WEBVTT

00:00:00.482 --> 00:00:12.187
- I call to order the Board of Zoning Appeals for the city of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals meeting

00:00:12.187 --> 00:00:24.004
- for June 25th. Roll call please. Borel. Yes. Fernandez. Good Cinco here for the approval of the minutes.

00:00:24.004 --> 00:00:29.406
- I have a pool of the minutes for May 28th 2026.

00:00:35.202 --> 00:00:44.579
- Second roll call, please Borel. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, because Cinco. Yes The number three item of the

00:00:44.579 --> 00:00:54.606
- agenda is petitions continued for July July 23rd meeting 2026 there are none and so we're gonna go Straight

00:00:54.606 --> 00:01:01.662
- to the petitions for this evening this evening. We have three petitions and

00:01:02.306 --> 00:01:18.235
- We have ZR 20 26 dash 0 5 dash 0 0 20 13 South Patterson Drive. We also have ZR 20 26 dash 0 5 dash

00:01:18.235 --> 00:01:31.934
- 0 0 22 11 55 South College Mall Road. And we also have ZR 20 26 dash 0 5 dash 0 0 23.

00:01:32.610 --> 00:01:45.418
- 2412 East Wiley Street Anything from the staff Nope, nothing from staff. All right, so let's get started.

00:01:45.418 --> 00:01:56.414
- I would may I have the report for ZR 2026-05-0020 113 South Paris and that Patterson Drive

00:01:57.506 --> 00:02:05.430
- Yes this is a request as mentioned for the property at 1300 South Patterson Drive. The petitioners are

00:02:05.430 --> 00:02:13.431
- coming forward tonight for a variance from sign standards to allow for the placement of 10 freestanding

00:02:13.431 --> 00:02:20.894
- signs around the property for the use manufacturing light in a planned unit development. So this

00:02:21.282 --> 00:02:28.882
- The property is part of the Thompson PUD and is currently being utilized by Novo Nordisk for several

00:02:28.882 --> 00:02:36.633
- manufacturing and production capabilities and is a very large property. And as you can see on the site

00:02:36.633 --> 00:02:44.684
- map here, one of the certainly unique characteristics is that it has frontage on several adjacent property

00:02:44.684 --> 00:02:49.726
- street frontages. You have Strong Drive to the north, Allen Street

00:02:49.858 --> 00:02:55.918
- Or I'm sorry strong drive to the west Allen Street to the north Patterson drive to the east a portion

00:02:55.918 --> 00:03:01.859
- of hillside drive encroaches onto the east side of the property as well And then along Roger Street

00:03:01.859 --> 00:03:08.097
- to the south So the property has been developed with Several manufacturing buildings that are very large

00:03:08.097 --> 00:03:14.097
- that are located in the center of the site and then you have several parking areas to the north east

00:03:14.097 --> 00:03:18.078
- that surround those buildings and then a separate parking area and

00:03:18.690 --> 00:03:26.758
- was constructed a few years ago to the south of the buildings as access from Roger Street. So with the

00:03:26.758 --> 00:03:34.903
- use of the property as a production and manufacturing business there is a variety of traffic that moves

00:03:34.903 --> 00:03:39.838
- onto the site both from employees as well as visitors but also

00:03:39.906 --> 00:03:47.034
- Truck traffic from shipping and receiving and a lot of access points on those adjacent street frontages

00:03:47.034 --> 00:03:54.436
- So as you can imagine there are with the variety of traffic that is moving through the site the petitioners

00:03:54.436 --> 00:04:01.358
- are trying to Provide signage around the periphery and within the site itself to guide those traffic

00:04:01.358 --> 00:04:05.470
- both like I said for visitors as well as employees and then

00:04:06.210 --> 00:04:13.064
- truck traffic that is moving through the buildings as well. So the petitioners are requesting a variance

00:04:13.064 --> 00:04:19.723
- from sign standards. The UDO allows for only a maximum of four free standing signs for this property.

00:04:19.723 --> 00:04:26.838
- So they are requesting a variance to allow for 10 free standing signs kind of scattered around the periphery

00:04:26.838 --> 00:04:28.862
- as well as along the interior.

00:04:28.962 --> 00:04:35.976
- So on the map that you see here, as well as the same exhibit that was in the packet, you can see where

00:04:35.976 --> 00:04:42.921
- those signs are located. There would be three signs located along Strong Drive, one located along the

00:04:42.921 --> 00:04:49.730
- Allen Street entrance on the north, one located along the Patterson Drive frontage to the east, and

00:04:49.730 --> 00:04:52.318
- then one along the Hillside entrance.

00:04:52.450 --> 00:04:59.829
- One along the parking area along Roger Street and then three that are somewhat internal to the site

00:04:59.829 --> 00:05:07.356
- to help guide traffic Within the site as well So within the packet the petitioners have shown signage

00:05:07.356 --> 00:05:14.735
- where that would be as well as the height and size of those signs So with this as I mentioned there

00:05:14.735 --> 00:05:17.982
- are several signs that are being shows that

00:05:18.178 --> 00:05:24.799
- Shown throughout the site to help guide that traffic The majority of the signage we do feel is certainly

00:05:24.799 --> 00:05:31.419
- appropriate and helps guides the traffic through there So the only change that we are recommending would

00:05:31.419 --> 00:05:37.725
- be for the sign that is along Roger Street on the south side To be reduced in height from the seven

00:05:37.725 --> 00:05:44.156
- feet six inches down to a six foot height Since this is very internal to the site So with that we did

00:05:44.156 --> 00:05:46.174
- obviously have to make findings

00:05:46.274 --> 00:05:52.079
- Per the variance criteria that are required per the findings that are in the staff report. We did not

00:05:52.079 --> 00:05:53.502
- find that there would be

00:05:53.666 --> 00:06:01.365
- be any injuries to the public health safety morals or general welfare. The installation of these signs

00:06:01.365 --> 00:06:08.990
- can actually have a benefit and help guide traffic and reduce traffic impacts on those adjacent roads

00:06:08.990 --> 00:06:16.614
- by appropriately directing traffic through the site. Likewise we do not expect any impacts on the use

00:06:16.614 --> 00:06:18.558
- and value adjacent to the

00:06:18.722 --> 00:06:23.977
- properties as a result of this again because the signs can help reduce impacts of those properties by

00:06:23.977 --> 00:06:27.326
- appropriately managing traffic movement to and through the site.

00:06:27.426 --> 00:06:34.496
- And then the third criteria that the strict application of the terms of the udl will result in practical

00:06:34.496 --> 00:06:41.701
- difficulties And that the practical difficulties are peculiar are found in the large size of this property

00:06:41.701 --> 00:06:48.973
- And as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation the number of adjacent street frontages is certainly

00:06:48.973 --> 00:06:51.262
- very unique and is not typical of

00:06:51.362 --> 00:06:57.944
- For what we have in Bloomington for the typical commercial property and so having this wide number of

00:06:57.944 --> 00:07:04.527
- frontages with multiple vehicular access points Certainly does create a challenge with the use of the

00:07:04.527 --> 00:07:10.980
- property and being restricted to the signage that is allowed By the UDO and so the granting of this

00:07:10.980 --> 00:07:14.142
- variance would allow for signage on the property

00:07:14.210 --> 00:07:20.273
- That is appropriate, has been spaced apart, would require landscaping for all of the bases of the signs

00:07:20.273 --> 00:07:26.103
- that are on the periphery. So that was addressed in condition number two. And then condition number

00:07:26.103 --> 00:07:32.166
- three, as I mentioned, just deals with reducing the height of the internal sign along the south parking

00:07:32.166 --> 00:07:38.113
- area to no more than six feet tall. So we are recommending that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the

00:07:38.113 --> 00:07:44.176
- proposed findings for this petition and approve it with the three conditions that are listed in staff's

00:07:44.176 --> 00:07:55.667
- report and I'm happy to answer any questions once the petitioner has had a chance to speak. Thank you

00:07:55.667 --> 00:08:07.046
- Eric. Can the petition step forward please. If both of you are going to speak if you could just both

00:08:07.046 --> 00:08:13.918
- say your name and then I will swear you in at the same time.

00:08:15.586 --> 00:08:23.050
- Ryan rails Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth

00:08:23.050 --> 00:08:30.372
- and nothing but the truth I do I do Okay, proceed you have 20 minutes for your presentation I'm Kenton

00:08:30.372 --> 00:08:38.191
- Pardue with Pledso Breaker Cooper James acting on behalf of Nova Nordisk Appreciate Eric and his introduction

00:08:38.191 --> 00:08:45.086
- We are proposing to add new signage rebranding for Nova Nordisk at the 1300 South Patterson site

00:08:45.442 --> 00:08:51.966
- We are proposing ten signs the current ordinance that only allows to have four but as Eric stated this

00:08:51.966 --> 00:08:58.617
- parcel is rather Different than the typical lot that you'd have in the city. It's more of a large campus

00:08:58.617 --> 00:09:05.141
- And all we have upwards of three to four thousand linear feet of road frontage So we do have six signs

00:09:05.141 --> 00:09:11.539
- are along the frontages to help direct traffic as well as some additional interior signage to direct

00:09:11.539 --> 00:09:13.566
- traffic around the side as well

00:09:14.306 --> 00:09:20.931
- And we agree with Eric and his findings as far as it's not injurious to public health. Also it couldn't

00:09:20.931 --> 00:09:27.619
- inversely affect the adjacent properties anything it'll benefit by finding clear direction to deliveries

00:09:27.619 --> 00:09:33.989
- and either employees and just people trying to navigate around the city of what is Nova Nordic what

00:09:33.989 --> 00:09:40.550
- is public right away and directing them around. We're also we're in agreement with the recommendations

00:09:40.550 --> 00:09:42.334
- the conditions of approval.

00:09:42.434 --> 00:09:49.885
- Landscaping around the signs along public frontages believe it's the Required square foot of landscape

00:09:49.885 --> 00:09:57.119
- around the signs equal to the square foot of that sign or acceptable that As well as shortening the

00:09:57.119 --> 00:10:04.352
- sign down to six feet there at the Rogers entrance And so we'd open it up to any questions you have

00:10:04.352 --> 00:10:12.382
- for us Now or later, I'll just provide a little context for Eric he's right is a very complex site one gate is

00:10:12.610 --> 00:10:17.948
- Discreetly for incoming materials. Another gate is discreetly for ex going materials There's separate

00:10:17.948 --> 00:10:23.338
- contractor entrances as well and then separate deliveries for the cafeteria services and then you have

00:10:23.338 --> 00:10:28.624
- the employee entrances So what we're trying to do is provide direction to all those we found several

00:10:28.624 --> 00:10:33.910
- safety hazards with trucks trying to enter the wrong location and having to back out onto the public

00:10:33.910 --> 00:10:39.353
- right-of-way and stopping traffic in order to redirect so that's the purpose of the signage and we have

00:10:39.353 --> 00:10:40.190
- also eliminated

00:10:40.450 --> 00:10:50.320
- A few of the signages that we found were a little redundant and or not compliant. All right. Thank you.

00:10:50.320 --> 00:10:59.810
- And you still have you know 17 minutes 17 and a half to speak if you need to and you can hold on to

00:10:59.810 --> 00:11:08.446
- that. OK. Thank you. All right. Do you have any questions for staff or the petitioner. No.

00:11:11.042 --> 00:11:20.981
- All right, do we have any public comment for ZR 2026-05-0020? If there is anybody online that would

00:11:20.981 --> 00:11:30.920
- like to speak to this petition you can use the raise hand function and we can recognize you I'm not

00:11:30.920 --> 00:11:39.070
- seeing anybody. Okay, if there's none we're back to the busy a for a final action

00:11:45.122 --> 00:11:54.065
- Thanks for continuing to invest in Bloomington. We know that site very well. For some of us it gives

00:11:54.065 --> 00:12:02.919
- a little bit of PTSD but from a long time ago but excited about what's going on down there. I would

00:12:02.919 --> 00:12:12.127
- just make a motion that we adopt the proposed findings for as far as 2020 20 26 0 5 0 0 2 0 and approve

00:12:12.127 --> 00:12:13.278
- the variance

00:12:13.794 --> 00:12:24.247
- with the conditions as set forward in the staff report. Roll call please. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Yes.

00:12:24.247 --> 00:12:35.014
- Motion is approved. Congratulations. Thank you. All right. Moving on to ZR twenty twenty six dash zero

00:12:35.014 --> 00:12:42.750
- five dash zero zero twenty two eleven fifty five South College Mall Road.

00:12:44.802 --> 00:12:46.398
- May I have a staff report, please?

00:13:14.210 --> 00:13:21.413
- Okay, thank you for your patience. Good evening, this is Jamie Kreindler, Senior Zoning Planner. And

00:13:21.413 --> 00:13:28.687
- I'm presenting the case for the variance request at 1155 South College Mall Road. They are requesting

00:13:28.687 --> 00:13:36.103
- a variance to increase the wall sign allowance for a multi-tenant center for the use, it's a restaurant

00:13:36.103 --> 00:13:37.886
- use for crumble cookies.

00:13:38.114 --> 00:13:45.128
- and the zoning is mixed use corridor, and the petitioner for this case is Lisa Rains of Sign Solutions.

00:13:45.128 --> 00:13:52.007
- So the location is part of the College Mall area, as you can see on the aerial map on the screen, and

00:13:52.007 --> 00:13:59.155
- the existing building is a multi-tenant center, and the petitioner is proposing to replace their existing

00:13:59.155 --> 00:14:03.134
- wall signage with the updated branding for their business.

00:14:05.570 --> 00:14:12.574
- The surrounding properties are also zoned. Mixed use corridor to the north, east, and south.

00:14:12.574 --> 00:14:20.482
- And to the west, there's a mix of residential multifamily and mixed use medium scale zoning. UDO section

00:14:20.482 --> 00:14:28.766
- 20.04.100 J2AII regulates the wall signage that's allowed for multi-tenant centers in the MC zoning district.

00:14:28.898 --> 00:14:35.311
- And this section of the UDO states that the cumulative square footage of all wall signs for any individual

00:14:35.311 --> 00:14:41.485
- tenant shall not exceed one and a half square feet per lineal foot of the tenant's facade width facing

00:14:41.485 --> 00:14:47.658
- either a public or private street. So the linear footage of Crumble's tenant space is 27 feet wide and

00:14:47.658 --> 00:14:51.614
- that allows them up to 40 and a half square feet of wall signage.

