- I call to order the Board of Zoning Appeals for the city of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals meeting
- for June 25th. Roll call please. Borel. Yes. Fernandez. Good Cinco here for the approval of the minutes.
- I have a pool of the minutes for May 28th 2026.
- Second roll call, please Borel. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, because Cinco. Yes The number three item of the
- agenda is petitions continued for July July 23rd meeting 2026 there are none and so we're gonna go Straight
- to the petitions for this evening this evening. We have three petitions and
- 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
- 0 0 22 11 55 South College Mall Road. And we also have ZR 20 26 dash 0 5 dash 0 0 23.
- 2412 East Wiley Street Anything from the staff Nope, nothing from staff. All right, so let's get started.
- I would may I have the report for ZR 2026-05-0020 113 South Paris and that Patterson Drive
- Yes this is a request as mentioned for the property at 1300 South Patterson Drive. The petitioners are
- coming forward tonight for a variance from sign standards to allow for the placement of 10 freestanding
- signs around the property for the use manufacturing light in a planned unit development. So this
- The property is part of the Thompson PUD and is currently being utilized by Novo Nordisk for several
- manufacturing and production capabilities and is a very large property. And as you can see on the site
- map here, one of the certainly unique characteristics is that it has frontage on several adjacent property
- street frontages. You have Strong Drive to the north, Allen Street
- Or I'm sorry strong drive to the west Allen Street to the north Patterson drive to the east a portion
- of hillside drive encroaches onto the east side of the property as well And then along Roger Street
- to the south So the property has been developed with Several manufacturing buildings that are very large
- that are located in the center of the site and then you have several parking areas to the north east
- that surround those buildings and then a separate parking area and
- was constructed a few years ago to the south of the buildings as access from Roger Street. So with the
- use of the property as a production and manufacturing business there is a variety of traffic that moves
- onto the site both from employees as well as visitors but also
- Truck traffic from shipping and receiving and a lot of access points on those adjacent street frontages
- So as you can imagine there are with the variety of traffic that is moving through the site the petitioners
- are trying to Provide signage around the periphery and within the site itself to guide those traffic
- both like I said for visitors as well as employees and then
- truck traffic that is moving through the buildings as well. So the petitioners are requesting a variance
- from sign standards. The UDO allows for only a maximum of four free standing signs for this property.
- So they are requesting a variance to allow for 10 free standing signs kind of scattered around the periphery
- as well as along the interior.
- So on the map that you see here, as well as the same exhibit that was in the packet, you can see where
- those signs are located. There would be three signs located along Strong Drive, one located along the
- Allen Street entrance on the north, one located along the Patterson Drive frontage to the east, and
- then one along the Hillside entrance.
- One along the parking area along Roger Street and then three that are somewhat internal to the site
- to help guide traffic Within the site as well So within the packet the petitioners have shown signage
- where that would be as well as the height and size of those signs So with this as I mentioned there
- are several signs that are being shows that
- Shown throughout the site to help guide that traffic The majority of the signage we do feel is certainly
- appropriate and helps guides the traffic through there So the only change that we are recommending would
- be for the sign that is along Roger Street on the south side To be reduced in height from the seven
- feet six inches down to a six foot height Since this is very internal to the site So with that we did
- obviously have to make findings
- Per the variance criteria that are required per the findings that are in the staff report. We did not
- find that there would be
- be any injuries to the public health safety morals or general welfare. The installation of these signs
- can actually have a benefit and help guide traffic and reduce traffic impacts on those adjacent roads
- by appropriately directing traffic through the site. Likewise we do not expect any impacts on the use
- and value adjacent to the
- properties as a result of this again because the signs can help reduce impacts of those properties by
- appropriately managing traffic movement to and through the site.
- And then the third criteria that the strict application of the terms of the udl will result in practical
- difficulties And that the practical difficulties are peculiar are found in the large size of this property
- And as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation the number of adjacent street frontages is certainly
- very unique and is not typical of
- For what we have in Bloomington for the typical commercial property and so having this wide number of
- frontages with multiple vehicular access points Certainly does create a challenge with the use of the
- property and being restricted to the signage that is allowed By the UDO and so the granting of this
- variance would allow for signage on the property
- That is appropriate, has been spaced apart, would require landscaping for all of the bases of the signs
- that are on the periphery. So that was addressed in condition number two. And then condition number
- three, as I mentioned, just deals with reducing the height of the internal sign along the south parking
- area to no more than six feet tall. So we are recommending that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the
- proposed findings for this petition and approve it with the three conditions that are listed in staff's
- report and I'm happy to answer any questions once the petitioner has had a chance to speak. Thank you
- Eric. Can the petition step forward please. If both of you are going to speak if you could just both
- say your name and then I will swear you in at the same time.
- Ryan rails Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth I do I do Okay, proceed you have 20 minutes for your presentation I'm Kenton
- Pardue with Pledso Breaker Cooper James acting on behalf of Nova Nordisk Appreciate Eric and his introduction
- We are proposing to add new signage rebranding for Nova Nordisk at the 1300 South Patterson site
- We are proposing ten signs the current ordinance that only allows to have four but as Eric stated this
- parcel is rather Different than the typical lot that you'd have in the city. It's more of a large campus
- And all we have upwards of three to four thousand linear feet of road frontage So we do have six signs
- are along the frontages to help direct traffic as well as some additional interior signage to direct
- traffic around the side as well
- And we agree with Eric and his findings as far as it's not injurious to public health. Also it couldn't
- inversely affect the adjacent properties anything it'll benefit by finding clear direction to deliveries
- and either employees and just people trying to navigate around the city of what is Nova Nordic what
- is public right away and directing them around. We're also we're in agreement with the recommendations
- the conditions of approval.
- Landscaping around the signs along public frontages believe it's the Required square foot of landscape
- around the signs equal to the square foot of that sign or acceptable that As well as shortening the
- sign down to six feet there at the Rogers entrance And so we'd open it up to any questions you have
- 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
- Discreetly for incoming materials. Another gate is discreetly for ex going materials There's separate
- contractor entrances as well and then separate deliveries for the cafeteria services and then you have
- the employee entrances So what we're trying to do is provide direction to all those we found several
- safety hazards with trucks trying to enter the wrong location and having to back out onto the public
- right-of-way and stopping traffic in order to redirect so that's the purpose of the signage and we have
- also eliminated
- A few of the signages that we found were a little redundant and or not compliant. All right. Thank you.
- And you still have you know 17 minutes 17 and a half to speak if you need to and you can hold on to
- that. OK. Thank you. All right. Do you have any questions for staff or the petitioner. No.
