:42:37.555 --> 01:42:43.810 - can see here, which explains why this particular portion of the Thompson PED was the last to develop 01:42:43.810 --> 01:42:50.003 - because it was more encumbered by the location of the floodplain. You also have the riparian buffer 01:42:50.003 --> 01:42:52.542 - for Clear Creek that moves through here. 01:42:52.642 --> 01:42:59.567 - So as you can see in this exhibit, the floodplain encumbers a great deal amount of the property, more 01:42:59.567 --> 01:43:06.492 - than 50% of the property is covered with the floodway and the floodway fringe. So the floodway fringe 01:43:06.492 --> 01:43:13.417 - is what you see kind of in blue shading on the outer edges of the creek there in the floodway. So the 01:43:13.417 --> 01:43:20.478 - petitioner is looking to utilize the east section of the site for a new development for five buildings. 01:43:20.610 --> 01:43:27.391 - That will be used for the used contractors yard What this means is they will be buildings will have 01:43:27.391 --> 01:43:34.240 - individual spaces within there that tenants can lease Use for the storage of their vehicles and work 01:43:34.240 --> 01:43:41.022 - items as well as conduct some of their shop operations from So these buildings would be situated on 01:43:41.022 --> 01:43:46.718 - the far east side of the site the site has frontage on Roger Street to the east and 01:43:46.978 --> 01:43:53.927 - Hillside Drive to the south and then Patterson the driveway extends to the north and it connects to 01:43:53.927 --> 01:44:00.877 - Patterson on the far north side of the property So the petitioner as they have tried to work with a 01:44:00.877 --> 01:44:07.965 - site plan to utilize The majority of the site that is out of the floodplain they do have a little bit 01:44:07.965 --> 01:44:10.814 - of the site that would be developed with 01:44:10.978 --> 01:44:16.719 - buildings and structures that are within the floodplain. So you can see on this map here, I've tried 01:44:16.719 --> 01:44:22.403 - to draw the location of where the floodplain falls that encumbers some of that area. With this, the 01:44:22.403 --> 01:44:28.258 - buildings would be elevated two feet, minimum two feet above the 100-year flood elevation as required. 01:44:28.258 --> 01:44:34.055 - They do have some of the drives that are within the floodplain as well. So it is the placement of the 01:44:34.055 --> 01:44:36.670 - drives and the building within the floodplain 01:44:36.770 --> 01:44:44.363 - That requires them to seek conditional use approval in order to offset the placement of the fill for 01:44:44.363 --> 01:44:48.798 - the buildings and the driveways the petitioners have shown 01:44:48.866 --> 01:44:55.218 - a compensatory storage pond to offset that fill. There are two ponds that are shown here. One is to 01:44:55.218 --> 01:45:01.569 - offset that fill area and then another would be to meet stormwater detention requirements and water 01:45:01.569 --> 01:45:08.175 - quality requirements from City of Bloomington Utilities. So there would be just one internal drive that 01:45:08.175 --> 01:45:14.717 - would access an interior driveway area to service the buildings. The buildings would face Roger Street 01:45:14.717 --> 01:45:18.846 - to the east as well as internal and then have internal driveways 01:45:18.914 --> 01:45:25.754 - Or access doors for each of those buildings So as I mentioned the petitioners request that is for the 01:45:25.754 --> 01:45:32.594 - BZA is simply to allow for the conditional use of the buildings and the drives within that floodplain 01:45:32.594 --> 01:45:39.702 - there are three sections of the UDO that deal with review criteria for this one is the general compliance 01:45:39.702 --> 01:45:40.574 - criteria and 01:45:40.674 --> 01:45:47.254 - And that deals with compliance with just the general standards of the UDO Any other known applicable 01:45:47.254 --> 01:45:53.898 - regulations in this particular case the other applicable regulations would be approvals from FEMA the 01:45:53.898 --> 01:46:00.478 - Federal Emergency Management Agency for the placement of the fill within the floodplain there are no 01:46:00.610 --> 01:46:07.367 - Improvements that are shown within the floodway itself. So no approvals from the Department of Natural 01:46:07.367 --> 01:46:14.058 - Resources are required with this just approval from FEMA Verifying that what has been constructed was 01:46:14.058 --> 01:46:21.011 - per the approved plans and that they have installed The compensatory storage areas that they are required 01:46:21.011 --> 01:46:25.406 - to do so that will happen once construction has been completed and 01:46:26.050 --> 01:46:32.737 - Second review criteria deal with additional criteria for conditional uses So that deals with review 01:46:32.737 --> 01:46:39.490 - and compliance with our comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan designates this area as employment 01:46:39.490 --> 01:46:46.377 - center and one of the uses that is called out within the employment center is flex tenant spaces which 01:46:46.377 --> 01:46:49.854 - this matches as it allows for a variety of uses and 01:46:49.954 --> 01:46:58.557 - within these buildings. It is supplementing employment uses as these are directly related to the trades 01:46:58.557 --> 01:47:07.243 - industry. So it does work to accomplish the provision of job stabilization. So the other review criteria 01:47:07.243 --> 01:47:15.515 - for conditional uses involves minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts. So the compensatory storage 01:47:15.515 --> 01:47:19.486 - helps minimize those impacts to the floodplain. 