00:14:53.666 --> 00:15:02.514
- Crumble is wanting to add two new wall signs to their building, one on the front elevation and one on

00:15:02.514 --> 00:15:11.623
- the rear elevation. And both of the signs are 40 and a half inches tall by 141.75 inches wide or roughly

00:15:11.623 --> 00:15:20.645
- 40 square feet. So if you add both of those two signs together, the total is 79.74 square feet and that

00:15:20.645 --> 00:15:22.206
- exceeds the allow

00:15:22.466 --> 00:15:31.042
- wall signage by 39.24 square feet. Staff did research past permitting for this site and we found a previous

00:15:31.042 --> 00:15:39.061
- sign permit for Crumble that was issued in 2021. And the permit clearly states that 40.5 square feet

00:15:39.061 --> 00:15:47.081
- is the maximum sign allowance based on the 27 linear feet of their store frontage. And that only one

00:15:47.081 --> 00:15:50.654
- wall sign was approved at that time in 2021.

00:15:50.914 --> 00:15:57.211
- The proposed plans in the file do depict that there are two wall signs with the cumulative of roughly

00:15:57.211 --> 00:16:03.446
- 80 square feet of wall signage, so it's unknown if the applicant at the time was aware that only one

00:16:03.446 --> 00:16:09.805
- of those signs was approved. So staff found that if the variance is approved, crumble would be allowed

00:16:09.805 --> 00:16:13.694
- nearly double the amount of wall signage than the UDO permits.

00:16:13.890 --> 00:16:19.494
- The strict application of the terms of the UDO will not result in practical difficulties in the use

00:16:19.494 --> 00:16:25.154
- of the property as the UDO contemplates this exact scenario in their specific language in the UDO to

00:16:25.154 --> 00:16:30.759
- address it. So while the department has considered the goals of the petitioner and the standards of

00:16:30.759 --> 00:16:36.643
- the UDO, the variance request to increase the wall signage does not appear to be derived from a peculiar

00:16:36.643 --> 00:16:40.510
- condition of this property, which is one of the finding requirements

00:16:40.706 --> 00:16:50.870
- requirements for a variance, so we are recommending that the BZA adopt the proposed findings in the

00:16:50.870 --> 00:17:01.542
- staff report and deny the petition. And I'm happy to answer any questions after the petitioner presents.

00:17:01.542 --> 00:17:09.470
- Thank you. May I have the petitioner come forward, please? What is your name?

00:17:09.858 --> 00:17:17.296
- Thomas Hopkins, I'm with sign solutions representing crumble cookie Do you swear affirm that the testimony

00:17:17.296 --> 00:17:24.664
- you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and button that nothing but the truth I do Proceed

00:17:24.664 --> 00:17:31.684
- you have 20 minutes. Okay Just here to represent crumble they they're in a rebranding as you can see

00:17:31.684 --> 00:17:38.635
- from the pictures they are simply changing their logo they've had the two signs at the property for

00:17:38.635 --> 00:17:39.678
- five years and

00:17:40.162 --> 00:17:47.670
- It was my understanding that those two signs were permitted before I don't did you say otherwise I'm

00:17:47.670 --> 00:17:55.326
- sorry, I thought they were permitted and there was a mistake the first time but then they they allowed

00:17:55.326 --> 00:18:03.131
- it But obviously they're saying now they aren't allowed So we're here to petition that they allow simply

00:18:03.131 --> 00:18:09.598
- replacing what is there now? They haven't been an issue for five years safety wise and

00:18:10.594 --> 00:18:18.580
- They look good on the building. That's simply their case. They feel they need them so that they can

00:18:18.580 --> 00:18:26.806
- have one over their main entrance and one facing the, I think that's College Road, sorry, so that they

00:18:26.806 --> 00:18:34.153
- can, so that everybody can see it from both directions. Anything else to add and that's it?

00:18:34.153 --> 00:18:40.382
- I don't think so. Well, if you remain there, we might have questions, please.

00:18:41.378 --> 00:18:48.750
- So we'll go back to the board now if you have questions for staff or the petitioner, please. I have

00:18:48.750 --> 00:18:56.122
- a question about the permitting. So was there originally two permits or was there one permit? There

00:18:56.122 --> 00:19:03.568
- was only the one permit that we could find. So the permit says that they're allowed the 40.1, sorry,

00:19:03.568 --> 00:19:09.982
- 40.5 square feet for the one wall sign. But then I think some of the confusion is that

00:19:10.114 --> 00:19:20.393
- The plans show two wall signs. So I think the permit was clear and that was the city's understanding

00:19:20.393 --> 00:19:30.876
- when this when the permit was issued five years ago, but the plans did show two wall signs. So I'm not

00:19:30.876 --> 00:19:39.934
- sure how that was addressed at the time. Just clarification. Are we are we talking about

00:19:40.482 --> 00:19:50.325
- Assigned for both sides of the building Yeah, so there's the front elevation and then the back of the

00:19:50.325 --> 00:20:00.458
- building and so the The maximum is How much It is one and a half square feet per linear foot of frontage

00:20:00.458 --> 00:20:10.398
- which is 27 feet so the maximum is 40 and a half and you're calculating that for 40 for both signs and

00:20:10.626 --> 00:20:20.553
- Yeah for the total for the total tenant space so I mean, I don't know I haven't read the code but Is

00:20:20.553 --> 00:20:30.873
- it Does the code contemplate buildings that are placed that have to I Guess what you would call frontage

00:20:30.873 --> 00:20:39.326
- I think there's language in the code that addresses the tenant spaces that are on the

00:20:39.426 --> 00:20:45.279
- Corner like the edge of the multi-tenant center, but not the ones in the in the middle. I think Eric

00:20:45.279 --> 00:20:51.132
- has that language pulled up We have dealt with this, you know There are certainly lots of situations

00:20:51.132 --> 00:20:56.926
- throughout town where you have Buildings that have a public street on one side and then the parking

00:20:56.926 --> 00:21:02.895
- area and the access comes from a different side So there was language that we actually put in the code

00:21:02.895 --> 00:21:06.430
- several years ago that talks about this it says, you know, I

00:21:06.562 --> 00:21:13.239
- For purposes of tenants and multi tenants only one side of the building is counted for their allotment

00:21:13.239 --> 00:21:19.981
- purposes You can certainly put signage on the other side, but you know your allotment You know how much

00:21:19.981 --> 00:21:26.983
- you get is only based on one side of the building and I get I'm sure this is a conversation for a different

00:21:26.983 --> 00:21:33.984
- forum But I don't understand what the public benefit of that is Yeah, so the benefit would just be limiting

00:21:33.984 --> 00:21:36.318
- the amount of signage on a building

00:21:36.962 --> 00:21:43.048
- Obviously you can you can break it up if you choose to have more signage or a bigger sign on one side

00:21:43.048 --> 00:21:49.193
- and a little bit smaller on the other. That's up to you. But your allotment is just based on just that

00:21:49.193 --> 00:21:55.577
- one size. As you mentioned certainly the law could say something different if we wanted to allow something

00:21:55.577 --> 00:22:01.663
- differently. Because when I look at that building I mean it appears that the other tenants have signs

00:22:01.663 --> 00:22:02.558
- on both sides.

00:22:02.946 --> 00:22:10.917
- Yep, so there is an allowance for corner locations in there that you do get signage based on that additional

00:22:10.917 --> 00:22:18.743
- Corner location and again, like I said, you could you could choose to break that up on either side However

00:22:18.743 --> 00:22:26.202
- you want but the UDO does allow for corner locations to factor in that additional exterior wall Yeah,

00:22:26.202 --> 00:22:31.614
- I I get that I just don't it's almost like so if you're a middle tenant I

00:22:34.242 --> 00:22:41.990
- It just doesn't make sense to distinguish between a corner unit versus a middle unit if the goal is

00:22:41.990 --> 00:22:46.174
- to have signage so that a business can be successful.

00:22:46.562 --> 00:22:52.304
- You know, so if you just happen to be on the corner, you can have two bigger signs, but if you're in

00:22:52.304 --> 00:22:57.989
- the middle, you have two smaller signs. Typically those corner locations, you have more of a facade

00:22:57.989 --> 00:23:03.732
- that is built out in terms of windows and accessibility, whereas the other side, you're just looking

00:23:03.732 --> 00:23:09.531
- at the back of a building. So it's just an intent to minimize signage and not give greater allowances

00:23:09.531 --> 00:23:15.614
- for signage for the backs of buildings. I just don't know what the public benefit of that is, is my point.

00:23:17.666 --> 00:23:27.048
- Like I said, it's probably for another forum petitioner so the signs were proposing to to exchange They

00:23:27.048 --> 00:23:36.250
- are already there existing and you were exchanging with the exact size of the existing signs I'd have

00:23:36.250 --> 00:23:46.174
- to look again. They're very very similar. I'm not sure if they're exact but I would consider it negligible to

00:23:46.434 --> 00:23:54.887
- We're not talking about doubling the size or even 20% bigger. It's it's probably within margin of error

00:23:54.887 --> 00:24:03.664
- of 2 to 5 percent. It'd be my guess. Okay, you do have a They are roughly similar. They're roughly similar.

00:24:03.664 --> 00:24:12.035
- Yeah, so so we're just visually we're not causing any issues. We are just Substituting for the similar

00:24:12.035 --> 00:24:15.774
- size sign. We're not enhancing getting bigger

00:24:16.258 --> 00:24:24.756
- more distracting. That's my understanding again in 2021 it seems that only one of the signs was officially

00:24:24.756 --> 00:24:32.935
- permitted. But in terms of what's on the building now and what they're looking to install it's roughly

00:24:32.935 --> 00:24:40.956
- the same. But was the plans that they submitted for the permit had two signs on it. That is what the

00:24:40.956 --> 00:24:45.086
- plans show but the permit only addresses one of the

00:24:46.082 --> 00:24:52.483
- the signs there was a mishap there from someone I guess it's not blaming anybody yeah we're not sure

00:24:52.483 --> 00:24:59.074
- if there were communications that happened outside of the permit to let the applicant know hey you know

00:24:59.074 --> 00:25:05.475
- you've you've applied for two but we can only approve one you know so in an ideal situation we would

00:25:05.475 --> 00:25:11.876
- have had them resubmit their rendering and mark out one of the proposed signs just so that the paper

00:25:11.876 --> 00:25:15.678
- trail is clear yeah so you would be so you would be able to

00:25:15.874 --> 00:25:23.826
- Five years later be able to know What what was proposed and what was accepted? Yeah, okay, but the permit

00:25:23.826 --> 00:25:31.627
- and and that's in the the board's packet You know does list one wall sign with the forty one and a half

00:25:31.627 --> 00:25:39.279
- square foot I believe is the number listed I have were they ever Were there ever notices of violation

00:25:39.279 --> 00:25:44.830
- for for those two signs so it just happened so and it stayed that way and

00:25:45.634 --> 00:25:59.333
- There's no documentation of there being any notices of violations in the past five years. All right.

00:25:59.333 --> 00:26:13.982
- Thank you From John Clear the status quo right now is that they have two signs that total 79.74 square feet

00:26:15.010 --> 00:26:24.735
- and what they're proposing would be, what is it, 80, a little bit over 80 square feet? Yeah.

00:26:24.735 --> 00:26:35.193
- Because I mean, it sounds like there's some, the other way to look at it, there's nothing that said

00:26:35.193 --> 00:26:43.454
- that the two signs weren't allowed if they were submitted as part of the plan.

00:26:44.546 --> 00:26:59.020
- I'm not saying anybody it just sounds like it's really unclear As to what happened previously So if

00:26:59.020 --> 00:27:11.902
- we are to recommend to allow the signage then we need to find a peculiarity, correct and

00:27:12.226 --> 00:27:19.754
- Yes, you would need to make alternative findings for criteria number two and number three Could the

00:27:19.754 --> 00:27:27.433
- alternative finding be that they're replacing existing signs? That that's you would have to relate it

00:27:27.433 --> 00:27:34.962
- obviously to a inherent condition about the property itself So you would have to make findings that

00:27:34.962 --> 00:27:41.662
- are very specific to the property and not You know, okay somewhat self-imposed condition

00:27:42.338 --> 00:27:50.982
- So could the peculiarity be that the property would be reducing the signage, therefore potentially reducing

00:27:50.982 --> 00:27:59.225
- the signage size? Or if they want to keep two, then they have to reduce the signage size. If they want

00:27:59.225 --> 00:28:07.309
- to keep one, then they have to lose a sign. So therefore, it could be detrimental to their business.

00:28:07.309 --> 00:28:09.630
- I would just make a comment.

00:28:11.106 --> 00:28:19.436
- Finding number three is a different question that we can come to, but I just don't agree on finding

00:28:19.436 --> 00:28:28.016
- number two that there's an adverse impact. If we're talking about a one foot square, a one square foot

00:28:28.016 --> 00:28:36.512
- change from the status quo, if there's adverse impacts to surrounding properties, they would have, we

00:28:36.512 --> 00:28:40.094
- would know that, right? I mean, so I just,

00:28:40.642 --> 00:28:48.232
- I mean, even if we denied the variance, I just don't agree with that finding. There's no evidence that

00:28:48.232 --> 00:28:55.970
- there's any adverse impact to the use or value of the surrounding properties when they've been operating

00:28:55.970 --> 00:29:03.413
- with essentially the same size signage for several years. That just doesn't seem accurate to me, but

00:29:03.413 --> 00:29:05.182
- that's just my opinion.

00:29:19.042 --> 00:29:27.161
- Are you guys done with questions for now? Any questions? All right. So we're going to move on to public

00:29:27.161 --> 00:29:35.202
- comment then. If there's anybody in chambers that would like to speak about this petition, please come

00:29:35.202 --> 00:29:43.320
- forward. If not, can you check online, please? Oh, there's one. I need to sign in. Is that right? Yeah,

00:29:43.320 --> 00:29:47.614
- you sign in and you tell me your name. I'll swear you.

00:29:58.850 --> 00:30:04.868
- Can you state your name, please? My name is Betty Rosenagle. I have no dog in this fight at all. Let

00:30:04.868 --> 00:30:11.065
- me swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole

00:30:11.065 --> 00:30:17.024
- truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. You have three minutes. OK. As I said, I have no dog in this

00:30:17.024 --> 00:30:22.983
- fight. I know what the site looks like. I know the sign on the front. I know that when you drive by

00:30:22.983 --> 00:30:24.830
- on the street, you see a sign.

00:30:25.858 --> 00:30:33.849
- And we had, I sat here and listened to you discuss the property in the previous case, that the signs

00:30:33.849 --> 00:30:41.841
- were to help guide people using that property to places where they needed to go. And as far as I can

00:30:41.841 --> 00:30:49.911
- tell, that's what this case is about, denying a sign that might help people find what they're looking

00:30:49.911 --> 00:30:53.630
- for. It seemed to me, if I may, if I may, that

00:30:55.458 --> 00:31:02.899
- Several, two is not several, two of the members of the board seem dubious about the common sense of

00:31:02.899 --> 00:31:10.340
- the objections. I hope the cookie crumbles in the support of the petitioner because I'm sorry, just

00:31:10.340 --> 00:31:18.079
- like a couple of you were saying, it doesn't make sense. It's not in the interest of the business. It's

00:31:18.079 --> 00:31:24.702
- not in the interest of potential customers. It doesn't seem to have caused any problems.

