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.