01:47:19.586 --> 01:47:25.802 - Does not have any work that is shown in the riparian buffer. So with the impacts or the the use of the 01:47:25.802 --> 01:47:31.957 - floodplain It's really just a technical review of making sure that whatever fill you're placing in is 01:47:31.957 --> 01:47:38.414 - offset by by additional Storage area and storage capacity so that has been accomplished with their storage 01:47:38.414 --> 01:47:41.854 - pond area There is no phasing that is proposed with this 01:47:42.242 --> 01:47:49.992 - And then the third review criteria deal with floodway and flood fringe development And has several components 01:47:49.992 --> 01:47:57.459 - the plans do show the hundred-year elevation throughout the plan set So that has been shown on the plans, 01:47:57.459 --> 01:48:03.166 - which is one of the review criteria the second deals with elevation of the flood 01:48:03.266 --> 01:48:10.197 - Elevator the floodplain regulatory flood elevation so that is offset again with the storage areas that 01:48:10.197 --> 01:48:16.926 - are being shown with this There is no on-site waste disposal. This will be connected to city sewers 01:48:17.666 --> 01:48:23.930 - There are replacement or some work that will be done to the sewer lines However, the manhole covers 01:48:23.930 --> 01:48:30.256 - are located above the flood elevations. So that is compliant with that standard So with that we have 01:48:30.256 --> 01:48:36.833 - found that it does meet all the review criteria and we are recommending that the Board of Zoning Appeals 01:48:36.833 --> 01:48:43.160 - adopt the proposed findings With the two conditions that are listed in staff report and I'm happy to 01:48:43.160 --> 01:48:47.294 - answer any questions Once the petitioner is gone. Thank you, Eric 01:48:48.130 --> 01:48:57.703 - petitioner present come forward at sign in and when you're signed in state your first and last name, 01:48:57.703 --> 01:49:07.371 - please Hi Dylan Reynolds with Spaceco the civil engineer representing the developer Do you affirm the 01:49:07.371 --> 01:49:15.806 - testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I 01:49:16.130 --> 01:49:22.152 - Yes, you have up to 20 minutes the same rules apply what you don't use will be withheld for later. Yeah 01:49:22.152 --> 01:49:28.058 - Thank you. I think Eric did a pretty good job explaining kind of the scope of the project It's really 01:49:28.058 --> 01:49:33.848 - a five building development for some flex tenant spaces Like I said, Tom Sears with the development 01:49:33.848 --> 01:49:39.812 - team is here if anybody has questions on uses but mainly here to ask for your approval for development 01:49:39.812 --> 01:49:41.086 - in the floodplain and 01:49:41.282 --> 01:49:47.339 - Like Eric mentioned, we have five buildings that are all pushed about as far east on the property as 01:49:47.339 --> 01:49:53.695 - we can get to avoid as much floodplain as we can. We do have a couple buildings that clip the floodplain, 01:49:53.695 --> 01:50:00.051 - but just to reiterate what our requirements are, for any fill that we place in the floodplain, to elevate 01:50:00.051 --> 01:50:06.168 - the structures, we have to offset by cutting somewhere else so there's actually no loss of floodplain 01:50:06.168 --> 01:50:09.406 - storage. So those are the requirements we're held to. 01:50:09.570 --> 01:50:15.480 - so all those calculations have been submitted to the city and I think a couple of the conditions for 01:50:15.480 --> 01:50:21.390 - the floodplain development permit and site plan approval those have both been applied for and are in 01:50:21.390 --> 01:50:27.651 - progress and and we've seen received a couple round of comments and we're just in the process of Answering 01:50:27.651 --> 01:50:29.406 - staff's comments to those and 01:50:30.114 --> 01:50:36.601 - But other than that, I can answer any questions that you guys have. Um, you know, thanks to Eric, this 01:50:36.601 --> 01:50:43.089 - is kind of the second iteration of this project. So he's been extremely helpful helping us get to this 01:50:43.089 --> 01:50:49.513 - point and, uh, making sure we're compliant. Yeah, we were listening, but