00:31:25.186 --> 00:31:30.829
- I know that's the thin edge of the wedge. Somebody else would come and climb on this and say, yeah,

00:31:30.829 --> 00:31:36.472
- look, you did this, then how about us? But it just seems not to make common sense. And that's all I

00:31:36.472 --> 00:31:42.171
- have to say. I was just sitting there listening to both of those, and I just really couldn't sit and

00:31:42.171 --> 00:31:47.870
- say nothing. So thank you for your time. I appreciate your comment. Thank you so much. Anybody else?

00:31:51.426 --> 00:32:00.681
- There's anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function

00:32:00.681 --> 00:32:10.119
- So I got another staff question, so what is the consequence of denial So consequences denying it would

00:32:10.119 --> 00:32:12.318
- be that they cannot and

00:32:12.418 --> 00:32:19.575
- take the sign down and put up a new one. We did talk about it internally and would allow them to reface

00:32:19.575 --> 00:32:26.595
- it, but in terms of removing it and any new signage that went up would have to be fully compliant. So

00:32:26.595 --> 00:32:33.546
- that means you'd have to essentially cut the size of the signs almost in half to be able to have two

00:32:33.546 --> 00:32:40.428
- signs. They would have to adjust it in some capacity, but they'd have to work within the 40s. You'd

00:32:40.428 --> 00:32:41.598
- have to cut them

00:32:41.890 --> 00:32:51.432
- pretty substantially to meet that. Yes. Because I mean, for the benefit of whoever's paying attention

00:32:51.432 --> 00:33:00.787
- to this meeting, I mean, this is the kind of challenge that the BZA always has, is that you have to

00:33:00.787 --> 00:33:10.329
- come up with the, you know, some kind of peculiarity of the property to justify not applying the code

00:33:10.329 --> 00:33:11.358
- even if it

00:33:12.002 --> 00:33:23.100
- In some people's opinion the code doesn't make sense because there's probably God knows how many similar

00:33:23.100 --> 00:33:33.670
- buildings around the city of Bloomington. So it's not particularly unique. It's just bad code in my

00:33:33.670 --> 00:33:39.166
- opinion. But from the business's perspective I mean

00:33:40.450 --> 00:33:51.316
- I guess they have to make a choice whether or not how important the new branding is to their business

00:33:51.316 --> 00:34:02.076
- versus the ability to have functionally signage that makes sense. I mean, if these were cut in half,

00:34:02.076 --> 00:34:08.574
- you're not even gonna be able to see them. So, I don't know.

00:34:11.330 --> 00:34:19.550
- Is there anything within the code about a business that you enter from one side and the backside is

00:34:19.550 --> 00:34:27.934
- facing a major public road and it's not an entrance? Not for signage purposes. Like we said, there is

00:34:27.934 --> 00:34:36.318
- language in here that very specifically that says for purposes that have buildings that have frontage

00:34:36.318 --> 00:34:41.086
- with a street on one side and a parking lot on the other.

00:34:41.186 --> 00:34:46.881
- Only one side is counted as frontage because this doesn't have a parking lot on the other Well, the

00:34:46.881 --> 00:34:52.633
- east side has a parking lot and then so the west side is is obviously College Mall Road Correct, you

00:34:52.633 --> 00:34:58.385
- know and this exact location there have been two other tenants both in this facility or this tenants

00:34:58.385 --> 00:35:04.365
- base and the one to the next to the south They both adjusted their signage. So they had slightly smaller

00:35:04.365 --> 00:35:10.686
- signs on College Mall Road and something bigger on the other side but you know, they've all worked within what

00:35:10.818 --> 00:35:16.928
- The code allows so that's that's always our challenge of you know, it is possible to use it and have

00:35:16.928 --> 00:35:22.977
- signage You know, we're not saying you can't have signage on the west side. You just have to make a

00:35:22.977 --> 00:35:29.148
- choice and certainly we understand that there is a perception that there is a sign there of this size

00:35:29.148 --> 00:35:35.258
- and they were just replacing it but You know regardless of any past confusion or miscommunication on

00:35:35.258 --> 00:35:40.702
- a permit You know, we have to deal with the law that's in place and then what about? with

00:35:40.866 --> 00:35:51.294
- showing the I mean we have signage outside that shows what stores are inside shopping centers and this

00:35:51.294 --> 00:36:01.620
- essentially is that sign that's on that on the west side. Yeah I don't think they have a multi-tenant

00:36:01.620 --> 00:36:07.998
- free a freestanding sign of any capacity college mall road. So

00:36:09.602 --> 00:36:15.857
- Are you saying that other buildings in this strip mall specifically had to reduce their signs? Yes.

00:36:15.857 --> 00:36:22.112
- So this exact tenant space, you know, previously had a different use in here. In fact, I think this

00:36:22.112 --> 00:36:28.555
- might be like the fourth use that's been in there. But there was at least a previous use in there that

00:36:28.555 --> 00:36:35.186
- had a smaller sign. Jack's Donuts was in there, had a smaller sign on the west side. And then just tenant

00:36:35.186 --> 00:36:38.814
- space to the south of this was a century 21 tenant space.

00:36:38.914 --> 00:36:46.625
- And they had a smaller sign on the west side and then another sign on the east side. So, you know, other

00:36:46.625 --> 00:36:53.969
- entities have used the space and met code. I struggle with this because of the original, because of

00:36:53.969 --> 00:37:01.386
- the original permit, we'll just call it a mishap, whatever happened with the permit. I struggle with

00:37:01.386 --> 00:37:08.510
- this because the two signs are already there and they're existing. And now if you put a smaller,

00:37:08.642 --> 00:37:20.764
- I just I really struggle with this that to find that there is no peculiarity to the property that we

00:37:20.764 --> 00:37:33.246
- can tell and we can allow the signage. Eric do you have any photos of the of that side of the building.

00:37:37.346 --> 00:37:51.994
- that faces College Mall Road. Yes, we can certainly pull up here just kind of what we have access to

00:37:51.994 --> 00:38:06.206
- from Google Street View. See if I can find that. Yep, and the trees. That's what I'm telling you.

00:38:20.098 --> 00:38:29.932
- Sorry let me try to see if I can find it. I appreciate it. Is that the one they are at. That is the

00:38:29.932 --> 00:38:39.766
- Xfinity. They are down the down the road. But you can see from that angle that all those I'm so I'm

00:38:39.766 --> 00:38:49.502
- so sorry I had it. I had it on all those business didn't scroll down to the right building. Sorry.

00:38:50.114 --> 00:38:58.550
- There you go. So as I mentioned here, this is I guess kind of a good view. So you can see previous tenants

00:38:58.550 --> 00:39:06.591
- that were in here. As I mentioned, Jack's Donuts, Century 21, both had signage on the west side. They

00:39:06.591 --> 00:39:14.475
- adjusted the size to fall within the allowance. Obviously, they probably had something a little bit

00:39:14.475 --> 00:39:16.446
- bigger on the east side.

00:39:17.634 --> 00:39:32.722
- Is that their sign there? I can't. So this is what it looks like currently. Now, this is a question

00:39:32.722 --> 00:39:46.302
- for Steph. If the signs that they had proposed were the exact size of the existing signs,

00:39:46.402 --> 00:39:52.979
- Would we be having this conversation? Well, so like I said, we talked about it internally and said we

00:39:52.979 --> 00:39:59.492
- would allow them to reface it, meaning you keep the cabinet box that's there and you just change out

00:39:59.492 --> 00:40:06.069
- the sign that's in there. But if the sign is completely taken down, anything that goes back up has to

00:40:06.069 --> 00:40:12.775
- obviously meet code. So we're willing to, I guess, kind of work with them a little bit on acknowledging

00:40:12.775 --> 00:40:15.806
- there's a sign there, allow them to reface it.

00:40:15.906 --> 00:40:24.414
- You know, if it comes down and is removed, then whatever goes back has to meet code. I guess I have

00:40:24.414 --> 00:40:32.921
- a question for the petition. Thank you. Would you be willing to reface the existing sign? We're the

00:40:32.921 --> 00:40:41.429
- company that's installing them. I talked to Crumble about that, and they wanted to proceed with all

00:40:41.429 --> 00:40:45.598
- new signs. I think it's just how they do it now.

00:40:50.626 --> 00:40:57.069
- Technically, yes, I believe so You're the sign maker We don't even we're not even making the sign they

00:40:57.069 --> 00:41:03.325
- send it to us and we install it You're in but I'm familiar enough with the process to know that you

00:41:03.325 --> 00:41:09.768
- could reface them I'm guessing their logic is that you wouldn't even know the difference between a new

00:41:09.768 --> 00:41:16.524
- sign and a reface sign. They're so similar Yeah, I understand and they're probably wanting and I'm guessing

00:41:16.524 --> 00:41:18.526
- a new one with with all new and

00:41:18.882 --> 00:41:30.564
- LEDs and power supplies and and all the new parts that come with a new sign Are those signs lit Yes,

00:41:30.564 --> 00:41:42.246
- I'm not confident on that one. I know the new one will be Does that change anything Eric by having a

00:41:42.246 --> 00:41:43.518
- lit sign I

00:41:44.738 --> 00:41:52.869
- No, changing the inside electronic component, as long as the cabinet stays the same. In terms of refacing

00:41:52.869 --> 00:42:00.692
- signs and situations where something is a grandfathered structure, signs specifically, you can reface

00:42:00.692 --> 00:42:08.516
- it as long as the cabinet box stays there. You can change out lights within there. But the box has to

00:42:08.516 --> 00:42:13.502
- stay. Yeah. And we don't know if the box has electrical signals.

00:42:16.706 --> 00:42:22.771
- that usually the same for building signs or is that I generally see that for like pile on multi-tenant

00:42:22.771 --> 00:42:29.071
- signs where they're changing panels out. Yes and for a for a cabinet sign for a box sign you know changing

00:42:29.071 --> 00:42:35.313
- out the sign you know obviously you know as you look at the other signs here things that are specifically

00:42:35.313 --> 00:42:41.378
- letters that you can't really reface you know that's that's not a reface scenario but situations where

00:42:41.378 --> 00:42:44.734
- it's a box sign you're just changing out a cabinet face.

00:42:54.146 --> 00:43:06.675
- Thank you. You may sit down. Do you have any more questions for staff or petitioner. No. All right.

00:43:06.675 --> 00:43:15.070
- We're back to the BZA for a final action. I'll entertain a motion.

00:43:25.346 --> 00:43:36.724
- try and do this. First I want to amend finding number two and change it to read that adverse impacts

00:43:36.724 --> 00:43:47.989
- to the use and value surrounding properties as a result of the requested variants are not found and

00:43:47.989 --> 00:43:54.974
- delete the second sentence. And then for finding number three

00:44:09.314 --> 00:44:18.278
- So the peculiarity should be site specific. I'm just rereading it says a strict application of the video

00:44:18.278 --> 00:44:26.046
- will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Oh that's the setup. OK.

00:44:41.314 --> 00:44:53.029
- I'm going to propose an amendment to the proposed finding number three, deleting not in the first sentence

00:44:53.029 --> 00:45:04.745
- so that it reads that the strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties

00:45:04.745 --> 00:45:10.110
- in the use of the property period. The elevation

00:45:10.466 --> 00:45:26.150
- of this particular building, as well as the landscaping along the frontage of College Mall Road, create

00:45:26.150 --> 00:45:39.422
- a situation where strict application of the UDO sign dimensions would make such signage

00:45:39.938 --> 00:46:03.205
- ineffective period And then we would I would move that we Adopt the amended findings and approve the

00:46:03.205 --> 00:46:08.734
- variance Any discussion

00:46:14.306 --> 00:46:23.397
- Let me just make one comment the reason I you know, I mean I totally appreciate where the staffs coming

00:46:23.397 --> 00:46:32.400
- from on this but for me what is kind of Dispositive is the notion that we would go along with Refacing

00:46:32.400 --> 00:46:41.316
- an existing sign and saying it's good as opposed to letting them put up a sign that's effectively the

00:46:41.316 --> 00:46:43.326
- status quo in terms of

00:46:43.426 --> 00:46:53.036
- the dimensions, that would be a new contemporary sign that's consistent with their branding. I just

00:46:53.036 --> 00:47:02.934
- don't see how the former versus the latter really achieves any public good. I mean, it just seems like

00:47:02.934 --> 00:47:11.390
- going through a dance to adopt some very strict interpretation of the intent of the UDO

00:47:11.810 --> 00:47:21.970
- That doesn't have any positive practical impacts for anybody. So that's my motion. I would like to add

00:47:21.970 --> 00:47:31.835
- that to your motion an amendment that not an amendment but a condition that the sign will be as the

00:47:31.835 --> 00:47:40.318
- sign that was proposed in this package and nothing different. Thank you. That's fine.

00:47:44.098 --> 00:48:02.152
- Second the motion Roll call, please Borel. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, kusinko. Yes Motion passed Now we're

00:48:02.152 --> 00:48:13.950
- on to ZR 2026-05-00 23 4 1 2 East Wiley Street May I have a look?

00:48:14.658 --> 00:48:22.275
- Report, please. Yes, thank you again, Jamie, senior zoning planner. So as you said, this is the request

00:48:22.275 --> 00:48:30.186
- at 412 East Wiley Street for conditional use approval to allow for a duplex and the zoning for the property

00:48:30.186 --> 00:48:38.096
- is residential small lot R3 and the petitioner for this case is Kevin Spicer. So the surrounding properties

00:48:38.096 --> 00:48:44.542
- are also zoned R3 and I have the aerial on the map so you can see the subject property.

00:48:44.834 --> 00:48:52.184
- The subject property currently contains a one-story single-family home and this is part of the Bryan

00:48:52.184 --> 00:48:59.970
- Park neighborhood. The property is not designated as a historic site and it is not subject to any historic

00:48:59.970 --> 00:49:07.611
- regulations. There is an unbuilt section of right-of-way for South Palmer Avenue along the west property

00:49:07.611 --> 00:49:13.214
- line and that was platted with 36 feet of right-of-way. There's also 12 foot

00:49:13.314 --> 00:49:20.564
- platted alley that runs along the south of the property and that has at present not been improved. So

00:49:20.564 --> 00:49:28.170
- it's an unimproved alley to the south. On street parking is allowed along both sides of East Wiley Street,

00:49:28.170 --> 00:49:35.421
- along this frontage from Dunn Street to the east and Washington Street to the west. So the petitioner

00:49:35.421 --> 00:49:41.534
- is proposing to remove the existing residents and develop the site with a new duplex,

00:49:43.202 --> 00:49:49.878
- The proposed residence has been designed with each unit having a separate exterior entrance with both

00:49:49.878 --> 00:49:56.686
- entrances facing East Wiley Street to the north, and the site plan is shown on the screen. The proposed

00:49:56.686 --> 00:50:03.493
- duplex includes a new two-story structure with two three-bedroom, three-bath dwelling units, and that's

00:50:03.493 --> 00:50:06.046
- the maximum that's allowed by the UDO.

