- Welcome to the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday May 28th nine twenty twenty six. We are. We're starting
- with a roll call please. Burrell here Fernandez Throckmorton. Good Cinco.
- I'd like to approve the minutes. I have a second please. Second. This is for the approval of the minutes
- of March 26 2026. I'm sorry. Was there a motion to approve. Yes. Thank you. Who is the second.
- Leslie. Thank you. Borel. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Good Cinco. Yes. Do you have any reports resolutions
- and communications from staff. We do have one remaining item which was the approval of the amended rules
- and procedures that we gave to you in March.
- So the main changes were the incorporation of the expedited agenda process, which was something that
- is Being implemented tonight, but we do need to obviously formally approve those amended rules and procedures
- to enable that That path. Oh shit. All right. I will entertain a motion to approve the amendment Barrell
- Yes Fernandez could sinko. Yes all right. I think we also Jackie Scanlon assistant director wanted to
- acknowledge Tim Ballard who was a member of this board for a number of years joined initially.
- 2022 I think and he filled the role that was both a plan Commission and a BZA appointment of the mayor
- And took it took his role very seriously and was very helpful I think especially to members of the public
- understanding what was going on here and tried to you know, do his best to Make the role valuable and
- helpful for the community he and his family
- have moved on away and so they we just want to thank him publicly for You know the many hours he gave
- to this board and planned mission as well And we will we are seeking to fill that position. And so hopefully
- that will be done soon as well. Thank you Thank you very much
- Okay so now we have one petition continuing to the meeting of June twenty fifth twenty twenty six and
- that's ZR twenty twenty six dash zero five dash zero zero twenty. That is continued to June twenty fifth
- meeting and we are now entertaining the expedite agenda.
- And the first petition is ZR twenty twenty six dash twenty three dash zero zero seven. This is 6 1 3
- North Street. Yes thank you. Jackie Scanlon again for this petition at 6 1 3 North North Street.
- The petitioner is requesting a variance from front and side building setback standards to allow for
- the replacement of a dwelling mobile home in the R2 zoning district So this property you can see the
- aerial on the right and the survey on the left Historically contained a mobile home that mobile home
- was on a pad that was longer than 70 feet
- The petitioner has replaced that mobile home with a shorter mobile home so that you can see there on
- the left It is contained within the property But does not meet the setback standards on the north or
- the west side As you can see the arrows pointing to the locations where the corners are close to the
- property lines the
- Site has an improved right of way to the north and it actually contains a septic system as well and
- sloping to the east and south of where the pad currently lays. And so the department is recommending
- that the Board of Zoning Appeals approves the variance request to allow for the replacement mobile home
- to use the existing
- had that's already there with the condition that it is for the currently placed structure and does not
- allow for additional encroachment or movement of that structure which is what the petitioner is requesting
- and I can answer any questions. OK so do we. So the presentation from the petitioner is that 20 minutes
- for this one or is it smaller.
- Yes, so the petitioner still has the same a lot of time the main difference with the expedited agenda
- is there's a three-minute public comment period for that The petitioners certainly still has the 20
- minutes Although we encourage petitioners that are on the expedited agenda if they so choose to keep
- the presentation a little bit briefer Sure, but yeah, so it's the same full-time. So same present.
- All right, so may I have the petitioner, please? Are they in the house? I
- How many people are going to speak? I'm going to swear you in. We both speak. It's OK. Nice. Can I have
- both your names please. I'm Stacey Renard and I'm Mike Renard. All right. Mr. and Mrs. Bernard do you
- swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth. Thank you. Proceed.
- We when we bought the property we called the planning department We asked if it was okay to put another
- mobile home back in there. The only stipulation was as we move it a little bit to the east we had Water
- ran to it because when we bought the property it said it had city water it did not so I work with Nancy
- axum utilities Senator construction run their water. It was a year into this before I'd ever heard of
- a right away
- So we're kind of new at this. You mean we had the property surveyed to two different people. The first
- one wasn't didn't we feel like it's incorrect. Correct. So Deckard surveyed it and this would make somebody
- a nice home. We said from very beginning we'd turn it into a section eight or affordable housing for
- somebody to live there. I feel like the property we have we cleaned it up. It was a mess. I'm not sure
- if you guys are familiar with the area but it was quite the mess when we bought it.
- Over 200 used syringes throughout their property and the yard. Yeah Thank you Yeah, take turns so mr.
- Ornard go on so I mean like I said, we're kind of new at this You mean I'm not really sure what you
- if you have questions from us or anything like that Those are intentions though is to turn it into affordable
- housing. I know there's a high demand for affordable housing in Bloomington We're close there
- Like I said, we ran water to it. We got a mobile home there. We got permit foundation There was a variance
- passed 30 years ago for the property. I Felt like it I feel like it'd be a pretty good thing.
- Like I said, we've cleaned it up It looks nice at first when we first bought it we had to call the police
- out a few times you mean to run people off and a couple people got arrested but It's really been a positive
- effect I think for the neighborhood and we will continue to make it a positive effect if you guys will
- give us that variance and
- Mrs. Renard would you like to speak. That's OK. I don't have anything to add. Are you OK then. You still
- have time remaining if you have to add anything. OK. Do you have any questions. We will get the questions
- in just a little bit. OK. All right. Now from questions from staff or for the staff or the petitioner
- from the board. Any questions.
- Questions. OK so we're going to open up to public comment. Is there anybody in the house or online that
- would like to speak. If you are on zoom you can send a message to the host or raise your virtual hand
- in order to be acknowledged for public comment. I don't see any on zoom.
- None in the house. So we are back to the board for a final action. If there are no questions no statements
- I'd like to entertain a motion.
- I have a second. Second. Roll call please. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Because I think yes. Motion is approved.
- Thank you. Congratulations. All right. We're now moving on to ZR twenty twenty six dash zero four zero
- zero one four. This is for one twenty two north Roosevelt Street.
- I have the staff report please. Good evening. I'm Joe Patterson zoning along range planner. Before us
- is a request for conditional use to allow for a duplex by converting the existing single family home
- through an addition.
- as well as a variance from the front build to to accommodate that addition for the duplex. As you can
- see here the existing home is currently placed on the far east end of the property and by adding the
- addition to the home. It does not meet the front build to requirement in addition the
- For the front built to also helps to maintain some existing vegetation some long established trees there
- petitioner did work with staff to meet parking requirements and the impervious surface coverage requirements
- And through that process we find that all the conditions are met for the conditional use for the duplex
- as well as for the variance and therefore
- We do recommend that both the conditional use and variants are approved with conditions that any use
- to be ran must be registered and inspected by hand and that the trees identified in the front the west
- end of the property are to be maintained to the maximum acceptable. And I'm here for any questions.
- Thank you. I have the petitioner on this case please. He is on.
- Uh, the petitioner is online at Daniel. You should be able to unmute and speak now and you'll have 20
- minutes once you get sworn in. Yes. Before you start speaking, uh, can you say your name, please? Oh,
- hello. Yes. This is Daniel. Thank you. Do you swear to swear or affirm that the testimony we're about
- to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Thank you.
- proceed. Okay.
- your time and you still have some remaining time if necessary. All right. Any questions from staff for
- the staff or the petitioner from the board. I have a question for staff. How many parking spots were
- it looks like a long drive and then is it three parking spots in the new for the new approved potentially
- approved plan. Correct. There are three proposed spots for the new
- And then the rest would be street parking. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any public comment here or online
- for this project. If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition please use the
- raise hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody online.
- So we're back to the board for a final action. John could you is your mic on. We're having trouble picking
- you up. Sorry about that. Here we go. Yeah. So I'll make a motion that we adopt the proposed findings
- and approve the petition for ZR 20 26 0 4 0 0 1 4 with the three conditions articulated in the staff
- report. Second.
- Please Borel. Yes Fernandez Yes, kusinko. Yes motion is approved All right moving right along congratulations
- Thank you to the council members and staff
- I have the presentation on ZR 20 26 0 dash 0 4 dash 0 0 1 9. This is 4 0 2 West 6th Street. Thank you.
- Eric Grulig development services manager presenting this petition.
- So this is a request for a property at 402 West 6th Street from the petitioner to several variances
- are being requested tonight. One I'm so sorry here. I pulled up the wrong presentation. Give me just
- one second. There we go.
- There we go. I should have everything working now. So this is a request for a property at 402 West 6th
- Street. The petitioner is here tonight to request variances from architectural and design dimensional
- standards to allow for the use of fitness center small in the mixed use downtown. The petitioner is
- specifically requesting five variances in order to reuse this property. The petitioner is proposing
- to construct a new
- two new outdoor sauna buildings on the property. The property has been developed with a one story story
- and a half multi tenant building that has a large green space on the northwest side of the property.
- So the petitioner is trying to reutilize that green space to construct two new outdoor saunas.
- So that use is classified as a fitness center, which isn't allowed use. However, in order to utilize
- this green space on the property. The petitioners are trying to work within the confines of the downtown
- zoning code.
- Which presents some challenges in terms of utilizing this green space while at the same time accommodating
- the petitioner's proposal to construct two new buildings. So the two new buildings that the petitioner
- is proposing to construct are about eight by 10 and are located on the west side of the property. The
- structures are about 10 feet tall and would be used for an outdoor sauna.
- So as I mentioned, trying to accommodate this use with the zoning district standards creates some challenges
- that are certainly unique to this property because it is unique in the downtown. They have a large open
- green space on a particular property while trying to incorporate a new building design and at the same
- time preserve an existing building.
- So the petitioners are requesting a variance from the minimum structure height So 20 feet is what is
- required within the downtown as I mentioned these buildings would be about 10 feet in height So this
- is a request to allow up to an 11 foot They also requesting a variance from the building roof design
- to allow for the shed roof design and
- Also requested a variance from the windows and door requirement for primary facades to allow for In
- essence a variation in the design to accommodate this unique building use Also requested as a variance
- from the primary pedestrian entry standards these buildings While they are a primary use are kind of
- functioning really as accessory buildings and would be accessed through the main building itself so
- the users of the property are not
- Directly going to these buildings. So they are requesting a variance from the primary pedestrian entry
- standards As well as because of this unique building use The typical design standards for the downtown
- are designed to accommodate long-standing buildings that are permanent much taller in size and scale
- So these buildings typically are made of wood. So the petitioner is requesting a variance from those
- architectural materials in order to allow for
- The buildings as as they've shown So as I mentioned there are several variances that the petitioners
- requesting variances from and so we did make findings for those base and part of as I mentioned on this
- unique property in the downtown that has been developed in a way that is very atypical of downtown properties
- that has a large open green space on it that is very challenging to use while keeping the existing building
- So we did make findings to support the variance criteria and are recommending approval with the three
- conditions that are listed in staff's report and I'm happy to answer any questions after the petitioner
- speaks Thank you May I have the present presentation by the petitioner, please I
- State your name Anderson Arante Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will
- be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do Thank you So I think staff did a great job
- of summarizing what we're looking to or what we are requesting Our petitioner statements pretty thorough
- as well out of respect to the expedited agenda. I'm happy to take any questions you may have I
- Thank you. You will still have some remaining time if necessary. Thank you. Any questions from staff
- for the staff or the petitioner from the board. All right. We are open to public comment then if there
- is anybody that is in council chambers certainly feel free to approach the podium. If there's anybody
- online please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you.
- not seeing anybody online. All right. Well, we're back to the BZA for a final action. I'll entertain
- a motion for ZR 2026-04-0019 to approve the variances. The three variances listed in the staff report.
- The conditions. Thank you. The variances.
- three conditions I Motion to approve ZR two zero two six dash zero four dash zero zero one nine with
- the variances in the three conditions listened in staff report Thank you roll call, please Borel. Yes
- Fernandez. Yes, could sinker. Yes All right. Congratulations Moving right along. All right I just make sorry
- Yes I just this is a really funky site so I didn't really want to extend the expedited nature of this
- but I really appreciate the petitioner's willingness to make this kind of investment downtown and the
- staff's ability to work through this. Thank you.
- Moving on to see our twenty twenty six dash zero four dash zero zero one six. And this is for a request
- that Patterson drive from north of Allen Street to the east of Fairview Street. Thank you. This is a
- request from the city engineering department for a project that the city is undertaking.
- That involves resurfacing as well as installing some pedestrian improvements along a substantial section
- of Patterson Drive as mentioned from Allen Street to Fairview down to Roger Street. So this petition
- involves resurfacing the road as well as installing new sidewalks along a portion of the road frontage
- so this project does cross across a
- A intermittent stream that is subject to floodway floodplain Regulations as well as riparian buffer
- standards And so those standards do allow for some disturbance but list Those activities allowed as
- only as crossings not activities that allow for parallel movement with the stream so the variances that
- are being requested tonight are
- Is conditional use approval to allow for these activities within the floodplain? And then a variance
- from riparian buffer standards to allow for the the sidewalk to move through that area as well So you
- can see a site plan just kind of showing the rough area as I mentioned it's expanding from roughly east
- of Roger Street to just about 1,100 feet north of where Allen Street moves through here
- So the petition, as I mentioned, involves a lot of resurfacing but also the installation of the new
- sidewalks.
- So certainly this is a unique situation Where we have existing facilities that are in place that were
- constructed prior to current standards And the city is coming forward to install these new facilities
- and obviously are held to our own rules and regulations So the petitioner is coming forward in order
- to request the appropriate approvals to allow for these activities And so we are recommending approval
- with just the one condition that is listed in staffs report and I'm happy to answer any questions
- Wants to petitioner speaks obviously. Yes May I have the Presentation by the petitioner, please Yep,
- Kendall Kenoki engineering department. Yes. Do you swear to our firm that the Testimony we're about
- to give will be the truth the whole truth and not another truth. Yes. All right. Thank you Thank you
- so much. Yes, this is part of a larger four million dollar
- Maintenance project that's happening this summer on Patterson Grimes Rogers Kirkwood This is just one
- little piece of it as Eric mentioned we kind of it seems to be a recurring theme we did a resurfacing
- project last year that kind of got into some floodplain riparian buffer and You know a lot of our roads
- do that. So this is just kind of a small portion of this larger project, but we are
- Doing some work in the floodplain. We are getting the approval from the state We're going through that
- process right now and there's also a local floodplain permit that's associated Once we get our approval
- from the state we going we get our local floodplain permit and that includes a variance Request that
- you all are considering tonight and then there's also kind of a separate the riparian buffer requests
- that Eric mentioned which only results when our roadway is parallel to the streams not perpendicular and
- If you're familiar with Patterson, there's streams on both sides, and then they kind of turn and cross
- and weave underneath. So it makes it a little confusing to know exactly where these variances are or
- aren't, but it's roughly in that area. And essentially what we're doing is resurfacing the roadway,
- rebuilding curb ramps, which we're required to do under federal law. And then we're also doing some
- safety improvements. So we're doing some truck aprons. We're doing some sidewalk gap, filling in the
- gaps. We're doing some traffic signal work.
- All of this is kind of what causes this to be a variance and a conditional use request tonight. So I'm
- happy to answer more questions. It is a large project but hopefully tonight we're really just looking
- at that that small area that Eric mentioned. So thank you very much. Thank you. You still have some
- remaining time. Do you have any questions for seeing. All right. So we're going to move on then to public comment.
- Anybody in the house or online that would like to speak about this petition there is anybody online.
- Please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you.
- I'm not seeing anybody online. All right. We're back to the board. Somebody. Hold on. I am chatting
- with one member of the public who's having trouble raising their hand. You know what petition they're
- interested in.
- It's not this petition. So there doesn't appear to be any public comment online for this. All right.
- We're back to the BZA for a final action then I will move. Excuse me. I will move that we approve the
- conditional use and variance for ZR 20 26 0 4 0 1 1 6 and and adopt the
- Just following the conditions articulated in the staff report. Second. Roll call please. Burrell. Yes.
- Fernandez. Yes. Could sinko. Yes. Congratulations. Now we have concluded our expedite petitions.
- the expedited agenda. We're going to move to a regular petitions but I'd like to keep the pace. So let's
- let's go. So now we're going to entertain ZR 20 26 0 2 dash 0 0 4 request for 5 0 8 North Lincoln Street.
- May I have a presentation from the staff.
