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.