- All right, do we have any public comment for ZR 2026-05-0020? If there is anybody online that would
- like to speak to this petition you can use the raise hand function and we can recognize you I'm not
- seeing anybody. Okay, if there's none we're back to the busy a for a final action
- Thanks for continuing to invest in Bloomington. We know that site very well. For some of us it gives
- a little bit of PTSD but from a long time ago but excited about what's going on down there. I would
- 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
- the variance
- with the conditions as set forward in the staff report. Roll call please. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Yes.
- Motion is approved. Congratulations. Thank you. All right. Moving on to ZR twenty twenty six dash zero
- five dash zero zero twenty two eleven fifty five South College Mall Road.
- May I have a staff report, please?
- Okay, thank you for your patience. Good evening, this is Jamie Kreindler, Senior Zoning Planner. And
- I'm presenting the case for the variance request at 1155 South College Mall Road. They are requesting
- a variance to increase the wall sign allowance for a multi-tenant center for the use, it's a restaurant
- use for crumble cookies.
- and the zoning is mixed use corridor, and the petitioner for this case is Lisa Rains of Sign Solutions.
- So the location is part of the College Mall area, as you can see on the aerial map on the screen, and
- the existing building is a multi-tenant center, and the petitioner is proposing to replace their existing
- wall signage with the updated branding for their business.
- The surrounding properties are also zoned. Mixed use corridor to the north, east, and south.
- And to the west, there's a mix of residential multifamily and mixed use medium scale zoning. UDO section
- 20.04.100 J2AII regulates the wall signage that's allowed for multi-tenant centers in the MC zoning district.
- And this section of the UDO states that the cumulative square footage of all wall signs for any individual
- tenant shall not exceed one and a half square feet per lineal foot of the tenant's facade width facing
- either a public or private street. So the linear footage of Crumble's tenant space is 27 feet wide and
- that allows them up to 40 and a half square feet of wall signage.
- Crumble is wanting to add two new wall signs to their building, one on the front elevation and one on
- the rear elevation. And both of the signs are 40 and a half inches tall by 141.75 inches wide or roughly
- 40 square feet. So if you add both of those two signs together, the total is 79.74 square feet and that
- exceeds the allow
- wall signage by 39.24 square feet. Staff did research past permitting for this site and we found a previous
- sign permit for Crumble that was issued in 2021. And the permit clearly states that 40.5 square feet
- is the maximum sign allowance based on the 27 linear feet of their store frontage. And that only one
- wall sign was approved at that time in 2021.
- The proposed plans in the file do depict that there are two wall signs with the cumulative of roughly
- 80 square feet of wall signage, so it's unknown if the applicant at the time was aware that only one
- of those signs was approved. So staff found that if the variance is approved, crumble would be allowed
- nearly double the amount of wall signage than the UDO permits.
- The strict application of the terms of the UDO will not result in practical difficulties in the use
- of the property as the UDO contemplates this exact scenario in their specific language in the UDO to
- address it. So while the department has considered the goals of the petitioner and the standards of
- the UDO, the variance request to increase the wall signage does not appear to be derived from a peculiar
- condition of this property, which is one of the finding requirements
- requirements for a variance, so we are recommending that the BZA adopt the proposed findings in the
- staff report and deny the petition. And I'm happy to answer any questions after the petitioner presents.
- Thank you. May I have the petitioner come forward, please? What is your name?
- Thomas Hopkins, I'm with sign solutions representing crumble cookie Do you swear affirm that the testimony
- you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and button that nothing but the truth I do Proceed
- you have 20 minutes. Okay Just here to represent crumble they they're in a rebranding as you can see
- from the pictures they are simply changing their logo they've had the two signs at the property for
- five years and
- It was my understanding that those two signs were permitted before I don't did you say otherwise I'm
- sorry, I thought they were permitted and there was a mistake the first time but then they they allowed
- it But obviously they're saying now they aren't allowed So we're here to petition that they allow simply
- replacing what is there now? They haven't been an issue for five years safety wise and
- They look good on the building. That's simply their case. They feel they need them so that they can
- have one over their main entrance and one facing the, I think that's College Road, sorry, so that they
- can, so that everybody can see it from both directions. Anything else to add and that's it?
- I don't think so. Well, if you remain there, we might have questions, please.
- So we'll go back to the board now if you have questions for staff or the petitioner, please. I have
- a question about the permitting. So was there originally two permits or was there one permit? There
- was only the one permit that we could find. So the permit says that they're allowed the 40.1, sorry,
- 40.5 square feet for the one wall sign. But then I think some of the confusion is that
- The plans show two wall signs. So I think the permit was clear and that was the city's understanding
- when this when the permit was issued five years ago, but the plans did show two wall signs. So I'm not
- sure how that was addressed at the time. Just clarification. Are we are we talking about
- Assigned for both sides of the building Yeah, so there's the front elevation and then the back of the
- building and so the The maximum is How much It is one and a half square feet per linear foot of frontage
- which is 27 feet so the maximum is 40 and a half and you're calculating that for 40 for both signs and
- Yeah for the total for the total tenant space so I mean, I don't know I haven't read the code but Is
- it Does the code contemplate buildings that are placed that have to I Guess what you would call frontage
- I think there's language in the code that addresses the tenant spaces that are on the
- Corner like the edge of the multi-tenant center, but not the ones in the in the middle. I think Eric
- has that language pulled up We have dealt with this, you know There are certainly lots of situations
- throughout town where you have Buildings that have a public street on one side and then the parking
- area and the access comes from a different side So there was language that we actually put in the code
- several years ago that talks about this it says, you know, I
- For purposes of tenants and multi tenants only one side of the building is counted for their allotment
- purposes You can certainly put signage on the other side, but you know your allotment You know how much
- you get is only based on one side of the building and I get I'm sure this is a conversation for a different
- forum But I don't understand what the public benefit of that is Yeah, so the benefit would just be limiting
- the amount of signage on a building
- Obviously you can you can break it up if you choose to have more signage or a bigger sign on one side
- and a little bit smaller on the other. That's up to you. But your allotment is just based on just that
- one size. As you mentioned certainly the law could say something different if we wanted to allow something
- differently. Because when I look at that building I mean it appears that the other tenants have signs
- on both sides.
- Yep, so there is an allowance for corner locations in there that you do get signage based on that additional
- Corner location and again, like I said, you could you could choose to break that up on either side However
- you want but the UDO does allow for corner locations to factor in that additional exterior wall Yeah,
- I I get that I just don't it's almost like so if you're a middle tenant I
- It just doesn't make sense to distinguish between a corner unit versus a middle unit if the goal is
- to have signage so that a business can be successful.
- You know, so if you just happen to be on the corner, you can have two bigger signs, but if you're in
- the middle, you have two smaller signs. Typically those corner locations, you have more of a facade
- that is built out in terms of windows and accessibility, whereas the other side, you're just looking
- at the back of a building. So it's just an intent to minimize signage and not give greater allowances
- for signage for the backs of buildings. I just don't know what the public benefit of that is, is my point.