- Yes, so this is a request for a property at 508 North Lincoln Street for a variance from front building
- setback requirements to allow for a deck for the use dwelling come a single-family residential so the
- property has been developed with a Single-family residents on this property there was previously a deck
- and patio along the front of the building and
- However, it was removed at some point in the past and a new deck was installed The new deck does not
- meet setback requirements. And so a notice of violation was given to the property owner for that the
- Require the front building setback requirement allows for the house to be constructed or the deck to
- be Doesn't allow for decks to encroach So it could not extend further than what the previous kind of stooped
- That was there was allowed to be so the new deck does not meet in setback requirements as I mentioned
- And would not be allowed in between the building and street at all because the house is at the building
- setback line So other than the the stoop that is there the the deck as shown would not be allowed in
- any capacity so the petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for the deck to remain as is and
- You know, we we do not find that there were any peculiar conditions, you know, the the UDO does not
- Allow for nor desire to have decks Along the front that encroach in the building setback areas,
- you know, certainly the building is at the setback area and does is existing and they can certainly
- do that but obviously new activities on a property have to be compliant and
- You know, we certainly understand the desire to have an outdoor deck. However, you know that is not
- a common Use a common common portion of a building that you know, the denial of the variance would deny
- the reasonable use of the property You know the property the building did exist for many decades, you
- know without the deck You know, they simply constructed the deck without the permit or
- contacting us So we did not find that there were any peculiar conditions that as I said presented a
- hardship in the use of the property And so we are recommending denial of the variance And with that
- I'm happy to turn it over to the petitioner Thank you is the petitioner in the house, please And I believe
- the petitioner is online I
- Tina you should be able to speak. Hi Tina. Can you state your name please. Thank you. You swear or affirm
- that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- Go ahead please.
- Go ahead and keep your. We might. Will exercise that the right to ask that question to staff, but can
- you just go ahead and continue with your statement, please? Okay, so.
- What you're telling me is that you want. Wait a second. You need to present your request your petition
- and then we can ask questions later. Do you see what I'm trying to say. OK. Sounds good. Do you have
- anything else to add. OK. Thank you so much. And you still have some time if you would like to speak
- again. OK.
- Thank you so much. All right. Now go back to the board if you have questions to the petitioner or to
- staff for staff. What was the original. What's the delta between the original and the new deck. Give
- me just a second. I will put up a picture that kind of highlights. Thank you.
- So this is this is pictures slide of this structure that was there before. So it did extend from the
- building a short ways. So the UDO does allow for maintenance of nonconforming structures. So to a limited
- degree the petitioner could read.
- Redo the deck was there as long as typically what we've done is, you know as long as supporting posts
- and structures are preserved You can reface a deck, you know, so you can you can do some normal maintenance
- to it, but you do have to keep Main structural elements of it that being the support structures You
- know, we can certainly work with them. It's obviously difficult at this point because the entire previous
- structure was completely removed and
- So we would need to work internally with staff to determine what could be rebuilt to accommodate what
- was there while still falling true to the limited limitations of the UDO in terms of nonconforming structures
- and maintenance to those. And then I just have a procedural question. If we deny the variance is there
- still an opportunity for them to go back to the original deck.
- Well, so what I could possibly suggest if the board wants to fully Ensure that the petitioners could
- go back is rather than approving the the full variance to show the structure that was there now you
- approve a variance to allow for a deck of I Don't know two and a half feet three feet
- You know, whatever it's hard to discern what was there before because I'm just looking at a picture
- So you could approve a variance to allow for a deck of three feet of depth Obviously you'd have to make
- findings for the peculiar condition staff did not make findings for that Any questions from you John
- Okay So So Eric, can you can you help me out here though? I mean if if the previous Because in our findings
- were saying that
- You know a front yard with only a four foot setback from the property line would not be consistent.
- What would be consistent. Are you are you asking like what is the common established block face along
- here for buildings. I mean we'd have to go back and look at the corridor as a whole to see if there are other
- Decks or something that encroaches, you know, again, these would all be nonconformities You know if
- there are other decks along this block face that that encroach well, I am just in the Criterion findings
- number two It says that a variance the last sense of variance to allow a deck in the front yard with
- only a four foot setback from the property line would not be consistent with the surrounding uses in
- the area of
- I'm just asking. Yes. So what that is looking at is the petitioners request to have the deck only four
- feet from the sidewalk is not in character. You know there are not other structures or decks along here
- that are only four feet. So this is that variance as requested is out of character. I understand that.
- But if we're saying that this is not consistent what is consistent because I'm just trying to get to
- the question of
- If the original smaller version of this was OK, what were the dimensions that would keep it in line
- and consistent with the other? Because I know this neighborhood fairly well and it's. The porches and
- decks are like all over the map. I mean, some of them are as just as close as what they built and some
- of them are set further back. I'm just not sure what
- how we're defining consistency in a neighborhood that has such irregularities if that makes sense. Yeah.
- Understood. Give me just a second. I'm trying to pull some things up here. I think the issue here is
- there was a deck that was existing and it was already. Yes.
- So whatever that setback was I'm asking would that be considered consistent. Yeah it was removed and
- I think that deck I wouldn't call it a deck it would be more like a porch. Yeah a balcony in the front
- of the house. So once it this new structure is a new structure and it's beyond of what
- Yeah as you look at and I can I can try to show this on the screen here real quick. Looking at the existing
- buildings along here you can certainly see that. Give me just a second I'll show what I'm looking at here.
- I'm looking at the property that's on the At the corner and ninth ninth and Lincoln, I think it's the
- south East corner. I mean it looks like that deck is like right on the street Yep, so what I'm showing
- on the screen here is a GIS and so as you look along this block face along the east side of Lincoln
- North of 9th Street, you can you can see that all the buildings are pretty much in a straight line
- You know in terms of the the block faces, you know as you move north You've got buildings that are further
- back, but you don't have any buildings that have decks that extend further You know off of the building
- closer to the street. So the deck that was there was certainly atypical And so as we made findings and
- said suggested that you know the extension of the deck to get further from compliance was just even
- more Atypical and out of character with the block
- Can you can you push that map up a little bit further so we pick up that yeah, so then you go down to
- that corner Just to the south. I Mean it looks like that Yeah, typically, you know when when the UDO
- uses the term block face, you know, it's to reference Between public streets along the same side of
- the street. So, you know in this case here we would look at
- From north up to 10th Street along the east side of Lincoln and that's generally how we characterize
- an area or block phases the UDO treats it So, like I said if if the board wants to approve something
- different obviously that is there your purview and your right, you know We were just need to make alternative
- findings for some of those criteria. I
- Just say I it's hard for me to look at this when the house literally Two houses down has a deck all
- the way up to the sidewalk Yep, certainly, you know, like said you're going to find situations where
- you have informing structures and
- You know that were built prior to current code, you know, obviously the challenge for us is, you know
- Do you perpetuate these situations that that don't meet code and whatever that is, you know You have
- a building and as I mentioned in the findings, you know The building can continue to be used for the
- manner in which it's zoned and has been used for decades without the granting of the variance so the
- denial of the variance is not Depriving the the owner of the reasonable use of the property for which
- it's been used for decades. Mm-hmm
- questions I'm going to open to public comment and while you ponder and we'll go from there. So can you
- state your name please. My name is James Ford. I live in High Point neighborhood.
- before we begin. Can I swear you in? Sure. Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about
- to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Before I begin,
- Mayor Fernandez, I can hardly hear you, so your microphone isn't working or you're not speaking loud
- enough. I live in High Point. I feel like there's two questions here, whether we should allow this deck
- to continue or what should we allow to replace it.
- And then there's a reference to a deck that's a half a block south The deck half a block south is also
- owned by the same people and they added the deck and None of us in the neighborhood happened to complain
- that particular time and so it went forward So comparing it to that that deck is I think not appropriate
- This deck is Comical it is a caricature. It looks like a circus But you have a picture of it without
- people partying and leaving their junk everywhere. And it's really a magnet for activity that is not
- conducive to a residential environment. And we hope that you deny the variance to allow this to continue
- existing. And even the previous deck was not really used much just to put garbage cans on. So it would
- be nice if whatever they do replace it with, if it looks a little bit more architecturally
- can do connected to the original building if that's possible. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your
- comment. Anybody else. If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this request or this petition
- at 508 North Lincoln please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat and we can recognize you.
- I'm not seeing anybody online. All right. Well we're back to the board for discussion or final action.
- What. I don't have any questions. Well my thoughts are we have setbacks for a reason and it's to keep
- order and organize
- and keep the homes organized in a fashion. This house sits at the setback already 20 feet from the center
- of the road. So any structures that grow beyond that they are encroaching on a setback. So what they
- had before even though it was encroaching on a setback it was not a nice sore and it didn't cause any issues.
- With with the facades of that block face in the situation right now It's it's almost like they moved
- the backyard to the front yard So so that creates issue in a neighborhood of course and in a block face
- I guess my only thought would be I know there was a little bit of a
- Discussion about can you amend the? Recommendation findings to you know accommodate some kind of commitment
- to Going back to what was previously there I think from a just a matter of kind of administrative clarity
- I I think we would be better off just acting on this specific proposal and then if they want to
- Revisit that then there's a process that they can just engage with You know the staff to sort that out
- and do it in a way that would be I think more Measured no pun intended then trying to do it on the fly
- here Does that work with you Eric adding a condition that they can go back to
- And well so the our recommendation is denial. So there are not conditions that are you can put on a
- denial. Yeah yeah you can create a new something that can be approved. But then you have to have you
- have to fulfill the three criteria you have to have you know
- effects of findings of fact. So based on that and let's anybody has any other questions I'll make a
- motion. I'm going to move that we recommend that the board is only pills adopt the proposed findings
- and deny the petition for zero twenty twenty six zero two zero zero four. Second. Roll call please.
- Yes, Fernandez. Yes, could Cinco. Yes The motion has been denied Moving forward to ZR 2026-03-0010 this
- is 1017 West 9th Street
- Thank you. So this is a request for a property at 1017 West 9th Street The petition is requesting a
- variance from tree preservation standards for the use dwelling comma single-family detached The property
- is on the south side of West 9th Street And came to the department to attention as a result of tree
- clearing that occurred on the property so the property was covered with
- Covered tree did have closed canopy coverage present on the property that was subject to the
- tree preservation requirements of the UDO Required a certain amount of those to be saved Approximately
- 80% was required to be saved the petitioner as I mentioned removed all of the trees on the property
- and so you know as we have dealt with these in other situations and
- There certainly there was a remediation plan that was put forward to them to restore that closed canopy
- coverage Required the installation of nine trees on that the petitioner sought to seek is seeking a
- variance From the tree preservation standards to not require those nine trees And they are requesting
- a variance to not install any
- new trees on the property and so that is the petition as before us the petitioner has shown a conceptual
- site plan that they Intend to develop the property with with a single-family residence in a garage in
- the back However, that is not necessarily part of this request You know, it's just extra information
- that petitioner has given So we we did not find that this made
- The variance criteria obviously the protection of tree canopy coverage within the city is very important
- So not having that on the property is injurious
- to the public health and morals Again, you know not remedying the loss of the tree canopy coverage does
- have impacts on adjacent properties And for the third criteria, we did not find that there are any peculiar
- conditions that did not allow for Trees to be placed on the property We're always happy to work with
- individuals to work around development plans to you know accommodate those and
- So, you know, again, as I mentioned, we did not find that there were any peculiar conditions that prevented
- new trees from being installed. And so we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings
- and deny the petition. Thank you. Is the petition petitioner in the house? Yes. Hi, Fiona Taggart. Are
- you both going to speak? Hi, my name is Zandro.
- Okay so I'm going to swear both both of you in at the same time. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the
- testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do.
- I do. Thank you. One at a time please. So first an apology. We didn't know about the tree canopy and
- we couldn't remove them. So apology for that. We wouldn't.
- Definitely have asked before doing it had we known but I want to When we sent out our letters Habitat
- for Humanity wrote us back in a letter of support and it was really kind of them because they gave me
- some good talking points about how You know this the where this property is is by Butler Park and white
- oak cemetery Which has a lot of trees as well as along the beeline. There's a lot of trees But some
- of those points were that most of the houses in the neighborhood those lots have houses on them So this
- is just a unique
- You know just happens to be a lot that doesn't have a house and that you know that is the best use of
- that lot is to have a house on it. So unfortunately to put the house you have to remove the trees and
- you know having you know when you build a house that increases the property values of the houses around
- it. So it is a good thing. So the homes adjacent would increase in value and the neighborhood in itself to have
- All homes on the lot. So really the best use of this lot is with a home and unfortunately, there's just
- not room for the home and those trees We do have plans to put in shrubs and plants and practical trees
- when we build and we do plan on Building we've got to sell a house before we can build but we when we
- build we will have a landscaping plan and Sandro is very good at that. We like we definitely like greenery
- and it won't be just grass it will be
- plants and trees and shrubs that I think that's all you need to do. That's all I need to say. Go ahead.
- Yeah I don't have anything to add so I'm open to your questions. Thank you so much. Right. We're back
- to the board for questions.
- Any questions. Can you speak up. Yeah. Just a quick question for Seth remind me how many trees are on
- the lot originally.
- So it wasn't necessarily I can look and see if we have that information in terms of a number you know
- the way that we approach these
- Situation is you know what here is the canopy coverage, you know is a certain square footage And then
- you know when we look at a remediation plan We generally approach it as a large canopy tree will have
- a coverage requirement of X amount You know, it's around 250 square feet ish So when we look at what
- was required to be saved, you know the 80% you know that was a certain square footage number and
- And then you know the planting of those nine trees would accomplish that 80% number that square footage
- number Yeah, I think that it's probably pretty close to that nine number so I Guess when I was looking
- at I went by the property and when I look at this and it strikes me This comes up a lot in front of
- us There's peculiar areas about this that we should talk about but what I find
- a bit frustrating Is that we place zoning? On properties That allow they have permitted uses Yet the
- conditions of those properties When you try and do what's a permitted use kicks in a whole bunch of
- other issues because there are
- Long-established kind of canopies which I totally get I'm not against canopy trees. Don't get me wrong
- But it just seems like we create a condition for conflict that You know puts us in these kinds of situations
- where You know, I mean we had this with a request a couple months ago on Cottage Grove permitted use
- There's an old tree there. It has a zoning but then all of a sudden now, you know, you have to get variances
- and go through a bunch of hoops because You know There are trees which are great. No one's against trees
- but it's just you know, it just seems a bit frustrating that If we zone thing it's same thing on the
- north side of town. I mean you got a big
- The project off north done. I mean, it's a big piece of land. It's got trees on it But we zone it for
- a particular use and then when the property owner Comes forward with a plan to make an investment and
- do what is permitted all of a sudden we have conflict because of the natural condition of the land so
- I'm that's more of a comment than a question, but I guess the question for the petitioner is I
- Is there a opposition to, you know, doing a landscape plan that's consistent with the code? No, there's
- no opposition. We just haven't gotten that far in our house planning process, but we would be more than
- happy to accommodate the number of trees necessary to put them back. You know how they work with the
- structures we plan to put in place.
- I have a question for staff. Actually are you done John. Yeah. Sorry could I add something to that one.
- If we ask a question you you may proceed. So my question is for staff. So the trees are gone. If we
- deny this is there going to be any penalty to them. I mean they're going to build. So when they build
- they're going to be required to put trees in there. Correct.
- There is a current notice of violation now How that gets resolved is you know, there is a remedial so
- if you deny this and they have to plant in the trees the nine trees that were are required to Accomplish
- that canopy requirement. So if they don't do that, then it's just you know per the enforcement procedures
- outlined in the UDO of fines that until they get to a state of compliance and
- Okay. So if we approve it then can we put a condition that they have they have to have a site a landscape
- plan approved by the city that fulfill. Yes. So obviously with an approval you can put conditions on
- that and you can word those conditions accordingly. You know what I would suggest is rather than just
- a broad landscape plan you be specific in some regard of you know a minimum X
- Trees or shrubs or something, you know something to give a definitive plan to review something to And
- again obviously with the findings that are in the staff report you'll need to propose alternative findings
- for the three criteria Correct. Can I ask a clarifying question though? I mean we're not being asked
- if I Mean what are we actually being asked to do?
- So they are they're asking for a variance, which we don't really want to do. But we're responding to
- a notice of violation. So they haven't submitted. Have they submitted a full blown plan for the development?
- As I mentioned they submitted a conceptual plan for what they intend to do with it. So the petition
- that is before the board is to install no trees. So the board either you know approves that variance.
- With alternative findings or you deny that variance per the proposed findings and staffs report You
- know as I mentioned if you choose to approve it you can condition it if you said should so choose but
- then also need to propose alternative findings, but if we approve if we adopt the staff recommendation
- then they just need to file a plan with the
- Remediation correct. Yes, they would need to give us a plan showing those those nine trees or something
- that accomplishes that square footage, okay Which I believe they said they were okay with am I correct,
- okay Well, let's go thinking about how we wouldn't craft such An approval, but meanwhile, let's go to
- public comment
- Yes, I don't think we've done public comment. Yes, that's what I'd like to go to public comment Can
- you state your name please Kari Bennett Hi, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
- give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes Go ahead, please
- My name is Kari Bennett. I am with Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County. I submitted a comment letter
- which is in the packet for everybody to be able to review. I'm not going to repeat that. I just want
- to also share that when I first saw this petition for a variance I was interested because I do know
- that this is one of the very few lots in
- This neighborhood that does not have a single-family home Habitat happens to own one of the other very
- few lots that does not have a single-family home and It probably is not surprising to hear that our
- intention when we bought that lot is to build Single-family home for low-income residents of Bloomington
- and Monroe County that being the case
- Thinking very carefully about the role of zoning and the intention of giving by right status to build
- single family homes and maintain single family homes on certain lots should have some clear meaning.