00:50:06.530 --> 00:50:13.453
- The existing driveway on East Wiley Street will be removed and a new nine foot wide driveway will be

00:50:13.453 --> 00:50:20.514
- added that connects to a parking area in the rear of the property and the parking area is accessed via

00:50:20.514 --> 00:50:27.437
- East Wiley. The plan includes four parking spaces, which is the maximum that the UDO allows. And the

00:50:27.437 --> 00:50:32.030
- proposed site plan shows 44 and a half percent impervious surface.

00:50:32.162 --> 00:50:39.645
- which is compliant with the maximum impervious surface of 45% in this zoning district. The proposed

00:50:39.645 --> 00:50:47.428
- duplex is set back at the required 15 foot front build to line along East Wiley Street and South Palmer

00:50:47.428 --> 00:50:55.061
- Avenue. And the required side setback to the east is 10 feet. The required rear setback minimum is 25

00:50:55.061 --> 00:50:59.102
- feet and those are all met on the proposed site plan.

00:51:00.322 --> 00:51:08.765
- The city's transportation plan shows South Palmer Avenue is intended as a multi-use path and a driveway

00:51:08.765 --> 00:51:17.289
- through South Palmer Avenue would not be permitted because this would conflict with the future multi-use

00:51:17.289 --> 00:51:25.895
- path in this area. Since the alley to the south is not improved, the petitioner had the option to improve

00:51:25.895 --> 00:51:28.574
- the alley to the south or access

00:51:28.898 --> 00:51:36.081
- off of East Wiley for their driveway. If the alley had been improved, the UDO would have required that

00:51:36.081 --> 00:51:43.263
- they have alley access, but that's not the case for this site. The city's senior environmental planner

00:51:43.263 --> 00:51:50.306
- visited the site and determined that there is no closed canopy on the site, so those regulations are

00:51:50.306 --> 00:51:51.422
- not applicable.

00:51:51.906 --> 00:51:58.394
- The petitioner is required to add street trees along both East Wiley Street to the north and South Palmer

00:51:58.394 --> 00:52:04.637
- to the west. And that is compliant on the pros plan. The petition was presented to the Bryan Park and

00:52:04.637 --> 00:52:10.881
- Elm Heights neighborhood associations during a joint meeting that took place on May 7th of this year.

00:52:10.881 --> 00:52:17.002
- And that is one of the requirements for conditional use duplex. In response to feedback received at

00:52:17.002 --> 00:52:20.062
- the neighborhood meeting, the petitioner did make

00:52:20.162 --> 00:52:26.586
- a change to the site plan and revised it to include a six foot tall privacy fence on the east side of

00:52:26.586 --> 00:52:32.885
- the lot. That was mentioned at the meeting by at least one of the neighbors that that would help to

00:52:32.885 --> 00:52:39.372
- create a privacy buffer in the area. So that was a change that the petitioner made on their site plan.

00:52:39.372 --> 00:52:45.671
- Staff reviewed the design elements of the proposed duplex and found that the proposal is consistent

00:52:45.671 --> 00:52:48.190
- with the required standards of the UDO.

00:52:48.482 --> 00:52:54.728
- The proposed roof pitch, front porch width and design, front building setback and vehicle parking access

00:52:54.728 --> 00:53:01.152
- are similar to surrounding properties on the same block face by the staff's analysis. The petition includes

00:53:01.152 --> 00:53:07.161
- a front porch that is typical in terms of depth and width to other front porches and covered entries

00:53:07.161 --> 00:53:13.169
- in the area. And on the screen you can see an elevation rendering of what's proposed for the duplex.

00:53:13.169 --> 00:53:17.630
- And these are some other elevation drawings that the petitioner submitted.

00:53:17.986 --> 00:53:25.012
- Staff found that the petition meets the use specific standards in the UDO. The property owner does not

00:53:25.012 --> 00:53:31.833
- have any notices of violation on file. Occupancy of each dwelling unit is subject to the definition

00:53:31.833 --> 00:53:38.655
- of family in the UDO, which is limited to a total of six people or three unrelated adults per unit.

00:53:38.655 --> 00:53:45.749
- There are no other duplexes within 150 foot buffer of the site. So that condition was met. And the city

00:53:45.749 --> 00:53:47.454
- of Bloomington's utility

00:53:48.034 --> 00:53:55.549
- data that there's adequate capacity in the city sewer and water systems to serve this location. These

00:53:55.549 --> 00:54:03.138
- are the floor plans that were submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner also included this siding

00:54:03.138 --> 00:54:10.653
- color at what's proposed for the new duplex, which is similar to the existing house that's there now.

00:54:10.653 --> 00:54:14.558
- These are a couple images. I did visit the site with

00:54:14.722 --> 00:54:20.522
- the assistant director as well and we met with some of the neighbors and these were pictures that were

00:54:20.522 --> 00:54:26.379
- taken during that site visit showing the view from East Wiley Street and also a view of the undeveloped

00:54:26.379 --> 00:54:32.011
- alley that's on the right. So that's pretty much the overview summary of the staff report. The full

00:54:32.011 --> 00:54:37.811
- findings are in the report and we're happy to go into that but the department is recommending that the

00:54:37.811 --> 00:54:44.062
- BZA adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with the two conditions that are in the staff report.

00:54:47.170 --> 00:54:58.842
- Thank you. The petitioner come forward please. Can you state your name. Kevin Spicer. Do you swear or

00:54:58.842 --> 00:55:10.399
- affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the

00:55:10.399 --> 00:55:17.150
- truth. I do. Thank you. You have 20 minutes. OK thank you.

00:55:17.986 --> 00:55:26.115
- pretty much lays out exactly the way they have stated. I guess I will mention that of course in our

00:55:26.115 --> 00:55:34.325
- meetings with the neighborhood there was a few options that they might have had and there's a couple

00:55:34.325 --> 00:55:42.454
- options that I'm not opposed to but we worked real hard and we accomplished that to not have to ask

00:55:42.454 --> 00:55:43.998
- for any variances.

00:55:44.322 --> 00:55:51.831
- whether that, yeah, we would like to have more parking. I think maybe the neighborhood would like to

00:55:51.831 --> 00:55:59.340
- have more parking. We'd have had to ask for a variance because it would be more than the four that's

00:55:59.340 --> 00:56:07.220
- allowable. So of course, again, trying to stay within no variances, then we did not ask for more parking.

00:56:07.220 --> 00:56:12.350
- I think another issue you're gonna hear this evening is the setback.

00:56:12.610 --> 00:56:21.006
- from the building line is only 15 feet. That is a little closer to Wiley than the existing houses. So

00:56:21.006 --> 00:56:29.238
- there again, I'm not opposed to making changes there, but if I'd have made them tonight, I'd had to

00:56:29.238 --> 00:56:37.551
- ask for a variance to do that. And again, so I wanted to come in clean with absolutely no variances.

00:56:37.551 --> 00:56:39.774
- Those are probably the two

00:56:40.642 --> 00:56:49.348
- biggest points. But again our main goal was to not have to ask for anything other variance as far as

00:56:49.348 --> 00:56:58.227
- a variance that has already been allowable through that zone. And you you have 18 minutes to come back

00:56:58.227 --> 00:57:05.726
- and speak. Sure. No I mean at the end when after we hear the public comments for sure.

00:57:10.978 --> 00:57:25.089
- Any questions for staff in the petitioner Yes, go ahead This is for the staff in on I guess it's page

00:57:25.089 --> 00:57:40.446
- 10 of the presentation There's an image that's labeled view of undeveloped alley There's you know, there's the

00:57:40.610 --> 00:57:49.824
- Chainlink fence couple trees is the undeveloped alley the The land to the I guess the the right of Of

00:57:49.824 --> 00:57:59.309
- the fence It's the land behind the house So it's not the greenway that is if you're looking at the front

00:57:59.309 --> 00:58:09.246
- of the house to the right If you're looking at an aerial map, I think it's the West That's not the alley that

00:58:09.378 --> 00:58:22.989
- is referenced in the photo, it's the alley that's actually behind the house and that connects off of

00:58:22.989 --> 00:58:36.601
- the greenway. Yeah, just trying to figure out where the alley. Anything else? From you, no? Okay, so

00:58:36.601 --> 00:58:38.622
- at this point,

00:58:39.266 --> 00:58:47.837
- Petitioner just have a seat and then we're gonna proceed to Public comment. So if you're gonna speak

00:58:47.837 --> 00:58:56.662
- tonight approach the podium and Write down your name and then I'll swear you in and then you have Three

00:58:56.662 --> 00:59:04.894
- minutes to speak Five minutes at three minutes is for the expedited agenda public comment period

00:59:05.186 --> 00:59:12.000
- All right. I don't want to rob you of your time speaking. So you have five minutes. Your name please.

00:59:12.000 --> 00:59:18.679
- Thank you. My name is Jane St. John Jane. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to

00:59:18.679 --> 00:59:25.359
- give will be will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. All right. Proceed.

00:59:25.359 --> 00:59:32.039
- Thank you. My comments will take less than three minutes. I have have like many of us here a vested

00:59:32.039 --> 00:59:34.110
- interest in this neighborhood.

00:59:34.210 --> 00:59:41.434
- I live at 408 East Wiley Street, which is the house immediately to the west of the house and discussion.

00:59:41.434 --> 00:59:48.382
- I have lived there for 32 years. My parents lived in the house across the street from me at 403 East

00:59:48.382 --> 00:59:55.262
- Wiley for 30 years and my 94 year old dad still lives there. I own the house across the street from

00:59:55.262 --> 01:00:02.417
- me and rent it to a young couple. I have always enjoyed living near students and I am strongly in favor

01:00:02.417 --> 01:00:03.518
- of more density

01:00:03.938 --> 01:00:10.806
- In this neighborhood so many people can enjoy it as I have I'm not opposed to density however While

01:00:10.806 --> 01:00:17.675
- we are while we have this opportunity to consider compatibility with the neighborhood in which this

01:00:17.675 --> 01:00:24.612
- duplex could be placed I would just say that density does not have to equal monstrosity According to

01:00:24.612 --> 01:00:32.030
- the Monroe County Assessor's Office all of the houses on the block face our single story This duplex is not

01:00:32.962 --> 01:00:40.142
- It is not similar in shape size and design to the majority of structures on the same block face It is

01:00:40.142 --> 01:00:47.181
- disproportionate and oversized and not consistent with the neighborhood design Others after me will

01:00:47.181 --> 01:00:54.431
- speak to the already overwhelmed infrastructure on the street, especially as it relates to parking and

01:00:54.431 --> 01:01:01.752
- traffic So I will just add my second to their comments and I've added my signature to a couple of their

01:01:01.752 --> 01:01:02.526
- letters. I

01:01:03.810 --> 01:01:09.534
- Thank you for your service on this board and for your consideration today. Thank you.

01:01:39.458 --> 01:01:45.739
- Yes. Can you state your name, please? John Lawrence. John, do you swear or affirm that the testimony

01:01:45.739 --> 01:01:52.393
- you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. So good evening.

01:01:52.393 --> 01:01:59.171
- My name's John Lawrence, and I live in the Bryant Park neighborhood. I prepared a one-page exhibit comparing

01:01:59.171 --> 01:02:05.452
- the proposed duplex with every existing home in the blackface. The staff has popped it up so you can

01:02:05.452 --> 01:02:08.126
- see. It's covered up a little bit by text.

01:02:08.226 --> 01:02:14.313
- The exhibit contains every existing home in the blackface. Nothing has been omitted. The proposed duplex

01:02:14.313 --> 01:02:20.109
- is shown at the top for comparison. There are seven homes. The city has chosen to allow duplexes as

01:02:20.109 --> 01:02:26.022
- a conditional use and that means every proposal must satisfy the standards adopted in the UDO. One of

01:02:26.022 --> 01:02:31.819
- those standards is especially important in this case. It's UDO twenty point oh three point oh three

01:02:31.819 --> 01:02:32.862
- oh B three C two.

01:02:33.634 --> 01:02:39.957
- requires that the design elements of a duplex be similar in general shape, size, and design to the majority

01:02:39.957 --> 01:02:45.930
- of existing single family or duplex structures on the same block face. And this is the block face. As

01:02:45.930 --> 01:02:51.843
- you look at this exhibit, I asked you to compare the proposed building, not individual architectural

01:02:51.843 --> 01:02:57.874
- details, but the overall building form, massing, and size. The homes share a common pattern. According

01:02:57.874 --> 01:03:02.558
- to the Monroe County Assessor's Office, and it's obvious looking at the images,

01:03:03.458 --> 01:03:09.218
- They're all one-story single-family homes of relatively modest scale and massing. The proposed building,

01:03:09.218 --> 01:03:14.759
- by contrast, is a new two-story duplex containing six bedrooms with six bathrooms. Its overall size,

01:03:14.759 --> 01:03:20.354
- height, and mass are substantially different from the prevailing pattern of development on this black

01:03:20.354 --> 01:03:26.060
- base. That distinction matters because the ordinance does not ask whether the roof pitch is compatible,

01:03:26.060 --> 01:03:31.710
- whether the porch resembles neighboring porches, or whether similar siding materials are used. It asks

01:03:31.710 --> 01:03:32.862
- whether the building

01:03:33.026 --> 01:03:38.699
- Considered as a whole is similar in general shape size and design to the majority of existing homes

01:03:38.699 --> 01:03:44.655
- on the block face At the BZA hearing in this past February regarding a duplex on South Henderson Several

01:03:44.655 --> 01:03:50.328
- board members expressed concerns about the proposal but indicated they lacked a finding effect upon

01:03:50.328 --> 01:03:56.455
- which debates of denial Finding us findings of factor how the board explains this decision and demonstrates

01:03:56.455 --> 01:04:00.766
- that it has applied the ordinance to the evidence before it because of that

01:04:00.962 --> 01:04:07.781
- I have prepared a proposed finding of fact based on the ordinance and the evidence in the record, including

01:04:07.781 --> 01:04:14.222
- the photographs shown on this exhibit. I'd like to read it into the record. So my proposed finding of

01:04:14.222 --> 01:04:20.662
- a fact. The board finds that the petition does not satisfy UDO 20.03.030B3C2, which requires that the

01:04:20.662 --> 01:04:24.766
- design elements of a duplex dwelling be similar in general shape

01:04:24.866 --> 01:04:30.299
- size and design to the majority of existing single-family or duplex structures on the same block face.

