- I'm gonna call to order the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday, March 26, 2026. Would you please take
- a roll call, please? Ballard? Here. Burrell? Here. Throckmorton? Here. We had minutes attached to the
- packet. If I have any corrections or changes, we can do so now. Otherwise, I'll take a motion to approve
- the minutes.
- Motion to approve the minutes of February 26 2026. I have a first and a second please call the roll.
- Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Throckmorton. Yes. OK. So before we get started Eric I do you want to just
- brief us quickly on the changeover in format how it's presented to us so that
- Yeah, a couple announcements from staff one one of the petitions will be continued tonight That is the
- petition for 508 North Lincoln petition numbers ZR two zero two six dash zero two dash zero zero zero
- four that has been requested to be continued to the April agenda so because that did happen after the
- packet went out the board does need to vote on that and
- So do I have a motion to continue zero twenty twenty six oh two zero zero zero four to motion to twenty
- three minutes. Sorry sorry. Motion to continue the art twenty twenty six dash zero two dash zero zero
- zero four to the April meeting. Second. Call the question. Throckmorton. Yes. Ballard. Yes bro. Yes.
- and then Secondly staff just want to kind of give a little bit of information about what you may have
- noticed is a change and how the packet or What was the packet has been prepared? So in order to come
- into compliance with accessibility standards and requirements, you know what you'll find is an agenda
- and then within that agenda are links to three different pieces of information and
- One is a staff report. Second are exhibits that have been prepared by staff. And then a third folder
- is for third party exhibits. So exhibits that are
- Received from third party that is outside the city are not accessible And so though that is why those
- are in a separate folder To designate that those are not excess. Those do not meet accessibility requirements
- However, the staff report and exhibits or any other piece of information that come from staff do have
- to be made accessible So those will be in specific folders themselves. So this as of right now will
- be the format of agendas and packets being distributed for the
- foreseeable future Yep, so one final one as we mentioned at the last hearing we were looking at incorporating
- an expedited agenda We prepared the language for that that would go into the rules and procedures that
- followed kind of what we described last time Where you would receive a very brief? presentation by staff
- a very brief presentation by the petitioner and
- Open it up for any public comment, if any, and then back to the board for hearing. We wrote that into
- the rules and procedures. However, there were some other elements, other rules and procedures that we
- had identified that needed some revisions and we hadn't worked through some of those other things. So
- you will see that at the April meeting for adoption and approval for your rules and procedures and then
- possibly a case on the expedited agenda, just depending on what the agenda looks like.
- It will affect both the petitioners time limit that we've had in the past as well as the public time
- limit So so that's a great question and certainly something that I wanted to get a little bit of input
- from Certainly the rules and procedures right now allow for five minutes
- for public comment if the board feels that an abbreviated time for public comment is something that
- you would like to have incorporated in that we can we can try to incorporate that as long as the legal
- department doesn't see any problems with adjusting that time for public comment. So you can certainly
- adjust that to two minutes if you felt appropriate. So we're happy to seek any guidance or input from
- the board on that item. What about the petitioners time.
- Petitioners again that can be that can be adjusted as well as you know, the rules and procedures allow
- for 20 minutes for that So both of those items if the board would like to give guidance to staff to
- Abbreviate those time limits. We can certainly incorporate that into the rules and procedures for that
- How would you like to receive those comments from us? You know, I think
- You know in whatever manner certainly we can do that tonight if the board feels that you would like
- for us to see if you would like for us to incorporate revisions to that you know when you feel kind
- of unanimous we'll
- to put something forward in those rules and procedures when you see those come to you in April if you
- feel like it should be something different then you can say you know we would like to see this be something
- different and vote on that perhaps. You don't really have a format for how that would look in this case.
- But if you feel that it would be something that would be desired we can adjust those two allowances
- within the rules and procedures. Well what we'll do is see where we land at the end of the evening after
- the petitions.
- If we feel that we want to have new business at that point Therefore the people that are here can go
- and we can discuss those issues. Otherwise, we'll we'll address it next month Thank you. Sounds good.
- Any any other reports resolutions or communications? No, that is that is it from staff. Okay. Thanks
- So because we voted and changed that during the reports resolutions I will also then provide the petition
- to be continued again for the record see our 2026-02-0004
- Now on April the 23rd. So with that we will be hearing five petitions tonight in this order Z are they
- all start with ZR 2026. I'll just give you the numbers zero one dash zero zero zero one zero two dash
- zero zero zero six. I'm sorry. Let me Go back zero one zero zero zero one and that's the petition at
- 618 West Howe Street that will help folks we have zero to zero zero zero six and that is
- Concerning 1205 South Roger Street 02-0005 also at 1205 South Roger Street and we have 0 3-0008 and
- that involves 1320 South Roger Street and then we have 0 3-0009 and that is 302 South College Avenue
- 327 South College Avenue 302 South Walnut and
- 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
- that David Brent has a zoning planner and GIS analysts and I will just share my screen.
- Okay, so this is 618 West House Street Zr 20 26 0 1 0 0 0 1 So there are two variances being requested
- Variance from rear setback and max impervious surface coverage for a single-family home in our three
- zoning district Just to keep it brief here This is the site plan
- And what they're doing is in the back right or it says existing residents right here. That's a shed
- roof that will be going up by about three feet so that triggers the rear setback variance and Then there's
- a new second floor addition. There will be a patio below and that new impervious surface will trigger
- the max impervious surface coverage variance
- Here 45% is allowed and they're going over to 52.9% but it's still within the range that a brand new
- lot of 5,000 square feet Would be held to So if it were a normal size lot That met the minimum for our
- three then it would be allowed. So we did not find That it ran afoul of any of the criteria. So with that we
- staff recommends that board approve both requested variances and the petitioner is here as well.
- So the petitioner can come forward and you'll have 20 minutes to give it just give me a second here.
- I'm sorry I'm sorry about that. I'm getting used to this new format and jumping. Okay, so Please let
- me know if there's any yeah, it's the issue is the opening these other documentation pieces just to
- cross-reference in there It's just a little bit more Difficult than
- And then also could you just restate the recommendations one more time, please? The recommendation is
- to approve both the rear setback variance and to approve the max impervious surface coverage variance
- And just give me one more second then we'll go on to the petitioner
- Okay. Yeah, I've caught up now. All right, we'll have the petitioner come forward, please For those
- that are here there Petitioners for the others the way it'll work is after the report You'll have 20
- minutes to present any additional information or to review the information that has been presented in
- your petition that 20 minutes it can be used all at once and your first
- In your first opportunity if you would like to save time and use it at the end you will be allowed to
- use the remainder of your 20 minutes after public comment and after some questions so that you would
- be able to then make comment on your own for the remainder of your 20 minutes before we then go to the
- board for action. So I just want to let you know you don't have to use your 20 minutes right now. You
- can use part of it and then retain some. I'll ask everyone to be the same thing. Would you please state
- your first and last name.
- Kevin do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but
- the truth. I do Thank you. You have up to 20 minutes My name is Kevin Potter structural engineer. I'm
- representing the homeowners Michael Burnett and Heidi biting or Burnett I did not have anything to present
- beyond what the David presented as part of the staff report. I'd be glad to I
- Answer any questions that the board may have Thank you With that we'll go back to the board with any
- questions we have initially before we go to the public for comment No questions Seeing no questions
- in we'll go back to the public anyone wishing to speak to this petition, please come forward you'll
- sign in at the podium and
- And then we'll give you five minutes to speak. Anyone online. If there is anybody online that would
- like to speak to this petition please use the raise hand function and we can recognize your message
- via chat. I'm not seeing anybody. OK. So then we go back to the petitioner if you do.
- I don't have anything further to say, but it sounds like you're okay. Okay. With that, we'll go to the
- board for comments, questions to either petition or the staff or to make a motion. This is
- pretty straightforward. I'm just going to go make a motion to approve ZR 2026-01-001. I'll call the question.
- Ballard yes, Burrell. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Motion is approved Okay, we're on to Zr 20 26-02-0006 staff
- report, please
- Sorry, could you could you clarify which which one we're doing next? I have us listed as 2026 to show
- two dash zero zero zero six. Is that not okay? Yes. Thank you. Yep. Sorry, I was turned off by the sorry
- the continuance here Just whenever you're ready
- Okay, so this is Zr 20 26 0 2 0 0 0 6 and this is an administrative appeal at 1205 South Roger Street
- So the administrative appeal is in regards to the determination That staff made about decorative stone.
- So this property received a notice of violation for ground cover
- Location where it was not approved and upon further review we found that This was not decorative stone
- as we have been applying that standard to other properties so Administrative appeal is their Recourse
- for that decision since we don't have really variances from definitions and in the future we are looking into
- This is on the list in the future UDO amendments to clarify what we're looking for in a decorative stone.
- So the standard that has been applied before is that the stones be washed and two inches or greater
- across. So to the right, you'll see that is a picture of the one and a half inch stone
- That is on the property And they gave us the petitioner provided Specs for that rock so it has already
- been installed and then on the left is an example of something that would also something that would
- Comply with our standard that we've applied for decorative stone. So it's washed in two and a half to
- six inches so as you can see it's smaller than what we're looking for and
- The reasons for that is to prevent washout or any obstacles falling into the roadway or the pedestrian
- areas So also stabilization of the material itself so that it stays in place and then lastly There is
- no formal recommendation from staff. It is up to us the board to decide
- Whether or not to approve the appeal That concludes my staff report. Okay. Thank you. Is the petitioner
- present and would like to speak When sign in please
- State your first and last name, please. Yeah, it's Josh Ali Josh. Do you Affirm the testimony you're
- about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir All right, you have up
- to 20 minutes same. No, thank you. Thank you If you don't mind David, we put up the pictures that we
- sent earlier that shows this property
- If you don't mind actually I just Is it okay if I just give you guys these pictures yeah, yes, absolutely
- Thank you Thank you Josh are those the same pictures that were emailed to us? Okay. All right. Thank
- you the and what you'll see in in the handout that you got the first is just a letter from the Chamber
- of Commerce supporting a
- you know what we do and in Bloomington we've been fixing ugly houses or rundown houses for about 18
- years and as you can see from one of the first pictures there is that's what the property looked like
- when we actually purchased this there at 1205 South Roger Street and it was quite an undertaking actually
- bringing this property back to life and when it was
- Initially done you'll see kind of the before and after there and in what you're looking at and we had
- the ground cover and the site plan that was approved, you know from from planning that we we tried to
- make work and What happened over time? We actually planted this grass three different times. We actually
- We put sod, we put fertilizer, we watered it every day, every week, but this area is a high traffic
- area for pets. A lot of these spots that are on the property, they're really small, and they're all
- surrounded by concrete, so they get really warm, and it's just not a real great environment for grass
- to grow, let alone the pets. Every time an animal urinates on the grass, it dies. And so the money that
- we spent here is more than
- than I care to admit and we were over budget by quite a lot just due to some of the circumstances with
- the property itself. And so I made a determination to actually replace the grass with the rock. Honestly,
- I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. If you drive a block north where the new hospital or the old
- hospital location, all the construction there, the rocks that we put at this site look exactly like
- the rocks that are there.