- And I encourage you to take that into consideration with this request. Thank you. Thank you very much.
- We do have one person online Joan you should be able to unmute. Can you state your name please. Joan
- Mendorf you should be able to unmute and speak.
- Yeah, I'm not sure we can we can come back if she's able to okay respond All right, we'll go back to
- our discussion here Yeah, I I Understand what you're saying John because it is a conflict and I and
- nobody's against trees nobody wants to remove unnecessary trees unnecessarily
- The issue here I think the the issue was they in even though they apologized it was that they started
- the process Previous to setting up a whole a whole plan which as an owner of a Lot it's their lot and
- their right to do it So Go ahead
- I'm so sorry. It looks like Joan is ready to speak. She's resolved her issues. Go ahead, Joan. Can you
- state your name, John? John. Yes, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
- give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Go ahead, please.
- Yes, we can hear you. We will discuss that. Do you have anything else to add?
- Thank you. Do you have anything else. Well thank you for your statement.
- All right, we're back to the board. And now entertain a motion if you want to make a motion to approve
- with condition. And remember, we have the three proposed findings.
- I guess it's a question for the staff when I look at the conceptual I'm trying to envision You know,
- how would you do nine canopy trees I Mean it looks like you could do some you know trees along the front edge and
- maybe one or two in the kind of lawn, but then there wouldn't be much line left. I mean, it goes back
- to my frustration about this where you have a property that historically has a larger number of canopy
- trees. But if you build anything that meets the code
- as relates to setbacks, minimum sizes, all those other things, it'd be very difficult to figure out
- how to do nine canopy trees. I mean, are we saying give up a garage, give up a front porch? I mean,
- it just seems like if you're trying to do a one-to-one replacement, that just doesn't seem reasonable.
- If we're trying to encourage people to invest in our city and build housing So, I guess I'll you know
- like to hear from my my colleagues here, but I'd like to Think about how to properly word a motion here.
- I agree 100% I'd like to figure out a way to to word a motion
- We can help these owners for Getting to their plans and getting more housing built I realize it's coming
- There's fines involved and and what-have-you but what what is the easiest path I Don't know if there is one
- That's what I'm struggling with right now I Guess what are what are the I mean Because his zone is a
- multi-use and not a lot zone single-family single-family excuse me single-family and not just like a
- residential lot Are there differences in the trees?
- No, the tree preservation requirements are the same in every zoning district. Okay So I would recommend
- if if we are leaning towards approval that we craft We craft this That we recommend for approval But
- then we need to have specific findings for one to three
- Number one, not injurious to the public and health, safe and morals, general welfare because the owner
- will replace the trees and or vegetation on the property when building with the construction of the
- home with a site plan approved by
- a landscape site approved by the city. Number two the owner will remediate the loss of tree canopy so
- it will not result in adverse impacts in the use of the value of the surrounding properties. Number
- three the strict application of the term the U.D.O. will not result in practical difficulties. That's
- the one I need your help here.
- did is already done. So how do we remedy this. I have a general question for you yourself. So if this
- was let's say there wasn't a violation there wasn't nine trees knocked down and this was just people
- coming to build a house on this lot. Would nine trees still be the percentage number or would it be
- according to the house in the lot.
- So the preservation requirement would be the same regardless of what somebody regardless of development
- is the past and what have you Anybody that goes to build on this lot has to put nine canopy trees Yes,
- yes or or save what was there? I mean we're in the conversation of nine trees because everything's been
- removed and
- If everything hadn't been removed and we had come in and had this conversation on the onset Then we
- would have said oh here are the trees that are on the site now you save these and this gets you to your
- 80% Maybe that was nine. Maybe it was some other number. It's hard to say And don't forget to craft
- the condition as well
- I'd like to ask a question to the petitioner. Oh are you if we work in approval here are you in agreement
- that you will work with the city to create a landscape plan that will be acceptable at the city.
- Of course, I'm happy to work with the city and I previously had been working with Phil with utilities
- because there before when we bought the property there was Water pooling on that southeast corner that
- was affecting our neighbors to the south. So I wanted to resolve that issue Because it had been ongoing
- for a long time so he actually dug a trench on the alley there to help with kind of remediate this,
- you know this pooling and
- So I'm happy I've been I've been working with the city but Always been thinking about our neighbors,
- you know that have been affected by this kind of flooding So yeah, my wife and I are happy to work with
- the city Thank you And then I have one last question for staff the the site's aerial imagery and then
- I can't say that word imagery and
- That's just using software looking at the lot size and then saying okay the lots this size 80% and looking
- at imagery from before for what we think the canopies were before Yes, so we we looked at old historic
- air photos to judge what the canopy coverage was before it was everything was removed and so that's
- what we use as our baseline to determine what was it was the old house and
- With that or was it just a plain lot? Give me a second. Let me see how far back Because I would love
- to see what the old with their yeah, so the old house The old house was was located on the far north
- side of the property and
- This one right here is second from the left So is basically in line with the house to the east of it
- You have any more questions
- I don't have any more questions. OK. Well thank you very much. We are now going to back to the BZA for
- a final action. If you have I'll entertain a motion. OK. I'll make a motion. First I want to move that
- we adopt three replacement findings and I'll read them.
- I think I copy him and send it to staff. That'd be easier later. But here's my take on number one. The
- granting of this variance is not expected to be injurious to the public health safety and morals of
- general welfare of the community because the applicant applicant has committed to a tree replacement
- plan that maintains canopy coverage on the property. This plan is consistent with the goals
- of the comprehensive plan and climate action plan.
- which identify the preservation and expansion of tree coverage as a community priority and demonstrates
- applicants commitment to advancing those stated goals. Alternative finding two, the approval of this
- variance will not result in adverse impacts on the use and value of surrounding properties. The applicant's
- commitment to a tree replacement plan addresses the loss of tree canopy
- And it's consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies regarding the preservation protection
- tree canopy coverage Number three the strict application of the terms of the udo would result in practical
- difficulties in the use of the property This site's constraints are such that accommodating the minimum
- requirement of nine large canopy trees is not reasonably feasible given the proposed development layout
- and the requested variance represents the minimum leaf necessary to allow
- for practical and functional use of the property. So based on those proposed alternative findings, I
- would recommend that we approve the variance and the proposed alternative findings with the condition
- that the petitioner develop a specific remediation plan
- For review and approval by the planning staff second Just from a staff perspective and this is just
- a merely a suggestion as I mentioned, you know, we would encourage at least a few numbers of trees so
- that we're not in a situation of
- Trying to negotiate something it helps to just have a baseline if they want to do more than that, that's
- that's great But again, it's just simply a suggestion What is the frontage of the lot in feet It was
- about 7,000 square feet it was the size of it It's about
- 60 feet wide 60 feet. So how many street trees would that require to the owner's discretion. Right John
- do you want to add a minimum amount of trees to as a condition as well. I mean I.
- You know, I understand appreciate what they're saying. I don't feel capable of picking a number So if
- you want to recommend one I entertain a friendly amendment To sounds completely acceptable But I don't
- want it to be under
- What do you think a reasonable number is Flavia? Well, I'd say you have two streets trees you can have
- one the back one the side maybe four trees Is there a specific width for that tree or height that needs
- to be So it would usually in these situations we would look for a large interior tree species and
- So the the UDO has landscaping broken down at least for trees into large medium small Based on their
- species and what they're expected height will be wet maturity So usually like for remediation plan like
- this when we were using the term nine trees, it would be a nine large canopy tree species So if the
- board was looking for specific language, you know a number And then a species would be ideal and it
- can be whatever is comfortable for the board
- Minimum of two or three there. Yeah Okay, I would like to entertain a minimum of three Canopy trees
- species Three large large canopy trees
- Is that acceptable? Certainly acceptable by staff. I know if Mr. Fernandez wants to amend his do you
- want to amend your conditions? All right, so we'll go with it. I'm not going to reread the proposal
- alternative findings, but I will move that we approve the requested variance. Adopt the alternative findings.
- Add a condition that the petitioner Work with the staff to develop a Remediation plan with a minimum
- of three large canopy tree included in the plan May I have a second, please second
- Roll call. Burrell? Yes. Fernandez? Yes. Kucinko? Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. You're welcome. Good
- luck with the project. All right, now we move on to ZR 2026-03-0011.
- South Pete Ellis drive Thank you. I'm so this is a request for a property at 250 South Pete Ellis drive
- the petitioners are coming forward tonight for variance for maximum drive width and maximum parking
- standards to allow for the site to be redeveloped for a new use for the use vehicle repair minor and
- In the mixed-use corridor or zoning district. So the property was recently developed or had been developed
- With a small one-story restaurant for only used as Pizza Hut With a surface parking lot that surrounds
- it it fronts on Pdell's Drive in his own mixed-use corridor the petitioners are coming forward tonight
- to request these two variance approvals to redevelop the site with a two-bay oil change facility and
- So the new site plan would involve one interior drive cut off of the interior Access drive with an exit
- lane on the Pete Ellis Drive. The building is located on the southeast portion of the site Would have
- the entrance for the facility off of that interior drive and then the exit on the Pete Ellis Drive
- So with this request there are two variances that they are seeking one is a variance from the maximum
- number of parking spaces for an oil change facility the UDO of the for the size and the service bay
- would allow for three parking spaces not including the ADA and
- The petitioner based on the expected number of employees For this use is expecting upwards of nine employees
- At any one given moment for the facility and so they are requesting a variance in order to allow for
- those proposed nine Spaces the UDO would not count the ADA space So in reality, like I said, they're
- they're really just asking for the eight
- That are being shown on the site plan The second variance is from the maximum driveway width that is
- allowed for a driveway between the building and the street The UDO says that if a driveway is one way
- That it so the UDO allows for a 24 foot wide drive cut It says that if that driveway is one way that
- the amount of that width that is allowed is half of that distance so the UDO would only allow for the
- driveway to be 12 feet wide and
- Between the building and the street so the petitioners driveway width is shown at 25 feet 8 inches And
- then tapers down to 12 feet where it enters the street there
- So with the variance criteria, obviously, as the board is familiar, there are three aspects that we
- have to make findings for. Certainly the first two, that the variances will not be injurious to the
- public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Two, that there won't be adverse impacts on the
- adjacent use and value. And then three, that there is a peculiar condition about a property that presents
- a practical hardship. So the petitioners,
- as part of our ongoing conversations to try to evaluate the site and You know, is there a site plan
- arrangement that would not require the variance? for the driveway with Did show has shown and is shown
- on the screen in front of you an alternative conceptual site layout plan so this shows the building and
- Exiting on to the internal access drive Which would not have a drive cut on on PD else drive and therefore
- not require the variance for that driveway with to exceed the 25 feet between or exceed the 12 feet
- between the building and street and so with this site plan showing that there is a use of the property for the
- Drive-through drive-through facility as shown Accommodates all of the needs of the stacking and the
- two bays You know, it does certainly make it challenging to make findings that there is a peculiar condition
- or a practical difficulty Because they have shown a site plan that that is compliant certainly we acknowledge
- that the parking maximums in the UDO do present hardships and
- Certainly in situations where the number of employees greatly exceeds what the you do might allow However,
- one of the challenges that we looked at when we evaluated their parking study was certainly evaluating
- another Similar not even so but a very similar oil change facility owned by the same company. There
- was actually a three-bay shop over on the west side of town and analyzing parking uses parking needs
- on that site over aerial photographs for
- Several years, you know that is a three bay facility And at one and no one time did we find that there
- was ever more than four or five parking spaces or parking vehicles there So we did find it somewhat
- challenging to recommend a full approval of the petitioners request To have the the full eight spaces
- that are being shown so
- Criteria one we did not find that the driveway would would be injurious The drive will not exceed the
- maximum width at the street, which is where the injury comes in in terms of Concerns for driveway cuts
- on public streets for the parking number Up to seven parking spaces, which is SAS recommendation Will
- not be interest It will allow for spaces to be provided on site that meet the
- The needs of the the use there is a large surface parking lot immediately to the adjacent Of this building
- that does allow for any needs for one or two extra spaces to kind of ebb and flow So that availability
- does kind of offset that but again You know the actual use here based on other locations in Bloomington
- doesn't demonstrate that there is a full need For all of those spaces that shown So again the parking spaces
- You know will not substantially affect the use and value and then criteria three in terms of practical
- difficulty in the peculiar conditions that we are forced to evaluate it on for the driveway with You
- know, we don't find that there is a peculiar condition that prevents them From meeting the requirement
- that there is all inherent peculiar condition about this property that presents a hardship in the development
- of it You know, there is a path
- There is a site plan that they have shown that does show compliance you know it may not be.
- Their desired site plan, but it does show compliance Which makes it very challenging to argue that there
- is a peculiar condition that prevents the property from being used in that way So we are not able to
- find criteria to support the driveway with We do find criteria to support the parking number certainly
- based on the petitioners parking study the lack of on-street parking also limits the ability to
- Have extra parking spaces, but as I mentioned the availability of a large Parking area just adjacent
- to this does give some opportunity for ebb and flow for one or two spaces You know if there's an occasional
- need for that So with that we are recommending that the the board adopt the proposed findings and deny
- the variance request for the driveway with and approve the variance for the parking of
- allowance with three conditions that this allows for up to Six on-site spaces seven if you include the
- ADA space And that the the parking allowance variance is for this use and building design as submitted
- And that the the UDO does require in situations where parking maximums are requested the parking spaces
- over that maximum must be of a permeable material so that condition is reiterated on
- condition number three. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions after the petitioner is gone.
- Thank you Eric and the petitioner move forward please. Jonathan Walker do you swear or affirm that the
- testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you.
- Thank you for your time. My name is Jonathan Woker. I'm a planner with McBride Dale clarion I do have
- a slide presentation that I believe mr. Gullick's gonna pull up. So I'll kind of walk you through our
- responses to this And I know I have limited time so I'm gonna try and read from my script so that I
- can I can stay on target so Valvoline has an agreement to redevelop this property at 250 South Pete
- Ellis Drive and
- This is existing vacant restaurant. The property is rather small. It's a zero point five four acres
- We are proposing a two-bay Valvoline instant oil change facility that building will be fourteen that
- fourteen hundred sixty two square feet with two service bays and here's my slide presentation and so
- It's in the MC district. This is a permitted use in the district. We are requesting two variances. One
- relates to the number of parking spaces and one relates to our exit driveway that goes to Pete Ellis
- Drive. So if you could go to the next slide. So this is an aerial of the site. I think it's useful to
- see where this is in relation to the shopping center. There's a goodwill and all these directly to our
- north and then just as south it's a little hard to see on this slide is the McDonald's.
- I think it gives some context of the pavement and circulation. And I'd also point out directly north
- of our site is where the Goodwill has their drop off donation area off of that shopping center drive.
- If you go to the next slide please. So this is our site plan. We have an entrance that will be on the
- north of the site and that will come off of the shopping center drive. The entrance drive is generally
- in the same location as where the restaurant
- driveway was located the exit drive will be on Pete Ellis Drive that is also in the same general location
- where the Pizza Hut driveway would be However, we are reducing that driveway from about 35 feet today
- down to 12 feet So the exit drive is on the east side But we will be reducing the pavement once as I
- mentioned if I go to the next slide, please I
- We've intentionally tried to, this is a closer zoom in of that. We've intentionally tried to locate
- our driveway in the existing locations and as far from the shopping center intersection with Pete Ellis
- as possible. Customers will enter the site from the shopping center drive and then the west side of
- the store. Customers stay in their vehicle when they're being serviced. And so they would then be directed
- into the bays by our employees,
- And they would also be directed out of the bays after the service is completed. And then as shown on
- this plan, the exit is on the east side of the site. We're showing eight parking spaces plus accessible
- space. We have we meet the pervious pavement for those additional spaces. So we
- Would agree to do that as recommended by staff. We've added bike racks and additional pedestrian access
- to the site We're also adding a sidewalk on the north side currently that Former Pizza Hut is almost
- right on our northern property line very close to that shopping center driveway So this plan that we've
- prepared Exceeds the landscape coverage and has less than the maximum impervious surface area requirements
- And we believe this is a good plan. We think that this plan
- screens are stacking and our dumpster location by putting it behind the building and That it has good
- circulation and we've also have our parking behind the building line as well We've worked pretty hard
- to meet all those the city code requirements with the two exceptions. We're asking for If we could show
- the next slide, please. So this is our building elevations I know that's not before you tonight, but
- we've designed this proposed new store to meet your city requirements for architecture
- Next slide please. So we are asking for two variances. I'd like to start with talking about the parking
- variance. We're asking to allow five additional parking spaces. So a total of eight plus the accessible
- nine spaces but the accessible is not counted. So we're asking for five additional parking spaces and
- the UDO establishes that there's a maximum of three and that's based on sales floor area plus
- One space per service bay, but in reality we have up to four employees per bay And so our customers
- stay in the vehicle, but then there's multiple employees that are working on the vehicle including providing
- work in the basement so Unfortunately in this situation, I think we found that the UDA standards just
- are lower than that actual requirements for this site next slide, please
- This is our parking study that we provided to the city staff. And what this shows is the number of employees
- that will be on site by day and by hour. And so this data is based on regional information including
- stores in Indiana. And what you'll see is that will there will be times where we will have up to eight
- employees on site. And so
- three to five hours of each day will have eight employees. So those are those numbers highlighted in
- yellow and the company designs these sites so that we have enough parking for our employees. So we have
- concerns about accepting a level of parking that would not meet the number of employees we expect to
- have. I can go to the next slide please.