- Like I said, it's probably for another forum petitioner so the signs were proposing to to exchange They
- are already there existing and you were exchanging with the exact size of the existing signs I'd have
- to look again. They're very very similar. I'm not sure if they're exact but I would consider it negligible to
- We're not talking about doubling the size or even 20% bigger. It's it's probably within margin of error
- of 2 to 5 percent. It'd be my guess. Okay, you do have a They are roughly similar. They're roughly similar.
- Yeah, so so we're just visually we're not causing any issues. We are just Substituting for the similar
- size sign. We're not enhancing getting bigger
- more distracting. That's my understanding again in 2021 it seems that only one of the signs was officially
- permitted. But in terms of what's on the building now and what they're looking to install it's roughly
- the same. But was the plans that they submitted for the permit had two signs on it. That is what the
- plans show but the permit only addresses one of the
- the signs there was a mishap there from someone I guess it's not blaming anybody yeah we're not sure
- if there were communications that happened outside of the permit to let the applicant know hey you know
- you've you've applied for two but we can only approve one you know so in an ideal situation we would
- have had them resubmit their rendering and mark out one of the proposed signs just so that the paper
- trail is clear yeah so you would be so you would be able to
- Five years later be able to know What what was proposed and what was accepted? Yeah, okay, but the permit
- and and that's in the the board's packet You know does list one wall sign with the forty one and a half
- square foot I believe is the number listed I have were they ever Were there ever notices of violation
- for for those two signs so it just happened so and it stayed that way and
- There's no documentation of there being any notices of violations in the past five years. All right.
- Thank you From John Clear the status quo right now is that they have two signs that total 79.74 square feet
- and what they're proposing would be, what is it, 80, a little bit over 80 square feet? Yeah.
- Because I mean, it sounds like there's some, the other way to look at it, there's nothing that said
- that the two signs weren't allowed if they were submitted as part of the plan.
- I'm not saying anybody it just sounds like it's really unclear As to what happened previously So if
- we are to recommend to allow the signage then we need to find a peculiarity, correct and
- Yes, you would need to make alternative findings for criteria number two and number three Could the
- alternative finding be that they're replacing existing signs? That that's you would have to relate it
- obviously to a inherent condition about the property itself So you would have to make findings that
- are very specific to the property and not You know, okay somewhat self-imposed condition
- So could the peculiarity be that the property would be reducing the signage, therefore potentially reducing
- the signage size? Or if they want to keep two, then they have to reduce the signage size. If they want
- to keep one, then they have to lose a sign. So therefore, it could be detrimental to their business.
- I would just make a comment.
- Finding number three is a different question that we can come to, but I just don't agree on finding
- number two that there's an adverse impact. If we're talking about a one foot square, a one square foot
- change from the status quo, if there's adverse impacts to surrounding properties, they would have, we
- would know that, right? I mean, so I just,
- I mean, even if we denied the variance, I just don't agree with that finding. There's no evidence that
- there's any adverse impact to the use or value of the surrounding properties when they've been operating
- with essentially the same size signage for several years. That just doesn't seem accurate to me, but
- that's just my opinion.
- Are you guys done with questions for now? Any questions? All right. So we're going to move on to public
- comment then. If there's anybody in chambers that would like to speak about this petition, please come
- forward. If not, can you check online, please? Oh, there's one. I need to sign in. Is that right? Yeah,
- you sign in and you tell me your name. I'll swear you.
- Can you state your name, please? My name is Betty Rosenagle. I have no dog in this fight at all. Let
- me swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole
- truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. You have three minutes. OK. As I said, I have no dog in this
- fight. I know what the site looks like. I know the sign on the front. I know that when you drive by
- on the street, you see a sign.
- And we had, I sat here and listened to you discuss the property in the previous case, that the signs
- were to help guide people using that property to places where they needed to go. And as far as I can
- tell, that's what this case is about, denying a sign that might help people find what they're looking
- for. It seemed to me, if I may, if I may, that
- Several, two is not several, two of the members of the board seem dubious about the common sense of
- the objections. I hope the cookie crumbles in the support of the petitioner because I'm sorry, just
- like a couple of you were saying, it doesn't make sense. It's not in the interest of the business. It's
- not in the interest of potential customers. It doesn't seem to have caused any problems.
- I know that's the thin edge of the wedge. Somebody else would come and climb on this and say, yeah,
- look, you did this, then how about us? But it just seems not to make common sense. And that's all I
- have to say. I was just sitting there listening to both of those, and I just really couldn't sit and
- say nothing. So thank you for your time. I appreciate your comment. Thank you so much. Anybody else?
- There's anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function
- So I got another staff question, so what is the consequence of denial So consequences denying it would
- be that they cannot and
- take the sign down and put up a new one. We did talk about it internally and would allow them to reface
- it, but in terms of removing it and any new signage that went up would have to be fully compliant. So
- that means you'd have to essentially cut the size of the signs almost in half to be able to have two
- signs. They would have to adjust it in some capacity, but they'd have to work within the 40s. You'd
- have to cut them
- pretty substantially to meet that. Yes. Because I mean, for the benefit of whoever's paying attention
- to this meeting, I mean, this is the kind of challenge that the BZA always has, is that you have to
- come up with the, you know, some kind of peculiarity of the property to justify not applying the code
- even if it
- In some people's opinion the code doesn't make sense because there's probably God knows how many similar
- buildings around the city of Bloomington. So it's not particularly unique. It's just bad code in my
- opinion. But from the business's perspective I mean
- I guess they have to make a choice whether or not how important the new branding is to their business
- versus the ability to have functionally signage that makes sense. I mean, if these were cut in half,
- you're not even gonna be able to see them. So, I don't know.
- Is there anything within the code about a business that you enter from one side and the backside is
- facing a major public road and it's not an entrance? Not for signage purposes. Like we said, there is
- language in here that very specifically that says for purposes that have buildings that have frontage
- with a street on one side and a parking lot on the other.
- Only one side is counted as frontage because this doesn't have a parking lot on the other Well, the
- east side has a parking lot and then so the west side is is obviously College Mall Road Correct, you
- know and this exact location there have been two other tenants both in this facility or this tenants
- base and the one to the next to the south They both adjusted their signage. So they had slightly smaller
- signs on College Mall Road and something bigger on the other side but you know, they've all worked within what
- The code allows so that's that's always our challenge of you know, it is possible to use it and have
- signage You know, we're not saying you can't have signage on the west side. You just have to make a
- choice and certainly we understand that there is a perception that there is a sign there of this size
- and they were just replacing it but You know regardless of any past confusion or miscommunication on
- a permit You know, we have to deal with the law that's in place and then what about? with
- showing the I mean we have signage outside that shows what stores are inside shopping centers and this
- essentially is that sign that's on that on the west side. Yeah I don't think they have a multi-tenant
- free a freestanding sign of any capacity college mall road. So
- Are you saying that other buildings in this strip mall specifically had to reduce their signs? Yes.