- And so I know we all bought them at the same place. Actually, I think that the fellows who installed
- the rocks here at 1205 South Roger Street are the same ones who installed those. And that's actually
- the reason I did it. And so hoping that just to maintain the integrity and the aesthetics of the property,
- I want it to look good. I want people to feel proud about living there. I want to be a good neighbor.
- And like I said, it was really hard to do this. And I wanted to continue the property looking the way
- it should.
- And so with regard to the actual rocks and the size, I think the picture that they put up is a little
- misleading. The rocks here, they're the right size. I mean, anytime you get washed or decorative stone
- from a gravel company, I mean, there's obviously, there's giant ones, but in the smaller version, this
- isn't pea gravel. It's river rock like you see any, well, like I said, all up and down Rogers and First Street.
- And so, and I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, I just was trying to protect the integrity of the property
- and do something that I wasn't gonna have to continually spend money, grass, fertilizer, and a whole
- bunch of water here at this site. And so, that's why. Would you like to keep the remainder of your time
- retained for later? Yes, sir. Okay, sure. And just stay there, we may have questions. I'm gonna jump
- in. Did you happen to bring a picture of your current rock, the disputed rock?
- Do you have the pictures? Yes. While he's doing that, I just wanted to state I appreciate the letter
- from the chamber. I do want to let those who are listening and those that are here in chambers know
- that we'd love to see this. This is great. However, this doesn't have any bearing on a decision, and
- I wanted to let everyone know why. We will be judging based on the UDO and whether we're allowed to
- vary that or need to uphold that. So this is always nice to know, and it's great to have really good
- developers and
- Homebuilders etc in the community. So we do appreciate that. So thank you for that But I don't want
- it to appear that we're not giving it attention So with that we will be addressing then the issues of
- the rock specifically. Thank you for that Do we have a picture? I Was just curious because this was
- good to show the grass but that's not your picture of the rock though. I
- No, sir. Did you provide one to the city of what currently exists? Yeah, I figured they would have the
- pictures and the 11 page violation document that they sent me You know just so for a clarification,
- you know the picture on the right is a picture that the department took of the rock of the stone that
- is on the ground today and
- and then the picture on the left is a Comparison of a larger decorative stone, which is what we typically
- see in other developments So these pictures were just to try to show a difference of the two The petitioner
- did show pictures and we can we can certainly bring those up However, we were wanting to make sure as
- we kind of surmised at the border want to see definitively like a close-up picture of what's actually
- on the ground in order to try to help guide their
- Decision making process here. So that's why we took a picture of exactly a close-up of what's on the
- ground So you can have a good idea of the size and scale sure So that's so that on the right is the
- actual stone. Do you are we able to see though how it looks in total? Yeah, so we can certainly go to
- any other questions from the board For comparison sake
- It would have been nice if the ruler was on the other one as well because it could be a close up. It
- could be far away. So it just doesn't doesn't give the perspective to the scale. What I'm hearing from
- you Eric is you're saying that you believe them to be accurate in comparison to scale.
- So there's a picture on the left was one that was obtained from a website of just a typical supplier
- Okay that had a size that was what we use as a typical baseline standard of one and a half to two inches
- And so what was it depicted in that picture was the size and scale of what is common? So we didn't have
- obviously since we didn't generate that
- We didn't have an opportunity to put in a scale but the pictures on the screen is one the petitioner
- provided And is of the property as it sits now. Thank thank you for bringing that up You guys did a
- magnificent job and I can only imagine the money you probably put into it to make it what it is, but
- to me it's it's one of the best-looking properties in all that neighborhood now and
- And so to me, I mean, I'll just be blunt. This is splitting hairs. To me, it looks great. I understand.
- And I think it's ambiguous in the UDO in terms of two inches. Put the ruler next to his so it's four.
- And I understand the reasons for it. You don't want it spilling out. You don't want it going into the
- sewer line. But I feel like in the scope, again, of a major, massive upgrade in
- neighborhood in that area and He's going off of what the other developers are doing kind of down the
- 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
- It's not worth that considering, you know the upgrade they've done so I Understand what the UDO says.
- I think it's
- Kind of ambiguous though still and unless we're going to go out and start putting a tape measure on
- every few rocks. I think it's fine. So that's all I've got. So I guess my questions for staff. So the
- reason we are here is because the staff feels the rock is too small or is it too much rock or is it
- in the wrong location.
- Well, so I just, I think that that's a great question. So I wanted to point out, you know, we've got
- two petitions on the agenda tonight from the petitioner, both kind of dealing with two separate issues.
- You know, the first petition, which is what we're hearing right now is the administrative appeal of
- what is decorative stone? You know, the second petition is a variance to allow for that material to
- exceed what the UDO allows for. So the conversation for this topic right now is simply what is decorative stone?
- this specific petition, yes this yeah, yeah this specific one the very next petition will be then to
- hear relief from what the udl allows for Spatial limitations for where that can occur and how much of
- a property but this exact petition right now is just simply is the stone that is on the ground decorative
- stone or not based on you know, what staff kind of relate in the report and how we have a
- Apply this in other developments around Bloomington, you know when it comes to the question of you know
- What would be required to bring this into compliance? You know, certainly we're not necessarily saying
- they have to remove everything, you know, we can work with the petitioner to Balance what's there with
- maybe some larger stones in some capacity? But the petition right now is just simply is what is their
- decorative stone or not? Maybe we should find out if there's anyone in the public that wants to
- And then because if we're gonna have to decide that that's a whole unless you did you have a Staff okay.
- Well, is there anyone in chambers who from the public who'd like to speak to this or anyone online?
- I Just wanted to jump past that so we could because these are great questions from the board If there
- is anybody online, please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat. We can recognize you and
- I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay, so The procedure here would be we would give you an opportunity
- to address some things first And then we'll have more questions for you is there anything you would
- like to say further from your 20 minutes Yeah, I mean those right I didn't I mean I stopped short of
- bringing some in here for you to see I
- Those rocks there. I mean they're most of them are majority. I mean, they're two plus inches I mean,
- they're the larger like I said, they're exactly what every I mean, actually McDonald's on South Walnut
- 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
- misleading I Would say just because That's that's not the size that these are okay, so I
- And that's all that's okay. So with that then I think we can dive into this. So then the question in
- front of us then is going to be what constitutes decorative stone. My first question is is the VCA at
- Liberty to set that policy or only for this particular case. Are we saying just for this or are we saying
- once we say this this is going to be a standard that gets applied and why not from
- Yep, so great so you can certainly give us guidance in terms of what you feel like might be the appropriate
- standards as we mentioned the staff report we do have Some amendments to the udio definition of decorative
- stone to help address this and give a little bit more clarity in there Such as stating what that side
- what that aggregate size would be So if there are other characteristics that the board feels that we
- should incorporate with that we can certainly take that into account
- But yeah in terms of like setting a precedent, you know with us having amendments to the UDO that are
- forthcoming and going to the Planning Commission next month You know, we hope to have clarification
- within the code of what is decorative stone All right. Well, I I wanted to jump into that last paragraph
- on page one of the staff report this starts with although And I just want to understand this although
- there's no definition of decorative stone in the UDO and
- The department is routinely applied to consistent standard to determine the proposed material. So you've
- this consistent standard that's been applied. Where did that come from? How was it established?
- So is that from the city or was that within the department that was it within the department? So, you
- know those standards were based on you know, what what are we trying, you know with any standard? What
- are we trying to accomplish and what are we maybe trying to prevent? You know, so the reason that decorative
- stone has a very distinct term and it doesn't just say stone in general is to you know have a higher our
- Aesthetic value for it to try to differentiate it between smaller stones You know as we mentioned in
- the staff report smaller stones spread on the site on the sidewalks and their driveways and a storm
- sewer so it's important to have
- Standard that has a higher size requirement for it But then also the the aesthetic value of that stone
- to differentiate that from limestone or gravel or other more common Materials that maybe you don't want
- to see don't that don't have as great aesthetic value So when we've dealt with this situation for other
- Developments, you know the one and a half to two inch standard is what we have used consistently in
- lots of situations around town you know enforcement or occupancy inspection and
- anytime that we have petitions that are coming forward and somebody is proposing decorative stone, we
- always make them give us a sample of that so that we can kind of alleviate this before it gets started
- to make sure that what gets put on the ground is consistent with how we've applied this. So the problem,
- why that's problematic though, is even if they had provided that to you and you said, well, we find
- it to be too small, because there is nothing printed that says it needs to be two, two and a half inches,
- He could have violated that anyway and said, well, there is no policy. That's your, that actually is
- your recommendation, right? Yeah, exactly. So that's, you know, staff's interpretation of what this
- definition was trying to accomplish and what that term was. Um, so this is where the board comes into
- play, obviously of, uh, an appeal of that interpretation. And was there a fine attached to this currently?
- Um, there was a notice of violation. We have not fined them. And what does that find if it had gone through?
- I would have to look it up. It's it's a daily number Daily number. Okay. Yeah, so it would have accrued
- daily. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for For the petitioner. Do you have the specs? For you know
- the receipt with the specs So it should on the specs for that it should say what type of rock you're
- buying. Yes, ma'am It did and so I provided that to to planning throughout the process. Can we see the spec the
- Receipt inspects for it Yeah, I would be curious as if the receipt stated decorative rock Well, it doesn't
- but it does say two inch three inch. Oh, I see it says five inch Okay, you know, we will say what type
- of rock you're buying septic rock. I mean whatever Shouldn't we count for weight and all this too if
- we're worried about washout worried about the stuff eroding into the
- Stonewater stormwater drains then doesn't it it's more about weight than it is about size of rock. Well,
- so in terms of the physics of What you're trying to prevent? Yeah in the in the industry, you know stone
- is is categorized by size You know it passes through a certain You know filter and so that's how they
- determine kind of when you buy, you know It's a number three stone or number four number five or six
- or whatever, you know, it's just based on size and
- We'll wait and see if we can find the receipt. I Mean and just one thing to add that picture That that
- rock had been there for a couple of weeks when they took that picture and you'll notice in the parking
- lot There's none in the parking lot. And so there's none in the road there. It's where it's intended
- to be It's not going anywhere unless someone actually yeah, I mean I understand that I also understand
- the city side which is
- Probably not on a normal rain day, but when we have those torrential, that's so that's what we have
- to balance against. But, um, how long ago did, did these stones go down? Oh, probably three weeks before
- I got the initial letter, sir. And so I don't know the exact date, but just roughly from today, how
- long a month, two months, three months. Yeah, probably three months, right around three months. Thank you.