I wanted to just explain you 01:50:49.513 --> 01:50:56.126 - were saying about the no new buildings built in the floodplain, right? There will be, there will be two, 01:50:57.090 --> 01:51:03.112 - Within the existing limits, but they will be elevated Okay more than two feet above the flood elevation 01:51:03.112 --> 01:51:09.134 - That's it because I was just looking at the overlay and I was just trying to get my mind wrapped around 01:51:09.134 --> 01:51:15.215 - that So we I heard what you were saying, but I did want to make sure I was looking at the right document 01:51:15.215 --> 01:51:21.353 - Thank you any questions for the petitioner will withhold the rest of that time for for the final comments 01:51:21.353 --> 01:51:25.406 - No questions, okay nothing for the city either if you would you can I 01:51:25.570 --> 01:51:35.676 - Grab a seat. We'll go to the public for comment anyone in chambers who'd like to address this Public 01:51:35.676 --> 01:51:45.682 - comment seeing none go online If there is anybody online, please use the raise hand function and we 01:51:45.682 --> 01:51:53.086 - can recognize you or send a message via chat I've not seen anybody online 01:51:53.314 --> 01:51:59.057 - Thank you, Eric. So we are back to the petitioner for a final comment. Um, we didn't have any questions, 01:51:59.057 --> 01:52:04.637 - so you can use this time to your discretion. And then after that, uh, we may have final questions for 01:52:04.637 --> 01:52:10.380 - you before a motion. Yeah, no, I don't think I have, I don't think I have anything else to add. So happy 01:52:10.380 --> 01:52:16.343 - to answer questions. Very good. If you would just stay there for us, please, in case there are any questions 01:52:16.343 --> 01:52:21.758 - for the staff or the petitioner, if there are none, we'll entertain a motion. You can have a seat. 01:52:26.274 --> 01:52:39.813 - Go ahead and move to approve CR 20 26 0 3 0 0 0 8. Of emotion. For approval. Second. Second. Any discussion. 01:52:39.813 --> 01:52:52.358 - I'd just like to real quick. This is obviously in the same vicinity. This is this is really exciting 01:52:52.358 --> 01:52:54.718 - to see this go in. 01:52:55.330 --> 01:53:04.472 - And I know that whole area with the switch yard. Obviously the petitioner before you is right there 01:53:04.472 --> 01:53:14.070 - as well I love the idea of bringing development, but I love the idea of bringing development. It's gonna 01:53:14.070 --> 01:53:23.669 - ring jobs So kudos to you guys and good luck with it Anything else no, all right, I'll call the question 01:53:23.669 --> 01:53:24.766 - Ballard yes 01:53:25.122 --> 01:53:40.127 - Yes, the Rock Morton. Yes Okay, the motion passes unanimously, thank you we are moving on to Twenty 01:53:40.127 --> 01:53:53.182 - twenty six oh three zero zero zero nine Can I? Is this yours Jackie? Can I pause for a 01:53:53.506 --> 01:53:58.302 - conversation here, please, before we move. Could I talk to you here, please? Thank you. 01:54:51.938 --> 01:54:58.379 - Before we move forward, who is the petitioner that will be speaking to this petition tonight? 01:54:58.379 --> 01:55:05.299 - And only you? Okay, thank you. I just wanna make sure. Thank you, Jackie. That was just a sidebar of 01:55:05.299 --> 01:55:11.876 - a conflict of interest to assure that there was no conflict of interest for those on the board. 01:55:11.876 --> 01:55:20.030 - With that, we are at ZR 2026-03-0009. May I please have a staff report? Thank you, Jackie Scanlon, Assistant Director. 01:55:20.834 --> 01:55:28.192 - The petition we are looking at tonight is at the existing and expanding Convention Center campus. The 01:55:28.192 --> 01:55:35.550 - petitioner is requesting sign variance for that sign variance is for the properties that make up that 01:55:35.550 --> 01:55:42.836 - campus. The zoning district is mixed use downtown and there are properties both in the downtown core 01:55:42.836 --> 01:55:48.030 - and the downtown edges overlay. So here is a site plan of that area. So 01:55:48.706 --> 01:55:54.767 - The area involved tonight is the existing convention center, the property to the east of that that is 01:55:54.767 --> 01:56:00.709 - being developed with the convention center expansion, and then the parking lots that you can see to 01:56:00.709 --> 01:56:06.770 - the south and west of the existing convention center that are utilized for parking for events at that 01:56:06.770 --> 01:56:12.712 - location. The petitioner is requesting variances, one, to modernize one of the signs that they have 01:56:12.712 --> 01:56:16.574 - and also to provide wayfinding signs as the campus is expanding. 