01:04:30.299 --> 01:04:35.680
- The evidence in the record, including the photographs of the block face presented during the hearing,

01:04:35.680 --> 01:04:41.061
- demonstrates that the majority of existing homes are one-story single-family residences of relatively

01:04:41.061 --> 01:04:46.336
- modest scale and massing. The proposed structure is a full two-story duplex containing six bedrooms

01:04:46.336 --> 01:04:51.717
- and represents a substantially larger building formed in the prevailing pattern of development on the

01:04:51.717 --> 01:04:52.350
- block face.

01:04:52.546 --> 01:04:58.192
- While certain individual design elements such as roof pitch, porch, design, or exterior materials may

01:04:58.192 --> 01:05:03.892
- resemble surrounding homes, the ordinance requires that the design of the duplex considered as a whole

01:05:03.892 --> 01:05:09.538
- be similar in general shape, size, and design to the majority of its existing structures on the block

01:05:09.538 --> 01:05:15.516
- face. Similarity in isolated architectural features does not establish compliance when the overall building

01:05:15.516 --> 01:05:17.342
- form is substantially different.

01:05:17.474 --> 01:05:25.744
- Therefore, based on the evidence in their record, the board cannot make the affirmative finding required

01:05:25.744 --> 01:05:33.778
- by UDO 20.03.030 B3C2. Thank you for your time and your consideration. I'll provide each board member

01:05:33.778 --> 01:05:40.946
- with a printed copy of the exhibit and the proposed finding of fact for your consideration

01:05:40.946 --> 01:05:47.326
- during deliberations. Thank you. If you're going to speak, go ahead and sign in.

01:06:05.858 --> 01:06:12.455
- Please state your name, please. Jan Sorby. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to

01:06:12.455 --> 01:06:19.509
- give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have five minutes.

01:06:19.509 --> 01:06:26.107
- Good evening. My name is Jan Sorby, and I live in the Bryant Park neighborhood. Tonight, I'd like to

01:06:26.107 --> 01:06:32.769
- discuss how I believe the use-specific design requirement was intended to be interpreted and applied.

01:06:32.769 --> 01:06:34.206
- However, I'm not sure

01:06:34.306 --> 01:06:42.666
- that the use-specific design requirement was even mentioned in the staff report. There are three questions,

01:06:42.666 --> 01:06:50.639
- I think, for the board. First, what does the ordinance require? The ordinance says the design elements

01:06:50.639 --> 01:06:58.612
- of a new duplex must be similar in general size, shape, and design to the majority of the house on the

01:06:58.612 --> 01:07:04.030
- block face. Then it identifies four elements the board must evaluate.

01:07:04.738 --> 01:07:14.089
- roof pitch, front porch width and depth, front building setback, and vehicle parking access. The ordinance

01:07:14.089 --> 01:07:23.090
- contains two parts, a compatibility standard and a list of design elements. The compatibility standard

01:07:23.090 --> 01:07:31.742
- is the goal. The four design elements are how the board determines whether that goal has been met.

01:07:32.546 --> 01:07:40.794
- The four design elements are not separate tests. They are part of the ordinance overall requirement.

01:07:40.794 --> 01:07:49.205
- Second, why was this ordinance written this way? I believe the purpose was to allow new duplexes while

01:07:49.205 --> 01:07:57.615
- ensuring they remain compatible with the neighborhood built established pattern. That balance allowing

01:07:57.615 --> 01:08:02.270
- additional housing while respecting neighborhood context

01:08:02.658 --> 01:08:10.972
- is an important part of the city goals. This ordinance is not just a simple checklist. Take roof pitch,

01:08:10.972 --> 01:08:18.966
- for example. Two buildings can have exactly the same roof pitch, but still have very different roof

01:08:18.966 --> 01:08:26.961
- forms, massing, and overall appearance from the street. Matching the roof pitch doesn't necessarily

01:08:26.961 --> 01:08:30.558
- mean that the design of the roof is similar.

01:08:31.554 --> 01:08:40.811
- The same idea applies to the front setback. The ordinance requires that the new duplex setback is similar

01:08:40.811 --> 01:08:49.719
- to the majority of the houses on the block face. But in this case, plan staff required the minimum R3

01:08:49.719 --> 01:08:58.539
- setback of 15 feet, placing this duplex much closer to the street than the established pattern. Just

01:08:58.539 --> 01:09:00.286
- five months ago, as

01:09:00.546 --> 01:09:09.753
- John Lawrence was saying, the duplex at 1004 South Henderson, plan staff use the same use specific design

01:09:09.753 --> 01:09:18.613
- standards that are required to align the new duplex with the established setback pattern on the block

01:09:18.613 --> 01:09:27.646
- face. Also, this proposal uses nearly every inch of available space on the lot. I can't help but wonder

01:09:27.970 --> 01:09:34.823
- whether that's why the setback requirement is being interpreted differently in this case. If that is

01:09:34.823 --> 01:09:41.812
- true, then the ordinance is changing to fit the building instead of the building being designed to fit

01:09:41.812 --> 01:09:48.733
- the ordinance. I don't think the same ordinance should be interpreted one way in one case and another

01:09:48.733 --> 01:09:53.822
- way in the other case. Finally, how should the board apply this ordinance?

01:09:54.466 --> 01:10:02.836
- I encourage you to consider the established pattern on the block face and then determine whether the

01:10:02.836 --> 01:10:11.537
- proposed duplex is similar to that pattern in general shape, size, and design as the ordinance requires.

01:10:11.537 --> 01:10:17.918
- Based on this analyst, I do not believe the proposed satisfies the ordinance

01:10:23.458 --> 01:10:30.675
- requirements, and I respectfully ask the board to deny this application. Thank you for your time and

01:10:30.675 --> 01:10:34.462
- service. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak?

01:10:56.386 --> 01:11:04.092
- My name is Cory. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth?

01:11:04.092 --> 01:11:11.431
- The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. You have five minutes. I live

01:11:11.431 --> 01:11:18.917
- two doors down from 412 East Wiley. I already detailed the ways in which this submitted plan fails to

01:11:18.917 --> 01:11:24.862
- meet the conditional use requirements in the letter I submitted for your packet.

01:11:25.026 --> 01:11:31.419
- But during my public comment time tonight, I'd like to take issue with two statements made in the staff

01:11:31.419 --> 01:11:37.628
- report The report repeatedly says things to the effect of on-street parking is allowed on both sides

01:11:37.628 --> 01:11:43.775
- of the street on this block of East Wiley That statement is deeply though. I assume unintentionally

01:11:43.775 --> 01:11:49.246
- misleading I would say parking is allowed on either side of this block of East Wiley and

01:11:49.410 --> 01:11:55.461
- No section of this block has an improved street surface that's wide enough to legally accommodate two

01:11:55.461 --> 01:12:01.453
- cars parked across from each other even two compact sedans We've been advised by parking enforcement

01:12:01.453 --> 01:12:07.801
- to report any such situations because without the mandated 12 feet of available roadway Emergency services

01:12:07.801 --> 01:12:13.793
- and waste removal often can't use that street So the actual on-street parking capacity on this block

01:12:13.793 --> 01:12:18.302
- of East Wiley is around half of what staff seems to suggest in their report

01:12:18.978 --> 01:12:25.422
- Number two in stating the petitioner could utilize on-street parking along this property if they desire

01:12:25.422 --> 01:12:32.052
- in the future the staff report also reads as though these street spaces are somehow reserved for residents

01:12:32.052 --> 01:12:38.806
- of particular properties and That's not the case There's no reason to assume these spaces would be available

01:12:38.806 --> 01:12:45.126
- Especially when you consider that if anyone even parks across the street from 412 the spaces directly

01:12:45.126 --> 01:12:48.286
- in front of it become unusable Thank you Thank you

01:13:19.266 --> 01:13:26.900
- Vonderschmidt Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the

01:13:26.900 --> 01:13:34.688
- whole truth and nothing but the truth I do Go ahead Good evening Councilwoman Piedmont Smith noted in

01:13:34.688 --> 01:13:41.406
- a letter to that should be in your packet recommending denial of the conditional use of

01:13:41.794 --> 01:13:49.711
- The width of the street between the 300 and 500 blocks of East Wiley is in places insufficient to allow

01:13:49.711 --> 01:13:57.628
- a 12-foot travel lane when on-street parking is being utilized. There are no curbs or sidewalks forcing

01:13:57.628 --> 01:14:05.240
- pedestrians to walk in the travel lane. At the northwest corner of the petitioner's lot at 412 East

01:14:05.240 --> 01:14:11.102
- Wiley, the existing pavement is 22.5 feet wide. The right of way is 40 feet,

01:14:11.266 --> 01:14:20.983
- Meaning that 17 feet approximately or over 40% of the city right away is unimproved The entirety of

01:14:20.983 --> 01:14:30.991
- East Wiley Street from Walnut to Highland except for the 300 to 500 block of East Wiley Are built with

01:14:30.991 --> 01:14:37.598
- curbs and sidewalks utilizing the full 40-foot right-of-way I'm not

01:14:37.826 --> 01:14:44.383
- Against increased density, East Wiley Street has provided 11 or 12 new bedrooms in the last several

01:14:44.383 --> 01:14:51.202
- years built on vacant properties. But these have stressed existing street infrastructure to accommodate

01:14:51.202 --> 01:14:57.890
- needed parking. Adding another three bedrooms probably won't relieve existing parking issues and will

01:14:57.890 --> 01:15:04.447
- only make another section of the street less safe for pedestrian use. Per the assessor's office, of

01:15:04.447 --> 01:15:07.070
- the seven properties in this blockface,

01:15:07.330 --> 01:15:14.439
- This would be the only two-story dwelling. Situated 25 feet closer to the right-of-way than the adjacent

01:15:14.439 --> 01:15:21.616
- structure, it would be the only dwelling on the block face with a gable facing the street, a second-story

01:15:21.616 --> 01:15:28.590
- gable emphasizing the height of the duplex and towering over the street's gate. The proposed structure

01:15:28.590 --> 01:15:35.768
- is not in character with the existing block face. It's not similar in size or scale to existing dwellings

01:15:35.768 --> 01:15:37.054
- on the block face.

01:15:37.858 --> 01:15:45.610
- exacerbates parking issues due to the narrowness of the street, worsening already stressed on street

01:15:45.610 --> 01:15:53.440
- parking. It removes an existing single-family home, which is discouraged per the UDO, and replaces it

01:15:53.440 --> 01:16:01.653
- with a duplex that is essentially student housing. Three bedrooms and baths per side with a party kitchen.

01:16:01.653 --> 01:16:07.486
- As proposed, this dwelling is not a dwelling families will find affordable,

01:16:07.618 --> 01:16:20.798
- Desirable I thank you for your time and urge consideration of the to deny the petition Thank you Anybody else

01:16:42.114 --> 01:16:49.185
- shorter than he is Julie von der Schmidt Julie do you do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're

01:16:49.185 --> 01:16:56.256
- about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. It's also my opinion.

01:16:56.256 --> 01:17:03.670
- Thank you. All right. Members of the board I stand before you tonight to exhort you to deny the conditional

01:17:03.670 --> 01:17:10.878
- conditional use request for 12 for 412. Let's be completely honest about what's actually happening here.

01:17:11.458 --> 01:17:19.465
- This is not innovative, affordable, sustainable, infill housing on a vacant lot. It is a predatory demolition

01:17:19.465 --> 01:17:26.889
- project. The petitioner is actively tearing down a perfectly good, albeit uncared for existing single

01:17:26.889 --> 01:17:34.532
- family home in the heart of a core neighborhood only to replace it with a high density commercial rental

01:17:34.532 --> 01:17:41.374
- property. This structure is designed strictly to be a rental with no path to owner occupancy.

01:17:41.698 --> 01:17:49.705
- Don't know many young people who can afford a six hundred and fifty six hundred and seventy five thousand

01:17:49.705 --> 01:17:57.485
- dollar first home Do you because that's what the one that's? What the apartment home at 506 East Wiley

01:17:57.485 --> 01:18:05.491
- sold for? If you approve this Petition you are not just granting a variance. You are granting a permanent

01:18:05.491 --> 01:18:08.286
- zoning mistake You are locking local

01:18:08.578 --> 01:18:15.746
- workers and young families out of ever owning a home on this parcel of Bloomington land. Bloomington's

01:18:15.746 --> 01:18:23.261
- lack of affordable attainable homes is actively pushing. This is from the HD young home young professionals

01:18:23.261 --> 01:18:30.568
- and families out of our area. There are a number of reasons that zoning laws exist and I'd like to think

01:18:30.568 --> 01:18:36.414
- that two of them are protecting the fundamental right of individual home ownership.

01:18:36.898 --> 01:18:43.458
- and widening the opportunities of everyday citizens to enjoy it. True property rights belong to the

01:18:43.458 --> 01:18:50.084
- individuals who want to buy a home, build equity, and invest their lives in a neighborhood. But when

01:18:50.084 --> 01:18:56.972
- you approve pure rental conversions, you do the exact opposite. You restrict the right of home ownership

01:18:56.972 --> 01:19:03.860
- to a select class of wealthy developers and offsite landlords, while entirely stripping that opportunity

01:19:03.860 --> 01:19:05.566
- from the local workforce.

01:19:06.018 --> 01:19:13.858
- You are narrowing the path to the American dream in Bloomington not widening it. Furthermore this directly

01:19:13.858 --> 01:19:21.406
- violates the very laws you are sworn to uphold under UDO Section 20 point zero two point zero two zero

01:19:21.406 --> 01:19:29.173
- C. The explicit mandate of the R3 district is to protect and enhance our established resident residential

01:19:29.173 --> 01:19:34.302
- neighborhoods by increasing the viability of owner occupied stock and

01:19:36.706 --> 01:19:43.863
- wait, I'm sorry, to increasing the viability of owner occupied housing. That same section explicitly

01:19:43.863 --> 01:19:51.091
- states that the conversion of existing housing to more intense land uses is discouraged. Tearing down

01:19:51.091 --> 01:19:58.249
- a home to build a permanent rental duplex is the literal antithesis of what we are here to do. Let's

01:19:58.249 --> 01:20:05.335
- focus for a minute on the human cost of this decision. As we were recently warned in a Herald Times

01:20:05.335 --> 01:20:06.398
- opinion piece,

01:20:06.530 --> 01:20:13.119
- Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. Bloomington's economic future is on the line because we are failing to retain

01:20:13.119 --> 01:20:19.834
- our career-focused people. We have the jobs and the amenities, but we are losing our young professionals,

01:20:19.834 --> 01:20:26.296
- our teachers, our health care workers, our early career researchers, and our entrepreneurs. They want

01:20:26.296 --> 01:20:32.632
- to stay here. They want to exercise their right to own real estate. They want to volunteer in their

01:20:32.632 --> 01:20:35.166
- community, get to know their neighbors.