- While they're while they're looking for that just to we have any further comments that we like to make
- we can do that now where we see that receipt why we separated the two petitions with the same address
- when we're talking about so that so let's say we decide this is the
- Hypothetically that this is a decorative stone then the next petition we are going to be talking about
- now. It's too much It's just it one has to be issued as a administrative appeal the other has to be
- issued as a variance Yeah, that that's the only reason to separate them That was my understanding going
- into it I Think that what's interesting about where we are is that
- The petitioner has a very good case to simply say nothing's printed. There's no guidelines for that.
- And I went by the spirit of the UDO and then to put forward what would be a financial burden because
- of the ambiguity. And while I respect and like the fact that the city has a recommendation, it's not
- it's not adopted as
- So that's that's what makes this very difficult to Sure, not grant the appeal. Well, I think it's a
- slippery slope the basings on ambiguity. Yeah, I think that's really like where I I don't think we can
- do that and the city can propose it as such but We have the ability to say no, we want concrete things
- and this is not concrete at all. And so I totally agree with you Yeah, this may be it
- Is that giving you the information that And actually says one to two inch non-structural, is that right?
- One to two inch non-structural decorative River rock is that yeah, there's another invoice in there
- too from where they buy it from from the Rogers group. Okay that Will give another there's yeah, I
- Yeah, because they certainly look larger there in that photo, but there's no scale. So small to read.
- Can you read? I'm not seeing the size on the second one. So, you know, Floppy, just looking at that
- for me, it looks like the spirit of the UDO was met on this particular appeal. What are the thoughts
- of the board or comments at this point? Or I should say further comments.
- You're saying drop the appeal. I mean you're saying oh I'm saying right now based on whatever motion
- is made. I could see a valid I could see validity and Granting the appeal. Yes, I could see that there's
- no specific guidance on size shape shape size and color if you will Yeah, I just don't think that position
- to make that decision based on the financial burden of
- I would feel comfortable saying this is decorative stone because it's not gravel. It's not gravel and
- also on there at one to two inches So it looks like it was yes The size might be wrong based on what
- the city expects but The only other question though that I would have for the city would be for the
- staff is was the petition required though to bring a
- To you that there they were going to make this change or was it within their purview to do it? If it
- had been of the proper size could they have just done it Or even if it's of the proper size would they
- still have had to come to you and say we're not Going to continue with grass or mulch or whatever. We're
- gonna go to stone would they have had to come to you for a request? portions of the site that had when
- we approved the permit for the initial construction There were some portions of the site that had a
- decorative stone. It was kind of a slate that
- Shown around some of the building. They brought us a sample of that We looked at that and proved it
- and said they use that for some of the portions of the site around the building So the stone that was
- placed later Was not brought to us before it was installed But was it it should have been though, but
- was it were they required to do that and failed to do so we strongly advise people to give us these
- samples before they put it down so that we don't deal with
- after the fact situations where we're trying to enforce the removal of something once it's been put
- down. Certainly we recognize there's a lot of challenges and burden is placed on somebody once they
- put down a substantial amount of stone and then they have to remove it. So we try to work with them
- and guide them on the early end of the process to bring us these things before you put it down, because
- there's a wide opinion in the construction and landscape world of what's decorative stone and what's
- not. Oftentimes things that are built as decorative are one person's version of that.
- and so that that's where we try to come in of applying a uniform standard across all the sites and not
- just Going by what somebody puts on their website of what they consider to be decorative Well, what
- I was trying to get to is I want to ascertain whether the petitioner actually violated a stated policy
- or whether it's only a recommendation or or or a Preference that they bring it to you know, it's not
- a law that they have to bring that in to show us we just
- I recommend you strongly encourage it strongly urge them to yeah. Okay. Thank you Any other discussion
- or do I have a motion? Thank You Eric I Will say if emotions made a motion to approve the administrative
- appeal would be to grant the appeal and to deny would be to deny it and he would be in violation of
- to approve to ZR twenty twenty five twenty six sorry is it twenty twenty six twenty twenty six. Yeah
- to approve the appeal for ZR twenty twenty six oh two triple zero six. That's good.
- I have a motion to have a second second Any further discussion? Seeing none I call the question Ballard
- yes, bro. Yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes with that the appeal is granted we will move then to 20 26-02-0005
- which I believe is the next in the order for
- Property is that correct? Yes, so for a variance from the maximum impervious surface coverage With that
- you should have a seat. You'll remain swear sworn in So when you come back up, you won't need to do
- that again and you get a fresh 20 minutes staff report, please You is
- petition ZR 2026-02-0005 at 1205 South Roger Street, there are three variants requests due to the location
- of The decorative stone or ground cover So the first is maximum impervious surface coverage the second
- Kind of in tandem with that standard is the minimum landscape area and also
- Ground cover standards which govern where decorative stone could be placed on the property So this is
- this is the site it is zoned residential multifamily And it's about eight thousand seven hundred square
- feet It's been developed with a multifamily dwelling and our understanding is that
- in 2024, that is when the most recent site plan was approved. I believe that was a limited compliance
- scenario. So it did not have to meet the standard for any new construction in residential multifamily.
- So it is not following those exact same guidelines
- So here this is the 2024 site plan and as you can see There are some existing areas With decorative
- stone around the AC units And then beyond that There's grass around the trees. So we're looking bottom
- right corner And then bottom left corner and then top right corner is where there's grass and then there's
- landscaping
- the rest of it and This is What is there now so this is the petitioners proposal and Those areas to
- the bottom right the top right and the bottom left along Roger Street have been Converted from grass
- or landscape area into stone So for the first criteria
- We found that For the maximum impervious surface coverage the granting of the variance would be injurious
- to the public health safety and morals And general welfare of the surrounding area as it would bring
- the property further out of compliance And exacerbate stormwater and runoff impacts as this is now impervious
- area In tandem with that
- The landscape area also decreased so that is also determined to be injurious and the ground cover Standard
- which is a
- In the staff report as well. It says except in the parks and open spaces owning district turf grass
- and other vegetative ground cover Shall be used for landscape areas except is listed below crushed rock
- or gravel is not allowed its ground cover and then the Exceptions mentioned in that section refer to
- the two locations where decorative stone can be placed near the foundation of the building and underneath
- the stairs So those are written to minimize impacts on
- you know, that getting into the street or getting into the sidewalk. So we found that that was also
- problematic and injurious as well. For the second criteria, the use and value of the adjacent properties,
- we found that none of these variances would adversely impact that area.
- adversely impact the use and value of the adjacent properties. And then for max impervious surface coverage,
- we found that there was no hardship or peculiarity about this property. That means that it should be
- subject to a different impervious surface coverage maximum. No topographical constraints or things of
- that nature, like environmental things. So in RM,
- the standard that all new development is held to is that 40% be set aside for landscaping and 60% can
- be covered with impervious surface and Under their limited compliance that was approved in 2024 There
- used to be more pavement on the property. So when it was approved they only
- Had to come down to 69% Impervious rather than 60. So what the petitioner proposed is 92% coverage of
- that property But we did not find that there was a hardship that Necessitated that that be the case
- rather than the 69% that was approved so in in the same vein
- We didn't find that there was any reason that a different plants other than grass or a different type
- of grass or you know, some other viable alternative could have been put here rather than the stones
- that were replaced. So we did not find a hardship there. And then lastly,
- For the location of where decorative stone can be placed around the foundation of the building and under
- the stairs That is applied to all properties in our M our H and all mixed-use properties And we did
- not find that there was anything different or peculiar about this property that meant That it would
- be impossible to follow that standard
- So we didn't find a reason to support adding decorative stone beyond those areas that we've allowed
- it in code So with that the department recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed
- findings and deny these three variances And but sorry one one last thing I missed This is the approved
- site plan for 2024 this is the proposed site plan for
- and I know that these are all in grayscale and it's a little bit difficult to see. So, I... I'll flip
- those again. So, the two, the 2024 proposed, I'm sorry, and then continue after that. So, that was approved.
- Okay, I wanted to know what the difference was in our packet. Thank you, go ahead. Yes, and then this
- is proposed. So, again, the rock is in the bottom right, the top right, and then across Rogers on the
- far left, and I've highlighted the areas
- In red that have been turned from grass or mulch or landscaping plants of some sort into decorative
- stone so this is that 69% coverage of impervious area to 92% Rogers is to the left. So north is up It
- but but that particular image is not in our packet
- No, this is okay. Just something for the I just want to make sure right I would I didn't want to look
- for it if it were correct, right? You will not find it there Text Yes, if you give me a second to exit
- Is that better There you go, okay and again the red it notes the changeover or yes
- from from landscaping or grass or something to Stone, okay, and that completes the report. Yes. Okay.
- Thank you for that Let's go ahead and jump to the petitioner then you have again up to 20 minutes if
- you'd like to speak to this, please I Would say a couple of points here The the rocks that we put down.
- I mean they're they're not impervious there's the same ground is under there and so I
- Like I said earlier, I've replaced the grass. I tried to replant the grass three times. One of those
- being sod was spending money on fertilizer, spending money on water, and the ending result was what
- you see in some of the pictures that I gave you there. It was just a bunch of mud and crabgrass. We
- just couldn't get grass to grow. It's the same pictures that I sent you guys.
- Bush all the all the all the landscaping all the bushes like everything that was in the original plan
- is still there. The mulch is there. All the trees are there. All the bushes are there. The exact species
- that they want. They're all there. And so the only thing that we replace was the grass. And so just
- because it was mud and I would imagine if
- I just let it go one you know the property ends up looking a lot like it did when it started not to
- the same extreme but it just it looks bad. But then to you know people are tracking in mud on the sidewalk
- or tracking in mud to feast restaurant or to you know all of our neighbors to the north and to the south and then
- Three, if I did nothing, if I just let it run down and go back to the shape that it was before and it
- was just a bunch of mud there, what I've ended up right back here, what I've got the same fine, what
- I've seen the same 55 pages of documents that said that I was doing something wrong. And the only reason
- that I did what I did is one, because just trying to protect the property. And two, like I said, I didn't
- believe I was doing anything wrong. Because if you go up and down Rogers and First Street, where a lot
- of the new
- The new the new construction is is they've got the same the same stuff. Yes. With that we'll go back
- to the board. So stay there. We may have questions for questions from the board. I just got a quick
- one to clarify. Because we you know we see these. Proposals all the time and I'll be honest and I'm
- in the financial
- I still have to do the math and redo the math to make sure it's not a very straightforward scenario
- sometimes on these developments in terms of how to getting in compliance and then staying in compliance.