01:56:17.986 --> 01:56:24.461 - So all of the sites together are roughly six point zero seven acres again It's in the mixed use downtown 01:56:24.461 --> 01:56:30.628 - zoning district in our downtown designation for the comprehensive plan and the Convention Center is 01:56:30.628 --> 01:56:36.795 - already there and will be expanding in the future currently under construction So the proposed site 01:56:36.795 --> 01:56:42.654 - plan indicates locations where new signage is proposed so they have three types of signage and 01:56:42.754 --> 01:56:50.395 - That they are proposing that do not fully meet the UDO. The first is Freestanding ground mounted directional 01:56:50.395 --> 01:56:57.685 - signage. So you can see my cursor here a little that's these squares here in Largely the parking areas. 01:56:57.685 --> 01:57:04.764 - So one here and then and these parking areas down here So that people will be able to know that they 01:57:04.764 --> 01:57:11.774 - can park there and utilize that location while the convention center so there are nine of those and 01:57:12.098 --> 01:57:17.842 - The way that we're looking at the variance is basically just variance from the signage code, but in 01:57:17.842 --> 01:57:23.873 - the staff report we broke down what each particular type of sign needs variance from. So this particular 01:57:23.873 --> 01:57:25.022 - type of sign, oops. 01:57:25.186 --> 01:57:33.146 - which you can see here on the left, requires allowance to be placed in the right-of-way, because a couple 01:57:33.146 --> 01:57:41.407 - of the nine are proposed to be placed in the right-of-way. And some are close to the edge of the right-of-way 01:57:41.407 --> 01:57:48.991 - line, but on private property, so variance from the typical setback there. Additionally, most of our 01:57:48.991 --> 01:57:54.398 - freestanding signs have a requirement to be wider, that the base not be 01:57:54.498 --> 01:58:00.375 - I'm gonna say this backwards. So I'm just gonna read it variance to allow the width of the base to be 01:58:00.375 --> 01:58:06.368 - less than 40% of the height of the sign so you can Envision a typical monument sign which might be more 01:58:06.368 --> 01:58:12.129 - squat and these are obviously a different design and then a variance to allow no landscaping around 01:58:12.129 --> 01:58:17.891 - the base of those signs variance from a number of signs because each property is regulated with how 01:58:17.891 --> 01:58:21.118 - many freestanding signs they can have and variance from 01:58:21.794 --> 01:58:27.591 - The requirement that only certain buildings that are set back 15 feet from the right of way line should 01:58:27.591 --> 01:58:33.276 - be allowed to have freestanding signs in the zoning district. And for those directly located near the 01:58:33.276 --> 01:58:39.072 - B line, a variance for that location. And additionally, freestanding signs in this district are maximum 01:58:39.072 --> 01:58:44.869 - height of four feet. But as you can see here, these are proposed to be five. So those are the technical 01:58:44.869 --> 01:58:49.662 - things that they don't need. And this would be the design that you would be approving 01:58:49.858 --> 01:58:57.709 - If you include the freestanding ground mounted directional signage if you choose to approve and include 01:58:57.709 --> 01:59:05.561 - those The second type of signage that the petitioner is requesting are these double-sided signs to hang 01:59:05.561 --> 01:59:08.958 - on light poles So you can see there are some 01:59:10.018 --> 01:59:15.459 - I'm sorry, the purple squares are the light pole signs the ones that we already looked at the directional 01:59:15.459 --> 01:59:20.643 - signs are these little red signs here and the reason that they need right-of-way variances for those 01:59:20.643 --> 01:59:25.929 - are for the ones that surround the Convention Center that portion that's under construction Excuse me. 01:59:25.929 --> 01:59:31.164 - So these that are inside of the parking lot. Those are the light pole signs Again so that people will 01:59:31.164 --> 01:59:36.348 - know that they can use that parking while utilizing the Convention Center There are 16 locations for 01:59:36.348 --> 01:59:39.582 - those and two of which are located in the right-of-way this is 01:59:40.066 --> 01:59:46.520 - Not a typical sign type that we have so the only additional signage That's not explicitly laid out would 01:59:46.520 --> 01:59:53.158 - typically be signs that are not greater than one and a half square feet So a variance from that requirement 01:59:53.158 --> 01:59:59.366 - to allow this size of sign To allow them to be on the freestanding poles and to allow the two in the 01:59:59.366 --> 02:00:01.886 - right-of-way to be located there as well 02:00:02.658 --> 02:00:08.938 - And then the third type you can see here on the right is one ground-mounted monument sign with a digital 02:00:08.938 --> 02:00:15.039 - signage included. So there's an existing ground-mounted sign in front of the courtyard Marriott here, 02:00:15.039 --> 02:00:21.260 - and that is where these two squares are. They are green and pink, if you can see those colors. And that 02:00:21.260 --> 02:00:25.566 - sign will be replaced with this sign. So in this overlay in particular, 02:00:25.730 --> 02:00:32.488 - The sign maximum is 15 square feet. So they would need a variance from that particular portion of the 02:00:32.488 --> 02:00:39.312 - sign code. They would also like for the sign to be taller than four feet. They are currently proposing 02:00:39.312 --> 02:00:45.937 - seven feet, five inches, and a variance to allow a freestanding sign with internal illumination and 02:00:45.937 --> 02:00:52.894 - the reader board component, which are not strictly allowed by code. So the department's proposed finding 02:00:53.058 --> 02:00:59.003 - Number one is that the granting of the variance from sign standards will not be injurious The proposed 02:00:59.003 --> 02:01:05.063 - signs will help visually I unify the newly expanded campus so that community the community members notes 02:01:05.063 --> 02:01:11.066 - boundaries and are able to use it Will not substantially adversely impact the use and value of the area 02:01:11.066 --> 02:01:17.069 - adjacent to the property The existing facility actually contains all three types of this signage except 02:01:17.069 --> 02:01:22.494 - for the digital signage on the monument sign they have some form of signage on the lights and 02:01:22.658 --> 02:01:30.026 - some form of some directional signage. So this will kind of clean up what they have there and have that 02:01:30.026 --> 02:01:37.465 - all be standard as well, which would be a benefit to the community. And then the electronic reader board 02:01:37.465 --> 02:01:44.833 - sign that they're requesting is between two parts of the campus. So it's not directly across the street 02:01:44.833 --> 02:01:50.430 - from other users or homes or other commercial users. It's between the existing 02:01:50.850 --> 02:01:56.748 - Convention Center and the new part that's under construction now The department is recommending a maximum 02:01:56.748 --> 02:02:02.535 - of six feet in height for this sign as I mentioned before the allowable maximum height in this district 02:02:02.535 --> 02:02:08.210 - is actually four feet But six feet is the maximum in other districts in the UDO that are more intense 02:02:08.210 --> 02:02:12.606 - for freestanding signage So we're recommending to carry that over here as well 02:02:14.114 --> 02:02:19.857 - Proposed finding for criteria three is that the strict application of the terms of the unified development 02:02:19.857 --> 02:02:25.277 - ordinance? Would result in practical difficulties of the use of this site This is similar to when we 02:02:25.277 --> 02:02:30.698 - discuss the variance package that came through for the new portion of the site when the new building 02:02:30.698 --> 02:02:33.918 - was being designed That you know the overlay envisions that 02:02:34.658 --> 02:02:41.586 - Numerous separate individual uses next to each other not one large site taking up six acres in the downtown 02:02:41.586 --> 02:02:48.064 - We only have one convention center, which is a peculiar condition in and of itself that this is that 02:02:48.064 --> 02:02:54.479 - use And so this would only be applied at this location with the reasoning we've submitted And so we 02:02:54.479 --> 02:03:01.150 - believe that granting the variance will relieve the practical difficulties associated with this request 02:03:01.634 --> 02:03:07.486 - So the department is recommending that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve 02:03:07.486 --> 02:03:13.175 - the petition with the condition that the freestanding monument sign shall not exceed six feet in height 02:03:13.175 --> 02:03:18.699 - and that the digital portion of the proposed sign Once if they do if you do approve and they have to 02:03:18.699 --> 02:03:24.278 - resubmit at six feet must not exceed the same portion relative to the new height as the sign shown in 02:03:24.278 --> 02:03:26.302 - the application packet, so basically 02:03:26.914 --> 02:03:32.924 - We are not allowing the we are not recommending allowance of the digital of the digital reader board 02:03:32.924 --> 02:03:39.053 - at its current size if the If the height is lowered to six feet, we're asking it to be proportionately 02:03:39.053 --> 02:03:45.004 - lowered as well. I can answer any questions Thank You Jackie, we'll go to the petitioner now You've 02:03:45.004 --> 02:03:51.133 - heard the rules, you know, you know the rules Just sign in and state your first and last name and I'll 02:03:51.133 --> 02:03:55.358 - swear you in Thank you. I'm Sarah Hempstead with Schmidt Associates. I 02:03:55.618 --> 02:04:01.352 - And do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the 02:04:01.352 --> 02:04:07.142 - truth I do and when you're ready, uh, you'll have up to 20 minutes We don't mean to rush you take your 02:04:07.142 --> 02:04:12.819 - time. I'll i'll use two and leave my time for questions So the signage