- So we are proposing a parking spaces fewer spaces would not meet the projected employee parking needs
- based on Valvoline's experience We don't want to build more parking than is needed and that's why we
- don't have customer parking because our customers are in their vehicles Staff has described some scenarios
- in the staff report about employees that could walk or bike or ride share to the our business our experience
- is that our employees are their car people and
- that they like to drive cars and they like to work on cars and That's why we're proposing enough parking
- spaces for the demand for parking that we expect we believe that the parking data supports the need
- for eight spaces and that providing fewer spaces would cause a problem we would end up with a couple
- of employees that don't have a place to park and we don't have a shared parking agreement with the center,
- you know where this is an individual parcel, so
- Last next slide, please We believe that the variance will not be injurious to the public We have designed
- the site to have landscaping and less hard surface area than the udo requires We believe that the proposed
- number of parking spaces and amount of pavement Will not result in excess hard surface increased heat
- or substantially impact our neighbors a property as was suggested by staff This site currently has 31
- parking spaces
- We are reducing the amount of impervious surface substantially. We propose to reduce pavement, increase
- landscaping, and will improve stormwater management. So we believe that we believe that not approving
- the variance for eight spaces would negatively impact our neighbors. We would then end up putting a
- parking issue on them because we're not providing the number of spaces we need.
- Regarding the South Liberty site that was discussed Valvoline started operating that facility in 2024
- so information prior to that was not operated by Valvoline and my understanding is that Valvoline does
- not have access to the gravel parking that was discussed in the staff report and they have indicated
- that they do have parking shortages during peak times so we believe that
- 60 spaces as recommended by staff for the proposed Pete Ellis location Will be insufficient and we are
- requesting approval of the variance to allow eight parking spaces For this location so kind of covers
- the parking issue if I can go to the next slide and talk about the driveway width I hope you can see
- that graphic on on full screen there. This second variance is a request to alter
- To allow an increase in the driveway pavement width for a one-way drive in the front yard This is a
- unique variance to me. I've not come across the standard and other codes but your UDO limits a one-way
- driveway in the front yard to 12 feet and Because we have two bays we need to be able to allow both
- You know both bays to pull out and then we've tapered our driveway down to 12 feet as soon as we can
- and so the result would be
- Very small area as highlighted in red that would be wider than 12 feet and for a very short distance
- We believe that we are requesting the minimum variance that is necessary If the driveway were two-way,
- it could be 24 feet. But since it's one way it's limited to 12 feet and as I mentioned before Exiting
- vehicles are guided out by the employees so they make sure that they're clearing the bay space and and they
- Direct the vehicles out. So we are confident that there won't be any congestion there. We've designed
- the site So that our drive is as narrow as possible. And again, we're reducing an existing driveway
- location That's currently 35 feet down to 12 We believe that approval of the variance will not negatively
- impact public or the use or value of our adjacent property neighbors if we could go to the next slide and
- This is an overlay of that plan, and I think what you'll see on this slide is that we're surrounded
- by commercial uses. Many of our neighbors have pavement in their front yard and that their drives exceed
- 12 feet in the front yard, and we believe approval of the variance will not have a negative impact on
- the care of the area. Next slide, please. So at the urging of staff,
- an alternate plan that would try and demonstrate our practical difficulties and frankly we just have
- a difference of opinion. We think that this plan does demonstrate practical difficulties and primarily
- that is because our driveway would need to be located very close to the intersection with Pete Ellis
- of this shopping center driveway. That driveway is rather congested and we think that's an unsafe situation.
- As shown on this slide, this is one alternate so we have not redesigned our full site and as a matter
- of fact We know that with this change we would be asking for another variance So this change would result
- in an increase in impervious surface area. So we would basically be swapping driveway width of 12 feet
- for an increase in our impervious surface which I think also gets coupled with a
- Decrease in landscaping so this plan doesn't Come in with no issues. We think that again, there's Safety
- concerns because vehicles stack past this proposed driveway location. It'd be very difficult to Exit
- and go to the north from this location and we think placing the driveway and its current position on
- Pete Ellis Drive is the correct thing to do also
- This plan is inferior because it then emphasizes the stacking for the site. What you're doing is now
- putting the stacking prominent and in front or you know visible from the street which in the proposed
- plan is hidden. It also makes our dumpster location much more prominent. So we see many deficiencies
- in this plan and we believe that there is practical difficulty that's demonstrated by this alternate
- The shopping center existed before this property was developed. That's a condition we can't control
- and the access to it and it's a congested area with that goodwill service area. So if I can go to the
- next slide please and I can go back when I'm sorry I'll go as fast as I can. Also with this layout we
- think we're going to cause pedestrian conflicts. We think that with the
- amount of activity at the shopping center and our cars coming out with the new sidewalk we're putting
- in. We just think it's a bad design and not appropriate for what we're proposing to do. Thank you. We'll
- go to the next slide, please. So this is the proposed plan. Again, we think that it's a good design
- and that the alternative is inferior for many reasons. We believe the proposed plan screens the stacking
- and the dumpster
- Keeps our building facing the street as opposed to being turned provides the landscaping and pavement
- that is required and is better and safer in many ways I'll go to the next slide, please So this is our
- over end plan if we need to reference that and then the next couple slides if you could do that so I've
- provided our alternate findings of fact and
- Knowing that staff had recommended denial these are in your packet I believe but we generally agree
- with the findings of number one and number two and then we've provided written description of how we
- feel we meet practical difficulty and that primarily has to do with the existing shopping center and
- inferior alternatives that the Revised plan would provide so we would ask that you approve the variance
- for eight parking so that we can meet the parking demands that we know we're going to have for our employees
- and We ask that you approve the driveway width to allow it to be more than 12 feet For the short distance
- and length that we're proposing Thank you for your time. I know you've got hard work to do and so I
- will try and answer questions if you have them and
- Yes, we have several questions Are you using the existing turnout on the Pete Ellis? I'm sorry say that
- again. Are you using the existing turnout on a Pete Ellis? Yes, and we are making that So your whole
- design is based off of that existing turnout
- Both existing driveways the one on the shopping center and the one on Pete Ellis. Okay, we're making
- that one 30 from 35 feet down to 12 feet So you're not moving it the building's not bigger. It's the
- same exact width The driveway locations are the same The driveway locations are the same our building
- is smaller than the existing building, okay But we will have more more landscaping and less pavement by a lot
- I do have the property owner here if we still have some time but I'll let him speak as well if that's
- appropriate. How are we doing on time there. Eric I think we had about six minutes left six minutes
- left. You can use it now or you can defer to use it later. I can come back to you. No I think we'll
- use it. We'll use it now. He's promised me to be brief. Okay. Thank you.
- Your name, please Dave Kamen Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be
- the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, okay. Proceed you have six minutes. Okay,
- I Have you the sheet passed out but I want to read it to you the practical difficulties when the former
- pizza was built more than 40 years ago the adjacent shopping center was not there and
- The North Shopping Center driveway is now very busy and often congested, and the alternative exit way
- to the northeast corner of the property will make it very difficult to make a left turn and difficult
- to make a right turn when cars are stacked up trying to get onto P. Dallas Drive while pedestrians and
- bicycles quickly appear at the corner sidewalk areas and in the driveway itself to get to the Goodwill
- entrance and drop-off area.
- If you have been there since the Aldi's and the more recent Goodwill store open, you'll know exactly
- what I mean. The engineers and Vavilene staff stated that the alternative driveway exit to the north
- shopping center drive is simply not safe enough for their customers. This has been a small retail site
- from the beginning and it's difficult to make an alternative exit way work
- because of its small footprint. It's worthy to note that the alternative driveway exit creates the need
- for additional variances, including landscape and much more paving. Vavilene has worked very hard to
- comply with the requirements of the UDO, and they indeed comply 98.5% of the way, lacking only a short
- stretch of drive
- Driveway exiting the building but then tapering to the permitted 12-foot Exit on to Pete Ellis Drive,
- which is the reason I have this variance rated as 1 half percent because the driveway terminates in
- compliance The other 1% of the way is in regards to parking Valvoline knows the number of employees
- necessary to run their business There was no customer parking. So trying to compare
- The parking needs of their facility on Liberty Drive is quite different than this busy retail corridor
- while I agree with staff that in that an employee could occasionally use an alternative like walking
- a bicycle or public transportation to arrive at work I would suggest that at times that won't be the
- case and the parking will be insufficient the proposed parking plan eliminates a
- over two-thirds of the existing parking. As you can see, Vavilene has shown great respect for the process
- while meeting almost all the requirements of the UDO. Mayor Fernandez, Leslie Kudzinski, and Flavia
- Burrell, I need your help. I need you to vote to transform this old abandoned pizza site into a vibrant
- retail location.
- Thank you for your time. And I want to go off script for just one second. Eric mentioned that we somehow
- have the right to park on the neighbors adjoining lots, but we don't. There is no easement there. So
- I wanted to get that out of the way. I think Jonathan mentioned that. And the other thing that I want
- to go off script with, earlier today I spoke for the first time to David Hiddle, who's sitting here.
- He asked me, why didn't I bring up about the practical difficulty of the Pizza Hut predating by many
- years the shopping center? He said, why didn't I bring that up to Eric before the meeting? I said, he
- never asked me. That's the reason I didn't bring it up, but now I am bringing it up, okay? So that created
- the approvals to build the shopping center and the more recent Goodwill store
- that got rid of a lot of parking for their donation drop-off, you got conflicts there, and you got incredible
- amount of people crossing that driveway at that corner. So I also prepared, right here in the plan,
- showing you the safety process, the district's traffic pass, take home right turn from the west side
- of the shore
- additional parking variances needed for paving, landscape, and it impacts parking and delivery. The
- Practical Denver Depth Company just went over, but that the pizza was there many years before the Shopping
- Center. The Shopping Center was approved and created what we have today. And the last thing I want to
- point out about Practical Denver Depth Company is the small blood size compared to the neighboring
- Thank you, and if you have any questions, I hope I didn't go over my time. Thank you. Do we still have
- any time left, Eric? Thirty-five seconds. Thirty-five seconds, okay. Well, you can save that for later.
- All right. OK, so now that we have the petitioner's presentation, let's go back to questions for staff
- and the petitioner, if you have any. This is for the board. I have one question. I have one question
- for the staff. So if I bought the building and it didn't change of use,
- I wouldn't have to change much what I would Know it's been empty for more than a year. So anything that
- goes in there is a change in use So we'd have to come into compliance with the limited compliance standards
- since this is a new construction. It's a full compliance I'm not sure I maybe I didn't ask the question
- properly So if I did anything other than a pizza hut, I'd have to bring the entire property up to
- the current UDO Even a pizza either even another restaurant because it's sat empty for more than a year
- The UDO that says anything that comes in there has to come into compliance with the limited compliance
- standards So that means that certain things can remain But as I mentioned with this one, it's a full
- compliance because they're tearing everything down and starting from scratch And so they've you know
- removed any constraints that may have been there from previous structures
- No questions. No questions. Well let's open up for public comment. Can you state your name.
- Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and
- nothing but the truth? Absolutely Well, I am sorry, I think the put it petitioners done a wonderful
- job I think this is a very unusual site for the size of it and It's very small for them to get anything
- in Bloomington on a lot that size I commend you guys with only a couple of variances So I am in favor
- of the petition. I think they demonstrated that
- You know, the neighboring property affects their property, which is kind of a little bit unfair. And
- to your question a while ago, John, is what if they would have took and built onto that and made it
- an oil change and then kept everything the same and had all the payment and had zero landscaping? This
- is good for the community. One thing they didn't bring up, I want to look at this and show you, is if
- you can place a few cars
- So anyway, I think they've done well with a few amount of variances they've done.
- I think you handled the last Petition very well. I really appreciate that and I have nothing in that
- and I want to thank each and every one of you I've talked to you all personally before and after meetings
- and You do a great job and good service to the community. So I want to thank you for that. Thank you Thank you
- Can you state your name, please? Brian waltz Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about
- to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do Go ahead, please My name is
- Brian waltz and I am currently employed by Crider and Crider here in town and we do a lot of projects
- with mr. Kamen so he was aware of the fact that prior to
- Being employed at Carter and Crider. I was a partner in an engineering firm and I am a licensed professional
- engineer and Have done site planning for 35 years. So he asked me to take a look at the site plan See
- what I thought give my thoughts. So I would agree that the original plan In my opinion, my professional
- opinion is is a reasonable efficient layout of the site And would believe that the
- variances requested are reasonable and also that the alternative plan has serious problems particularly
- from a safety and traffic flow of the exit coming from the two bays you're right exiting right into
- the queuing of the traffic exiting onto Pete Ellis and don't believe that's a reasonable alternative
- for the site but
- Like I said the original plan seems to work well. I don't think it's there's any thing unreasonable
- about it and would encourage you to approve the variance. Thank you. Can you state your name please.
- Dave Harstad H.A.R. S.T.A.D.
- Do you swear or affirm that the testimony we're about to give will be the truth and the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you. Go ahead. All right. I'll try to be brief. My name is Dave
- Harstead I am a local real estate broker here in town commercial real estate broker It's done a lot
- of work in this trade area in the west side where the other Newly Branded Valvoline is on Liberty Drive
- I've also in a past life been a land developer and spent a lot of time working with site civil
- and layout and design issues. And so I am very supportive of the site plan as drawn. I can only imagine
- the amount of work that went into getting it down to two variances. Very, very difficult site. So what
- is the hardship that you have to deal with? Number one, it's a teeny tiny site. Number two, you have
- to deal with the existing access points, curb cuts, sidewalks, et cetera, conflicts.
- Very difficult to do I can only imagine all the thought that went into that and as it's been said multiple
- times clearly it is a injurious to the welfare of the community to have An exit point so close with
- so many conflicts Near that intersection so that alternate site plan is not viable in my opinion other
- hardships include
- The fact that there this is a neighborhood that does not have on-street parking So it's not easy to
- just sort of flex out into the neighborhood with your parking needs There is no reciprocal easement
- agreement with the neighbors which allows flexing onto their site So and so bottom line is the hardship
- as you know is really is
- The fact that this is a redevelopment site. This isn't a Greenfield site out by a suburban interchange.
- All redevelopment is exceptionally hard. It is almost by definition a Rubik's Cube that is so complex
- that it just the nature of redevelopment is a hardship. And again, I commend them for doing such a good
- job of getting to where they have. The last thing I will say is that
- You know, I don't know the business plan. I don't know these guys I know Dave came in but It is not
- apples to apples to compare this site from a You know from a business standpoint to the one on Liberty
- Drive I'm certain without knowing their business that this will be a much much higher volume location
- Otherwise frankly that wouldn't justify the new construction costs that go into just building something
- like this. So I
- At any rate I do thank you for your attention and the staff. I do thank you for defending things like
- pedestrian you know safety and that sort of thing. But ultimately I do think that the petitioners have
- it right and they have demonstrated hardship that I'm hopeful you approve their request. Thank you.
- Thank you. Do you have any more public comments.
- There's anybody online, please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat we can recognize
- you I'm not seeing anybody else online. I Have a question for staff Sorry, sorry. I apologies if you've
- stated this already. How did you come up with the number of parking spaces? Yep, so let's go back to
- They're part of the study and I can answer that for you. Okay. I see it now. I see it in the document.