- So you're wanting relief from these things because you're saying you didn't know you were going to be
- out of compliance on all three. Is that correct?
- I didn't know. My intent wasn't to be out of compliance. It wasn't to mislead or be devious or anything
- like that, sir. It was just to fix the situation that people were complaining about, and I couldn't
- get grass to grow. That was it. Honestly, the compliance thing, when I saw everything up the street,
- it never entered my mind that I would be here and having to spend a bunch of money redoing site plans
- and things of that nature. I never dreamed I'd be here.
- Talking about rocks sure and then can I ask that real quick question who caught this and how How did
- how did somebody on staff? driving up and down Rogers See this property after was developed and say
- They're probably out of compliance on these three things or how to how is that monitored? I guess is
- my question or is it just a Is there a process
- Ensuring compliance once everything's been approved So yes, we have to Enforcement staff that do inspect
- properties and give like an occupancy inspection In this instance, I'm not
- Sure when that 2024 plan had an occupancy inspection but reports could come through your report for
- example to note when there are violations of the udio, but it could also be staff observation for this
- one I did not
- Come prepared to tell you how it yeah, I believe this came about because we were doing the occupancy
- inspection So it had not received that final so we were we were doing that final occupancy inspection
- That's incorrect. So okay state your point and then I'd like to hear his Give me a minute and I can
- look into that Thanks
- I guess my question is, may I ask a question? While you're looking at there, Eric, just a quick question
- to the petitioner. When you have a plan, you know where the landscape goes, you know where the rock
- goes, you know where plants will go, where the structure will go. Did you ever thought about
- talking to the city and asking, what is the solution here before you put rock down there? I mean, because
- ground cover is not just grass. It could be, there are several types of ground cover that you can use
- that it's plants that it would not be, you know, that it would detain from being muddy and it would
- 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,
- one, because
- up the street had the same stuff, so I didn't anticipate it being a problem. And then, two, I just wanted
- to fix a problem. Like, I wanted it to look better, and I didn't want to spend any more money on grass,
- and I didn't want, you know, the tenants that live there that wanted to enjoy the property. I wanted
- the complaints to stop, so my staff didn't have to fill out any more phone calls. Yeah, because when
- you did the plan, there was impervious area. You knew that how much impervious area who's going to be
- on the plan.
- And the plan was approved for such. So when you change anything on the plan that was an approved plan
- you're out of compliance. When we put down the rock rocks are still I mean there it's the water runs
- right through the rock the same as it would the grass. Well in this case it was mud. And so the I didn't
- believe I was doing anything wrong man. And like I said before
- Every single aspect of what was approved and when we got our CEO is still there like every bush every
- tree You know all the mulch like it's it's all there The only thing that we corrected was was the grass
- that we couldn't grow that we actually tried to grow So we were doing a final occupancy inspection It's
- possible the building department may have given an occupancy, but the city planning department did not
- give a final occupancy So that's what we were doing So
- Building Department gives the final occupancy They should wait for us. We issue a recommendation of
- right, but they didn't so he's got the final occupancy He can put people in those units, right? He's
- I I can't testify if he's got final occupancy from building I'm just saying from the planning department's
- perspective. We had not issued a final occupancy what I'm trying to get at is if final occupancy should
- not have been granted because he was out of compliance and
- And that should have happened. He should not have been given those occupancy permits. And that's between
- planning and building. Oh, sorry. Is that right or no? Am I wrong on that? Yeah. Jackie came out of
- nowhere. You can't come out of nowhere, Jackie. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Yes, I can. I just wanted
- you to introduce yourself. I'm so sorry.
- I didn't mean to scare you. Yeah, we didn't know you were there. You can get occupancy from the Monroe
- County Building Department on a temporary status. So I'll double check. But if he got a temporary occupancy,
- the only things we're checking are safety for pedestrians to get to the building and striping of the
- parking. And then he can occupy the building. You do not need a final occupancy or a final occupancy
- recommendation from us to have tenants in there. So we didn't like miss a step. He's allowed to have
- people in there. What I think happened, but I'm trying to confirm, is that then we
- that we saw that he did that and said, hey, you can't do this, but that's not what we're checking here
- at temporary. But just so you know, this is going to have to be fixed at some point. And I do not know
- if final occupancy inspection ever occurred, because what we normally advise people is, if we know you
- have a violation there, don't spend your money on an inspection, because we're not going to be able
- to give it to you. Is that in writing?
- Recording stopped which part well, he's shaking his head. No here. So I guess we'll let And Yeah, go
- ahead and speak your part Planning actually came back during the whole process. We had the the last
- and I remember talking to the mic. Yeah. No, I'm sorry planning came back twice actually because I
- Wants to do the the final occupancy and and we were recording in progress We we recited because we didn't
- have the correct species of a bush and it was later deemed that we did have the correct species of a
- bush and so That whole process, you know without all that stuff happening They they did come back again
- to inspect the property the second time and and they should have given us Again, like if you go to open gov dot
- Or whatever in the portal we have our final certification of occupancy and if we hadn't done what we
- were supposed to and had at the time It was I believe it was in the early spring that the grass Was
- growing but then it all died But they they did they made us wait before some of that ground cover came
- in and some of those bushes grew before they would actually give us the final the final approval and
- I just I wanted to walk through a couple of these things. I want to start with the staff So the three
- items are the maximum impervious and then the minimum landscape Area and then the ground cover standards.
- Okay, so I'm a little confused on the maximum impervious So that the additional coverage of these stones
- resulted in it being impervious Yes, so we have a definition of impervious surface coverage and it includes
- gravel and stone is gravel
- That was my question. So that definition then states that that gravel is not something that allows water
- to run through. Correct. Okay. That's what was confusing to me because I did not, I'm looking at 15
- different things. So I just didn't see a definition that said that was that in here. That's in the UDO
- right now. It's not an interpretation. It very clearly says, right? Gravel. That is the UDO statement.
- Yes. And, and we would have to, by definition,
- Abide by the fact that that much gravel is considered Impervious. Yes, that was my question. That's
- the first part because that confused me without having the UDO in front of me. Okay I'm also then trying
- this is for the petition trying to understand the minimum landscape areas So you're telling me that
- you feel that all of the let's take grass out of it, but all of the plantings Met your site plan. Oh,
- yeah, they're still there. Yes, sir. So what were the
- Dealing with here is the the loss of the vegetation which would be grass that is landscaping. Yes, that's
- that's That's that allows water and everything to seep into the ground as opposed to the gravel So that's
- what we're dealing with. I want to make sure that's clear and then the ground cover standards are still
- going back to the that stone the the stone is not the grass doesn't supersede it and also Even now you
- could look at it say the stone isn't within the recommended standards, right?
- Yeah, so the UDO says, you know only the gravel I'm sorry that decorative stone or mulch can only extend
- a certain distance from trees and shrubs So that's the third variance because the largest issue to consider
- for us is the need for that gravel to be underneath drip lines, etc. So That's an important aspect of
- why that is allowed out so far from the building. I
- Yes, the general intent of the UDO is we want living materials on site to the extent possible We recognize
- that certain limited areas underneath landscaping, you know for maintenance purposes, you know
- Do oftentimes need mulch or stone in order to or decorative stone in order to? Kind of protect the plan
- a little bit and just be realistic of where grass can grow You know, but this is a standard obviously
- that applies throughout Bloomington in all situations You know everybody tons of situations would love
- to cover more of their property with stone or mulch But you know this standard is there and is applied
- consistently throughout the city I'm looking at the at the updated plan You showed me the 2024 and then
- the proposed
- So walk me through looking at that proposed the updated one how much of that would have to be Of what
- I'm looking at would have to be replaced with grass to come in compliance of the impervious all of it
- No, not all of it. So decorative stone or mulch is allowed six feet around trees and then one foot beyond
- the drip line of shrubs and
- So, you know the the initial approved site plan the 2024 site plan had a very limited mulch ring Around
- some of the trees had mulch shown around some of the shrubs that was compliant So, you know, you can
- you can look at that, you know, in essence the drip line of those trees You know three foot diameter
- six foot radius is What's allowed there? Could you put up the proposed one not the 20 sure so it sounds
- to me that
- That what we're talking about is if you look at that approved ground planting and landscaping design
- is you're essentially talking about everything that's away from the building by however many inches
- it is. So you've got the drip line area there around the building that can remain as gravel. And then
- underneath those items that are noted as trees, they could have the gravel stay there.
- But it looks like everything else someone had to be taken out and planted with some kind of ground cover
- whether it's grass or an ivy or something, correct? Yes, some approved ground cover could be flowers
- could be I could be something that's non stone or Malt yeah impervious, right? Okay, so you're looking
- at all of that kind of gray area that doesn't have something over the top of it would would have to
- be converted
- Yeah, so you can see here they've shown mulch, you know, that is the darker shaded areas around some
- of the Landscaping so that's compliant in terms of you know, what's allowed adjacent to there? So the
- the lighter gray is the areas for the most part that would have to be returned to grass. Okay. Thank
- you Any other question, Mr. Thorpe Morton, can I clarify for mr. Ballard what I said before I was able
- to find records of the inspection Yes
- So we did do a final occupancy inspection, as Mr. Alley described, where there was only some plan changes
- that need to be made. And that was in October of 24, which I think Mr. Brandt has probably covered in
- his report. And then we received a complaint in October of 25 about the rocks. And that's what started
- up the conversation about the NOB that was issued. Thank you, Jackie.
- If we don't have any questions we can go to the public for comment and then we can continue this too.
- Do we have further questions at the moment. No. You sure. OK. Is there anyone in public here that like
- to speak to this petition. Seeing none anyone online. Yes we do have one individual online. CG you should
- be able to speak. Could you could you could you please state your name and wait for a moment. Casey Green.
- Thank you, you'll have five minutes, but do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth
- the whole truth and let them at the truth Yes, I do. Okay, you have up to five minutes Hi, so I first
- like to say I really appreciate any challenges that You know, they're facing on this property My experience
- is that I have an environmental science degree I'm a member of MCI risk and I am a
- certified pesticide applicator, in addition to having foster dogs that are being loud right now.
- I'm so sorry. So it's my understanding that a lot of this has to do with preventing people from simply,
- yeah, replacing brass with stone. And it kind of sounds like that's what's happening here. And so I
- would just like to speak to, I know that it doesn't make intuitive sense that bare dirt
- or even turf would be treated like an impervious surface. But I can assure that if you're doing the
- calculations of how much flood water is, like how fast that uptake is happening, how much fertilizer
- runoff is getting into our waterways, it really is comparable to an impervious surface.