package for the monroe county 02:04:12.819 --> 02:04:18.609 - capital improvement board and the new bloomington convention center really has three main purposes for 02:04:18.609 --> 02:04:19.902 - signing and wayfinding 02:04:19.970 --> 02:04:26.095 - The primary purpose of the wayfinding signage package is safety As the Convention Center exists on both 02:04:26.095 --> 02:04:32.162 - sides of the streets and as a relatively complicated district. We want to ensure safety at pedestrians 02:04:32.162 --> 02:04:38.110 - Drivers and of course cyclists. That's his primary goal Secondarily, we want to get the campus to be 02:04:38.110 --> 02:04:44.000 - unified as we mentioned two of these three signage types exist now but in different generations and 02:04:44.000 --> 02:04:46.238 - legacies of the Convention Center, so 02:04:46.370 --> 02:04:51.978 - We feel that the signage package will unify the entirety of campus and beautify the neighborhood and 02:04:51.978 --> 02:04:57.698 - the district. And then finally, ease of use when it comes to things like parking in particular, things 02:04:57.698 --> 02:05:03.473 - like the light pole signs we feel will make the convention center easier to use for our guests and also 02:05:03.473 --> 02:05:09.303 - easier for our neighbors if our guests know what parking lots are actually part of the convention center 02:05:09.303 --> 02:05:11.358 - and where they are supposed to park. 02:05:11.490 --> 02:05:18.357 - So that's the reason for our variances and signage packages today. We have incorporated the new branding 02:05:18.357 --> 02:05:24.961 - for the convention center within and so the materials, the finishes, all work within the entirety of 02:05:24.961 --> 02:05:31.501 - the package of the building design. So I'll stop now and leave time for questions. Okay, thank you. 02:05:31.501 --> 02:05:36.798 - Retain the rest of the 18 and a half minutes if needed before a motion is taken. 02:05:37.058 --> 02:05:43.585 - If you'll just bear with us, we may have a question for you. My first one goes to Jackie. Now, this 02:05:43.585 --> 02:05:50.112 - is not a city-owned property. It's, okay, so this question's a little odd. The city, when it put up 02:05:50.112 --> 02:05:56.769 - its way, if it were to change and put up new way fare signs, like we did a number of years ago before 02:05:56.769 --> 02:06:03.426 - the new UDO, do they have to abide by the same policies of the UDO, or do they have, are they granted 02:06:03.426 --> 02:06:06.494 - a lot of leeway of the city? For city signage? 02:06:06.594 --> 02:06:13.283 - Title, so chapter four exempts public signs. So it's a defined term in the UDO and it's exempt from 02:06:13.283 --> 02:06:20.038 - most of the requirements of the sign standards. So basically if you could, if this city can meet the 02:06:20.038 --> 02:06:27.195 - definition of public sign, then they are exempt. So again, because this is a joint venture and the county, 02:06:27.195 --> 02:06:34.285 - et cetera, et cetera, I just wanted to kind of make that connection that there's some leeway here because 02:06:34.285 --> 02:06:36.158 - of that relationship maybe. 02:06:36.578 --> 02:06:43.272 - So that's one thing. The other one is the digital sign that's going to be put in on college. That will 02:06:43.272 --> 02:06:49.836 - abide by the 22nd rule that we've discussed in the past, or is this a different type of sign, like a 02:06:49.836 --> 02:06:56.790 - reader sign? No, it will abide by the 22nd. So it could have full screen images and those types of things. 02:06:56.790 --> 02:07:03.744 - It's not just like a whatever you call those, the ticket tapes. Yes, correct. All right. And any questions 02:07:03.744 --> 02:07:05.694 - from the board at this point? 02:07:07.682 --> 02:07:13.335 - Okay. If not, then you can have a seat. We'll go to the public for comment. If you're on zoom and you 02:07:13.335 --> 02:07:18.877 - would like to speak, uh, you can raise your virtual hand. Anyone in the chambers that want to speak 02:07:18.877 --> 02:07:24.475 - to this? If so, come forward. Mr. Cassidy, come forward and sign in and we'll swear you in. Is there 02:07:24.475 --> 02:07:30.294 - anyone Jackie there? Yeah. Online. Okay. State your first and last name. Brandy Cassidy and Mr. Cassidy. 02:07:30.294 --> 02:07:35.836 - Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 02:07:35.836 --> 02:07:36.446 - the truth. 02:07:36.802 --> 02:07:42.459 - I do. All right. You have up to five minutes. It'll only take a minute. It's the right thing to do. 02:07:42.459 --> 02:07:48.230 - We're building a convention center. Everybody needs to be able to see the signage, the directions for 02:07:48.230 --> 02:07:53.943 - to direct them where they need to be, the safety and the benefit of our community. This is something 02:07:53.943 --> 02:07:59.657 - that is important because while we may know where we are as we bring people into our community, they 02:07:59.657 --> 02:08:04.862 - need to know where they're going, how to get there and have that impression of Bloomington. 