- So this exact tenant space, you know, previously had a different use in here. In fact, I think this
- might be like the fourth use that's been in there. But there was at least a previous use in there that
- had a smaller sign. Jack's Donuts was in there, had a smaller sign on the west side. And then just tenant
- space to the south of this was a century 21 tenant space.
- And they had a smaller sign on the west side and then another sign on the east side. So, you know, other
- entities have used the space and met code. I struggle with this because of the original, because of
- the original permit, we'll just call it a mishap, whatever happened with the permit. I struggle with
- this because the two signs are already there and they're existing. And now if you put a smaller,
- I just I really struggle with this that to find that there is no peculiarity to the property that we
- can tell and we can allow the signage. Eric do you have any photos of the of that side of the building.
- that faces College Mall Road. Yes, we can certainly pull up here just kind of what we have access to
- from Google Street View. See if I can find that. Yep, and the trees. That's what I'm telling you.
- Sorry let me try to see if I can find it. I appreciate it. Is that the one they are at. That is the
- Xfinity. They are down the down the road. But you can see from that angle that all those I'm so I'm
- so sorry I had it. I had it on all those business didn't scroll down to the right building. Sorry.
- There you go. So as I mentioned here, this is I guess kind of a good view. So you can see previous tenants
- that were in here. As I mentioned, Jack's Donuts, Century 21, both had signage on the west side. They
- adjusted the size to fall within the allowance. Obviously, they probably had something a little bit
- bigger on the east side.
- Is that their sign there? I can't. So this is what it looks like currently. Now, this is a question
- for Steph. If the signs that they had proposed were the exact size of the existing signs,
- Would we be having this conversation? Well, so like I said, we talked about it internally and said we
- would allow them to reface it, meaning you keep the cabinet box that's there and you just change out
- the sign that's in there. But if the sign is completely taken down, anything that goes back up has to
- obviously meet code. So we're willing to, I guess, kind of work with them a little bit on acknowledging
- there's a sign there, allow them to reface it.
- You know, if it comes down and is removed, then whatever goes back has to meet code. I guess I have
- a question for the petition. Thank you. Would you be willing to reface the existing sign? We're the
- company that's installing them. I talked to Crumble about that, and they wanted to proceed with all
- new signs. I think it's just how they do it now.
- Technically, yes, I believe so You're the sign maker We don't even we're not even making the sign they
- send it to us and we install it You're in but I'm familiar enough with the process to know that you
- could reface them I'm guessing their logic is that you wouldn't even know the difference between a new
- sign and a reface sign. They're so similar Yeah, I understand and they're probably wanting and I'm guessing
- a new one with with all new and
- LEDs and power supplies and and all the new parts that come with a new sign Are those signs lit Yes,
- I'm not confident on that one. I know the new one will be Does that change anything Eric by having a
- lit sign I
- No, changing the inside electronic component, as long as the cabinet stays the same. In terms of refacing
- signs and situations where something is a grandfathered structure, signs specifically, you can reface
- it as long as the cabinet box stays there. You can change out lights within there. But the box has to
- stay. Yeah. And we don't know if the box has electrical signals.
- that usually the same for building signs or is that I generally see that for like pile on multi-tenant
- signs where they're changing panels out. Yes and for a for a cabinet sign for a box sign you know changing
- out the sign you know obviously you know as you look at the other signs here things that are specifically
- letters that you can't really reface you know that's that's not a reface scenario but situations where
- it's a box sign you're just changing out a cabinet face.
- Thank you. You may sit down. Do you have any more questions for staff or petitioner. No. All right.
- We're back to the BZA for a final action. I'll entertain a motion.
- try and do this. First I want to amend finding number two and change it to read that adverse impacts
- to the use and value surrounding properties as a result of the requested variants are not found and
- delete the second sentence. And then for finding number three
- So the peculiarity should be site specific. I'm just rereading it says a strict application of the video
- will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Oh that's the setup. OK.
- I'm going to propose an amendment to the proposed finding number three, deleting not in the first sentence
- so that it reads that the strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties
- in the use of the property period. The elevation
- of this particular building, as well as the landscaping along the frontage of College Mall Road, create
- a situation where strict application of the UDO sign dimensions would make such signage
- ineffective period And then we would I would move that we Adopt the amended findings and approve the
- variance Any discussion
- Let me just make one comment the reason I you know, I mean I totally appreciate where the staffs coming
- from on this but for me what is kind of Dispositive is the notion that we would go along with Refacing
- an existing sign and saying it's good as opposed to letting them put up a sign that's effectively the
- status quo in terms of
- the dimensions, that would be a new contemporary sign that's consistent with their branding. I just
- don't see how the former versus the latter really achieves any public good. I mean, it just seems like
- going through a dance to adopt some very strict interpretation of the intent of the UDO
- That doesn't have any positive practical impacts for anybody. So that's my motion. I would like to add
- that to your motion an amendment that not an amendment but a condition that the sign will be as the
- sign that was proposed in this package and nothing different. Thank you. That's fine.
- Second the motion Roll call, please Borel. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, kusinko. Yes Motion passed Now we're
- on to ZR 2026-05-00 23 4 1 2 East Wiley Street May I have a look?
- Report, please. Yes, thank you again, Jamie, senior zoning planner. So as you said, this is the request
- at 412 East Wiley Street for conditional use approval to allow for a duplex and the zoning for the property
- is residential small lot R3 and the petitioner for this case is Kevin Spicer. So the surrounding properties
- are also zoned R3 and I have the aerial on the map so you can see the subject property.
- The subject property currently contains a one-story single-family home and this is part of the Bryan
- Park neighborhood. The property is not designated as a historic site and it is not subject to any historic
- regulations. There is an unbuilt section of right-of-way for South Palmer Avenue along the west property
- line and that was platted with 36 feet of right-of-way. There's also 12 foot
- platted alley that runs along the south of the property and that has at present not been improved. So
- it's an unimproved alley to the south. On street parking is allowed along both sides of East Wiley Street,
- along this frontage from Dunn Street to the east and Washington Street to the west. So the petitioner
- is proposing to remove the existing residents and develop the site with a new duplex,
- The proposed residence has been designed with each unit having a separate exterior entrance with both
- entrances facing East Wiley Street to the north, and the site plan is shown on the screen. The proposed
- duplex includes a new two-story structure with two three-bedroom, three-bath dwelling units, and that's
- the maximum that's allowed by the UDO.
- The existing driveway on East Wiley Street will be removed and a new nine foot wide driveway will be
- added that connects to a parking area in the rear of the property and the parking area is accessed via
- East Wiley. The plan includes four parking spaces, which is the maximum that the UDO allows. And the
- proposed site plan shows 44 and a half percent impervious surface.