- And so I guess I'm wondering, I love that there are shrubs there. I love that there are trees there.
- It sounds like there was attention to getting the right species. But I guess I'm wondering if there's
- been any attempts to use some drought tolerant landscaping. I'm thinking of, you know, yarrow, there's
- native white sage, there's false agave, buffalo grass.
- Is very very drought tolerant. It's used in the plains out west and it actually only gets to like six
- inches anyway So you won't like you never have to mow it That's a really resilient one, especially with
- pets I would like to note that ivy is highly highly invasive. So that would not be recommended but I'm
- thinking that even if there's just a little bit of that around the edges that would alleviate the concern
- of the water backup and washing the smaller
- decorative stone gravel kind of hybrid off of the property. You know, because it sounds like we're kind
- of stacking the issues here, which is we're stacking the propensity for runoff and we have smaller stone
- size. Maybe the petitioner is just not aware of some of these options or maybe it was a financial decision,
- but it does sound like a lot of finance has been poured into
- you know, fertilizers and conventional grass. I guess I'm wondering if maybe one of these other alternatives
- that are drought tolerant would be a good option. And that concludes my comment. Okay, thank you for
- that. And anyone else online who would like to make comment? If there's anybody else online, please
- use the raise hand function or send a message via chat.
- Try to help you I'm not seeing anybody else. Okay, so where we are here is We can come back to you now
- and you can use the remainder of your time for any additional comments, okay After that point then it'll
- come back to the board and then you'll only be able to address questions that we give to you At that
- point, but no additional just free-form comments. Okay, so you have I think like 18 minutes.
- Is that correct? I
- Do you have anything you'd like to say? No, just the only thing I would like to add is in terms of just
- my thought process, I didn't want to deviate from the plan just because I had the issue where it and
- to be honest, some species, I don't know what species of a Bush is and what's not like if the landscaper
- shows up and it's on a plan that we give them, that's approved. We pay them to do the work and they
- generally do a really good job for us. And so in this situation, we
- We made sure everything else was good. It was living. And the only reason I took the grass out is because
- I couldn't really get it to grow. And I put the rocks down that I didn't think would be an issue because
- they're everywhere else. And so that was that's honestly that was my thinking. And so that's that's
- all I'd like that. My only question is this isn't the only thing that you've built or developed in in
- the city. Correct. No no sir.
- I'm trying to understand though. Were you unaware that stone did not count as impervious? I didn't I
- mean in my mind It's the water was gonna run. It's still gonna end up in the same spot whether there's
- grass or stone That's what I'm trying to ascertain is that in all the time that you've done other stuff
- You've never run up against that that piece of information that you were told not Honestly, no, okay.
- 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
- digging and laying foundations and things and
- This is very obviously not that and so No, I really I didn't believe it'd be an issue. Okay. I was just
- trying to ask today So that was a decision you made there was no nothing from the city that at all Indicated
- to you that that was appropriate you you looked at other properties or you just felt that it was gravel
- and okay, sir Thank you any other questions from the board While they're thinking I mean I will tell
- you that it's it's difficult for us to
- to grant a variance on not knowing the code. Not knowing it on your end is difficult for us then to
- provide a variance because that's not an unusual or peculiar situation that really warrants us being
- able to say, well, we can grant you that. I wanna explain that to you as we consider this, so what to
- do. I know it sometimes seems unfair
- And it's also difficult because you also don't know how many of those properties down the street were
- grandfathered from years ago. We don't know that. Um, so that's why we, we only look at the particular
- property in front of us. So I just only want to explain that to you. So, you know, I'm sorry, go ahead.
- No, and like I said, I knew like just because it's, it's the rock, it doesn't make it impervious. And
- so impervious versus pervious like that's, I know, I know what that is. I know how that is in the code
- and that's why I didn't believe that I
- I was doing anything wrong sir is I appreciate you letting us know that that's what we're trying to
- wait. Thank you. The other thing that I was I mean in the approved plans there's a bunch of mulch and
- there's no mulch there correct. Oh no no all the mulch is still there man. Exact to the in that area
- because from the photo it looks like that whole entire bottom part is is is rock now.
- No, all the mulch and where the where the mulch originally was the mulch is still there and it's been
- replaced put up the picture with the red Yeah with the red we can see the contrast. Oh Yeah, so the
- rock is taking over parts of them where the mulch was no The only place where the rocks were added was
- where the grass was all the mulch It's the mulch. It was originally there. All the mulch is still there
- all the bushes all the trees. Everything is still there
- So the the picture that you provided to us that had the actual sign cream and crimson management You
- see a small oak tree there and you see the face of the stairs You're indicating that only all along
- underneath those bushes and around that tree. That's all still mulched Yes, sir And it's just the areas
- that we're looking at that's kind of dying or or somewhat green grass. That's all been changed Yes,
- sir. So essentially you dug out just the grass areas that died. Yes and replaced them. Yes, sir
- But but when you look at the one that showed the curb With the utility box they were buried in the ground,
- I mean that's all stone now Yes, sir. So that's a great deal of stone. That's right there along the
- road surface. Okay, I Just want to show and I'll tell you that that's actually not my property sir that
- specific where that that's not okay So that we're not dealing with that. Okay. No, I
- I just want to make sure I'm seeing it and reading it the same. I see the mulch now that it's pointed
- out. This is not you? No, that's not my property. But when planning came back the final time, they wanted
- me to improve that area. Is this one yours? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. They wanted you to improve it? Yeah.
- Are those side by side there? No. I've got a side note.
- How is that allowed? How can we request a petitioner whose it's not his property? If he's saying this
- is not his property, this is not his property. I'm sorry. Can I see that picture? I don't know exactly
- where that is. It's on the north side. Is that right? Yep. It backs up to the feast. That's right.
- 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
- looking at the the site plan here You can see just a little bit of the sliver that northwest corner
- based on their survey that has graphs on their on their property the majority of that is not a
- The petitioners property so I don't without speaking to the rest of our staff I I cannot verify anything
- that we the petitioners is stating that we have said in terms of what Improvements they have to make
- certainly we can't require somebody to make an improvement on property. That's not theirs. So Then to
- the petitioner Did they ask you to improve this section of land? That's not yours. Yes, sir.
- Did you do it? Yes, sir So that's on the record
- Find that very troubling that that we allow a Planning department to go in and dictate to non-owners
- of properties. I've been in real estate a long time That that crosses a real line So that being aside
- you did improve it because I draw I'll drive by there tonight I'll know you know you improved it you
- I'm trusting you're telling you're you're being honest about it
- That just that just kind of makes this even more Questionable to me in terms of how we how we want to
- say to petitioners. You're gonna go in and do all these things But we still want this But that's he
- 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
- he did That's that's a problem sure I don't have any information to support that or or
- 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
- across this kind of situation. Am I wrong? It in terms of Asking them to improve land on land. That's
- not So anyways
- Understand what you're saying. So that was hypocritical that was improved to grass, right? That was
- improved to grass by the petitioner at the time, right? Right. It just seems it seems hypocritical to
- me that we can do that That we can require petitioner who's made a vast investment a vast improvement
- bringing up all property values all around That's where I think I'll just say that I disagree with
- I think staff one time said we don't negotiate With petitioners and I think we do and this is the very
- reason we do that. So That kind of changes my viewpoint in terms of I understand how we have to vote
- on this We have to vote within what the UDO says not what we wish the UDO said and so As Joe's kind
- of mentioned like our hands are tied to a point. Yeah, you're out of compliance That's the bottom line
- There's not enough compelling evidence findings a fact for us to overturn that But as a side note, I
- just want to be on the record saying I have a I have an issue with requiring improvements on property
- that's not owned by the petitioner and That's it. Yeah, and I think just to follow up to what Tim is
- saying is I think we've had other situations where I know Just in the last probably six months where
- petitioner said well, I'm happy to
- Take care of this part portion of a sidewalk or whatever that kind of went off their property. So What
- I what I don't know is whether it was a negotiator whether it was offered and so that's In that case,
- but I get your point here is if the city goes to this petitioner says, you know We you can do this plan,
- but we want you to we want you to do this on someone else's property that I can see where that would be
- problematic, but at the same time if it was from the other direction saying hey, I'm doing that I'll
- go ahead and just do it so Knowing the facts of that would be helpful. But Tim's point is very valid,
- which is it could be troubling Sure, and I'll just say from staff's perspective. We have never in reviewing
- a site plan Required somebody to do something off of their property So I would want to know who the
- staff person was that stated this to the petitioner. I Think that that should be known
- And I have no idea what these improvements are I have no other information to back this up on any way
- other than to say from our Perspective when we are reviewing site plans We've never looked beyond a
- property line of something unless there are drainage issues, you know first Yeah, we're going into a
- lot of unknowns here That's a topic that's a conversation for a later date probably with David to have
- I would say
- Well back to what is in front of us what is in front of us is the maximum impervious service coverage
- that has Gone from 69% to 92% It's the minimum landscape area All the bushes are there all the trees
- are there the correct species, but once you remove the grass now you remove vegetation the ground cover
- standards, you should have ground cover and
- I think our situation here is it's just the wrong ground cover for where the where the grass existed.
- 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
- to justify approving it. Yeah I think we have hard numbers.
- There's the approved plan. It's everything. It's what the U.D.O. says in terms of impervious service
- 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.
- right now. So we can't go against the U.D.O. Right. Which is 69 percent correct. Right. And that was.
- the gist of my earlier comments, which was trying to establish whether the petitioner knew that that
- was actually classified. And, and I was just curious. It's, it's, it's heartening to know he wasn't
- aware of that, but it's disheartening because that still then makes him responsible for it regardless.
- Correct. And if you have built anything in Bloomington, Indiana,
- You know that the impervious surface is a critical critical part of the UDL part of your plan. So I
- think I'm aligned with you in that the first request for a variance which is of the maximum impervious
- surface. I don't think that that could be granted based on how clear the UDO is. No. OK. So then the
- question becomes the minimum landscape area. So we have minimum landscape areas that seem to already be
- within compliance of the plan that was put forth. We're being told, now does the city object to that,
- we're being told that the plan that he showed us, and I'm not talking about grass, I'm only talking
- about the remainder, anything outside what was listed as grass, so the mulched areas, et cetera, those
- are all within what the petitioner promised, correct? So it looked like on the mulch rings, at least
- for the trees, there was additional area that mulch could have been added, they were showing a tighter ring,
- Probably then you know what the udia would have allowed for so there's probably some extra area that
- they could have some mulch. You know possible solutions to remediated are plant some additional shrubs
- or something within those areas to you know expand that area where mulch is allowed to be in within
- that area. So it's not a situation where they have to remove.