- You're fine. Oh okay. Well I guess what I was what I was going to try to just illustrate which is the
- same kind of method that we've used in several situations where we have variances from parking maximums
- that are being proposed. Obviously you have uses that come forward and they show
- You know a one-time maximum, you know, here's here's the course of a week or a month or whatever You
- know here are the maximum number of spaces that are shown in use but then you're gonna have more of
- a what we'll call kind of an 80% of need for a particular use and so, you know, the petitioners are
- coming forward requesting eight
- You know when you look at this, you know, obviously you consistently see the need for at least five
- to six You know, the eight is just the occasional and so the six provides that medium as we mentioned
- There are certainly other options for ride share bicycling transit, you know all sorts of options that
- can ebb and flow here Yep, so that's that's how we came to the number of six Thank you
- So we're back to the board now for discussion and for a final action. I'll go. It's an observation I find.
- I don't know whether to congratulate you, thank you, or question you, Mr. Kamen, but in the short period
- of time I've been on the BZA, I think you hold the record for the number of petitions. And I think it's,
- you know, the way to think about it is, you know, you're taking on hard sites. And so I appreciate your
- willingness to do that.
- I'm gonna recommend some changes to the findings and recommend approval the variance and let me just
- tell you why I mean, I think These are redevelopment sites there they are difficult. I thought mr. Hart
- says comments were fantastic and right on The site's only been vacant for a little over. How long has
- it been vacant a little over a year two years? The question is how long are you willing to leave it vacant?
- I think their improvements. I mean Unlike most petitions we had no discussion about landscaping or canopy
- trees, which I think is Positive, I think somebody I don't know who it was. Maybe it was one of the
- public speakers. I forget your name Tom. I think Tom I commented that as Tricky as this project is we're
- only looking at requests for two variances So, I mean from where I'm sitting
- idea of having a new investment with a lot more green space with the landscaping the improvement to
- the site is really worth the trade-off for two variances that really don't Really dramatically change
- the historic pattern that was on the site when it was run as a
- Pizza Hut that had a lot more parking a lot more previous surface and employees I will say I You know,
- I well when we talk about employees and parking and alternative transportation You know, I think my
- record shows I've been a pretty good advocate for alternative transportation investments
- But I think that you know at some times we have to look at some of the realities. And right now if you
- look at the commuting patterns in Bloomington Indiana 73 percent of all the people that work in private
- employment in our city commute into the city from outside of the city. So why I want to encourage you
- know alternative transportation and you know things that are
- There's just certain reality that The people that we need to work in the city and live the city they
- they just don't have that ability to To take these alternative transportation methods to get to work
- so I think sometimes you've got to just you know, look at the reality of the world we live in not the
- one that we Aspire to have and we work towards those aspirations but
- Can't let it get in the way of certain things. So with that all that said I Would like to Propose the
- following amendments to the findings on number one On the second paragraph on the maximum parking I
- simply want to change Six
- in the first sentence to eight. In the finding number two on the second point related to maximum parking
- number hereto in the first sentence, I would propose that we change six to eight. And then for
- I need to do a little bit more work on the third one, sorry. Oh, in second sentence, fewer than, hang
- on second, sorry. Thank you.
- Let me reread that up to so it would read up to eight vehicle parking spaces plus one required van accessible
- space will not substantially affect the will. I've got this turned around. Sorry. That's what I hate
- about doing this on the fly.
- I think about that one. Yeah, so the first sentence, as I proposed, changing six to eight is fine. And
- then I would just delete the net sentence. And then for the findings,
- I think we only have to look at the first paragraph or the first finding on the drive width. And,
- you know, I think I would just say the strict application of the terms of the unified development ordinance
- would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.
- While alternative layouts may exist, strict compliance with the drive width standard would
- impose unreasonable constraints on the functional design of the site. It would not allow the property
- to redevelop in a manner that is practical and efficient for its intended use. The requested variance
- from the drive width standard represents the minimum relief necessary to achieve a workable site layout.
- And with those changes,
- I would recommend approval of the proposed amended findings for petition ZR 20 26 0 3 0 0 1 1 and approve
- the variance for the drive with and approve the variance for the parking allowance period That's my
- motion Did you want to amend any of the conditions of approval the
- One would probably still be relative the second one. You obviously do want to modify to reflect that
- the number Be the site layout instead of the site layout can change is that the site layout is approved and
- Basically with number one is saying that this approval is that for a two bay building design? Yeah,
- that's number one condition number two You just have to specify there the site may provide up to Eight
- But isn't that what was proposed Is that redundant I'm sorry. Yeah, I mean, I just didn't go through
- those because I thought that
- Yes, we just need to change the language on condition number two to reflect that you want to approve
- all eight plus the ADA accessible one. Okay. So in the end will be nine. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. I'm fine
- with those amendments to my yeah. And then in condition three, you would just want to strike where it
- says the three other spaces and just say, you know, the five other spaces.
- That would modify those conditions to be consistent with what your amendment was. OK. Second. I can't
- type fast enough. Sorry. Roll call please. Borel. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Katsenko. Yes. Congratulations.
- Yes, we're gonna take a five-minute break Go back Should we suspend the rules right now or do we have
- to wait I mean it's up to you to wait until after this petition. It really makes no difference, correct?
- Yeah, we're certainly not gonna get through the next four in the next 30 minutes. No, so I
- entertain a motion to suspend the rules to stop at 9 p.m. So I don't it might be helpful if you want
- to if you want to set a deadline of when to stop hearing new cases or tackle that maybe as we get closer.
- Yeah let's tackle that when we get closer. OK.
- We're going to go till we finish. Yeah. Okay. We'll move as fast as possible. Okay. Yes. All right.
- Do we have to vote. All in favor. Aye aye aye. All right. Now we are ready to hear Z are twenty twenty
- six dash zero three dash zero zero one two a request for one
- For five one six South Woodlawn Avenue Thank you. Um, so this is a request for an administrative appeal
- staff determination regarding the legitimacy of a lot that Yeah regarding the legitimacy of a land of
- a plot of land whether that is a lot of record So more specifically, you know, I'll just say from a
- staff perspective that this situation is it's not uncommon
- Within Bloomington. This is something that we deal with somewhat frequently where You have a situation
- where a subdivision was originally platted at some point in the past Oftentimes we encounter this on
- common area lots Sorry
- Yep. So this is a situation where we encounter, you know, lots were initially planted in a specific
- orientation east west along the street. And then you'll have a situation on a corner where at some point
- in the past, you know, property owners decided, you know, they bought those properties and they said,
- you know, we don't want our lots to be oriented east west. We want to orient them north south. And so they
- Adjusted their deeds. They recorded new deeds to reflect that and those deeds would oftentimes now be
- reflected to say the north half of this loud and the south half of this lot is one deed and you know
- the north half of this lawn and south half of this lot are on a new deed and so you Encounter these
- situations that we have in front of us tonight Where these lots that you see currently? were initially platted
- in a north-south orientation. And then, as I mentioned, petitioners or the property owners at some point
- in the past wanted to have the lots facing on Woodlawn. And so they recorded new deeds. It said the
- south half of this lot and the south half of this lot are one and the north half of this lot and the
- north half of the other lot are on a deed. And so the auditor's maps still show those old
- These these remnant lots what I'll just call that resulted from that and they never reoriented them
- to match the actual deeds so in these situations that when staff encounters that We routinely use three
- criteria in essence to determine if something is a lot of record one Show us that you know it in any
- situation if there's a question of whether something is a lot of record we say
- You know show us that lot existing on a approved recorded subdivision plan So, you know, that's obviously
- one definitive way to show that something is a lot of record in this specific situation where we're
- talking about Lots have been reoriented You know, we've said look at and this has been based on guidance
- from the legal department of show us that this this lot this this square of a lot this corner of a lot
- existed on a deed by itself and
- Not owned by somebody adjacent to it. So something where it was shown definitively by itself Not you
- know in combination with an adjacent lot because we see this oftentimes with lot line adjustments or
- adjustments of Orientation of lot lines, you know, you'll have a weird anomaly of a lot that was moved
- But it was never intended for that to be a lot by itself You know, so certainly in this situation here
- where you have these small square of a lot, you know They were never platted
- To simply have a lot of record existing by itself. That is a 50 by 50 square It was always intended
- that this be a much longer lot So that's the situation that we have now. So in this particular situation
- the petitioner came forward to Create or to build on this back lot this western portion of lot 30 by itself
- And so we went through the same exercise, you know We said show us where this law was a lot by itself
- on a separate deed described by itself Not an association or owned by an adjacent property owner So
- the petitioner was was unable to produce that deed There was not a subdivision plaque that showed this
- lot existing by itself
- This lot would not be allowed to be created by subdivision standards because it doesn't front on a public
- street Doesn't meet the minimum lot area minimum lot width requirements. So that's why it was never
- able to be Created by itself because it doesn't meet our subdivision standards So, you know in those
- situations as I said, you know Show us a lot that show it that this existed prior to the establishment
- of the first subdivision code in 73 in order for us to recognize that and
- As I mentioned the petition was not able to demonstrate that in the evidence that they have brought
- forward So staff made the determination that it is not a lot of record The UDO does have a definition
- of a lot of record which reflects, you know what I was talking about That it is described on a separate
- deed or that it was established as part of an approved subdivision So this does not meet
- the UDO definition of lot of record. Therefore it is not a lot of record and not allowed to be separate
- buildable. So those are the facts that the planning department operated under and passed along to the
- petitioner. And so they are here tonight to appeal that determination. And I am happy to answer any
- questions. I just have a quick question. Can you point.
- Me in the right direction in the UDO on The definition of a lot of record so it's in chapter 7, which
- is the definitions So you would go to a lot of record, okay. Thanks Thank you is the petitioner now
- My name is Chris Bomba. I'm one of the owners of Charles Lane LLC. Right. Do you swear affirm that the
- testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you.
- You have 20 minutes. OK. Hopefully I won't take that but I do have support here to handle some of the
- legal parts. I'm here because on December 9th I submitted a building permit to build on the planet lot
- 30 in the college place subdivision.
- Submitted with all things meeting the current UDO current building structure current everything with
- that Before I kind of get into that one give you a little history. This is not the first time I've built
- on lots that have been Established before the planning department. I've done it multiple times. This
- is not unique. Also want to talk about the college place Platted subdivision has multiple
- Lots like this some where people have chosen to build over Where subject lots have been subdivided as
- well as places where people built specifically on the different lots So when I purchased this property
- a couple years ago two things I know I had to do is the duplex that is built on lot 29 So I've got the
- south half lot 29, which has a duplex Specifically centered on that lot and then lot 30 is a lot behind it. I I
- Use title plus I use more Erickson because I always ask him do I have two legal platted lots here? Yes,
- I do I've seen no place in legal law where you can't have more than You can have two or more where you
- can't have two or more platted lots on any deed It says and so I have this lot and I have that lot So
- I verified that with title company that's been here quite a bit as I renovated the house the duplex and
- Got blood so rigor Creek to survey the lot. I know lots multiple lots within the city sometimes you
- get during so I want to know exactly what the lot lines are as They did that they did locate And come
- to me that the guess these are two separate platted lots that were done So a little bit on on the subdivision
- or the college place subdivision
- If you pulled up on GIS, you'd see multiple locations, very similar to this. You'll see some where people
- built, they use the term reoriented, I disagree with that term completely, but some people built over
- the subdivided lines, and other people built specifically on the lots. The four in my area are, they
- were built on the specific lots. If you go south of there, there are other houses built on the lots.
- Some people chose to do it one way others chose to do the others on the intent and reorientation a lot
- these lots were subdivided in 1911 I Just kind of went through the process of subdividing a lot within
- the city because I know our mayor wants us to do more infill and I noticed up on their board an old
- city of Bloomington at the turn of the century I think it's dated about 1900 ten years before these
- lots were subdivided but
- 10 years after the subdivision was planted, platted, excuse me. On that map, it does show there is a
- road or an easement to the west of these four lots, and I can verify that. I think in the packet, you
- did see a, from Bledsoe, kind of the lot, the survey of the lot, you can see there is an easement on
- the west side. So what I would argue as far as the intent, I don't think they intended
- completely rearrange the lots Because there were roads and access points on both sides. I believe the
- person at the time subdivided the lots So he there was either to make more money or have the opportunity
- to develop the other lots In that area So like I said, I've done this multiple times before I keep getting
- different variations and
- One of the things I'm asking for today is just Prove that this is a buildable lot What's being built
- on there has been built on another location in Bloomington before on a very? Kind of similar lot that
- was Had not been built on since it was was it was platted. It's going to meet all the requirements for
- that yes, it will most likely be a rental property but to the east it's a duplex to the south that's
- a duplex and
- The West it's a duplex the only person is the person owns the other half of lot 30 Platted lot 30 is
- the only homeowner that would be kind of adjacent to the property So kind of what I'm asking today is
- that you approve lot 30 which is the platted lot Staff is asking, you know, basically saying we're asking
- you to create a
- to approve It's trying to say that part of lot 29 platted lot 29 and platted lot 30 Is one lot so they're
- attempting to create a lot where one legally does not exist So a couple the other points I mean the
- intent I don't think you can drive intent of what people and how things were done this was plot this
- this subdivision was platted and
- Over a hundred years ago these lots were these lot these this specific lot was lot 30 the ones I'm talking
- about was subdivided in 1911 And it it has been a lot of record has its own tax ID number I pay separate
- taxes on it I had a deed that not only a title company, but also an engineering firm told me I had to
- Legally planted lots or parts of two legally planted lots which are large enough to to build on
- That is all I have. I know there's been other instances in the past where there's been court cases that
- justify that these are two legally plotted lots. So I'll stop there and see if there's any questions
- for me. Thank you. How much time does he have remaining 13 minutes.
- Could I request. Yes absolutely. You have 13 still 13 minutes so. State your name Bill Beggs. Do you
- swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth. I do. Thank you. Bill Beggs Munger and Robertson law firm here in Bloomington. I just
- want to make sure that what's what's before you is the visual of it is clear to you. We gave a
- picture in your packet. This is a garage with living space up above that would be in essentially the
- backyard of this house. What I want to
- What I want to emphasize is this request, this appeal of an administrative determination is not asking
- the BZA to go out on any limbs to change the world, to make any huge changes to anything. We're simply
- focused on this property only. And with respect to this property only, the record of the subdivision
- of the land, when you think about it, all land is subdivided, right?
- every land, every piece of land everywhere in Indiana has been subdivided. This land has been subdivided
- as well as far back as 1911. The effect of the staff's policy that they've described to you tonight
- would be to create a new lot where none exists. So the logic we believe and respectfully, the logical
- inconsistency in their
- Lot of in their policy is that in the one hand they want to follow the lot of college place yet on the
- other hand they want to try to deem or determine or ascertain intent of property owners and create a
- new lot meaning the south half of 29 and the south half of 30 we think that's arbitrary we don't think
- they get to do that
- The lawyers here, so I'm gonna talk about three things that the staff has covered in their staff report.
- One is BZA versus Elkins was a case that came, it's a Bloomington case. It's a very similar case. We
- thought it was similar and then fortunately we got the staff report and you have this and the staff
- report acknowledges that it's essentially the same case, but they say they distinguish it on three things
- that really are not
- Anywhere to be found in that Elkins opinion and so from our perspective we appreciate the acknowledgement
- that they are This is essentially the same case that the Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals has been
- down before the road it has been down before and We disagree, of course with the manner in which the
- staff attempts to distinguish it Secondly is the lot of record question
- I appreciate, I don't entirely agree, but I appreciate the staff report's acknowledgement that this
- lot does indeed satisfy the lot of record definition, but for the statement about the, it calls it the
- second condition, however it says separate deed required.
- We all know that multiple properties can be conveyed via the via separate deeds or via single deeds
- And so we have a single deed right now now could Charles Lane have gone to the recorder's office and
- recorded a quit claim deed and Gotten over the argument that we're now hearing from the staff is a problem
- I'd suggest to the BZA that's exalting
- Form over substance and I would suggest that that's not advancing either the Policy of the lot of record
- definition nor of our community attempts to increase housing it also suggests that the the intent of
- the ordinance could not have been a gotcha where you didn't go down and record a deed from yourself
- to yourself and their father therefore satisfy their
- They're a technical policy requirement. We don't think that makes sense the other thing I just want
- to I just want to maybe I just want to maybe emphasize as we think that the policy while I Appreciate
- the hard work the staff does and the fact they've got to deal with these calls when their phone rings
- and they've got these calls that come in
- We suggest humbly and respectfully that it's gotta be arbitrary, it's gotta be capricious to have this
- policy that is not grounded in the ordinance or in any case law that's been furnished to any of us.
- So for those reasons, and again, I wanna emphasize, we are only asking for this garage in the backyard
- of this home on the south half of Lot 30. We are not asking to change the world in this case.
- but we believe that the Staff's position we disagree with the staff's position and so we would ask that
- the BZA would come back with a decision that the December 9 2025 permit Can indeed be issued. Thank
- you Thank you All right, we're back to the board with questions and
- You have questions. Either for the staff or the petitioner. Yeah. I'm just trying to understand the.