- which is compliant with the maximum impervious surface of 45% in this zoning district. The proposed
- duplex is set back at the required 15 foot front build to line along East Wiley Street and South Palmer
- Avenue. And the required side setback to the east is 10 feet. The required rear setback minimum is 25
- feet and those are all met on the proposed site plan.
- The city's transportation plan shows South Palmer Avenue is intended as a multi-use path and a driveway
- through South Palmer Avenue would not be permitted because this would conflict with the future multi-use
- path in this area. Since the alley to the south is not improved, the petitioner had the option to improve
- the alley to the south or access
- off of East Wiley for their driveway. If the alley had been improved, the UDO would have required that
- they have alley access, but that's not the case for this site. The city's senior environmental planner
- visited the site and determined that there is no closed canopy on the site, so those regulations are
- not applicable.
- The petitioner is required to add street trees along both East Wiley Street to the north and South Palmer
- to the west. And that is compliant on the pros plan. The petition was presented to the Bryan Park and
- Elm Heights neighborhood associations during a joint meeting that took place on May 7th of this year.
- And that is one of the requirements for conditional use duplex. In response to feedback received at
- the neighborhood meeting, the petitioner did make
- a change to the site plan and revised it to include a six foot tall privacy fence on the east side of
- the lot. That was mentioned at the meeting by at least one of the neighbors that that would help to
- create a privacy buffer in the area. So that was a change that the petitioner made on their site plan.
- Staff reviewed the design elements of the proposed duplex and found that the proposal is consistent
- with the required standards of the UDO.
- The proposed roof pitch, front porch width and design, front building setback and vehicle parking access
- are similar to surrounding properties on the same block face by the staff's analysis. The petition includes
- a front porch that is typical in terms of depth and width to other front porches and covered entries
- in the area. And on the screen you can see an elevation rendering of what's proposed for the duplex.
- And these are some other elevation drawings that the petitioner submitted.
- Staff found that the petition meets the use specific standards in the UDO. The property owner does not
- have any notices of violation on file. Occupancy of each dwelling unit is subject to the definition
- of family in the UDO, which is limited to a total of six people or three unrelated adults per unit.
- There are no other duplexes within 150 foot buffer of the site. So that condition was met. And the city
- of Bloomington's utility
- data that there's adequate capacity in the city sewer and water systems to serve this location. These
- are the floor plans that were submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner also included this siding
- color at what's proposed for the new duplex, which is similar to the existing house that's there now.
- These are a couple images. I did visit the site with
- the assistant director as well and we met with some of the neighbors and these were pictures that were
- taken during that site visit showing the view from East Wiley Street and also a view of the undeveloped
- alley that's on the right. So that's pretty much the overview summary of the staff report. The full
- findings are in the report and we're happy to go into that but the department is recommending that the
- BZA adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with the two conditions that are in the staff report.
- Thank you. The petitioner come forward please. Can you state your name. Kevin Spicer. Do you swear or
- affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
- truth. I do. Thank you. You have 20 minutes. OK thank you.
- pretty much lays out exactly the way they have stated. I guess I will mention that of course in our
- meetings with the neighborhood there was a few options that they might have had and there's a couple
- options that I'm not opposed to but we worked real hard and we accomplished that to not have to ask
- for any variances.
- whether that, yeah, we would like to have more parking. I think maybe the neighborhood would like to
- have more parking. We'd have had to ask for a variance because it would be more than the four that's
- allowable. So of course, again, trying to stay within no variances, then we did not ask for more parking.
- I think another issue you're gonna hear this evening is the setback.
- from the building line is only 15 feet. That is a little closer to Wiley than the existing houses. So
- there again, I'm not opposed to making changes there, but if I'd have made them tonight, I'd had to
- ask for a variance to do that. And again, so I wanted to come in clean with absolutely no variances.
- Those are probably the two
- biggest points. But again our main goal was to not have to ask for anything other variance as far as
- a variance that has already been allowable through that zone. And you you have 18 minutes to come back
- and speak. Sure. No I mean at the end when after we hear the public comments for sure.
- Any questions for staff in the petitioner Yes, go ahead This is for the staff in on I guess it's page
- 10 of the presentation There's an image that's labeled view of undeveloped alley There's you know, there's the
- Chainlink fence couple trees is the undeveloped alley the The land to the I guess the the right of Of
- the fence It's the land behind the house So it's not the greenway that is if you're looking at the front
- 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
- is referenced in the photo, it's the alley that's actually behind the house and that connects off of
- the greenway. Yeah, just trying to figure out where the alley. Anything else? From you, no? Okay, so
- at this point,
- Petitioner just have a seat and then we're gonna proceed to Public comment. So if you're gonna speak
- tonight approach the podium and Write down your name and then I'll swear you in and then you have Three
- minutes to speak Five minutes at three minutes is for the expedited agenda public comment period
- All right. I don't want to rob you of your time speaking. So you have five minutes. Your name please.
- Thank you. My name is Jane St. John Jane. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
- give will be will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. All right. Proceed.
- Thank you. My comments will take less than three minutes. I have have like many of us here a vested
- interest in this neighborhood.
- I live at 408 East Wiley Street, which is the house immediately to the west of the house and discussion.
- I have lived there for 32 years. My parents lived in the house across the street from me at 403 East
- Wiley for 30 years and my 94 year old dad still lives there. I own the house across the street from
- me and rent it to a young couple. I have always enjoyed living near students and I am strongly in favor
- of more density
- In this neighborhood so many people can enjoy it as I have I'm not opposed to density however While
- we are while we have this opportunity to consider compatibility with the neighborhood in which this
- duplex could be placed I would just say that density does not have to equal monstrosity According to
- the Monroe County Assessor's Office all of the houses on the block face our single story This duplex is not
- It is not similar in shape size and design to the majority of structures on the same block face It is
- disproportionate and oversized and not consistent with the neighborhood design Others after me will
- speak to the already overwhelmed infrastructure on the street, especially as it relates to parking and
- traffic So I will just add my second to their comments and I've added my signature to a couple of their
- letters. I
- Thank you for your service on this board and for your consideration today. Thank you.
- Yes. Can you state your name, please? John Lawrence. John, do you swear or affirm that the testimony
- you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. So good evening.
- My name's John Lawrence, and I live in the Bryant Park neighborhood. I prepared a one-page exhibit comparing
- the proposed duplex with every existing home in the blackface. The staff has popped it up so you can
- see. It's covered up a little bit by text.
- The exhibit contains every existing home in the blackface. Nothing has been omitted. The proposed duplex
- is shown at the top for comparison. There are seven homes. The city has chosen to allow duplexes as
- a conditional use and that means every proposal must satisfy the standards adopted in the UDO. One of
- those standards is especially important in this case. It's UDO twenty point oh three point oh three
- oh B three C two.