- All of the gravel or the stone is there they can supplement that with some landscaping and it would
- be compliant You know, certainly we're willing to work with the petition to bring the site into compliance
- 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
- that it's not incorrect for me to say the city is not saying that he has not Put in the plant the plantings
- aside from grass that that were promised on the site plan Which is what he maintained. I want to make
- sure that in that
- Specific instance that were aligned. Yes. Yes, and I understand you could he could expand some of those
- mulch areas So that's the first part. I was just trying to get that clear and then we've you know now
- we have to deal with the ground Cover standards as well. We have to decide what are we going to do about
- the minimum landscape? Are we going to require that stone to be you know, are we going to deny that?
- variance because he needs to take out that stone and replace it or Extend the current areas of mulch
- in order to overcome that
- 69% or to reach that 69% threshold. So I think that's where we're at because I don't know if Tim agrees
- But it sounds like the first issue is a yes, we're good on that. That's a denial Okay, so if that's
- the case, then we need to find a way for the petitioner. He needs to come down to the 69% All right,
- and the way to do that is either Adding mulch adding mulch is Eric was saying that could be added and
- then plantings could also be added to that mulch area and
- Well, so we have a couple different variances that are on the table. So the impervious surface and the
- landscaped area, those are in essence the same things. And then the second, third variance really of
- how far can mulch extend from a piece of landscaping? That can be solved in a different capacity. But
- we're talking about having a motion that, the start of a motion, this is not a motion, this is just
- for discussion, it could be,
- we move to Approve the variance item number two and three with stipulations on it and denies Variance
- number one we could have language such as that by saying okay. No to the impervious We will grant the
- variance on the minimum landscape area so long as these conditions are met to bring it back within the
- 69 percent and We will allow for variance on the ground covers
- I have a question on the landscape area though, but those landscape is not just plantings. Yeah. Correct.
- Landscape is plantings plus mulch plus ground cover. Yeah. So landscaped area basically in instance
- is anything that is grass mulch landscaping shrubs not an approved improved surface. Yes. Gravel. Yeah.
- You see what I'm saying. Yes. Yes. Yeah.
- I think we all agree with Joe's Crafting of deny deny approve approve but conditions on two and three
- Yeah, I think where I'm going with that is that I do think that we need to get this property back into
- the 69% threshold That's that's number one. I do think that we still have discussions about we know
- what constitutes ground cover and things like that What we're willing, you know to vary can we give
- that over to?
- You guys. Yeah, we don't. We don't have to. Yeah, those aren't with. Yeah, we don't get literally that's
- getting in the weeds. We don't. So it could be. It could be a much more general. So deny number one,
- but a grant to so long as it meets the 69 percent and grant three so long as the ground covering comes
- within compliance of what the city recommends. Is that what you're saying? Something like that.
- 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.
- One and two minimum landscape area. Yes. Yes. A minimum landscape area refers to how much it's not how
- many bushes. It's an area. It's a it's a you know. Well, I'm just saying you have a maximum impervious
- you need to have 69 percent. Yes. So then you will need to have the other. Well, I'm saying if you if
- we're denying a variance on that we're we're just denying that.
- We're denying the right for them to not have to abide by or we say it depends on how it's written. I
- didn't look at it as it's saying that they must meet the maximum impervious. Is that what number one
- is? Yes. So the first variance is to request more of the property to be covered. That's from the city
- though. I thought the petitioners I thought the most I thought the petitioners was to receive relief
- from that. Yes. Okay. That's why I'm saying so you have to vote. No he cannot have relief from that.
- That's what I'm saying.
- So that that's correct if I say you have to vote no on on item one to deny the petitioner the right
- to To go against the maximum impervious. Yes, that's my point And so what we're saying though is number
- two goes hand in hand with that Because that deals with again how much of a property can be covered
- by something that's not grass or landscaping or mulch, right? But I thought that that the point of us
- How did you state that?
- You said a I'm honest here. I thought it was to have the petitioner go back to the city and work out
- how that minimum So so, you know where we can work out would be number three of how far away from a
- tree or a shrub mulch can extend from right, right so that Put down mulch right and still be in compliance
- with the minimum landscaped area because mulch does not count as impervious surface cover
- Understand that but are you are you are you maintaining that you would deny number two? How you can
- deny it because it won't if it doesn't live up to the minimum landscape areas is not going to reach
- the 69% is what you're saying. Okay, that's that's more clear So essentially, you know the question
- comes how do we Well, he would just have to come in compliance and that's it yes, okay, I
- I was looking at a different way based on that conversation of can you expand what's there little by
- little? That was where they can expand it with molds, you know, not with the right. So that's why I
- was separating too. I got it. Got it. Okay. Any other, uh, notions here? Yeah, that's very good.
- Thank you. You guys clarified that. Thank you. We get to the same spot. Thank you, Eric. Does Jackie
- want to weigh in? Is this her case? Oh, okay. Um,
- Do I have a any further discussion or do are we ready to make a motion? We're ready to make a motion
- make a motion for Z are 2026-02-005 on Maximum impervious surface We we propose a denial on a minimum
- landscape area we propose a denial
- the ground cover standards and residential multifamily we propose that The petitioner coordinates with
- the city with approved ground covers for those areas So you are denying variants one and two
- Conditional on three with a new with city approval of the ground cover standard Or is it just easier
- 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
- that you would approve the ground cover the yes, so you would deny the variance and we would work with them to
- Make sure the property is in a compliance whether that be the installation of grass Whether that be
- installing shrubs that have mulch around them to cover those areas, you know We would work with them
- within the confines of the UDO and he does not have to remove the rock, correct? Well, he would have
- to remove the rock beyond what was shown the rock what is showing but removed to another location He
- would have to move it to another location Not on the site. Okay, but
- He can use the rock is that he has there because we approved the size of the rock on the previous He
- doesn't so in the in the situations where stone would be allowed on here So in those, you know, we'd
- have to go back to the original site plan If there are areas where he could use stone, he could use
- that stone that is decorative stone that he has in place right now Can be reused in approved areas.
- Yes. Okay. He doesn't have to buy new stuff No Okay
- So we have a motion and we have a second and before I call the question, so then does that third item
- stand as per city approval that you're going to grant the variance per city approval? Grant the variance
- per city approval. Does that work? I'm so sorry. I'm not. I'm not falling when you say here's here's
- what I understand, which is if we deny all three, he's got to go back to the city and work out a plan
- anyway. Okay. So what I'm hearing from Eric.
- Okay. So deny all three. Then he just goes back and starts from scratching. Can we add a condition that
- the existing rock can be used even though we have the approval from the first that that would be attached.
- That would be attached to item three. I believe yes. You can't add conditions to a denial to a denial.
- Okay. You guys will be obviously everybody's going to use logic here and not make him remove rock.
- Could be reused on the same site correct. We will we will work with him to Yeah, we want to make sure
- that that's reused and so yes doing the denial which is what you're saying is yeah, you wouldn't do
- that That's why we were doing the approval with the conditions that that floppy was stating So the question
- becomes what's the proper way to do this if the city agrees to? Work with the petitioner to see to it
- that that material can be reused and makes that Makes that assertion here then we would then just simply
- do a denial of all three
- Yes, so if the question is in a place where decorative like in a location where decorative stone is
- currently allowed Under code could he use the rocks that are there now that is already taken care of
- by the administrative appeal which you did approve so we would allow like the areas near the
- Under the stairs or near the air conditioners next to the building They could take out what is there
- and put in this rock that we've been talking about the new one Exactly Understand that the rock that
- is in place can be reused for where the rocks are allowed To be honest, I'm still confused on how mulch
- in in rock or any different bottom line I think the thing is you're out of compliance. So you do is
- very clear and
- You have to give us strong findings of fact overturned denials. You haven't given us that so you're
- out of compliance We're denying all three You've got to bring it into compliance and they're gonna work
- with you to do that at a minimum cost Because I will say again as I said from the beginning vast improvement
- You've made a solid investment and it's improved everything around it and we can appreciate that I can
- personally appreciate it because I live in that neighborhood but again our purview with the BZA is very tight and
- You have to give us strong findings of fact overturn things and you haven't given it to us those So
- you'll work with them to come into compliance. Does that is that? understandable Even though you don't
- agree with it Sure and and further we do understand the confusion about the rock. Yes Yeah, don't get
- us wrong. This is a confusing petition. Really? Yeah, we understand that you don't see the difference
- and that is what
- We completely understand where you're coming from on that. However, it is stated clearly in the udo
- and builders in this community should know that And so regardless of whether it makes sense. It's in
- the udo And so we can't violate that That's our point and having a further discussion between you and
- the city to say could you please explain to me? Why this particular doesn't work or which which type
- of thing would work that that's where you would go next
- And and Flavia is is making sure that the city is going to work with you to be able to reuse that material
- So it's not money wasted at least it could be reused elsewhere on the property for where it's allowed
- So the city will work with you on that so that you're not throwing away material That that's where we're
- stuck at this point Okay, if we have any further discussion we'll have that if not, we'll call the question
- anyone any further discussion Call the question vote of yeses to deny all three
- Ballard yes, Burrell. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes so that's that request for variance is Denied And thank
- you for your patience. We're trying to just understand this because it is Complicated and we're apologies
- for that But we do appreciate you giving us the time so we can figure this out So we can get to where
- you need to go on the next step. Thank you Okay
- Break we're gonna take a two-minute three-minute break for bathroom and we'll be right back. We stand
- adjourned for the moment The BZA is now back in session and what we will do at this point is go to Zr
- 20 26-03-0008 and may I have a staff report, please? Yes, so this is a request from the petitioner built and
- LLC for a property at 1320 South Roger Street The petitioners here tonight requesting conditional use
- approval to allow a driveway and structures within the floodplain to allow for the construction of five buildings
- on the property for the use contractors yard Within parcel C of the Thompson planned unit development
- So this site is part of a six. It's about six point four two acres And is part of the Thompson PUD and
- parcel C This particular section of the Thompson PUD received site plan approval in the late
- 2000s Envisioning a general office park within this section of the Thompson PUD there were
- two buildings that were built as part of that. However, the remainder of the property has sat undeveloped.
- There is a good portion of the property that is encumbered with a floodplain of Clear Creek that you
- can see here, which explains why this particular portion of the Thompson PED was the last to develop
- because it was more encumbered by the location of the floodplain. You also have the riparian buffer
- for Clear Creek that moves through here.
- So as you can see in this exhibit, the floodplain encumbers a great deal amount of the property, more
- than 50% of the property is covered with the floodway and the floodway fringe. So the floodway fringe
- is what you see kind of in blue shading on the outer edges of the creek there in the floodway. So the
- petitioner is looking to utilize the east section of the site for a new development for five buildings.