- What are we trying to achieve I guess at the end of the day I've kind of lost the I'd lost the thread
- I mean why why is it an issue to whether it's one Lot or two lots so I can answer that from staff perspective
- and this is actually a very important matter and this is very legally based and
- So as I tried to mention during our presentation We have a definition of a lot of record something that
- was legally shown on a subdivision plat this back Quarter of the lot is absolutely not shown on an improved
- subdivision plat It is not shown on a deed by itself get that but I mean in terms of what?
- Owner wants to do with this land. How is the one lot verse two lot relevant? So he wants to develop
- certainly they can speak to that as well They want to develop this separately from the adjacent lot
- Yeah, I would like to build a property I've built before on the south half a platted lot 30 Staff is
- telling me
- Lot 30 and lot 29 the south halves are one lot which they are not but what's unique about the property
- that Can't be done as one lot versus two lot because it's a separate single home No, no the back lot
- but it looks like it I thought it was a garage with a unit above it I'd suggest to you. There's nothing
- these are two lots they have a
- Two legal descriptions and have had since 1911. They have two Property ID tax ID numbers there. I think
- the answer to your question is nothing but we've encountered a determination of the staff that 20 the
- south half of 29 and the south half of 30 are a single lot despite the fact that we hold ownership and
- pay taxes on two lots and
- I understand that but if it was a single lot Is there anything that would permit you from being able
- to build this? Oh Yeah, I mean that's what I'm trying to get I got you yes Yes, there's a duplex on
- the south half of lot 29 that's been there since 1925 And It prevent for building a house on the property
- So in a single family lot you can only have one dwelling unit. You could have an ADU which I saw some
- of the conversation I read some of the conversation you know that went through an ADU would be allowed
- on our one lot. Correct.
- If it's in combination with a lot that the owner lives on But this is this is not that so then so they
- can't be an ADU because he doesn't live there So he's trying to develop it separately from the lot up
- front so then and I'm asking these because I honestly do not know I'm not trying to be rhetorical or
- anything, but I'm just trying to wrap my hand around all this way So if you go to GIS, it's a separate
- parcel Right. So how do you how does a property?
- End up on GIS as a separate piece of land and a debt separate lot or parcel if it's not a separate lot
- Sure. Yep. So the information on GIS is it's just a rough representation of various pieces of information
- that the auditor's office has You know the assigning of a separate tax ID number doesn't mean that it
- is a lot of record from planning and zoning purposes But practically I mean
- Well, I mean, you know, every entity obviously looks at lots and assesses them and for different reasons
- and different criteria, you know, certainly we could go through the community and find all of these
- half lots that exist all throughout there and have the auditor's office remove them. But
- You know obviously the burden of proof is on a petitioner in any situation to prove that something is
- legal. So the UDO has requirements has language it talks about what is a legal lot of record. And so
- that is the procedure that we have directed the petitioner to which is the same procedure that we've
- used in multiple situations. It feels to me like this is a legal matter. Yes. I mean more of a legal
- matter than anything. So my question the petitioner.
- If I may, John. Yeah, please. So you purchased both lots. Correct. I own the south half of lot platted
- lot 30. Yes. And the south half of platted lot 29. Yes. And I'm going to call by their name here. So
- it'll be easier just second. So Joseph Christine LLC. Yes. You own that. Yes.
- And then you you own Charles Lane LLC. Correct. And when you bought those two parcels. Yes. They were
- conveyed in the same deed. Correct. And but the title company specifically told you they are two different
- lots. I asked to make sure that I because I'm not an expert on deeds and so forth but you can have multiple lots
- one deed How is the How was the title conveyed I mean The the D you should have the deed in the packet
- It was conveyed both lots south half of 29 and south half of 30 were conveyed Via corporate warranty
- deed, I think to keep very via warranty deed corporate warranty deed I'm gonna
- see if I can find the deed here. Just exhibit six to our submission. I apologize. We have a billion
- different files to open. You have the
- Would note those were It's been since 1911 that those were separate that they were separated those were
- subdivided This isn't it's not a it's not a new event So why they're looking at that so Eric it was
- said at one point by the petitioner representative that You know, they could do a quick claim and have
- a separate deed and
- And then this issue is mute. No, so that would be illegally creating a lot that was not created through
- the legal subdivision process We just we just wholeheartedly disagree You you have in your packet and
- they've the staff's report tells you these lots were were subdivided in 1911. Yeah Yes, they were subdivided
- to create two lots lots 29 and
- 30 that is the approved subdivision They were platted for 29 and 30 as I think we we agree and then
- they were Subdivide 29 was subdivided into two and 30 was subdivided into two in 1911. Well, we've got
- the deeds in the packet Let me we can check the deeds
- There's nothing in the record that makes that re orients or replats these four lots into to anywhere
- that I've searched but I've had a title company search and the engineering firm. So there are two two
- platted lots that were subdivided. I wouldn't have expected disagreement on this. The staff's report.
- own report says they were subdivided in 1911. This is not something to disagree about I don't think.
- Do they have different addresses US postal and I know that that's irrelevant because they have different
- addresses those two parcels different personal numbers they don't have different addresses. Yeah no
- I understand. But if they were bladed lots they would have specific not address. I don't think that's
- correct because just north of there there were
- two platted lots that were subdivided into four and there's three houses on Three of the lots and a
- parking lot on the fourth and I don't think the fourth has an address But not not still it's approved
- and built. Okay, I An address wouldn't determine but the other times I've gone through this I've you
- know, I've gotten different push backs and different things but it's it's that I didn't provide evidence that
- These lots were subdivided, they were platted. They weren't replatted in 1911, they were subdivided
- in 1911. So to say the intent was to reorient when there was a road in 1911 along the backside of lot
- 30, which you can't justify something by someone's intent to do things or what could have been. There's
- four lots, two platted lots that were subdivided into four.
- It's been that way for over a century. Thank you for your explanation. Let's go back to discussing here
- and then I want to hear if we have any public comments out there too. Do you have any more questions.
- All right well let's go to public comment for now and then if you have if some questions pop up let
- me know. Anybody in chambers that would like to speak. If there is anybody online that would like to
- speak says petition please use the raise hand function.
- Not seeing anybody online Okay, we're back to the board then You know, I just want to point out obviously
- for the board We do have an Adina from the city legal department here in council chambers So if there's
- any questions for her that you felt like maybe I wasn't able to address clearly She was here to answer
- any questions
- Any questions for the city lawyer. Miss ending. I'd certainly be open to hearing city legal's point
- of view. Thank you. And Edina Kassemian from the city of Bloomington assistant city attorney city's
- position is that these properties were originally
- platted as part of the college place plot that established these lots as lots twenty nine thirty. They
- were platted in north and south orientation but at some point they were reoriented to east and west
- direction. The new legal description for each property described them as the north half of lot twenty
- one twenty nine and then north half of lot thirty in the south half.
- of lot 30 in the south have a lot 30 I mean north half of 29 and south half is 30 but city of Bloomington
- doesn't see any record of an actual subdivision approval that allowed the creation of new developable
- lots. The creation of the back half lots would not have met today's subdivision code requirements since
- they did not have frontage on a public street and they didn't meet
- minimum lot requirements. The back half lots were always owned by the adjacent property owners and they
- were never recognized as individual lots. So the city of Bloomington does not believe this is one lot
- not two separate developable lots. Since there was no subdivision approval that allowed the creation
- of those back half lots there is no deed that showed these existing lots.
- by themselves. The lots are shown on one deed. So today these lots would not meet current legal established
- established standards of the subdivision requirements of the U.D.O. So not city of Bloomington does
- not recognize these as lots of record per the legal definition and the U.D.O. the definition in the U.D.O.
- Yes, just a second. I do feel like this is like over our heads to discuss something like this. But as
- a realtor, I have a hard time when land is conveyed and passed down to a buyer and the title chain
- Is free and clear of any issues and it's bladed with two different parcels to be Combining as one and
- I understand all the you know that there's different parcels I understand all that and I understand
- also the the requirements to have frontage and all that stuff This is unusual because it was built I
- mean it was decided a way long ago before we had a
- What our current you deal So Which makes it even more complicated But when somebody is purchasing something
- and they are purchasing as two lots and then they realize later that no by the way No, it's not in every
- in all everything indicated to them that it was That's what gets complicated But anyway, I'm interested
- to hear what the
- Petitioner has to say in rebuttal to what you've just said. Thank you I Just was gonna say I think maybe
- you touched on somewhat We agree there is no record of a subdivision case or a case number It was 1911
- for goodness sake. There was no subdivision Ordinance there was no zoning ordinance. That's not how
- it worked. And you know, you mr. Gurley referred to the 1973 cutoff that the
- when we in Bloomington started that process, but the fact remains the staff is asking the BZA to accept
- that four lots are really two and There's no evidence that would suggest that the only evidence there
- is tells us that four lots is four lots now if the if the site isn't
- doesn't meet other requirements. That's one thing. But to be told by a staff policy that two lots are
- really one we suggest is is improper and won't work. Thank you. I have a question for staff. So if this
- is the south of 29 in the north of 30 is that correct or
- Part of 29 part of 30. Let's just say that part of 29 part of 30 Who are the owners of the other part
- of 29 in the other part of 30? Are they two separate? Oh I think those are on the same deed and known
- by the same individual as well. Okay, the person who lives at 514 Owns the north half of lot 29 and
- north half of locker and those are on one deed and then this is on one deed as well
- Okay. Okay. Super confusing. Can can we show it on the map. Yep. So what is what is on the map here
- is the original subdivision that was done in 1911.
- You know again, which shows the lots being created by that plat running north-south lot 29 on the east
- lot 30 on the west But the The two top quadrants belong to another no owner Correct. So the current
- deed for the the lot on the north 514 reflects the north half a lot 29 north half a lot 30 and
- For the lot property on the south is the south half a lot 29 south half a lot 30 Correct. So are you
- saying that? The back half of lot 30 and the back half of lot 29 is one lot No, because that was reoriented
- when they recorded new deeds at some point in the past We can go through the chain of title to see when
- that was actually done. So they Reoriented that line so that the person's own
- The north half lot 29 and north half lot 30 and then the south half lot 29 and lot 30. So again, that's
- something that could be allowed now because you had two lots and at the end you still had two lots.
- You did not create a subdivision of land to create a new lot, you still had two lots. So that would
- have been legal. Yeah, it's also very confusing that it's divided in quadrants. Yes, certainly the presence
- of those lines on GIS
- GIS does indicate confusion there and cause confusion You know that is that is not a legal Representation
- of lots, you know, we see errors in GIS all the time So just because there is a lot that is shown there,
- you know at the end of the day They show us show us the legal proof that there is a lot here and so
- the methods to do that are one of recorded subdivision plat or a deed showing this lot prior to the
- subdivision ordinance and
- That would that would say you couldn't create this law. You know anything that happens. This is kind
- of a catch 22 because things were so messed up in 1911. So they changed orientation. So you know what
- I mean. It doesn't fit the criteria very specific. I mean it there was no subdivision then the orientation
- was changed and the quadrants are there.
- Well, but the recording of the new deeds to reorient the lot line location didn't create those lots
- by themselves. So that's where we say in those situations, okay, go, go do the chain of title research.
- And if you can show one of those lots that was sold separately, that showed that legal transfer of land
- prior to the subdivision code that said you couldn't have created that even lot, then that's different.
- And so that's the,
- Procedure yeah, but what prevents them from doing that now You couldn't create that lot because it doesn't
- need our subdivision requirements But couldn't they sell that piece of landed they could sell a parcel
- They I mean they could separate from the other part So they could they could sell a portion of parcel
- to an adjacent property because then you're just combining that with an adjacent lot
- And we see that oftentimes. You've got a driveway that encroaches on somebody's land and so they move
- the property line to the east and sometimes it'll say lot 29 of whatever plus 10 feet of the west half
- of the adjacent thing. That is never intended to say that that little sliver of land is now a lot. It's
- just being combined with the adjacent lot. It's being reoriented, whatever. And so this is very similar.
- They have adjusted the location of the lot lines
- You had two lots to begin with. You have two lots at the end. It's not a subdivision. That's legal.
- Whether it happened in, you know, 1920 or 30 or 50 or yesterday, you know, assuming that it's not creating
- a new lot, then that would be legal. I have to respond to that. Well, if you could hold on to that thought,
- grab that thought and don't let it go. Thank you. OK, because you still have time to respond.
- Any questions from you guys for being new on on the zoning board. I'd like to know the implications
- of approval or denial in regard since this is in appeals. Yep. So an approval would be affirming staff's
- position. A denial would be denying staff's interpretation.
- If you don't have any questions, I'll allow the petitioner to use their allotted time. How much time
- do we have left? Eight minutes, I think. Eight minutes. You don't have to use it all. I have to correct
- the record. The petitioner did not change any lines. The lines have been there since 1911.
- Lots have been separated since 1911. These are four lots since 1911 period end of story The staff report
- says it our indication our material says it we gave you the deed that says it It is flat incorrect to
- say that we have changed any lines anywhere They have there are separate tax ID numbers. They are separate
- lots. They are separately conveyed and
- Although in one deed, but that's a separate conveyance under the law anyway And so to suggest that the
- petitioner has changed lines is I'm sorry. It's just incorrect To suggest that it's okay to create a
- new lot East and west because that's the staff's policy now It's their policy now, but we're talking
- about a subdivision that occurred in 1911 and created four lots out of two
- And we didn't do that, we just own it now.
- Just so Eric you're if I understand the distinction here The land has always been Viewed in the context
- of four parcels Not not from our perspective absolutely not I
- So I guess your response then is that there was never a formal subdivision to create correct or a recording
- of a deed prior to the establishment of a subdivision code that would have legally established those
- lots on a deed by themselves not owned by an adjacent owner. And the petitioner's argument is they've
- always been considered for different pieces of land even though they may have been owned
- By the same party. I don't want to speak for the petitioner But yes, I that is their assertion that
- they are four separate individual and that's what's in the deeds I'm sorry what and that's how it's
- articulated in the deeps Well, so the the deeds for each say the north half of this lot and the north
- half of that lot on one deed You know, it's not I bought a deed that says the north half of this lot
- and a completely separate deed This has a north half of this other lot
- It's one deed that says north half of this and the north half of that likewise for the other one And
- again, I mean this is a situation we run into fairly frequently Just wonder why would you say it's even
- a half of a lot I
- Just make sure I'm not sure if I said it correctly earlier so a denial of the petitioners appeal would
- be affirming staff's position and Approving would be affirming the petitioners are
- Is there. So I heard is maybe this question is for you Eric or if a home is built in that quadrant where
- it will have no garage it will have no access. You will have to have an easement. So you know just to
- answer the question in generalities in general it is was one big lot. Can they construct a garage. Absolutely.
- But they cannot put a dwelling on they can't put a dwelling unit in there because that would be something
- different. Yeah. Yeah they can build its own single family. So you know there's an existing nonconforming
- use. You can do it. You need a legit. I mean most likely they would need to legitimize the duplex use
- in order to do the garage. But there is a path for that. They could do a garage but not.
- A dwelling not a dwelling you'd above it now. Now this is a tough one.
- In this case we we don't have to do the three criteria. This is just a recommend. Yeah yeah this is
- just a vote yay or nay. And it's an admin administrative appeal. So when an administrative appeal they
- cannot make a formal recommendation. Of course they have a very strong opinion about it.
- But so it's up to us. I just you know I think there's good arguments on both sides of the case. I mean
- You know, a reasonable property owner would look at GIS and go, those are two different parcels. And
- when I think of a parcel, I think in my head that there are lots, but there's never been a natural process
- to subdivide the land, which I think is, you know, the staff's perspective is that for the purposes of
- development, you know, subdividing is the pathway to create separate development opportunities for distinct
- property owners. I'm trying to get this right. So it's not like you own and live in one and you're doing
- a dwelling like an ADU or something. This is totally two different separate units.
- So I mean, I think that, you know, it's a lot to ask for us basically to adjudicate a difficult question.
- I mean, it's one thing to, you know, whether it's, yeah, I don't know. Flava, you're the real estate
- person up here. I'm just a country lawyer. I think you are. That's not currently practicing.
- Much better suited than I am in here I Have questions about you know, where is the easement because
- this is a landlocked Piece so when you have a landlocked parcel, you have to have an easement for access
- So Would they even be able to have an easement in here So the presence of an easement doesn't change
- anything from our perspective
- Okay. You know it's not a question of how do you get to it. That's that's not a component. Okay. There
- is an easement on lot 29 to lot 30. There is an easement. There's a there's a easement on lot 29 to
- lot 30 on record with with I guess the deed for the half of lot 29 planet lot 29.