- requires that the design elements of a duplex be similar in general shape, size, and design to the majority
- of existing single family or duplex structures on the same block face. And this is the block face. As
- you look at this exhibit, I asked you to compare the proposed building, not individual architectural
- details, but the overall building form, massing, and size. The homes share a common pattern. According
- to the Monroe County Assessor's Office, and it's obvious looking at the images,
- They're all one-story single-family homes of relatively modest scale and massing. The proposed building,
- by contrast, is a new two-story duplex containing six bedrooms with six bathrooms. Its overall size,
- height, and mass are substantially different from the prevailing pattern of development on this black
- base. That distinction matters because the ordinance does not ask whether the roof pitch is compatible,
- whether the porch resembles neighboring porches, or whether similar siding materials are used. It asks
- whether the building
- Considered as a whole is similar in general shape size and design to the majority of existing homes
- on the block face At the BZA hearing in this past February regarding a duplex on South Henderson Several
- board members expressed concerns about the proposal but indicated they lacked a finding effect upon
- which debates of denial Finding us findings of factor how the board explains this decision and demonstrates
- that it has applied the ordinance to the evidence before it because of that
- I have prepared a proposed finding of fact based on the ordinance and the evidence in the record, including
- the photographs shown on this exhibit. I'd like to read it into the record. So my proposed finding of
- a fact. The board finds that the petition does not satisfy UDO 20.03.030B3C2, which requires that the
- design elements of a duplex dwelling be similar in general shape
- size and design to the majority of existing single-family or duplex structures on the same block face.
- The evidence in the record, including the photographs of the block face presented during the hearing,
- demonstrates that the majority of existing homes are one-story single-family residences of relatively
- modest scale and massing. The proposed structure is a full two-story duplex containing six bedrooms
- and represents a substantially larger building formed in the prevailing pattern of development on the
- block face.
- While certain individual design elements such as roof pitch, porch, design, or exterior materials may
- resemble surrounding homes, the ordinance requires that the design of the duplex considered as a whole
- be similar in general shape, size, and design to the majority of its existing structures on the block
- face. Similarity in isolated architectural features does not establish compliance when the overall building
- form is substantially different.
- Therefore, based on the evidence in their record, the board cannot make the affirmative finding required
- by UDO 20.03.030 B3C2. Thank you for your time and your consideration. I'll provide each board member
- with a printed copy of the exhibit and the proposed finding of fact for your consideration
- during deliberations. Thank you. If you're going to speak, go ahead and sign in.
- Please state your name, please. Jan Sorby. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
- give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have five minutes.
- Good evening. My name is Jan Sorby, and I live in the Bryant Park neighborhood. Tonight, I'd like to
- discuss how I believe the use-specific design requirement was intended to be interpreted and applied.
- However, I'm not sure
- that the use-specific design requirement was even mentioned in the staff report. There are three questions,
- I think, for the board. First, what does the ordinance require? The ordinance says the design elements
- of a new duplex must be similar in general size, shape, and design to the majority of the house on the
- block face. Then it identifies four elements the board must evaluate.
- roof pitch, front porch width and depth, front building setback, and vehicle parking access. The ordinance
- contains two parts, a compatibility standard and a list of design elements. The compatibility standard
- is the goal. The four design elements are how the board determines whether that goal has been met.
- The four design elements are not separate tests. They are part of the ordinance overall requirement.
- Second, why was this ordinance written this way? I believe the purpose was to allow new duplexes while
- ensuring they remain compatible with the neighborhood built established pattern. That balance allowing
- additional housing while respecting neighborhood context
- is an important part of the city goals. This ordinance is not just a simple checklist. Take roof pitch,
- for example. Two buildings can have exactly the same roof pitch, but still have very different roof
- forms, massing, and overall appearance from the street. Matching the roof pitch doesn't necessarily
- mean that the design of the roof is similar.
- The same idea applies to the front setback. The ordinance requires that the new duplex setback is similar
- to the majority of the houses on the block face. But in this case, plan staff required the minimum R3
- setback of 15 feet, placing this duplex much closer to the street than the established pattern. Just
- five months ago, as
- John Lawrence was saying, the duplex at 1004 South Henderson, plan staff use the same use specific design
- standards that are required to align the new duplex with the established setback pattern on the block
- face. Also, this proposal uses nearly every inch of available space on the lot. I can't help but wonder
- whether that's why the setback requirement is being interpreted differently in this case. If that is
- true, then the ordinance is changing to fit the building instead of the building being designed to fit
- the ordinance. I don't think the same ordinance should be interpreted one way in one case and another
- way in the other case. Finally, how should the board apply this ordinance?
- I encourage you to consider the established pattern on the block face and then determine whether the
- proposed duplex is similar to that pattern in general shape, size, and design as the ordinance requires.
- Based on this analyst, I do not believe the proposed satisfies the ordinance
- requirements, and I respectfully ask the board to deny this application. Thank you for your time and
- service. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak?
- My name is Cory. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth?
- The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. You have five minutes. I live
- two doors down from 412 East Wiley. I already detailed the ways in which this submitted plan fails to
- meet the conditional use requirements in the letter I submitted for your packet.
- But during my public comment time tonight, I'd like to take issue with two statements made in the staff
- report The report repeatedly says things to the effect of on-street parking is allowed on both sides
- of the street on this block of East Wiley That statement is deeply though. I assume unintentionally
- misleading I would say parking is allowed on either side of this block of East Wiley and
- No section of this block has an improved street surface that's wide enough to legally accommodate two
- cars parked across from each other even two compact sedans We've been advised by parking enforcement
- to report any such situations because without the mandated 12 feet of available roadway Emergency services
- and waste removal often can't use that street So the actual on-street parking capacity on this block
- of East Wiley is around half of what staff seems to suggest in their report
- Number two in stating the petitioner could utilize on-street parking along this property if they desire
- in the future the staff report also reads as though these street spaces are somehow reserved for residents
- of particular properties and That's not the case There's no reason to assume these spaces would be available
- Especially when you consider that if anyone even parks across the street from 412 the spaces directly
- in front of it become unusable Thank you Thank you
- Vonderschmidt Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the
- whole truth and nothing but the truth I do Go ahead Good evening Councilwoman Piedmont Smith noted in
- a letter to that should be in your packet recommending denial of the conditional use of
- The width of the street between the 300 and 500 blocks of East Wiley is in places insufficient to allow
- a 12-foot travel lane when on-street parking is being utilized. There are no curbs or sidewalks forcing
- pedestrians to walk in the travel lane. At the northwest corner of the petitioner's lot at 412 East
- Wiley, the existing pavement is 22.5 feet wide. The right of way is 40 feet,
- Meaning that 17 feet approximately or over 40% of the city right away is unimproved The entirety of
- East Wiley Street from Walnut to Highland except for the 300 to 500 block of East Wiley Are built with
- curbs and sidewalks utilizing the full 40-foot right-of-way I'm not
- Against increased density, East Wiley Street has provided 11 or 12 new bedrooms in the last several
- years built on vacant properties. But these have stressed existing street infrastructure to accommodate
- needed parking. Adding another three bedrooms probably won't relieve existing parking issues and will
- only make another section of the street less safe for pedestrian use. Per the assessor's office, of
- the seven properties in this blockface,
- This would be the only two-story dwelling. Situated 25 feet closer to the right-of-way than the adjacent
- structure, it would be the only dwelling on the block face with a gable facing the street, a second-story
- gable emphasizing the height of the duplex and towering over the street's gate. The proposed structure
- is not in character with the existing block face. It's not similar in size or scale to existing dwellings
- on the block face.