02:08:05.218 --> 02:08:13.719 - with the positive aspect, and while we may regulate signs, we also need them to help us through things. 02:08:13.719 --> 02:08:21.402 - Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. Anyone else wishing to speak from the public? Seeing none, 02:08:21.402 --> 02:08:29.821 - no one's online, correct? Correct. Back to the board for discussion or a motion. I don't think there's 02:08:29.821 --> 02:08:35.134 - any discussion, so I make a motion. Make a motion to approve ZR. 02:08:35.586 --> 02:08:44.192 - 2026-03-009 with the following condition. The free standing monument sign shall not exceed six feet 02:08:44.192 --> 02:08:52.797 - in height. The digital portion of the proposed sign must not exceed the same proportion relative to 02:08:52.797 --> 02:09:02.006 - the new height as the sign shown in the application packet. I have a motion in front of the board. Second. 02:09:02.006 --> 02:09:05.534 - I have a second. Any further discussion? 02:09:05.698 --> 02:09:14.015 - I think that this really could fall and inside the city You know latitude, so I have no issues whatsoever 02:09:14.015 --> 02:09:21.860 - of granting the petition. So If that's the case, I'll call the question Ballard. Yes, Burrell. Yes, 02:09:21.860 --> 02:09:30.020 - Brock Morton Yes, thank you Approved Congratulations. Thank you for your patience. We will see you next 02:09:30.020 --> 02:09:32.766 - month at this point. Do we want to 02:09:33.058 --> 02:09:41.154 - new business or shall we just wait until we see the results of David do you have the Purdue score? The 02:09:41.154 --> 02:09:49.250 - Purdue score Well, I'm getting my only comment on the on the new On the new business Jack is it I mean 02:09:49.250 --> 02:09:57.503 - I do like the five-minute 20-minute. I'm not real keen on changing that I don't know. I mean they hardly 02:09:57.503 --> 02:10:00.254 - ever use 20 minutes anyway, do you 02:10:03.106 --> 02:10:09.849 - I think two is great. Could we could we say three because I do think Excuse me speak 30 to 30 with three 02:10:09.849 --> 02:10:16.271 - minutes left in the first half. Thank you so much You have to be sworn in John. Okay Yeah, I mean I 02:10:16.271 --> 02:10:22.885 - I think that we don't really get a lot of public anyway, so I wouldn't want to push it down to two Are 02:10:22.885 --> 02:10:29.307 - you okay with three? I think three is good. Yeah, three, you know will force him to define a little 02:10:29.307 --> 02:10:30.078 - more Jackie 02:10:30.946 --> 02:10:35.920 - I'm so sorry. I didn't watch the beginning of the meeting. So I was in the environmental commission. 02:10:35.920 --> 02:10:40.992 - We had a discussion about, uh, there could be some changes to the rules and we were saying that at the 02:10:40.992 --> 02:10:46.015 - end of this meeting, we might just have a real brief discussion about what might be good time limits. 02:10:46.015 --> 02:10:50.989 - Yeah. Do you, I mean, you could, I'm not sure if you could vote on that, but are you just telling me 02:10:50.989 --> 02:10:56.160 - so we could bring it to you next month? Yeah. Okay. So three minutes for public. Yes. It's a suggestion. 02:10:56.160 --> 02:10:59.262 - Great. And can I make a quick comment on the decorum aspect of 02:11:00.610 --> 02:11:08.918 - Because I know I can be outspoken myself but the The public last meeting coming at us asking questions 02:11:08.918 --> 02:11:17.549 - pointed questions out of the blue. I I don't know if I find that I'm glad that you brought that up because 02:11:17.549 --> 02:11:25.534 - I wanted for us to I wanted to actually ask we need to have What do you want to call an executive? 02:11:25.826 --> 02:11:32.184 - Or whatever but we need to get together and talk about what's the best way to handle that because there 02:11:32.184 --> 02:11:38.359 - are strategies and we need to We need to know what they are because like I'll understand if you want 02:11:38.359 --> 02:11:44.534 - to disagree with me all day fine but yelling a question to me out of the public I I'll answer it but 02:11:44.534 --> 02:11:50.831 - that's why I said let's talk after the meeting and of course that person didn't want to talk But yeah, 02:11:50.831 --> 02:11:55.294 - I just found it to be I feel like we have really really good decorum and 02:11:55.906 --> 02:12:02.691 - I think Joe you do an excellent job keeping it all very respectful And again, we can agree to disagree 02:12:02.691 --> 02:12:09.278 - and I may upset people but I felt like that was that was out of line and I didn't appreciate it and 02:12:09.278 --> 02:12:15.997 - I Would address any issue anybody has with me as part of the part of this board More than I'd be more 02:12:15.997 --> 02:12:22.980 - than happy to do that outside of these