- Number 3. Thank you.
- I guess what I'm confused by is I know that there's pretty strong wording in the staff report about
- you know looking at GIS but are we saying that when our GIS system has property cards that have a legal
- description
- refers to The parcel number and calls it lot 29 and then the other Parcel has a legal description that
- calls it lot 30 that it's not a lot Yeah, like I said there are certainly errors in the auditors and
- assessors information and
- You know and how they choose to assess something you know doesn't have an implication for whether or
- not something needs a planning and zoning requirement Yeah, but one one sales record is dated 813 and
- that's for a lot 29 813 2024 and it was by LW deed
- And then the other parcel that refers to lot 30 was a quick claim in twenty two thousand seven eight
- twenty two thousand seven and I don't it just seems like
- We're arguing that the County Auditor's Office made a massive mistake here. It just seems I don't It's
- you know, and I'm not trying to give the staff our time because I totally understand what you're arguing
- Eric I'm sorry. I have to correct it. The auditor didn't make a mistake. I Appreciate the hard work,
- but they didn't make a mistake. I
- Those were like, you know, 17 years difference referred to as separate. Yes, separate parcel sold in
- different times. I think that's an argument, a strong argument there. And I, you know, again, I mean,
- we can I'm just saying I'm not a judge.
- But if you came to me and said that you know the property record refers to it as a platted lot I Might
- be persuaded. It's a lot of record even though our definition in the UDO has a you know the
- Single ownership language and and some of that I just think it's a tough case to to win Yeah, so I mean
- I think you know as you're looking at the property record card here
- And if you look very closely, you know when it looks at the legal description it says part of lot 29
- Likewise for the lots to the north Okay
- I don't know if this information is reflecting you know there was a deed that was recorded in twenty
- twenty four that I think tried to establish this as a lot by itself which was the impetus for some of
- the problems here today. I'm sorry but what is the twenty twenty four a lot. The deed the deed was 1911.
- Just don't understand. Yeah, we're not talking about the deed in 1911 No, I know you're not but I think
- the BZA is because they want to know when the lot was established and the lot was established in 1911
- No, we're talking over 110 year 15 years. Yeah after the thing was established Thank you and well before
- there was a zoning ordinance, of course, and we all agree on that I
- I mean they. I mean they referred to as platted lots. On the property records. I'm looking at.
- You know, notice of tax bill from June at 2026. Looking at the property record card. So I think it's
- also important to be careful looking at some pieces of information. You know, oftentimes the recorder's
- office and our office, they have to take in for a long time. They would take anything that would be
- presented to them.
- And so there have been situations where we have uncovered Scenarios where lots were illegally created
- these were illegally recorded So that's why it's very important when we encounter these situations to
- put the document of proof You know show us go back and give us the information going back where these
- lots were created to make sure that everything was done accordingly And so again, that's that's where
- we're in this situation of show us a deed that was legally created
- Created that legally allowed this lot to be created that met our standards at the time that it was created
- But so are you I don't want to be argumentative everybody. Are you saying that? The recorder the assessor
- are not looking at Evidence of transfer of property
- Whether or not it met planning and zoning requirements. They mean they may not have affirmed that Yeah,
- this is complicated because You have land recorded one way but not following so it's They're not following
- We're not working together here. The recorder's office with the UDO. So we do letters authorizing letters
- of lot line adjustments. I'm just saying you know whether or not the person working that day may have
- paid attention or notice what was happening with new deeds being recorded. Impossible to say.
- But you know the burden of proof is always to show that you met all laws and regulations Obviously the
- zoning code has been in place and the subdivision code has been in place since 73 So as we go through
- this exercise, which we've done many times, you know the Method of showing that something is legally
- created is always the same has always been the same Yes, I'll allow you
- I'm just gonna go back and repeat because they'll set it multiple times These four lots were created
- in 1911 before the planning before the zoning the last time I went through this I was told specifically
- if anything was Established before the zoning department. They didn't have say because I've been told
- they many times they don't Recognize these lots and I've heard that said tonight by the legal council.
- They don't recognize them, but they were two platted lots
- We're subdivided. I am part two platted lots Staffs recommendation is you're taking two separate platted
- lots half of them and making one lot and I don't know how that's legal Because the deed has been the
- same since the lots have been subdivided since 1911
- getting close to a motion here. You know I mean I'm just looking at the record and we can argue whether
- or not a county office did something different. But I mean if you just look at the sales history after
- 1900 it looks like you had the same owner up to 1984.
- And then, well, I don't know, I may be wrong here. I'm just trying to follow the money trail. So One
- Lot sells the 516 South Woodlawn, sells in 23 and 24 from, well, in 1984, it goes from Del Hales, who
- owns both parcels,
- In 1984, that property owner sells one lot to H3 rentals. And I wonder if that's the same entity because
- it's a quick claim. But then that lot is sold in 2023 to Joseph Christine LLC. But the other lot isn't
- sold by Dale Hills.
- until 2007 to Charles Lane, so I mean They're not transferring at the same time to me that's like they're
- separate Well the both
- Both hats and halves have always been on the same deed and transferred at the same time So that would
- have been if there was a situation where the north half of one and the north half of the other
- Had transferred to separate owners, then that would be different But that's that's not the case here
- so, you know some of the the Errors or some errors the information in the auditor's office is a result
- of the uncombination request that was done in 2024 and that
- Is where it ran a foul of the zoning code and shouldn't have been done. So we did not sign on that sign
- off on that And were you saying there was a request To uncombine. Is that what it is? Yes, so the petitioner
- in 2024 filed a request to uncombine those parcels And that is where it shouldn't have been allowed to be in
- But I but I'm separated. Yeah, I hear you but I'm going yeah, I'm just looking at the sales records
- here though and They were sold at different times To different yes in North Hampton South haves were
- absolutely sold at different times But they were always sold together because they were on one deed
- I don't know how you do that. Yeah That timeline is not matching Eric. That's that's the issue here.
- Yeah, I'm not disputing what you're saying Eric. I'm just saying I don't know how you do that. I mean
- If it's on the same deed and I'm trying to close on the property I've got I like Do the title search
- and make it happen, right? Well, it wouldn't be released to show that you actually have the
- That you're selling what you're selling and I'm buying what I'm buying And if one was sold in 2027 Or
- 2023 and the other was sold in 2007. I don't know how to square that Yep, so I think you know, certainly
- the exhibit in their title the chain of title I don't know if that's what you're looking at, you know
- shows how things have moved through time and
- Certainly as you look in the description of those you see how they were always bundled together. Yeah
- the discrepancy is that one was sold separate. The front one the one on the right. Which one are you
- looking at. Lot lot 30 was sold in 2023 and the half the other.
- Lot was sold in 2024. Right. So again that that's where that shouldn't have been created that way. So
- the zoning code says you could not have sold these. These were not individual lots of record. So so
- that was an illegal sale right there. Now now we're getting into very difficult territory right there.
- It shouldn't it shouldn't have been separated into two separate loss of record. I don't think the zoning
- code dictates
- Ability one to sell a lot No, but putting them sub the subdivision code does of taking those two separate
- lots and putting them on their own deed You've taken one lot and now created two With the intention
- of selling them separately. That's that is a subdivision taking one lot and making it to These lots
- were subdivided in 1911 having two lots on one deed it is is is
- something you can have happen. There was no subdivision legal subdivision. It was done. This was done
- prior to. Well yeah I mean we're now we're just repeating ourselves. But thank you so much. I'm going
- to. So what I'm going to do here I'm going to give the petitioner how many minutes that they have left
- their hair eight minutes.
- Okay. Can you do that less than eight minutes and and this will be your final time and then let's figure
- out what we're going to do. I don't think things are going to change drastically. I think we've heard
- both sides. So I do my best not to repeat myself. We've been at this a long time. You are yet to have
- been told by the staff a legal basis for their policy.
- There's no ordinance, there's no case, there's no statute. They've yet to, in an hour almost, they've
- yet to give you a legal basis to disregard two lots that have been existent since 1911 and tell you
- they're one. And I don't know how the BZA is gonna get around that. It's the same road it went down
- in the Elkins case that
- The staff report itself identifies as the same case. So I I'm sorry, but we don't have any authority
- for this policy We've asked for it. We're months into this thing and they've yet to provide it Thank
- you I'm sorry staff has given an absolute legal basis and Edina Yeah, so I do believe we've given a
- legal basis that being that this does not
- Meet the U.D.O.'s definition of being subdivided. It's not a I think what we need to also focus on is
- whether it's a developable you know developable separate law. So we we can talk about the U.D.O. the
- legal definition of subdividing and I know
- petitioners mentioned the Elkins case and one of the things that distinguishes these facts from that
- case is that in that case there was a building permit that was issued. I know petitioner mentioned a
- building permit in the beginning of his speech but didn't continue with it. In that case there was a
- building permit that was issued and they had already started building. So our facts are completely distinct
- from that.
- No building permit has been issued to my recognition to my knowledge. Nothing has been built it has
- been built and we're focusing not so much on just the fact whether they're separate but whether they
- were legally subdivided under the standards that the UDO has set forth and whether Whether it's a separate
- developable lot and so City of Bloomington our position is that
- There's no record, which would be the legal basis of an actual subdivision approval that allowed the
- creation of new lots that are separate and developable lots. Thank you. Question, do you have a building
- permit? No, this is why we're here is
- Staff is saying the south half of lot 29 and the south half of lot 30 now lot 29 has two properties
- on it So they were legally subdivided in 1911 lot 29 was legally subdivided the same time lot 30 was
- legally subdivided So I'm coming in saying I have a legal lot South half of lot 30 platted lot They're
- saying I'm saying
- I'd like my permit. I'm trying to get my permit issued. That's what this is about. This is what's holding
- it up is I've got a plan. Everything fits. Everything fits with the current UDO. For the last question,
- the legal basis, they're quoting the current UDO in 1911. There was no planning department in the 1970s.
- These lots were legally separated on its on a deed. A deed can have more than one lot. I have two lots. I'm just
- Talking about lot 30. I'm trying to be able to get my permit issued to build a house now whether they
- say it doesn't fit requirements I've had an engineer look at it. I've had engineer look at the code
- I've had it platted it fits if it's all the requirements to be able to build on it So it is a if the
- house we have will fit on that lot Thank you Let's focus on
- what we're going to do here because I don't think we're we still have several people we want to hear.
- I want to move on. We need to. I'll entertain a motion. Just get things moving home make a motion.
- get the wording right. So we have to make a motion either to
- deny the appeal or approve deny the appeal or approve the denial is the denial the approval is siding
- with the city the approval of The appeal is siding with the petitioner Well, I'll make a motion that
- we approve the appeal and
- And then we can debate it if we get a second. Do we have a second fully there. So that motion fails
- for lack of a second. So I'll move that we approve the or deny that bill and approve the staff recommendation
- or not recommendation but interpretation. We have a second for that.
- We got to do one or the other. I guess we can continue it. Can I second. Anybody can second. Okay. I
- was excluding myself here. Okay. I mean our alternative is that you continue it right. And then. But
- I don't even know.
- But I don't know where we're going to get here. I mean unless there's like some there was one precedent.
- But remember everything we do here there and we don't base it on precedents. It's specifically to the
- law. You know what we're doing. So I mean just for you know for my perspective I think it's debatable. It is.
- You know so I guess it gets down to what do we want to accomplish. You know if we deny the appeal they
- have the right to you know see judicial relief. They can. If we approve it they still have to go through
- other kinds of hoops and hurdles. Yeah they're just going to be still going to go.
- It's not like they can just, by right, go build something tomorrow. If I was being a judge, I'd take
- an under advisement and do my own research. I'm not going to do that. All right. Let's try again.
- I think that the the staff makes a good argument that there's there wasn't any kind of formal approval
- process related to a subdivision in the contemporary context of what that means. But the property transfers
- and all the documents you refer to these as separate lots.
- And again, I haven't done the research other than just trying to read some of the cases here, which
- is inadequate. I think you can make a pretty good argument that these are going to be determined as
- lots. What you can do with them subsequently is a whole different question. But denying it and just
- Going to court seems like a waste of time. Yeah, okay Right. How about you make a motion? So again,
- I'll make a motion that we approve the bill second Roll call, please So I just want to make sure because
- there was a motion to approve it By mr. Fernandez and then it was seconded by kusinko. Is that correct?
- That is correct. Okay
- bro Yes Fernandez. Yes, could sink. Oh, yes Thank you. All right, let's move on Let's move to ZR hot
- 2026 dash zero three dash zero zero one three
- 24 oh wait shuttle Grove Court We already did that correct Yeah, so I don't know, you know just to remind
- the board any cases that you do not get through Have to be rescheduled within one week of the hearing
- date. So you did not set a time to tonight So it's open-ended unless you want to establish one. Yeah,
- we still have So as of right now, we have three
- cases to be heard. It's nine twenty one nine twenty one. Let's be judicious about our time and let's
- get it done. So let's go. Staff report. Good evening. Joe Patterson's on a long range planner.
- So for 2408 South Shadow Grove Court, we're looking at three variances, one from environmental regulations
- regarding steep slope standards, one regarding riparian buffered standards, and then landscaping standards
- for ground cover. This location is zone medium lot residential, is approximately 1.28 acres to the north,
- which is the rear of the property, abuts Jackson Creek,
- and that is where the riparian buffer zone is. The majority of the property from the rear of the home
- to Jackson Creek is within the steep slope area. So these three variances tie back to originally a zoning,
- excuse me, a notice of violation letter that was issued in March of 2024. And these are the outstanding
- items that remain from that notice of violation.
- As you can see here, the work that has been done within the repairing buffer area was strictly relating
- to storm damage, felled trees, debris, and cleaning that area up. You can see within the steep slope
- area, there's one large retaining wall as well as a smaller retaining wall, some riprap channels. And
- what we're looking at is
- Basically these variances are for work that has been done in these areas. It is not for any new work.
- The work that was done was there was drainage issues with storm water and other issues where water was
- entering the home. And so the petitioners took it upon themselves to do some work installing some retaining
- walls and doing other work without getting the necessary permissions first.
- And so this retaining wall system was installed. There should have been an infill with ground, standard
- ground cover. However, they went with a lava rock infiltration system as well as the riprap channels.
- And that was all to redirect the drainage down the slope. Within the staff report, you'll see that there
- was mention of an professional engineers report as well as what the contractor did.
- The professional engineer agreed with primarily with what the contractor did. He said he would have
- done a similar design. And so by approving these variances, we are looking at not being injurious as
- we believe that by causing the work to be redone,
- that would be more injurious than what has already been established. The engineer report stated that
- the work was appropriate. They found that the work would actually help re-establish and protect neighboring
- properties, and so they would not be affected adversely.
- And when we get to the peculiar difficulties, the practical difficulties, again, we're looking at that
- steep slope and how that system was designed to redirect that drainage appropriately. And one mention
- for the ground cover. There were other areas identified on site. We determined that those were appropriate.
- appropriate to find landscape beds. However, there was one location out in the front of the property
- between the street and the sidewalk where a rock was placed, and we determined that does not meet as
- it is within the right of way, so that will need to be removed and replaced. And so ultimately, we recommend
- that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt our proposed findings and approve all requested variances with
- the following conditions. That the work is approved for
- that the variances are approved for work in the completed areas as designated. Any future work that
- is deemed necessary is to be approved remediation plans, memorandum of understanding or other agreements.
- The currently installed systems and features are to be maintained. A floodplain development permit will
- be required. And then again, the gravel and stone installed within the right of ways to be removed and
- revegetated. And I will be here for any additional questions you have regarding this.
- Thank you. May I have the petitioner, please? Jason McCauley for the Slavens. Do you swear or affirm
- that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
- I do. So first off, I want to thank the planning staff very much on behalf of the Slavens for helping
- them work through what's been a very stressful time for the Slavens life and trying to deal with
- Some of the pictures you'll see in the petitioners packet were some storm damage that precipitated the
- work that was done without Appropriate permitting so this is an after all three of these are after the
- fact variances before you so as they've worked with city staff to trying to find a course and a path
- back to to saving the foundation of the house dealing with some drainage issues that come at from the
- end of this cul-de-sac and the water flows
- straight at the house. And so some things that the Slavens have been dealing with to get to this point.
- These three variances are required to approve what they've already done. So we're not we're not proposing
- new soil disturbance or anything of that nature. They installed a retaining wall that you can see pictures
- of that is just it's fantastic and probably saved their house. They had tree damage that came down that
- has required them to have the roof on the house replaced twice.