- exacerbates parking issues due to the narrowness of the street, worsening already stressed on street
- parking. It removes an existing single-family home, which is discouraged per the UDO, and replaces it
- with a duplex that is essentially student housing. Three bedrooms and baths per side with a party kitchen.
- As proposed, this dwelling is not a dwelling families will find affordable,
- Desirable I thank you for your time and urge consideration of the to deny the petition Thank you Anybody else
- shorter than he is Julie von der Schmidt Julie do you do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're
- about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. It's also my opinion.
- Thank you. All right. Members of the board I stand before you tonight to exhort you to deny the conditional
- conditional use request for 12 for 412. Let's be completely honest about what's actually happening here.
- This is not innovative, affordable, sustainable, infill housing on a vacant lot. It is a predatory demolition
- project. The petitioner is actively tearing down a perfectly good, albeit uncared for existing single
- family home in the heart of a core neighborhood only to replace it with a high density commercial rental
- property. This structure is designed strictly to be a rental with no path to owner occupancy.
- Don't know many young people who can afford a six hundred and fifty six hundred and seventy five thousand
- dollar first home Do you because that's what the one that's? What the apartment home at 506 East Wiley
- sold for? If you approve this Petition you are not just granting a variance. You are granting a permanent
- zoning mistake You are locking local
- workers and young families out of ever owning a home on this parcel of Bloomington land. Bloomington's
- lack of affordable attainable homes is actively pushing. This is from the HD young home young professionals
- and families out of our area. There are a number of reasons that zoning laws exist and I'd like to think
- that two of them are protecting the fundamental right of individual home ownership.
- and widening the opportunities of everyday citizens to enjoy it. True property rights belong to the
- individuals who want to buy a home, build equity, and invest their lives in a neighborhood. But when
- you approve pure rental conversions, you do the exact opposite. You restrict the right of home ownership
- to a select class of wealthy developers and offsite landlords, while entirely stripping that opportunity
- from the local workforce.
- You are narrowing the path to the American dream in Bloomington not widening it. Furthermore this directly
- violates the very laws you are sworn to uphold under UDO Section 20 point zero two point zero two zero
- C. The explicit mandate of the R3 district is to protect and enhance our established resident residential
- neighborhoods by increasing the viability of owner occupied stock and
- wait, I'm sorry, to increasing the viability of owner occupied housing. That same section explicitly
- states that the conversion of existing housing to more intense land uses is discouraged. Tearing down
- a home to build a permanent rental duplex is the literal antithesis of what we are here to do. Let's
- focus for a minute on the human cost of this decision. As we were recently warned in a Herald Times
- opinion piece,
- Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. Bloomington's economic future is on the line because we are failing to retain
- our career-focused people. We have the jobs and the amenities, but we are losing our young professionals,
- our teachers, our health care workers, our early career researchers, and our entrepreneurs. They want
- to stay here. They want to exercise their right to own real estate. They want to volunteer in their
- community, get to know their neighbors.
- maybe send their kids to school. They want to enjoy the quality of life we offer in Bloomington and
- put down deep permanent roots in places like Bryant Park. But they can't. Why? Because of speculative
- projects exactly like this one. The Bryant Park neighborhood is already heavily saturated with over
- high turnover student rentals. When you allow developers to convert current,
- permanent housing stock into apartment homes. You allow them to drive land values sky high based on
- predatory per bedroom rent pricing. A local young professional professional earning a Bloomington salary
- simply cannot compete with the student renter market. You are allowing commercial interests to price
- out local individuals and families. If you approve the conditional use under section
- UDO section 20.06.050B. You are failing the neighborhood character criteria. You are choosing a revolving
- door of transient occupants over community stability. You are choosing the short term profits of a commercial
- enterprise, an absent developer, over widening the opportunity for individual real estate ownership
- for our local workforce. During our meeting, that Zoom meeting,
- Uh huh. Sorry you're out. Dang it. I have some good stuff yet. I appreciate your words. Thank you. Thanks.
- Thank you for your comments. Anybody else. Hi everyone. Can you state your name please. Jody Adkins.
- Jodi do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth I do Thank you. You have five minutes. Okay I live at 401 East Dodge Street.
- My home was on the grid that you had posted earlier And I just recently learned about this via the postal
- mail a few weeks ago when receiving notifications so
- Fully support and agree with what others have said My notes are a little more informal than what they've
- presented You mentioned the unimproved alleyway that dead ends well that runs behind the proposed development
- My home is on the other end. There's an easement that runs westward
- Where the dead end alley at Palmer occurs and my house is the third house the dead end it might help
- if you had the grid on the Slide I could describe that better, but basically the easement dead ends
- behind my home And I'm a little concerned about the parking I know that the parking would be on
- Wiley Street, but my experience with rentals of this size and particularly if it is to become a student
- rental as we assume it might be Students can be very creative about where they park and they might decide
- to park in the dead end on Palmer and I could see them blocking the easement which is actually the only
- access that I have to my backyard my driveway and
- and my garage. And this has actually happened previously with people just in the condition
- of the neighborhood now because parking is such an issue. And I also wanted to mention that in this
- easement, this is where Duke, AT&T, and various other service companies, sorry I've lost track of my
- notes, but this is where they would access the power lines and the poles
- That service many many homes in the neighborhood So I'm just concerned that I won't have any access
- to my driveway on say a Saturday night a little five weekend a party night if there are people More
- than six cars parked at this home and our student rentals and
- It's just concerning because the parking is already such an issue Particularly on Wiley Street. It's
- essentially become a one-way road Where it meets Henderson? It's unsafe to pull Westward onto Wiley
- now because of the rental on that corner So I just wanted to mention that and I thank you for your time
- Thank you. Appreciate your time anybody else
- My name is Kim Vint. Hi, Kim. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be
- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I just want to remind the board, some of
- you were there when 506 and 510 were being decided upon. I just found it really odd that
- The majority due to parking, affordability, and the fact that it didn't meet the Udo standard of matching
- with the neighborhood. You guys, there was like so many of you that didn't want to approve it. There
- was one board member, somehow, decided that, he just looked at you and he was kind of like, oh, we have
- to approve it.