01:20:35.298 --> 01:20:42.803
- maybe send their kids to school. They want to enjoy the quality of life we offer in Bloomington and

01:20:42.803 --> 01:20:50.458
- put down deep permanent roots in places like Bryant Park. But they can't. Why? Because of speculative

01:20:50.458 --> 01:20:57.963
- projects exactly like this one. The Bryant Park neighborhood is already heavily saturated with over

01:20:57.963 --> 01:21:03.742
- high turnover student rentals. When you allow developers to convert current,

01:21:03.938 --> 01:21:11.237
- permanent housing stock into apartment homes. You allow them to drive land values sky high based on

01:21:11.237 --> 01:21:18.901
- predatory per bedroom rent pricing. A local young professional professional earning a Bloomington salary

01:21:18.901 --> 01:21:26.274
- simply cannot compete with the student renter market. You are allowing commercial interests to price

01:21:26.274 --> 01:21:32.478
- out local individuals and families. If you approve the conditional use under section

01:21:32.578 --> 01:21:40.861
- UDO section 20.06.050B. You are failing the neighborhood character criteria. You are choosing a revolving

01:21:40.861 --> 01:21:49.456
- door of transient occupants over community stability. You are choosing the short term profits of a commercial

01:21:49.456 --> 01:21:57.269
- enterprise, an absent developer, over widening the opportunity for individual real estate ownership

01:21:57.269 --> 01:22:02.270
- for our local workforce. During our meeting, that Zoom meeting,

01:22:02.690 --> 01:22:15.824
- Uh huh. Sorry you're out. Dang it. I have some good stuff yet. I appreciate your words. Thank you. Thanks.

01:22:15.824 --> 01:22:28.222
- Thank you for your comments. Anybody else. Hi everyone. Can you state your name please. Jody Adkins.

01:22:29.410 --> 01:22:37.156
- Jodi do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth

01:22:37.156 --> 01:22:44.979
- and nothing but the truth I do Thank you. You have five minutes. Okay I live at 401 East Dodge Street.

01:22:44.979 --> 01:22:53.029
- My home was on the grid that you had posted earlier And I just recently learned about this via the postal

01:22:53.029 --> 01:22:57.054
- mail a few weeks ago when receiving notifications so

01:22:57.250 --> 01:23:08.183
- Fully support and agree with what others have said My notes are a little more informal than what they've

01:23:08.183 --> 01:23:19.637
- presented You mentioned the unimproved alleyway that dead ends well that runs behind the proposed development

01:23:19.637 --> 01:23:26.718
- My home is on the other end. There's an easement that runs westward

01:23:26.946 --> 01:23:36.249
- Where the dead end alley at Palmer occurs and my house is the third house the dead end it might help

01:23:36.249 --> 01:23:45.460
- if you had the grid on the Slide I could describe that better, but basically the easement dead ends

01:23:45.460 --> 01:23:54.302
- behind my home And I'm a little concerned about the parking I know that the parking would be on

01:23:54.466 --> 01:24:02.831
- Wiley Street, but my experience with rentals of this size and particularly if it is to become a student

01:24:02.831 --> 01:24:11.356
- rental as we assume it might be Students can be very creative about where they park and they might decide

01:24:11.356 --> 01:24:19.721
- to park in the dead end on Palmer and I could see them blocking the easement which is actually the only

01:24:19.721 --> 01:24:23.742
- access that I have to my backyard my driveway and

01:24:23.906 --> 01:24:31.221
- and my garage. And this has actually happened previously with people just in the condition

01:24:31.221 --> 01:24:39.259
- of the neighborhood now because parking is such an issue. And I also wanted to mention that in this

01:24:39.259 --> 01:24:47.378
- easement, this is where Duke, AT&T, and various other service companies, sorry I've lost track of my

01:24:47.378 --> 01:24:53.246
- notes, but this is where they would access the power lines and the poles

01:24:53.858 --> 01:25:02.406
- That service many many homes in the neighborhood So I'm just concerned that I won't have any access

01:25:02.406 --> 01:25:10.954
- to my driveway on say a Saturday night a little five weekend a party night if there are people More

01:25:10.954 --> 01:25:16.254
- than six cars parked at this home and our student rentals and

01:25:17.346 --> 01:25:25.249
- It's just concerning because the parking is already such an issue Particularly on Wiley Street. It's

01:25:25.249 --> 01:25:33.075
- essentially become a one-way road Where it meets Henderson? It's unsafe to pull Westward onto Wiley

01:25:33.075 --> 01:25:41.213
- now because of the rental on that corner So I just wanted to mention that and I thank you for your time

01:25:41.213 --> 01:25:44.734
- Thank you. Appreciate your time anybody else

01:25:48.066 --> 01:25:57.318
- My name is Kim Vint. Hi, Kim. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be

01:25:57.318 --> 01:26:06.661
- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I just want to remind the board, some of

01:26:06.661 --> 01:26:14.814
- you were there when 506 and 510 were being decided upon. I just found it really odd that

01:26:16.162 --> 01:26:25.733
- The majority due to parking, affordability, and the fact that it didn't meet the Udo standard of matching

01:26:25.733 --> 01:26:34.853
- with the neighborhood. You guys, there was like so many of you that didn't want to approve it. There

01:26:34.853 --> 01:26:44.244
- was one board member, somehow, decided that, he just looked at you and he was kind of like, oh, we have

01:26:44.244 --> 01:26:45.598
- to approve it.

01:26:46.466 --> 01:26:55.175
- And then all of you changed your mind. I just found it very odd that that was approved. And like everybody

01:26:55.175 --> 01:27:03.478
- else said, the one entrance to the west on Wiley, you're lucky if you can get through it. There's one

01:27:03.478 --> 01:27:11.943
- house that Bomba owns, another house at Parker Management, two houses at Parker Management own. There's

01:27:11.943 --> 01:27:16.094
- driveways, big driveways. They don't park in them.

01:27:16.642 --> 01:27:23.663
- Truck after truck after truck after truck after truck on both sides parking in the street So I just

01:27:23.663 --> 01:27:31.106
- avoid that you can't you can't really use it anymore and now the other end of Wiley because of The duplex

01:27:31.106 --> 01:27:38.408
- should that should never been approved to begin with Yes, a one-way street. You can't get through there

01:27:38.408 --> 01:27:44.446
- either and I just wanted to add that but anyway, thank you for your service Thank you

01:27:56.034 --> 01:28:04.171
- I Sarah do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth

01:28:04.171 --> 01:28:11.999
- and nothing but the truth Yes, thank you. You have five minutes As I said, my name is Sarah St. John

01:28:11.999 --> 01:28:20.369
- Wolford I am the housing solutions director at Habitat for Humanity and I would like to second the concerns

01:28:20.369 --> 01:28:23.934
- of the public I grew up at 408 East Wiley and

01:28:24.034 --> 01:28:30.875
- And I was lucky enough to be able to purchase another house in the Bryant Park neighborhood as a young

01:28:30.875 --> 01:28:37.717
- professional because houses like Mr. Rice's now currently owned by Mr. Spicer were not demolished. I'm

01:28:37.717 --> 01:28:42.366
- going to spend the rest of my time reading the rest of Julie's notes.

01:28:42.594 --> 01:28:50.844
- If you approve this conditional use under UDO section 20.06.050B, you are failing the neighborhood character

01:28:50.844 --> 01:28:58.488
- criteria. You are choosing a revolving door of transient occupants over community stability. You are

01:28:58.488 --> 01:29:05.678
- choosing the short-term profits of a commercial enterprise, an absent developer, over widening

01:29:05.678 --> 01:29:11.582
- the opportunity for individual real estate ownership for our local workforce.

01:29:12.546 --> 01:29:19.727
- When I asked the petitioner, Mr. Spicer, when Julie asked, when he last actually walked Wiley Street,

01:29:19.727 --> 01:29:26.768
- his response was he'd driven by. That is the definition of an absent developer. Do not let our core

01:29:26.768 --> 01:29:33.950
- neighborhoods be hollowed out by people who only view our community through a car window. Protect the

01:29:33.950 --> 01:29:39.582
- right of individual home ownership, uphold the strict intent of our three zone,

01:29:39.714 --> 01:29:49.918
- Protect the integrity of Brian Park and vote no on this permanent conditional use petition Thank you Thank you

01:30:11.202 --> 01:30:19.296
- Please Andrew rough Do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to give will be the truth the whole

01:30:19.296 --> 01:30:27.390
- truth and nothing but the truth I do Thank you. You have five minutes First of all, I want to recognize

01:30:27.390 --> 01:30:35.484
- and acknowledge my appreciation for the work of staff staffs hard-working and I value their their input

01:30:35.484 --> 01:30:39.998
- their opinion and their expertise and professionalism and

01:30:40.898 --> 01:30:51.635
- But in this case, I have to say I just fundamentally disagree with a recommendation to approve this,

01:30:51.635 --> 01:31:02.266
- that that is consistent with what the UDO says and what the standards of the code are in this case.

01:31:02.266 --> 01:31:10.558
- It's already been said many times by area residents that this is inconsistent

01:31:11.074 --> 01:31:20.650
- with the area and I am in complete agreement that it's not the code the standards aren't written to

01:31:20.650 --> 01:31:29.652
- say oh well the roof pitch is close enough it is a general compatibility and consistency with

01:31:29.652 --> 01:31:38.462
- the neighborhood purpose and if you were to approve this if the approval was given for this

01:31:40.002 --> 01:31:46.996
- It sort of undermines the credibility. It's not just a failure of the neighborhood. Some of the neighbors

01:31:46.996 --> 01:31:53.660
- said this would be a failure of the neighborhood. It would be, in my view, more of a failure for the

01:31:53.660 --> 01:32:00.325
- whole community because the reason these duplexes were, or the code was set so that they come to the

01:32:00.325 --> 01:32:07.055
- BZA was so that real human beings could look at it and make a judgment about is this consistent? Does

01:32:07.055 --> 01:32:09.694
- this fit in? You know, we want density.

01:32:11.426 --> 01:32:18.713
- But we want to do it in a way that doesn't dramatically impact the set the setting of that

01:32:18.713 --> 01:32:26.801
- of that residential area and this this clearly does if you were living there or even walking through

01:32:26.801 --> 01:32:35.049
- there and You see that opposed to everything else that you see in that area. You're gonna say well Who

01:32:35.049 --> 01:32:40.574
- dropped that thing there? so I Really believe that it's important to

01:32:40.770 --> 01:32:49.067
- for the whole process and for all, actually not just the BZA process of approving a conditional use

01:32:49.067 --> 01:32:57.613
- for a PLEX, but just for the trust in government and the faith that people in the community would have

01:32:57.613 --> 01:33:05.909
- about the processes and about the code and about the fairness and objectivity of the application of

01:33:05.909 --> 01:33:09.726
- standards and rules. I just really think that

01:33:10.338 --> 01:33:18.124
- You need to step back and realize your responsibility is to look at this. Think about what the code

01:33:18.124 --> 01:33:26.143
- says. Think about this compatibility requirement, this fundamental underlying general concept, because

01:33:26.143 --> 01:33:34.319
- it will help in the future this whole idea of approving density. Staff, in their enthusiasm for duplexes

01:33:34.319 --> 01:33:40.158
- and improved density, increasing density, is admirable and understandable.

01:33:40.546 --> 01:33:48.226
- But if we have things like this happen and undermine the community's trust, you're going to have far

01:33:48.226 --> 01:33:56.211
- more difficulty in the future getting buy-in from the public for increased ways to get increased density

01:33:56.211 --> 01:34:03.891
- in these existing neighborhoods. Because they'll see what's happened and they'll push back strongly.

01:34:03.891 --> 01:34:09.214
- So I really plead with you to not approve this. Thank you. Thank you.

01:34:10.818 --> 01:34:18.566
- Anybody else from the public? Hi, my name is Tatiana Moir. Hi, Tatiana. Do you swear or affirm that

01:34:18.566 --> 01:34:26.547
- the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes.

01:34:26.547 --> 01:34:34.527
- Thank you. I do. Go ahead, please. I'm a resident of the neighborhood. I didn't prepare any notes. One

01:34:34.527 --> 01:34:36.542
- thing I would like you to

01:34:38.210 --> 01:34:49.341
- not one thing, but to mention again, is the safety of the people who live in our neighborhood. I live

01:34:49.341 --> 01:35:01.019
- about a block away. I walk this block almost every day after work to downtown. That street is very narrow.

01:35:01.019 --> 01:35:06.366
- And like somebody said, you can park on one side

01:35:06.946 --> 01:35:16.711
- have a car pass by and you don't feel safe. We have children, we have old people walking safely as much

01:35:16.711 --> 01:35:26.476
- as we can right now. With the additional building, additional duplex in the span of two blocks, several

01:35:26.476 --> 01:35:35.678
- people mentioned there's another duplex that was built, I don't know, a year ago, six months ago.

01:35:36.706 --> 01:35:47.661
- It is a hazard to go in from Henderson into Wiley and from Wiley out. Every time, I avoid that turn

01:35:47.661 --> 01:35:58.945
- since that duplex came in. I drive to one block up, one block down because that duplex has cars parked

01:35:58.945 --> 01:36:04.094
- very close to Henderson, very hard to pass by.

01:36:04.194 --> 01:36:14.344
- We have another on the other side. Again, parking is a big problem. It's a narrow street. It's not safe.

01:36:14.344 --> 01:36:24.106
- Our kids, we have kids playing on that street, running around, and so far feeling safe somewhat with

01:36:24.106 --> 01:36:31.646
- the additional duplex. If I had young children, I wouldn't let them go there.

01:36:32.642 --> 01:36:45.181
- on that part of that block. You have to understand we have a culture of neighborly existence and the

01:36:45.181 --> 01:36:58.590
- proposed duplex is not neighborly, it does not take into consideration many of the things that my neighbors

01:36:58.722 --> 01:37:07.937
- mentioned. So I would like you to consider the safety of the people who live there. When we

01:37:07.937 --> 01:37:18.655
- have a neighborhood meeting with, I don't know, representative of the city, my husband walked down towards

01:37:18.655 --> 01:37:27.870
- the meeting on that narrow street and almost got knocked down by a car passing. And that is

01:37:28.098 --> 01:37:38.981
- One person, one car. So the safety of people who live in our neighborhood, please consider it. Please

01:37:38.981 --> 01:37:49.863
- deny the petitioner. And please listen to people who live in this neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

01:37:49.863 --> 01:37:55.838
- Anybody else from in chambers that would like to speak?