- Part of the work that they did was in the riparian buffer area And so that's one of the third one of
- the third variances that's requested that We agree with the conditions. We acknowledge the conditions
- the one that Joe mr. Patterson mentioned that's out in front in the right-of-way we actually have a
- planning staff meeting at the at the residence scheduled for June 8th, so we'll have an opportunity
- to discuss what can be put there and
- in lieu of the River Rock that's there now currently so we just want to thank the planning staff and
- Ask the BZA to adopt the findings that the staff has incorporated into the packet and then the last
- thing is just want to thank you for your time and considering these requests because
- It's been a long path for the Slavens to get to this spot and now we're just asking for and we've been
- working with staff To come out to look at these improvements that have been made. So we're just now
- asking for Them to remain where they're at. So thank you very much Thank you Have any questions for
- staff or petition? Let's go to public comment
- We do have one person online any given given Givens you should be able to speak Can you state your name
- Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth but
- nothing but the truth Thank you So I would call attention to the fact that my husband I
- All right, let's get started.
- Get thank you miss Banny. We are you're out of time Thank you Thank you, we're gonna mute you now Okay
- anybody else is there anybody else online that would like to comment If there is anybody else online,
- please use the raise hand function and
- and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody. All right. Just as a statement for the public comment,
- we did receive the letter and we did read the letter from from you dated on April 28th.
- We're back to to the board for any questions or comments after hearing the public comment or what they
- have said. I can make a motion. I make a motion for CR 2 0 2 6 dash 0 4 dash 0 0 1 3 4.
- Three requested variances to be approved with the conditions out light with the five conditions outlined
- in the staff report Whether I didn't know if there was any comment or discussion. Yes, I do have a comment
- This has been a long process for for the petitioners and for the city
- A lot of time spent on this and a lot of I also want to acknowledge all the neighbors as they had to
- endure the process maybe not knowing fully of what what's going on and also fears of what that so this
- has caused a lot of concerns for the neighbors as well and I want to acknowledge that but I want to commend
- The city for working with them and getting As much as we can done with work that was already done Without
- permission so and figure it out a way to make To make this as compliant as possible. So I appreciate
- you guys And appreciate the petitioner as well so with that
- I hope for people that are listening to this if you are doing a project in your house, even though your
- contractor says it's okay. Check with planning commission first before you do it. Anyway, let's go.
- Roll call, please, bro. Yes. Fernandez. Yes, because Cinco. Yes.
- All right, we're moving forward to Z are 2026 dash zero five dash zero zero two one for one Highland
- Avenue Yes, so this is a very simple request in essence so this is an administrative appeal of a staff
- determination regarding a gravel and driveway parking area for a property of 410 South Highland and
- So this came to staff as a result of notice of violation Regarding a gravel parking area that had been
- established on a property You know in this particular situation As I mentioned a gravel area had been
- established on the northeast corner of a property we looked back at previous
- Aerial images as well as Google Street View as we often do in times of trying to determine, you know
- the violation has occurred or whether or not a particular Site feature it has existed on a property
- how long it's been there So, you know with this we go back through all the things that are disposal
- Google Street View offers historical perspectives images on properties as well as
- Aerial photographs so we did go back several years in Google Street View. You can see that the area
- You know had been the area that had been used as parking had been abandoned Had been reclaimed as vegetation
- the gravel of the parking area had been removed And then it had been reestablished and put back and
- so the the issue is in relation to how wide of a driveway is allowed off of a
- Alley, so you're allowed to have a 20 foot by 20 foot pad this particular parking area Greatly exceeded
- that width and so that is the aspect of this that is non-compliant So staff made a determination that
- the parking area that had been established there exceeded what was allowed And so we had issued them
- an NOV for that and the petitioners are appealing that NOV and so that concludes our
- Quick question Eric on this 23 image the gravel area there. Is that the alley? Yes Yeah, there is a
- 12 foot platted alley that runs along the north side of this property So that concludes my presentation
- we can Answer any questions after the petitioners, right? I'm ready to hear from the petitioner
- I'm Michael Cookman known the owner Steve Patterson for about 23 years. Let's so are both of you going
- to talk. He had a stroke in November. I'm here to help him. OK so you're here to on his behalf.
- All right. I'm going to swear both you in even though he's not going to talk because he's going to feel
- very good. Yeah I understand. We're going to move this as fast as we can. OK. Appreciate your time.
- Appreciate you being here. Sorry for the delay. Anyway.
- Can you state your name Michael D. Cookman. All right. I do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're
- about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. All right. You affirm. Yes.
- Okay let's go. Okay. So I actually went to this property 23 years ago when I met him to fix the roof.
- So I know this property well and I've been working on it for over a year now and it has had a parking
- since I've known him. There's gravel there and they find him over the years for having grass in the
- gravel or gravel in the grass. They can't decide what they want to do. I don't know why they haven't
- used the zoom. I went back to school for computer aided drafting and graduated in 16 and I worked for a
- 40 million dollar engineering company just a couple years ago and it really nerves me that Staff seems
- to I guess is how we relate here Suggesting that that's vegetation area when you can I have pictures.
- I don't have them here tonight because I'm soon we were told we may have to file for a variance, but
- I really don't think it's necessary because if you use the zoom
- on any GIS or use any I've used I've got topography anything that's on the Internet. You can easily
- see that that has always been gravel and it's grown up because the place has been. He hasn't lived there.
- He went to college there. He just told me tonight he's owned it since the 50s. It's always been that
- way. It was a place of business in the 80s. So I'll leave you guys up to you if we have to do a variance
- I understand but there's some other problems I don't want to get into tonight with storm router issue
- there on that alleyway. So thank you. And you still have some time to come back and talk if you need
- to. OK. Any questions from you guys from.
- Are you still thinking of your question? OK. Do you have any questions? Are we supposed to say something yet?
- No, we're just looking at the paperwork that we have in front of us. And if you want to sit down, you
- can sit down. You can come back up when we ask a question, if you feel better. So just so I have this
- clear, we're going
- I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. Oh, so just to be clear. We're the variance is for a new gravel
- So they they are appealing our determination that there is a Grandfather parking area and okay, you
- know our assertion is that
- There was a one point but it was it was removed, you know, it was no longer uses that You know the vegetation
- overcame that area the gravels removed whatever and so they are Appealing our determination that there
- is a non-compliant driveway there Okay, if there wasn't the vegetation would there be an issue with
- the video So if there still had been a parking area that had been established a grandfathered area there
- would not be
- Because there would be it would have not been removed in essence So, you know the non-conforming driveway,
- you know was installed prior to current regulations And you know ours like said our assertion is that
- it was removed and then reestablished later several years later and so for the owner of the property
- the so let's say driveway is approved and
- then they have the They can go about and install the driveway. Well, are we are we pushing a driveway?
- Yeah, so if if you Deny their request deny their appeal Then we would work with them to put in a compliant
- driveway If you approve their appeal that the driveway was never removed then what's there in essence
- can remain
- Does that answer your question. Yeah it just seems like a well we're not ready for comments sorry. Any
- more questions questions for the petitioner. I have a question if you could come back to the podium
- and the question is so this gravel driveway has been there.
- Forever that there's just grass growing up in the gravel. I mean they obviously didn't even go out and
- look at the site physically because I didn't remove any dirt. OK, I put extra gravel in because and
- I can show proof that just a month ago that whole road flooded and he's lucky it's been flooding his
- basement for over 20 years and they've they've tried to fix it. They took the curb out.
- I'll just say what needs to be said because they took the curb out. I have pictures of it and they tapered
- it took the curb out at that alleyway and tapered it. Okay, so I'm not real sure why to make it easier
- for pedestrians. All the other alleyways still have curbs and painted yellow distinguished curbs. Um,
- but the violation, the violation said that basically that we disturbed vegetation area.
- And I did not remove any dirt from that area. I took the grassy top off of it. I scraped it off and
- I added gravel and I have two videos in the past year that either IU or the city pretty sure it's a
- city truck has come in. Well, they've been doing it. I can prove they've added gravel to that alleyway
- over a foot over a foot of gravel. So he couldn't have the driveway the way it was.
- They've altered They've altered the you know beyond but the point is all we're here tonight for is It's
- been gravel this whole time. He had grass grow up through the gravel I Didn't know he's gonna have to
- actually Talk or really even show up until last week. So I don't sorry I didn't provide pictures or
- More, you know
- Not factual evidence here but you can clearly go back and look in the top topography any GIS system
- and zoom in and see he's had cars there parked there over the years. They find him for it. Look at some
- of the look at some of the fines in the city. Yeah. Yeah. Well thank you so much. All right.
- Anybody else. Questions.
- We're done with questions. Let's go. Did we do public comment. I think we did. Public comment. Yes.
- There's anybody online that would like to speak to this petition. Please raise hand function. I'm not
- seeing anybody online.
- So just to clarify, you know one important component to this and I guess you know one of the the challenges
- that various city departments had encountered was that You know there had been some tickets for parking
- on an unapproved surface because there was no indication there was any gravel So it just looked like
- somebody was parking in the grass and so then I sounds like gravel got dumped there and Reestablished
- a parking area that exceeded what was allowed now
- So that was I think the position that the city found itself in so as we look back at this historic photos
- And the Google Street goes I as I mentioned there, you know It appeared that it had all been removed
- and then reestablished at a later time I don't know if that helps kind of fill in some of the blanks
- and what the petition was mentioning in terms of the fines or the tickets that had been issued that
- was for parking on an unimproved surface because parking enforcement went by and it appeared that they
- were just parking in the grass and
- Thank you. Sure I'll allow it. Can you go to the microphone. You need to go to the microphone. Sorry.
- That area. I just asked him while we were here. Has it changed since he bought it. And it's always been
- that way. He did put the railroad ties in for a barrier there. But the elevation and the parking that
- area has been that way since.
- Over 30 years, 50 years. Thank you.
- All right. We're back to back to the board for a final action. So on this one losing my you either approve
- the appeal or you deny the appeal. OK.
- I guess that part of the staff report that I just kind of question a little bit is you know allowing
- vegetation to grow through gravel is not the same thing as removing a use and then reestablishing it.
- I just don't I mean it.
- To say that it ceased to exist and was reestablished implies that there was some kind of affirmative
- action taken other than parking there and adding more gravel. I just can't get too excited about it,
- to be honest.
- All right. Well I entertain a motion. So just again you know a denial is obviously to affirm the petitioner
- and then an approval would be to affirm staff's position.
- A motion for denial. Wait a second. Now we got it's too late. Eric help us out. Yes. No I'm so I'm so
- sorry. No that is the opposite. That's what I was like. Yeah I'm sorry. It's late. I'm so sorry. If
- you approve it you are with the petitioner and if you deny the appeal.
- Yes. Sorry. Yeah. Second. Second. If I had spread herbicide in there, it would be right in your silver bullet.
- Well, we're going to vote on it now. Okay. So now did you understand what we're voting for? We're voting
- for approval of your appeal.
- We're voting on your favor. Okay. Roll call, please. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Yes. And I'm so sorry. Who
- was the second on that one? John, thank you very much. Appeal is approved. Okay. The appeal is approved.
- Thank you.
- Moving on to our last petition of the evening, ZR 2026-04-0017. This is a request for 2660 Second Street.
- Thank you. So this is a request for a variance from sign standards to allow for an off-premise sign
- for a building that is located at 2660 East Second Street.
- The property has been developed with a multi tenant building that faces 2nd Street has an interior parking
- area So the petitioner is occupying the south portion of the building the first floor of that with a
- new use and would like has placed some signage on their portion of the building as well as a sign in
- the or a panel in a freestanding sign that's out on 2nd Street and
- They would like to install an approximately 10 square foot sign on the north side of the building There
- are several signs on that north side of the building now currently
- One of those received a permit from our department Erroneously the others we were not able to find sign
- permits for so they just kind of have appeared And we never had a complaint or anything To notify us
- that there were illegal signs that were there. So the petitioner would like to place the sign here as
- well Next to the other signs as I indicated there be about 12 inches by 120 inches. So 2 by 10
- So the request Obviously is evaluated per the criteria in the UTO we Generally as we deal with these
- conversations on off-premise signs You know the the intent amongst many reasons for why you regulate
- them is to reduce visual clutter on buildings you know if folks were to place all of the signs and in
- on a building
- You know not on their space. It would just clutter up an entire portion of the building as well as you
- know uses that aren't even located on the property would just put signs there so that's why it's important
- to have signage for Tenants on their portion of the building so that you reduce that that clutter in
- one particular area
- Obviously with this situation here, you know, the small size of this sign is not going to substantially
- increase Visual clutter here. So we did not find that it would be Generally injurious did not find any
- adverse impacts to the adjacent use and value However, again as we always struggle with all of the criteria
- the third one certainly is challenging of you know, what is
- What is the hardship of this property that doesn't allow them to place signage on their building?
- You know, there are multi tenant buildings throughout Bloomington That that don't all of their tenants
- bases don't have frontage on a street, you know, it's not uncommon by any means They can they do have
- wall space on their portion of the building to place signage. They have placed that they've
- got a freestanding sign and
- panel. So we did not find unfortunately any peculiar conditions that would allow us to recommend approval
- of this. So we are recommending denial with those three criteria and happy to answer any questions.
- Petitioner is available online. Yes let's get petition.
- Layla you should be able to speak Yes, can you state your name please Do you swear or affirm that the
- testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Thank you, you may proceed
- So the challenge here for them is that if we're to increase the visibility and actually have the potential
- to have success in our location, they want to include their name
- Thank you. Do you have anything else to add or you still have some time later if you need anything?
- Thank you. You guys have any questions? I've got a couple. Go ahead. When was this building built? I
- have no idea. I would just be guessing eighties maybe.
- First say it was built way before we adopted the current UDO Yes The prohibition on off-premise signs
- though has been in the zoning code since at least 73 But we're talking about wall signs Yeah, but I
- mean the same same difference. Oh, I
- The language in the UDO has been refined to say, you know, signs have to be on tenant spaces, but off-premise
- signs have been in there and regulated since at least 73. 74 1974. Yeah, I'll say look like 70s. So
- is this an existing sign? Eric, the larger sign where she's talking about they want to add their name to it.
- So the the sign that wants to go up is the jump ago sign And so that is the sign I can put this back
- up. I'm not sure it would be located on the bottom of But it's you know, I guess the the question for
- me is like just some personal experience The wall sign
- regulations Make some big assumptions about uniform building design and I you know, there's not a floor
- plan here. So it's not clear to me how the Tenant suites are Divided up within the building. Yeah, it's
- kind of I'm sorry to interrupt you so I mean
- You know, there's the assumption in the code that you have some kind of uniform, you know, suite development
- that makes it possible that your wall sign per tenant can be adjacent to the tenant space, which doesn't
- always really work. You know, so I think some flexibility is in order when it comes to these kinds of
- things and especially
- when you look at the Just the practicality of where you would want signage on a property that sits the
- way this one does it on off 2nd Street And then when we have findings To me, you know These findings
- are always tricky, but the most important ones would be is it injurious and the finding is no and
- Will it have a negative impact on, uh, you know, other properties? Uh, the findings? No. But
- we're interpreting, um, the third one is saying that somehow there's no way that there's anything unique
- about this property that would warrant, uh, approving the variance. Um, and I just, I think that's where
- we have to impose
- Just some, I mean, for lack of a better term, flexibility. And so, I mean, that's just my point of view.
- I mean, I would be inclined to modify that final finding and recommend that we do approve the request
- of variance.
- as depicted in the For the specific sign that's been You know depicted in the staff report. I guess
- it's 120 by 12 Yeah, a foot by six feet I mean that's just a comment so I defer to my other colleagues
- here on whether They have a similar point of view. I Guess I do have a question for the petitioner if you know
- where in the building this business is located. Is it imperative that they there have their name there
- too because they want to be seen. Yeah. So their location is actually on the lower level on the back
- side. Yeah. It does not have any direction.
- Yeah, so I would say that is a practical difficulty. Then you're trying to mark your place of business,
- and people can't find you. All right. Let's go now that we have any more questions.
- All right, let's go to public comment. If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this,
- please use the raise hand function. We can recognize you. I don't think there's anybody left. Everybody's
- asleep? Yes.
- Well, all right, then I'm going to go ahead back to the board then I like to propose an amendment to
- the third finding and it would read that a strict application of the terms of the udio would result
- in practical difficulties in the use of the property the unique configuration of the building and the
- tenants lease base creates challenges in achieving
- Adequate sign visibility that is practical and functional for the intended business uses the existing
- permitted signage including the 32 Square foot sign. I think that's the right dimensions foot sign on
- the south side of the building and the new panel of the freestanding sign on fronting East Second Street
- does not provide sufficient visibility for the tenants businesses given the property specific design
- and conditions. And then with that amended finding, I would make a motion that we approve the requested
- wall sign variants
- And that the condition would be that it is any sign would be consistent with the size placement and
- design depicted in the staff report. Roll call please bro. Yes. Fernandez. Yes.
- Yes. Thank you. Congratulations. We are adjourned.