- That will be used for the used contractors yard What this means is they will be buildings will have
- individual spaces within there that tenants can lease Use for the storage of their vehicles and work
- items as well as conduct some of their shop operations from So these buildings would be situated on
- the far east side of the site the site has frontage on Roger Street to the east and
- Hillside Drive to the south and then Patterson the driveway extends to the north and it connects to
- Patterson on the far north side of the property So the petitioner as they have tried to work with a
- site plan to utilize The majority of the site that is out of the floodplain they do have a little bit
- of the site that would be developed with
- buildings and structures that are within the floodplain. So you can see on this map here, I've tried
- to draw the location of where the floodplain falls that encumbers some of that area. With this, the
- buildings would be elevated two feet, minimum two feet above the 100-year flood elevation as required.
- They do have some of the drives that are within the floodplain as well. So it is the placement of the
- drives and the building within the floodplain
- That requires them to seek conditional use approval in order to offset the placement of the fill for
- the buildings and the driveways the petitioners have shown
- a compensatory storage pond to offset that fill. There are two ponds that are shown here. One is to
- offset that fill area and then another would be to meet stormwater detention requirements and water
- quality requirements from City of Bloomington Utilities. So there would be just one internal drive that
- would access an interior driveway area to service the buildings. The buildings would face Roger Street
- to the east as well as internal and then have internal driveways
- Or access doors for each of those buildings So as I mentioned the petitioners request that is for the
- BZA is simply to allow for the conditional use of the buildings and the drives within that floodplain
- there are three sections of the UDO that deal with review criteria for this one is the general compliance
- criteria and
- And that deals with compliance with just the general standards of the UDO Any other known applicable
- regulations in this particular case the other applicable regulations would be approvals from FEMA the
- Federal Emergency Management Agency for the placement of the fill within the floodplain there are no
- Improvements that are shown within the floodway itself. So no approvals from the Department of Natural
- Resources are required with this just approval from FEMA Verifying that what has been constructed was
- per the approved plans and that they have installed The compensatory storage areas that they are required
- to do so that will happen once construction has been completed and
- Second review criteria deal with additional criteria for conditional uses So that deals with review
- and compliance with our comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan designates this area as employment
- center and one of the uses that is called out within the employment center is flex tenant spaces which
- this matches as it allows for a variety of uses and
- within these buildings. It is supplementing employment uses as these are directly related to the trades
- industry. So it does work to accomplish the provision of job stabilization. So the other review criteria
- for conditional uses involves minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts. So the compensatory storage
- helps minimize those impacts to the floodplain.
- Does not have any work that is shown in the riparian buffer. So with the impacts or the the use of the
- floodplain It's really just a technical review of making sure that whatever fill you're placing in is
- offset by by additional Storage area and storage capacity so that has been accomplished with their storage
- pond area There is no phasing that is proposed with this
- And then the third review criteria deal with floodway and flood fringe development And has several components
- the plans do show the hundred-year elevation throughout the plan set So that has been shown on the plans,
- which is one of the review criteria the second deals with elevation of the flood
- Elevator the floodplain regulatory flood elevation so that is offset again with the storage areas that
- are being shown with this There is no on-site waste disposal. This will be connected to city sewers
- There are replacement or some work that will be done to the sewer lines However, the manhole covers
- are located above the flood elevations. So that is compliant with that standard So with that we have
- found that it does meet all the review criteria and we are recommending that the Board of Zoning Appeals
- adopt the proposed findings With the two conditions that are listed in staff report and I'm happy to
- answer any questions Once the petitioner is gone. Thank you, Eric
- petitioner present come forward at sign in and when you're signed in state your first and last name,
- please Hi Dylan Reynolds with Spaceco the civil engineer representing the developer Do you affirm the
- testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I
- Yes, you have up to 20 minutes the same rules apply what you don't use will be withheld for later. Yeah
- Thank you. I think Eric did a pretty good job explaining kind of the scope of the project It's really
- a five building development for some flex tenant spaces Like I said, Tom Sears with the development
- team is here if anybody has questions on uses but mainly here to ask for your approval for development
- in the floodplain and
- Like Eric mentioned, we have five buildings that are all pushed about as far east on the property as
- we can get to avoid as much floodplain as we can. We do have a couple buildings that clip the floodplain,
- but just to reiterate what our requirements are, for any fill that we place in the floodplain, to elevate
- the structures, we have to offset by cutting somewhere else so there's actually no loss of floodplain
- storage. So those are the requirements we're held to.
- so all those calculations have been submitted to the city and I think a couple of the conditions for
- the floodplain development permit and site plan approval those have both been applied for and are in
- progress and and we've seen received a couple round of comments and we're just in the process of Answering
- staff's comments to those and
- But other than that, I can answer any questions that you guys have. Um, you know, thanks to Eric, this
- is kind of the second iteration of this project. So he's been extremely helpful helping us get to this
- point and, uh, making sure we're compliant. Yeah, we were listening, but I wanted to just explain you
- were saying about the no new buildings built in the floodplain, right? There will be, there will be two,
- Within the existing limits, but they will be elevated Okay more than two feet above the flood elevation
- That's it because I was just looking at the overlay and I was just trying to get my mind wrapped around
- that So we I heard what you were saying, but I did want to make sure I was looking at the right document
- Thank you any questions for the petitioner will withhold the rest of that time for for the final comments
- No questions, okay nothing for the city either if you would you can I
- Grab a seat. We'll go to the public for comment anyone in chambers who'd like to address this Public
- comment seeing none go online If there is anybody online, please use the raise hand function and we
- can recognize you or send a message via chat I've not seen anybody online
- Thank you, Eric. So we are back to the petitioner for a final comment. Um, we didn't have any questions,
- so you can use this time to your discretion. And then after that, uh, we may have final questions for
- you before a motion. Yeah, no, I don't think I have, I don't think I have anything else to add. So happy
- to answer questions. Very good. If you would just stay there for us, please, in case there are any questions
- for the staff or the petitioner, if there are none, we'll entertain a motion. You can have a seat.
- Go ahead and move to approve CR 20 26 0 3 0 0 0 8. Of emotion. For approval. Second. Second. Any discussion.
- I'd just like to real quick. This is obviously in the same vicinity. This is this is really exciting
- to see this go in.
- And I know that whole area with the switch yard. Obviously the petitioner before you is right there
- as well I love the idea of bringing development, but I love the idea of bringing development. It's gonna
- ring jobs So kudos to you guys and good luck with it Anything else no, all right, I'll call the question
- Ballard yes
- Yes, the Rock Morton. Yes Okay, the motion passes unanimously, thank you we are moving on to Twenty
- twenty six oh three zero zero zero nine Can I? Is this yours Jackie? Can I pause for a
- conversation here, please, before we move. Could I talk to you here, please? Thank you.
- Before we move forward, who is the petitioner that will be speaking to this petition tonight?
- And only you? Okay, thank you. I just wanna make sure. Thank you, Jackie. That was just a sidebar of
- a conflict of interest to assure that there was no conflict of interest for those on the board.
- With that, we are at ZR 2026-03-0009. May I please have a staff report? Thank you, Jackie Scanlon, Assistant Director.
- The petition we are looking at tonight is at the existing and expanding Convention Center campus. The
- petitioner is requesting sign variance for that sign variance is for the properties that make up that
- campus. The zoning district is mixed use downtown and there are properties both in the downtown core
- and the downtown edges overlay. So here is a site plan of that area. So
- The area involved tonight is the existing convention center, the property to the east of that that is
- being developed with the convention center expansion, and then the parking lots that you can see to
- the south and west of the existing convention center that are utilized for parking for events at that
- location. The petitioner is requesting variances, one, to modernize one of the signs that they have
- and also to provide wayfinding signs as the campus is expanding.
- So all of the sites together are roughly six point zero seven acres again It's in the mixed use downtown
- zoning district in our downtown designation for the comprehensive plan and the Convention Center is
- already there and will be expanding in the future currently under construction So the proposed site
- plan indicates locations where new signage is proposed so they have three types of signage and
- That they are proposing that do not fully meet the UDO. The first is Freestanding ground mounted directional
- signage. So you can see my cursor here a little that's these squares here in Largely the parking areas.
- So one here and then and these parking areas down here So that people will be able to know that they
- can park there and utilize that location while the convention center so there are nine of those and
- The way that we're looking at the variance is basically just variance from the signage code, but in
- the staff report we broke down what each particular type of sign needs variance from. So this particular
- type of sign, oops.
- which you can see here on the left, requires allowance to be placed in the right-of-way, because a couple
- 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
- line, but on private property, so variance from the typical setback there. Additionally, most of our
- freestanding signs have a requirement to be wider, that the base not be
- I'm gonna say this backwards. So I'm just gonna read it variance to allow the width of the base to be
- less than 40% of the height of the sign so you can Envision a typical monument sign which might be more
- squat and these are obviously a different design and then a variance to allow no landscaping around
- the base of those signs variance from a number of signs because each property is regulated with how
- many freestanding signs they can have and variance from
- The requirement that only certain buildings that are set back 15 feet from the right of way line should
- be allowed to have freestanding signs in the zoning district. And for those directly located near the
- B line, a variance for that location. And additionally, freestanding signs in this district are maximum
- height of four feet. But as you can see here, these are proposed to be five. So those are the technical
- things that they don't need. And this would be the design that you would be approving
- If you include the freestanding ground mounted directional signage if you choose to approve and include
- those The second type of signage that the petitioner is requesting are these double-sided signs to hang
- on light poles So you can see there are some
- I'm sorry, the purple squares are the light pole signs the ones that we already looked at the directional
- signs are these little red signs here and the reason that they need right-of-way variances for those
- are for the ones that surround the Convention Center that portion that's under construction Excuse me.