01:38:10.338 --> 01:38:17.857
- Kyle Parker Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole

01:38:17.857 --> 01:38:25.451
- truth and nothing but the truth I do Thank you You have five minutes All right This is my first time

01:38:25.451 --> 01:38:33.346
- ever being in one of these meetings. So I hope I don't say something. I'm not supposed to I'm a resident

01:38:33.346 --> 01:38:38.910
- of the Bryant Park neighborhood and I've been for several years now and I

01:38:39.170 --> 01:38:44.563
- You know, it kind of seems like we're trying to balance here the rights of an investor to maximize how

01:38:44.563 --> 01:38:49.903
- much money they make versus the rights of the residents who are here. And we just want to protect the

01:38:49.903 --> 01:38:55.401
- character of the neighborhood. And you clearly have heard from a lot of those residents today, including

01:38:55.401 --> 01:39:00.793
- myself. I mean, we love this neighborhood, and we want to protect it. We want to enjoy it. And I don't

01:39:00.793 --> 01:39:06.134
- know, personally or maybe some others, like maybe we feel a little, you know, we chafe at the idea or

01:39:06.134 --> 01:39:08.542
- maybe feel a little violated by the idea that

01:39:08.930 --> 01:39:15.393
- Something that we love is just maybe an investment opportunity or a piggy bank for somebody else. So

01:39:15.393 --> 01:39:21.920
- I don't know. I'm just kind of putting some words out there. I do want to go on record saying I agree

01:39:21.920 --> 01:39:28.639
- with a lot of the comments made today. I walk my dogs on Wiley Street every day. We've seen what happens

01:39:28.639 --> 01:39:35.038
- to the street capacity with the duplex that already went in on Wiley. And I think there's a picture

01:39:35.038 --> 01:39:38.558
- in the packet somewhere of the cars lining the street.

01:39:39.426 --> 01:39:45.370
- I have a concern that that would happen again. And maybe is the character of the neighborhood destroyed

01:39:45.370 --> 01:39:51.314
- with one duplex? Maybe not, maybe not two, maybe not three, but where's that line at? So I think that's

01:39:51.314 --> 01:39:57.143
- why we're here today. Voicing our concerns about the direction we see things are heading, and is this

01:39:57.143 --> 01:40:02.916
- the camel that breaks the straw that breaks the camel's back? Who knows? Maybe, I'm not sure. But we

01:40:02.916 --> 01:40:08.574
- need to take the opportunity to speak for what we think is important when we have the opportunity.

01:40:08.770 --> 01:40:17.270
- With that said I'll ask you to agree with the others and decision about the appeal. Thank you Thank

01:40:17.270 --> 01:40:25.855
- you Anybody else on chambers that would like to speak There's no one else can you look online please

01:40:25.855 --> 01:40:34.525
- If there is anybody online I would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function

01:40:34.525 --> 01:40:36.990
- and we can recognize you and

01:40:44.290 --> 01:40:53.788
- I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay. So this will be the end of our public comment. We're back to the

01:40:53.788 --> 01:41:03.100
- board for if you have any questions after hearing the public or if you have any questions for staff

01:41:03.100 --> 01:41:10.270
- or the petitioner. Any comments this the time. What's the setback currently.

01:41:16.258 --> 01:41:24.790
- The front building seven is actually a build to line. So it has to be a new house has to be at that

01:41:24.790 --> 01:41:33.407
- 15 foot From the property line for the front So it's 15 feet from the property line, yes not Not the

01:41:33.407 --> 01:41:41.854
- center of the road Correct in this case here Wiley is designated as a neighborhood residential and

01:41:42.018 --> 01:41:48.469
- Street and so in that situation the setback is measured from the existing property line. I Notice here

01:41:48.469 --> 01:41:54.919
- that in front of that lot There's a right away. Is that the city right away? I Mean I'm looking at the

01:41:54.919 --> 01:42:01.182
- map here and I'm seeing Yeah, so their their survey that's in the packet, you know shows the planet

01:42:01.182 --> 01:42:07.633
- 40-foot right-of-way Okay, and then so that shows where that property line and right-of-way line falls

01:42:07.633 --> 01:42:09.950
- and so they're measuring the setback

01:42:10.210 --> 01:42:19.055
- From that right away, which is their property line So the measurement the front of the house, sorry

01:42:19.055 --> 01:42:28.254
- Just want to make sure here. So the the how the house will sit 15 feet from the lot line. Yes, not from

01:42:28.254 --> 01:42:36.126
- the Beginning of the road correct. Correct. So it will be 40 feet plus 15 feet from this

01:42:36.738 --> 01:42:44.114
- Well, so it'll be I mean just looking at the survey there's 15 feet 15 to 12 feet 10 feet or whatever

01:42:44.114 --> 01:42:51.417
- from Yeah, kind of 30 feet from the road, correct. Yes approximate. I mean approximate and of course

01:42:51.417 --> 01:42:58.720
- Yeah, I that's and that's what I was trying to figure out because I'm like wait the face will be too

01:42:58.720 --> 01:43:05.662
- forward. Okay, I Think the existing house that's there too is roughly 15 feet from the properly

01:43:05.858 --> 01:43:13.567
- property line to if that helps of course I just did the one that will be demolished on 4 4 4 12 yeah

01:43:13.567 --> 01:43:21.352
- that's an estimate okay based on the GIS and measuring but it seems to be roughly 15 feet okay so the

01:43:21.352 --> 01:43:28.984
- face of the the duplex will start roughly at the same where that where the existing house is that's

01:43:28.984 --> 01:43:34.174
- what I'm seeing based on the GIS okay thank you that that's helpful

01:43:36.962 --> 01:43:44.623
- I have a second question. So the the UDO ordinance the UDO rules are for parking spaces in the back

01:43:44.623 --> 01:43:52.591
- Yeah, it's limited to a maximum of two per unit So that's a total of four for the duplex is the maximum

01:43:52.591 --> 01:44:00.329
- that's allowed in your opinion is there room for more spaces of a variance was if a More parking was

01:44:00.329 --> 01:44:02.014
- available in the back

01:44:02.626 --> 01:44:09.276
- They are close to their maximum impervious surface because that's limited at 45%. So that's something

01:44:09.276 --> 01:44:16.056
- that they would need to address. It's possible if they improve the alley to the south instead of having

01:44:16.056 --> 01:44:22.575
- a driveway off Wiley that may reduce the overall pervious surface and allow for more parking. But I

01:44:22.575 --> 01:44:26.878
- don't know precisely without doing those calculations. Thank you.

01:44:41.826 --> 01:44:52.160
- I have another question and when we're talking block face, is it specifically to that block or is it

01:44:52.160 --> 01:45:02.494
- blocks around? So we looked at, and this is defined in the UDO, so that's what we were basing it off

01:45:02.494 --> 01:45:10.782
- of, the block face of South Dunn Street to the east and then, is it South Grand?

01:45:10.978 --> 01:45:19.543
- Grant to the west. So that was the block face that was evaluated. We included all the way to South Grant

01:45:19.543 --> 01:45:29.086
- because South Palmer Avenue is not actually a street and block faces defined as as to the nearest adjoining streets.

01:46:01.250 --> 01:46:18.198
- Sorry I'm looking at every house here in that block. All right. Any more questions from the board. Questions

01:46:18.198 --> 01:46:28.926
- for the petitioner. I'll entertain a motion or thoughts or comments.

01:46:36.578 --> 01:46:44.833
- Yes, he still has 18 minutes correct the petition or how many minutes does he have? Yeah, they've got

01:46:44.833 --> 01:46:53.007
- just a little bit over 18 minutes if they want to add anything if you if you'd like to add something

01:46:53.007 --> 01:46:57.054
- you are already Remember you're still on the road

01:46:57.538 --> 01:47:05.037
- Guess a couple things I just mentioned of course things that we've heard here this evening But you know,

01:47:05.037 --> 01:47:12.251
- I know that there's been a lot of these duplexes built around town Definitely in older neighborhoods

01:47:12.251 --> 01:47:19.679
- whether that's over on off of East 3rd Street or There's one up the street, you know, there's one block

01:47:19.679 --> 01:47:21.822
- that we know in the 500 block

01:47:23.234 --> 01:47:33.872
- some over off of Kinser Pike. My point is, the downtown, not downtown, but the inner area are definitely

01:47:33.872 --> 01:47:44.105
- older areas, and so all of those areas were mainly one-story houses, whether that's on the east side

01:47:44.105 --> 01:47:47.550
- of town or the west side of town.

01:47:47.714 --> 01:47:57.004
- And I'm just my point is there's a lot of other two story duplexes going up all over town and they're

01:47:57.004 --> 01:48:06.112
- also an older general neighborhoods that are one stories. Again likewise the one that's just up the

01:48:06.112 --> 01:48:16.222
- street from this one in the five in the five hundred block. Any so we hear the word about block face you know.

01:48:23.714 --> 01:48:30.685
- No, I had a question. Any specific thing you want to address that you heard from the public? No, it's

01:48:30.685 --> 01:48:37.656
- just general stuff. You know what I mean? We talk about safety. There's lots of rentals in that area,

01:48:37.656 --> 01:48:44.695
- not just mine. And I don't know that there's been any, you know, it's a university town. You know what

01:48:44.695 --> 01:48:49.342
- I mean? I don't know that there's any one specific thing that could

01:48:49.506 --> 01:48:57.309
- could point that just because you have a rental, I think maybe there's even people here that have rentals

01:48:57.309 --> 01:49:04.670
- that makes them unsafe. So I've heard safety a lot. We want to make sure ours is safest too. No one

01:49:04.670 --> 01:49:06.878
- wants anything that's unsafe.

01:49:09.666 --> 01:49:19.213
- The other thing, as far as back to the block front, we did in meeting, of course, with planning, we

01:49:19.213 --> 01:49:29.332
- kept our roof pitch going the same east-west along Wiley like the other houses. Yeah, we did put a little

01:49:29.332 --> 01:49:33.246
- dormer on the front just to make it look

01:49:33.346 --> 01:49:40.671
- so it wouldn't look cookie cutter to the one that was already built, you know, down the street. But

01:49:40.671 --> 01:49:48.143
- we did take all that in effect. Granted, it's a two-story, you know. I mean, it is what it is, but we

01:49:48.143 --> 01:49:55.614
- did take all the other items into consideration. And again, I go back, you know, we stayed within the

01:49:55.614 --> 01:50:01.694
- UDO guidelines, and I'm not asking for one variance in any direction for anything.

01:50:01.826 --> 01:50:09.210
- just because we tried to get it to make it fit and we did. So, and you couldn't, you just can't make

01:50:09.210 --> 01:50:16.521
- that fit in a ranch style. It just won't work. So, and that's the reason why all these around town,

01:50:16.521 --> 01:50:24.124
- this is not the first one, there's a bunch of them and you know they are, they're all two stories. Yes.

01:50:24.124 --> 01:50:30.558
- Anything else? Yep. You're okay then? Okay. Thanks. All right, we're back to the board.

01:50:31.106 --> 01:50:39.390
- Some decision comments or emotion.

01:51:04.322 --> 01:51:17.064
- Are you crafting a motion there? I'll just say wait like John's looking up something. Thank you for

01:51:17.064 --> 01:51:30.187
- everybody that came to speak and your passion about your neighborhood. It's it's appreciated that love

01:51:30.187 --> 01:51:33.118
- for your neighborhood.

01:51:39.810 --> 01:51:49.647
- I'm just struggling with the consistency here. I mean the scale is radically, in my opinion, different

01:51:49.647 --> 01:51:59.674
- than the rest of that block. And I'm having a hard time with the adequate facilities requirement because

01:51:59.674 --> 01:52:05.118
- of the, I mean there's no sidewalks. It's pretty narrow.

01:52:17.314 --> 01:52:29.062
- There are two-story homes Around and you can you can look on the map as well and what she talked about?

01:52:29.062 --> 01:52:40.359
- Can you say can you tell me again if it was grant Wiley done? And dogs is that the blockface you is

01:52:40.359 --> 01:52:43.070
- that where you look at?

01:52:44.642 --> 01:52:52.339
- Yes from Dunn Street to the east to Grant Street to the west along the south side of Wiley So again,

01:52:52.339 --> 01:52:59.960
- you know the the use specific standards talk about roof pitch, you know a building shall be similar

01:52:59.960 --> 01:53:07.581
- in general shape size and design with the following elements roof pitch front porch width and depth

01:53:07.581 --> 01:53:10.782
- front building setback and parking access

01:53:10.914 --> 01:53:17.032
- You know says mr. Spicer indicated, you know, he's oriented the roofs to slope toward the street similar

01:53:17.032 --> 01:53:22.859
- to all of the houses along here You know that it is a pitched roof. It is not a flat roof design So

01:53:22.859 --> 01:53:28.977
- in that capacity it is similar to the existing structures along that block face. He's incorporated front

01:53:28.977 --> 01:53:34.978
- porches There's a mix, you know as we talked about in the staff report There is a mix of front porches

01:53:34.978 --> 01:53:40.222
- along here some have them some have nothing But he has included those that have a similar

01:53:40.386 --> 01:53:46.913
- Typical width and depth to what you'll see in the neighborhood as well as on other duplexes vehicular

01:53:46.913 --> 01:53:53.312
- access comes from the street along Wiley similar to all the other structures along here So from the

01:53:53.312 --> 01:53:59.711
- application of these specific standards, it is staffs interpretation and application You know, this

01:53:59.711 --> 01:54:03.102
- is something we've talked about a lot in duplexes of

01:54:03.490 --> 01:54:08.757
- You know, it's not measuring, you know, the use specific standards and not talking about the height

01:54:08.757 --> 01:54:14.234
- of a building. It's talking about the roof pitch design, very basic elements. And so as we have applied

01:54:14.234 --> 01:54:19.659
- this in numerous situations, you know, the orientation of the roof, having a pitch roof as opposed to,

01:54:19.659 --> 01:54:24.820
- you know, a modern house with a flat roof, which is certainly not a compatible design or similar,

01:54:24.820 --> 01:54:30.193
- you know, unless you're in a completely modern neighborhood, you know, those have been the most basic

01:54:30.193 --> 01:54:32.510
- elements that we have looked at and applied

01:54:32.706 --> 01:54:45.051
- in terms of the review of the use specific standards And that's what I I wanted to hear that height

01:54:45.051 --> 01:54:57.520
- is not a standard specific Excuse me You speak when you go to the podium. Okay, so it's we shouldn't

01:54:57.520 --> 01:55:01.470
- have participation from Where I

01:55:06.050 --> 01:55:21.046
- Yeah, so that's what I was trying to figure out, because there are other two story homes in any area.

01:55:21.046 --> 01:55:35.454
- Anything else there, John? I think this is my complete personal opinion. I don't mind the duplex.

01:55:35.842 --> 01:55:47.151
- To me, it is just the six bedrooms and six bathrooms in the size of the duplex that I'm struggling with.