meetings but yeah, I think that we've also had it from petitioners 02:12:22.980 --> 02:12:25.022 - who've who've gone outside and 02:12:25.794 --> 02:12:33.010 - what we've dictated, which is they can't just step up and say something. But it's not a matter of wanting 02:12:33.010 --> 02:12:40.021 - to shout them down and say you can't, it needs to, what I was trying to figure out, because I was very 02:12:40.021 --> 02:12:46.829 - disturbed by a couple of them that were yelling at Tim about what's your proof, which is, it's just 02:12:46.829 --> 02:12:53.772 - inappropriate. And Tim was very upfront about what his proof was, so it wasn't anecdotal. So that was 02:12:53.772 --> 02:12:55.678 - an issue, but at that time, 02:12:56.002 --> 02:13:01.858 - It actually kind of ended quickly because the way Tim responded, but there are going to be situations 02:13:01.858 --> 02:13:07.714 - where it's probably not if it's a public that really wants to. Here's where I'm going with it. OK, so 02:13:07.714 --> 02:13:13.570 - to cut to the chase is I do think at one point we we have to have some strategy as to whether we just 02:13:13.570 --> 02:13:19.368 - say there's a right to protest peacefully will let them say their piece. We can actually either stay 02:13:19.368 --> 02:13:22.526 - here and wait till they're done. And not say anything. 02:13:22.818 --> 02:13:29.012 - And then when they're done with their go about our business, we could exit the chambers until they're 02:13:29.012 --> 02:13:35.145 - done protesting. We need to come up with a very clear plan so that we treat it in a very controlled, 02:13:35.145 --> 02:13:41.643 - reasonable way on our part. And then if police need to be called in because there's danger, that's another 02:13:41.643 --> 02:13:47.715 - issue, right? So I'm glad Tim brought it up because I forgot to discuss that in an email. Well, and 02:13:47.715 --> 02:13:51.966 - I appreciate how these meetings run and they run really, really well. 02:13:53.314 --> 02:14:01.947 - But yeah, I think it's a valid point. And I've honestly never, I mean, I've been on some other boards. 02:14:01.947 --> 02:14:10.664 - I've never been accosted. Like again, you can really hate me and disagree with me and not take anything 02:14:10.664 --> 02:14:19.129 - of what I have into account in terms of my vote. That's fine. But let's at least respect each other. 02:14:19.129 --> 02:14:22.398 - So David, I don't know if you have any 02:14:22.850 --> 02:14:29.827 - I think an executive session is a good idea. Legal has had meetings with certain departments on just 02:14:29.827 --> 02:14:36.803 - this issue, handling unruly customers, clients, residents. So I think they're probably ready to have 02:14:36.803 --> 02:14:43.711 - that conversation with boards. And it would be a good idea, as Joe mentioned, to have a strategy in 02:14:43.711 --> 02:14:45.438 - place to deal with that. 02:14:46.658 --> 02:14:54.042 - I worked with lots of BZAs and that was about as bad as I've seen it. Well, we've had maybe one other. 02:14:54.042 --> 02:15:01.212 - I wanted to add that in that same meeting, I had a gentleman approach the podium and put his finger 02:15:01.212 --> 02:15:08.596 - on my face and insult me. Yeah. He did what? He came to here and told me, you don't understand a thing 02:15:08.596 --> 02:15:11.966 - what you're talking about. Last meeting? Yeah. 02:15:12.322 --> 02:15:17.899 - I wasn't here. We did hear about it. I do think David's right an executive session is we don't want 02:15:17.899 --> 02:15:23.477 - you all to be treated that way That's okay. I did want to have I'm glad we have the initial portion 02:15:23.477 --> 02:15:29.221 - in public. So this is for the record the The other part of that is I do try to make a point when their 02:15:29.221 --> 02:15:34.910 - sidebars up here to actually try to talk about what the Content or the general content is so that the 02:15:34.910 --> 02:15:40.766 - public is at least aware when they're watching the record that you know, we're not just up here You know 02:15:41.250 --> 02:15:46.938 - making side deals, what we're trying to do is keep clear about what we're discussing. So I know that 02:15:46.938 --> 02:15:52.625 - in our time of doing this, we've always at least tried to say that sidebar was about this particular 02:15:52.625 --> 02:15:58.425 - issue as it relates to what the petitioner or the public was saying. And I think that that's something 02:15:58.425 --> 02:16:04.169 - that we'll continue to do so that at least there's a public record of that. And I think that's enough 02:16:04.169 --> 02:16:09.406 - in order to assure that we're being transparent. So if we could set up an executive meeting, 02:16:09.538 --> 02:16:15.978 - With all five members, that would be great. Thank you. All right. Any other business in front of this 02:16:15.978 --> 02:16:19.198 - board? Seeing none, we stand adjourned. Thank you.