- So these that are inside of the parking lot. Those are the light pole signs Again so that people will
- know that they can use that parking while utilizing the Convention Center There are 16 locations for
- those and two of which are located in the right-of-way this is
- Not a typical sign type that we have so the only additional signage That's not explicitly laid out would
- typically be signs that are not greater than one and a half square feet So a variance from that requirement
- to allow this size of sign To allow them to be on the freestanding poles and to allow the two in the
- right-of-way to be located there as well
- And then the third type you can see here on the right is one ground-mounted monument sign with a digital
- signage included. So there's an existing ground-mounted sign in front of the courtyard Marriott here,
- and that is where these two squares are. They are green and pink, if you can see those colors. And that
- sign will be replaced with this sign. So in this overlay in particular,
- The sign maximum is 15 square feet. So they would need a variance from that particular portion of the
- sign code. They would also like for the sign to be taller than four feet. They are currently proposing
- seven feet, five inches, and a variance to allow a freestanding sign with internal illumination and
- the reader board component, which are not strictly allowed by code. So the department's proposed finding
- Number one is that the granting of the variance from sign standards will not be injurious The proposed
- signs will help visually I unify the newly expanded campus so that community the community members notes
- boundaries and are able to use it Will not substantially adversely impact the use and value of the area
- adjacent to the property The existing facility actually contains all three types of this signage except
- for the digital signage on the monument sign they have some form of signage on the lights and
- some form of some directional signage. So this will kind of clean up what they have there and have that
- all be standard as well, which would be a benefit to the community. And then the electronic reader board
- sign that they're requesting is between two parts of the campus. So it's not directly across the street
- from other users or homes or other commercial users. It's between the existing
- Convention Center and the new part that's under construction now The department is recommending a maximum
- of six feet in height for this sign as I mentioned before the allowable maximum height in this district
- is actually four feet But six feet is the maximum in other districts in the UDO that are more intense
- for freestanding signage So we're recommending to carry that over here as well
- Proposed finding for criteria three is that the strict application of the terms of the unified development
- ordinance? Would result in practical difficulties of the use of this site This is similar to when we
- discuss the variance package that came through for the new portion of the site when the new building
- was being designed That you know the overlay envisions that
- Numerous separate individual uses next to each other not one large site taking up six acres in the downtown
- We only have one convention center, which is a peculiar condition in and of itself that this is that
- use And so this would only be applied at this location with the reasoning we've submitted And so we
- believe that granting the variance will relieve the practical difficulties associated with this request
- So the department is recommending that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve
- the petition with the condition that the freestanding monument sign shall not exceed six feet in height
- and that the digital portion of the proposed sign Once if they do if you do approve and they have to
- resubmit at six feet must not exceed the same portion relative to the new height as the sign shown in
- the application packet, so basically
- We are not allowing the we are not recommending allowance of the digital of the digital reader board
- at its current size if the If the height is lowered to six feet, we're asking it to be proportionately
- lowered as well. I can answer any questions Thank You Jackie, we'll go to the petitioner now You've
- heard the rules, you know, you know the rules Just sign in and state your first and last name and I'll
- swear you in Thank you. I'm Sarah Hempstead with Schmidt Associates. I
- And do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
- 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
- time. I'll i'll use two and leave my time for questions So the signage package for the monroe county
- capital improvement board and the new bloomington convention center really has three main purposes for
- signing and wayfinding
- The primary purpose of the wayfinding signage package is safety As the Convention Center exists on both
- sides of the streets and as a relatively complicated district. We want to ensure safety at pedestrians
- Drivers and of course cyclists. That's his primary goal Secondarily, we want to get the campus to be
- unified as we mentioned two of these three signage types exist now but in different generations and
- legacies of the Convention Center, so
- We feel that the signage package will unify the entirety of campus and beautify the neighborhood and
- the district. And then finally, ease of use when it comes to things like parking in particular, things
- like the light pole signs we feel will make the convention center easier to use for our guests and also
- easier for our neighbors if our guests know what parking lots are actually part of the convention center
- and where they are supposed to park.
- So that's the reason for our variances and signage packages today. We have incorporated the new branding
- for the convention center within and so the materials, the finishes, all work within the entirety of
- the package of the building design. So I'll stop now and leave time for questions. Okay, thank you.
- Retain the rest of the 18 and a half minutes if needed before a motion is taken.
- If you'll just bear with us, we may have a question for you. My first one goes to Jackie. Now, this
- is not a city-owned property. It's, okay, so this question's a little odd. The city, when it put up
- its way, if it were to change and put up new way fare signs, like we did a number of years ago before
- the new UDO, do they have to abide by the same policies of the UDO, or do they have, are they granted
- a lot of leeway of the city? For city signage?
- Title, so chapter four exempts public signs. So it's a defined term in the UDO and it's exempt from
- most of the requirements of the sign standards. So basically if you could, if this city can meet the
- definition of public sign, then they are exempt. So again, because this is a joint venture and the county,
- et cetera, et cetera, I just wanted to kind of make that connection that there's some leeway here because
- of that relationship maybe.
- So that's one thing. The other one is the digital sign that's going to be put in on college. That will
- abide by the 22nd rule that we've discussed in the past, or is this a different type of sign, like a
- reader sign? No, it will abide by the 22nd. So it could have full screen images and those types of things.
- It's not just like a whatever you call those, the ticket tapes. Yes, correct. All right. And any questions
- from the board at this point?
- Okay. If not, then you can have a seat. We'll go to the public for comment. If you're on zoom and you
- would like to speak, uh, you can raise your virtual hand. Anyone in the chambers that want to speak
- to this? If so, come forward. Mr. Cassidy, come forward and sign in and we'll swear you in. Is there
- anyone Jackie there? Yeah. Online. Okay. State your first and last name. Brandy Cassidy and Mr. Cassidy.
- Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
- the truth.
- I do. All right. You have up to five minutes. It'll only take a minute. It's the right thing to do.
- We're building a convention center. Everybody needs to be able to see the signage, the directions for
- to direct them where they need to be, the safety and the benefit of our community. This is something
- that is important because while we may know where we are as we bring people into our community, they
- need to know where they're going, how to get there and have that impression of Bloomington.
- with the positive aspect, and while we may regulate signs, we also need them to help us through things.
- Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. Anyone else wishing to speak from the public? Seeing none,
- no one's online, correct? Correct. Back to the board for discussion or a motion. I don't think there's
- any discussion, so I make a motion. Make a motion to approve ZR.
- 2026-03-009 with the following condition. The free standing monument sign shall not exceed six feet
- in height. The digital portion of the proposed sign must not exceed the same proportion relative to
- the new height as the sign shown in the application packet. I have a motion in front of the board. Second.
- I have a second. Any further discussion?
- I think that this really could fall and inside the city You know latitude, so I have no issues whatsoever
- of granting the petition. So If that's the case, I'll call the question Ballard. Yes, Burrell. Yes,
- Brock Morton Yes, thank you Approved Congratulations. Thank you for your patience. We will see you next
- month at this point. Do we want to
- new business or shall we just wait until we see the results of David do you have the Purdue score? The
- Purdue score Well, I'm getting my only comment on the on the new On the new business Jack is it I mean
- I do like the five-minute 20-minute. I'm not real keen on changing that I don't know. I mean they hardly
- ever use 20 minutes anyway, do you
- I think two is great. Could we could we say three because I do think Excuse me speak 30 to 30 with three
- minutes left in the first half. Thank you so much You have to be sworn in John. Okay Yeah, I mean I
- 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
- you okay with three? I think three is good. Yeah, three, you know will force him to define a little
- more Jackie
- I'm so sorry. I didn't watch the beginning of the meeting. So I was in the environmental commission.
- We had a discussion about, uh, there could be some changes to the rules and we were saying that at the
- end of this meeting, we might just have a real brief discussion about what might be good time limits.
- Yeah. Do you, I mean, you could, I'm not sure if you could vote on that, but are you just telling me
- so we could bring it to you next month? Yeah. Okay. So three minutes for public. Yes. It's a suggestion.
- Great. And can I make a quick comment on the decorum aspect of
- Because I know I can be outspoken myself but the The public last meeting coming at us asking questions
- pointed questions out of the blue. I I don't know if I find that I'm glad that you brought that up because
- I wanted for us to I wanted to actually ask we need to have What do you want to call an executive?
- Or whatever but we need to get together and talk about what's the best way to handle that because there
- are strategies and we need to We need to know what they are because like I'll understand if you want
- to disagree with me all day fine but yelling a question to me out of the public I I'll answer it but
- that's why I said let's talk after the meeting and of course that person didn't want to talk But yeah,
- I just found it to be I feel like we have really really good decorum and
- I think Joe you do an excellent job keeping it all very respectful And again, we can agree to disagree
- and I may upset people but I felt like that was that was out of line and I didn't appreciate it and
- I Would address any issue anybody has with me as part of the part of this board More than I'd be more
- than happy to do that outside of these meetings but yeah, I think that we've also had it from petitioners
- who've who've gone outside and
- what we've dictated, which is they can't just step up and say something. But it's not a matter of wanting
- to shout them down and say you can't, it needs to, what I was trying to figure out, because I was very
- disturbed by a couple of them that were yelling at Tim about what's your proof, which is, it's just
- inappropriate. And Tim was very upfront about what his proof was, so it wasn't anecdotal. So that was
- an issue, but at that time,
- It actually kind of ended quickly because the way Tim responded, but there are going to be situations
- where it's probably not if it's a public that really wants to. Here's where I'm going with it. OK, so
- to cut to the chase is I do think at one point we we have to have some strategy as to whether we just
- say there's a right to protest peacefully will let them say their piece. We can actually either stay
- here and wait till they're done. And not say anything.
- And then when they're done with their go about our business, we could exit the chambers until they're
- done protesting. We need to come up with a very clear plan so that we treat it in a very controlled,
- reasonable way on our part. And then if police need to be called in because there's danger, that's another
- issue, right? So I'm glad Tim brought it up because I forgot to discuss that in an email. Well, and
- I appreciate how these meetings run and they run really, really well.
- But yeah, I think it's a valid point. And I've honestly never, I mean, I've been on some other boards.
- I've never been accosted. Like again, you can really hate me and disagree with me and not take anything
- of what I have into account in terms of my vote. That's fine. But let's at least respect each other.
- So David, I don't know if you have any
- I think an executive session is a good idea. Legal has had meetings with certain departments on just
- this issue, handling unruly customers, clients, residents. So I think they're probably ready to have
- that conversation with boards. And it would be a good idea, as Joe mentioned, to have a strategy in
- place to deal with that.
- I worked with lots of BZAs and that was about as bad as I've seen it. Well, we've had maybe one other.
- I wanted to add that in that same meeting, I had a gentleman approach the podium and put his finger
- on my face and insult me. Yeah. He did what? He came to here and told me, you don't understand a thing
- what you're talking about. Last meeting? Yeah.
- I wasn't here. We did hear about it. I do think David's right an executive session is we don't want
- you all to be treated that way That's okay. I did want to have I'm glad we have the initial portion
- in public. So this is for the record the The other part of that is I do try to make a point when their
- sidebars up here to actually try to talk about what the Content or the general content is so that the
- public is at least aware when they're watching the record that you know, we're not just up here You know
- making side deals, what we're trying to do is keep clear about what we're discussing. So I know that
- in our time of doing this, we've always at least tried to say that sidebar was about this particular
- issue as it relates to what the petitioner or the public was saying. And I think that that's something
- that we'll continue to do so that at least there's a public record of that. And I think that's enough
- in order to assure that we're being transparent. So if we could set up an executive meeting,
- With all five members, that would be great. Thank you. All right. Any other business in front of this
- board? Seeing none, we stand adjourned. Thank you.