01:55:47.151 --> 01:55:57.598
- However, there's no peculiarity. Everything's been approved by the UDO, except that it's duplex.

01:56:09.986 --> 01:56:17.926
- No other comments or questions for staff I'll entertain a motion Just to clarify one more time If I

01:56:17.926 --> 01:56:26.183
- read the code says it how are we defining block face? I mean, how far are we going? Yep, so there There

01:56:26.183 --> 01:56:34.122
- is a very specific definition of the UDO of block face and it says that portion of a block adjacent

01:56:34.122 --> 01:56:37.854
- and parallel to the abutting public street and

01:56:37.954 --> 01:56:45.828
- Normally extending from one intersecting street to the other So in this case here the streets that are

01:56:45.828 --> 01:56:53.779
- on the ground are done Street to the east to Grant Street to the west and along the south side of Wiley

01:56:53.779 --> 01:56:58.366
- That does demonstrate that if that's helpful to the board I

01:57:23.970 --> 01:57:36.461
- Well, I guess just so we can get down to it, I will make a motion to let me look at the staff report.

01:57:36.461 --> 01:57:49.075
- I move that we adopt the staff's proposed findings and approve the petition with the conditions as set

01:57:49.075 --> 01:57:52.382
- forth in the staff report.

01:57:57.186 --> 01:58:23.518
- I have a second. Second. Roll call please. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. No. Good Cinco. No.

01:58:28.866 --> 01:58:58.654
- Motion fails. So I entertain another motion then do we have to.

01:59:00.258 --> 01:59:09.754
- We have to Yes, there does need to be some action from the board either approval denial or continuance

01:59:09.754 --> 01:59:18.974
- But if you vote no and it's rejected isn't that de facto Denial no, you need to vote to deny it and

01:59:18.974 --> 01:59:24.414
- then have to approve. Yeah. Yeah two votes does not make a

01:59:29.410 --> 01:59:49.168
- Voting for continuance. What would that do? Yeah, I mean You know what we would do voting for continuance.

01:59:49.168 --> 01:59:55.262
- How are we gonna get anywhere? I

01:59:56.258 --> 02:00:05.087
- Right. So that would be where you would make comments to the petitioner to possibly incorporate changes

02:00:05.087 --> 02:00:13.661
- between this hearing and the next one and continue it with that intention. But there does need to be

02:00:13.661 --> 02:00:22.151
- action. Yes correct. I guess what troubled me about it is scale. And I know you know you're looking

02:00:22.151 --> 02:00:25.886
- at that block face. That's an issue. I mean

02:00:26.722 --> 02:00:35.984
- And I mean no disrespect to Mr. Spicer or anyone in that business. I just think that, you know, we see

02:00:35.984 --> 02:00:45.157
- all these duplexes and they're all rentals and duplexes don't have to be rentals. When we talk about,

02:00:45.157 --> 02:00:54.329
- you know, the housing issues in Bloomington, you know, that missing middle can include owner occupied

02:00:54.329 --> 02:00:55.678
- missing middle

02:00:56.034 --> 02:01:06.932
- Structures as well You know, it just seems like we're Making it harder to increase density With the

02:01:06.932 --> 02:01:18.266
- path we're on and I do we need to increase density The size of lots is a challenge in this neighborhood

02:01:18.266 --> 02:01:24.478
- Which makes it difficult to I don't think yeah, I mean I

02:01:26.466 --> 02:01:34.342
- You know there's just the infrastructure in that neighborhood is really you know it doesn't

02:01:34.342 --> 02:01:42.989
- really accommodate higher density with the lack of sidewalks and some of the narrow streets. It just

02:01:42.989 --> 02:01:51.893
- seems kind of problematic in terms of maintaining kind of character. So I'm not sure you know what that

02:01:51.893 --> 02:01:54.718
- means in terms of a continuance.

02:02:02.434 --> 02:02:10.240
- So what can it be built by right on this lot that they wouldn't even have to coming from the public

02:02:10.240 --> 02:02:18.281
- I Mean in essence a single-family house is one of the few permitted over some variation of that. Yeah,

02:02:18.281 --> 02:02:26.633
- but how large I Mean anything that would meet the setback requirements and the impervious surface coverage

02:02:26.633 --> 02:02:32.254
- so you could end up with the same square footage of home Same or bigger

02:02:33.090 --> 02:02:40.348
- Exactly. So you could put an eight hundred thousand dollar home there in this lot. You could sure. You

02:02:40.348 --> 02:02:47.818
- know we like I said you know the setbacks and in previous surface guide that. So you know the development

02:02:47.818 --> 02:02:55.076
- that is shown on the lot now in terms of the size of the building and parking area represents you know

02:02:55.076 --> 02:03:02.686
- the maximum impervious surface coverage that could be achieved. So imagine filling that with a building and

02:03:03.138 --> 02:03:12.675
- That's what it would be. Yes. And it could be two story. It could be the same size as this what he's

02:03:12.675 --> 02:03:22.306
- proposing. Sure. Could be a three story. You know the maximum height I think is 40 feet. Yeah. I mean

02:03:22.306 --> 02:03:32.126
- you could. Yeah. But I mean you know someone's going to build a large single family home to live in it.

02:03:32.578 --> 02:03:44.280
- It's probably gonna have a garage. It's highly unlikely it's gonna have six bedrooms. I just, I mean,

02:03:44.280 --> 02:03:55.982
- I know theoretically you could, but I just think in terms of practical, if it's gonna be a rental, it

02:03:55.982 --> 02:04:01.374
- can't have six bedrooms. So I'm just not sure.

02:04:05.378 --> 02:04:18.202
- You could definitely build a bigger home. That's for sure. I'll speak from being the renter on the board.

02:04:18.202 --> 02:04:30.542
- I am I'm all for duplexes. I'm always like the first to go to bat for a duplex. This this seems quite

02:04:30.542 --> 02:04:33.566
- different to me and just

02:04:33.762 --> 02:04:46.273
- the neighborhood and it almost feels like you're slotting something in on a Lego thing that doesn't

02:04:46.273 --> 02:04:59.035
- quite match. Just a second, please. Can he come back? I think it's time. If you ask a question. If we

02:04:59.035 --> 02:05:01.662
- ask a question, yes.

02:05:03.202 --> 02:05:05.342
- You can ask a question.

02:05:33.250 --> 02:05:40.325
- I think, you know, again, I think we keep talking about a duplex, and we talk about a duplex, and of

02:05:40.325 --> 02:05:47.610
- course a lot of them are two stories. This one is no different than one that was approved here a little

02:05:47.610 --> 02:05:54.825
- over a year ago. Of course it was over 150 feet, but not a lot over. So I guess my question to you is,

02:05:54.825 --> 02:05:59.518
- is what's the difference between what I have and what was approved

02:05:59.906 --> 02:06:06.618
- A year ago again now go in different, you know, I know there's all kinds of you know, look other Other

02:06:06.618 --> 02:06:13.265
- locations where these duplexes are going up all over the place What's the different and they and they

02:06:13.265 --> 02:06:19.781
- got approved right here? What's the difference between those? And in what I've done there's there's

02:06:19.781 --> 02:06:26.558
- no difference. So the house in the 500 block is probably even bigger I know they even got variances and

02:06:26.946 --> 02:06:39.518
- I ask for no variances. So I don't understand how you can deny mine and approve all the others. Don't get it.

02:07:00.226 --> 02:07:24.247
- All right. I'll entertain a motion for either a continuance so we can continue this discussion and come

02:07:24.247 --> 02:07:29.790
- to the next meeting and

02:07:30.722 --> 02:07:41.901
- Go over this again, or we can if you come up with a motion John Since when I have three members and

02:07:41.901 --> 02:07:53.416
- we're gonna have to be unanimous It just seems like I would move that we do a continuance till we have

02:07:53.416 --> 02:07:58.782
- the full board present So if we do a continuous

02:08:01.442 --> 02:08:10.045
- He comes back but you need to have what you want to see from him in the next meeting. He can't just

02:08:10.045 --> 02:08:18.046
- continue just to continue. You have to have some guidelines some guidance to the petitioner.

02:08:35.330 --> 02:08:44.982
- That's what's required. I would move that we continue to see if we can continue conversations between

02:08:44.982 --> 02:08:54.445
- staff and petitioner to scale back the size of the units. Anything else you want to address for him

02:08:54.445 --> 02:09:02.110
- to address. Yeah I agree. I would like the full board here as well to represent.

02:09:07.970 --> 02:09:19.553
- Can you repeat it I guess I would just move that we continue to the nets BZA meeting and in the interim

02:09:19.553 --> 02:09:30.914
- see if there's an opportunity to scale back the number of bedrooms a Continuance it doesn't kill your

02:09:30.914 --> 02:09:37.374
- petition you're still in play and next time when you come

02:09:37.826 --> 02:09:48.817
- If there's any design changes from what it was presented today There's going to be more people here

02:09:48.817 --> 02:10:00.029
- represented as well. You will have a better chance to Have a Does the number of bedrooms need the utl

02:10:00.029 --> 02:10:05.854
- yes, it's limited to a maximum of three per unit and

02:10:12.418 --> 02:10:18.881
- To the podium. Sorry because it needs to be recorded. Sorry The whole goal was to meet every

02:10:18.881 --> 02:10:26.038
- every requirement so I had to ask for no variances So I'm not asking for a bedroom variance not asking

02:10:26.038 --> 02:10:33.265
- for setback variance. I'm you know, I'm not asking for any variance So I met every UDO requirement that

02:10:33.265 --> 02:10:36.670
- there is whether it's parking bedrooms baths and

02:10:37.058 --> 02:10:43.090
- And that's the reason why I said a minute ago. So now you're turning me down. You approved the one up

02:10:43.090 --> 02:10:49.299
- the street, and it's just like this one. And so now we're going to change the rules. And if that's fine,

02:10:49.299 --> 02:10:55.390
- but then we need to change the UDO that doesn't allow three bedrooms. So none of these others all over

02:10:55.390 --> 02:11:01.363
- town are going to be three bedrooms and or larger if they're in a different zone. So if we want less

02:11:01.363 --> 02:11:02.782
- bedrooms, I'll do that.

02:11:02.882 --> 02:11:12.184
- But we need to change the UDO So I I would have never came here with three bedrooms if that's not what

02:11:12.184 --> 02:11:21.577
- the UDO said UDO does not say there's a minimum of three bedrooms. It's a maximum, right and I met that

02:11:21.577 --> 02:11:30.969
- Correct So that's what I'm saying if if the UDO need to be changed in Yeah, so the maximum is not three

02:11:30.969 --> 02:11:32.414
- if that's right

02:11:36.738 --> 02:11:46.166
- That's the complication of the that we have John with with the conditional use because he's following

02:11:46.166 --> 02:11:55.408
- everything that the UDO requires. He's not asking for anything outside of what the UDO has imposed.

02:11:55.408 --> 02:11:58.366
- So then we're telling him that.

02:11:58.946 --> 02:12:07.813
- I agree. I understand that. I also you know the code also says that you know we have to determine that

02:12:07.813 --> 02:12:17.110
- it generally is in similar you know it's similar in shape size and design with the majority of the existing

02:12:17.110 --> 02:12:26.494
- single family homes and that's not a you know automatic kind of yes no it's a interpretation it's a judgment

02:12:28.226 --> 02:12:37.010
- I'm having a hard time saying but it might my Interpretation of that is different than the staff's and

02:12:37.010 --> 02:12:45.880
- you know, it's not something that I think is it's not like a mathematical Formula it's it's an opinion.

02:12:45.880 --> 02:12:54.750
- It's a judgment But but as we talked about as far as the roof the roof design porch designs all of that

02:12:55.394 --> 02:13:03.592
- Meets all that so that's fine if you just want to set this president's and that's fine But man, you

02:13:03.592 --> 02:13:12.446
- better make sure it goes all the way through for the next one, you know If we're changing if we're changing

02:13:12.446 --> 02:13:20.972
- it and we got change it for everybody You know One of the big things I keep hearing about is is Because

02:13:20.972 --> 02:13:22.366
- it's a two-story

02:13:23.938 --> 02:13:34.376
- Because there's not a two story in that block. Yeah. So if we're going to change it we need to change

02:13:34.376 --> 02:13:44.917
- it for everybody. Thank you. Well yeah everyone on the board and the staff has heard my heard my rants

02:13:44.917 --> 02:13:50.750
- about this part of the code before so I won't repeat it.

02:13:54.434 --> 02:14:08.339
- But I have problems with it. I agree. Do we need to make a motion for continuance. Well I believe Mr.

02:14:08.339 --> 02:14:23.198
- Fernandez. This is because Cinco seconded it. So we just need a role. Are you still remaining with the same.

02:14:26.498 --> 02:14:42.112
- And I'm in agreement with that See I have a hard time with that because we're asking him to do something

02:14:42.112 --> 02:14:52.670
- that we don't we don't prescribe Which is why I think it'll be awful I

02:15:00.226 --> 02:15:13.829
- the additional members of the board. I mean, you know, Flavia, I just I think that if it says that if

02:15:13.829 --> 02:15:27.299
- the code says that, you know, the design elements of the duplex need to be similar in general shape,

02:15:27.299 --> 02:15:29.566
- size and design,

02:15:30.562 --> 02:15:39.448
- then we have to make an interpretation as to whether or not we think it is. And I'm just, it's just

02:15:39.448 --> 02:15:48.511
- my individual opinion that I don't think it is. So, I mean, we're empowered to make that judgment and

02:15:48.511 --> 02:15:57.663
- otherwise, you know, there shouldn't be a conditional approved requirement. It should just be required

02:15:57.663 --> 02:16:00.062
- or just approved by right.

02:16:00.610 --> 02:16:08.731
- And it's not by right. And that's where I think there's a real deficiency in the code because it puts

02:16:08.731 --> 02:16:16.852
- us in this position of, you know, I mean, if we don't have any authority to impose judgment, then why

02:16:16.852 --> 02:16:21.470
- the hell even bring it to the BZA? Just make it by right.

02:16:27.810 --> 02:16:38.014
- Let's go for a roll call. I don't think we're going to go anywhere here. And I would like to let them

02:16:38.014 --> 02:16:48.319
- go watch the US play. Correct. And I am going to vote yes for contingency not not because I agree with

02:16:48.319 --> 02:16:55.422
- it but because I don't want this to I don't want you to be denied. And

02:16:56.322 --> 02:17:04.950
- And let's see if we can come up with a better solution next time. But I and hopefully the whole board

02:17:04.950 --> 02:17:13.663
- will be here. So we're going to be you know more people so we can have a better. So it's it's not just

02:17:13.663 --> 02:17:22.206
- what is happening right now. Anyway roll call please bro. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Yes. We're adjourned.