- And then all of you changed your mind. I just found it very odd that that was approved. And like everybody
- else said, the one entrance to the west on Wiley, you're lucky if you can get through it. There's one
- house that Bomba owns, another house at Parker Management, two houses at Parker Management own. There's
- driveways, big driveways. They don't park in them.
- Truck after truck after truck after truck after truck on both sides parking in the street So I just
- avoid that you can't you can't really use it anymore and now the other end of Wiley because of The duplex
- should that should never been approved to begin with Yes, a one-way street. You can't get through there
- either and I just wanted to add that but anyway, thank you for your service Thank you
- I Sarah do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth Yes, thank you. You have five minutes As I said, my name is Sarah St. John
- Wolford I am the housing solutions director at Habitat for Humanity and I would like to second the concerns
- of the public I grew up at 408 East Wiley and
- And I was lucky enough to be able to purchase another house in the Bryant Park neighborhood as a young
- professional because houses like Mr. Rice's now currently owned by Mr. Spicer were not demolished. I'm
- going to spend the rest of my time reading the rest of Julie's notes.
- If you approve this conditional use under UDO section 20.06.050B, you are failing the neighborhood character
- criteria. You are choosing a revolving door of transient occupants over community stability. You are
- choosing the short-term profits of a commercial enterprise, an absent developer, over widening
- the opportunity for individual real estate ownership for our local workforce.
- When I asked the petitioner, Mr. Spicer, when Julie asked, when he last actually walked Wiley Street,
- his response was he'd driven by. That is the definition of an absent developer. Do not let our core
- neighborhoods be hollowed out by people who only view our community through a car window. Protect the
- right of individual home ownership, uphold the strict intent of our three zone,
- Protect the integrity of Brian Park and vote no on this permanent conditional use petition Thank you Thank you
- Please Andrew rough Do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to give will be the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth I do Thank you. You have five minutes First of all, I want to recognize
- and acknowledge my appreciation for the work of staff staffs hard-working and I value their their input
- their opinion and their expertise and professionalism and
- But in this case, I have to say I just fundamentally disagree with a recommendation to approve this,
- that that is consistent with what the UDO says and what the standards of the code are in this case.
- It's already been said many times by area residents that this is inconsistent
- with the area and I am in complete agreement that it's not the code the standards aren't written to
- say oh well the roof pitch is close enough it is a general compatibility and consistency with
- the neighborhood purpose and if you were to approve this if the approval was given for this
- It sort of undermines the credibility. It's not just a failure of the neighborhood. Some of the neighbors
- said this would be a failure of the neighborhood. It would be, in my view, more of a failure for the
- whole community because the reason these duplexes were, or the code was set so that they come to the
- BZA was so that real human beings could look at it and make a judgment about is this consistent? Does
- this fit in? You know, we want density.
- But we want to do it in a way that doesn't dramatically impact the set the setting of that
- of that residential area and this this clearly does if you were living there or even walking through
- there and You see that opposed to everything else that you see in that area. You're gonna say well Who
- dropped that thing there? so I Really believe that it's important to
- for the whole process and for all, actually not just the BZA process of approving a conditional use
- for a PLEX, but just for the trust in government and the faith that people in the community would have
- about the processes and about the code and about the fairness and objectivity of the application of
- standards and rules. I just really think that
- You need to step back and realize your responsibility is to look at this. Think about what the code
- says. Think about this compatibility requirement, this fundamental underlying general concept, because
- it will help in the future this whole idea of approving density. Staff, in their enthusiasm for duplexes
- and improved density, increasing density, is admirable and understandable.
- But if we have things like this happen and undermine the community's trust, you're going to have far
- more difficulty in the future getting buy-in from the public for increased ways to get increased density
- in these existing neighborhoods. Because they'll see what's happened and they'll push back strongly.
- So I really plead with you to not approve this. Thank you. Thank you.
- Anybody else from the public? Hi, my name is Tatiana Moir. Hi, Tatiana. Do you swear or affirm that
- the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes.
- Thank you. I do. Go ahead, please. I'm a resident of the neighborhood. I didn't prepare any notes. One
- thing I would like you to
- not one thing, but to mention again, is the safety of the people who live in our neighborhood. I live
- about a block away. I walk this block almost every day after work to downtown. That street is very narrow.
- And like somebody said, you can park on one side
- have a car pass by and you don't feel safe. We have children, we have old people walking safely as much
- as we can right now. With the additional building, additional duplex in the span of two blocks, several
- people mentioned there's another duplex that was built, I don't know, a year ago, six months ago.
- It is a hazard to go in from Henderson into Wiley and from Wiley out. Every time, I avoid that turn
- since that duplex came in. I drive to one block up, one block down because that duplex has cars parked
- very close to Henderson, very hard to pass by.
- We have another on the other side. Again, parking is a big problem. It's a narrow street. It's not safe.
- Our kids, we have kids playing on that street, running around, and so far feeling safe somewhat with
- the additional duplex. If I had young children, I wouldn't let them go there.
- on that part of that block. You have to understand we have a culture of neighborly existence and the
- proposed duplex is not neighborly, it does not take into consideration many of the things that my neighbors
- mentioned. So I would like you to consider the safety of the people who live there. When we
- have a neighborhood meeting with, I don't know, representative of the city, my husband walked down towards
- the meeting on that narrow street and almost got knocked down by a car passing. And that is
- One person, one car. So the safety of people who live in our neighborhood, please consider it. Please
- deny the petitioner. And please listen to people who live in this neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.
- Anybody else from in chambers that would like to speak?
- Kyle Parker Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth I do Thank you You have five minutes All right This is my first time
- ever being in one of these meetings. So I hope I don't say something. I'm not supposed to I'm a resident
- of the Bryant Park neighborhood and I've been for several years now and I
- You know, it kind of seems like we're trying to balance here the rights of an investor to maximize how
- much money they make versus the rights of the residents who are here. And we just want to protect the
- character of the neighborhood. And you clearly have heard from a lot of those residents today, including
- myself. I mean, we love this neighborhood, and we want to protect it. We want to enjoy it. And I don't
- know, personally or maybe some others, like maybe we feel a little, you know, we chafe at the idea or
- maybe feel a little violated by the idea that
- Something that we love is just maybe an investment opportunity or a piggy bank for somebody else. So
- I don't know. I'm just kind of putting some words out there. I do want to go on record saying I agree
- with a lot of the comments made today. I walk my dogs on Wiley Street every day. We've seen what happens
- to the street capacity with the duplex that already went in on Wiley. And I think there's a picture
- in the packet somewhere of the cars lining the street.
- I have a concern that that would happen again. And maybe is the character of the neighborhood destroyed
- with one duplex? Maybe not, maybe not two, maybe not three, but where's that line at? So I think that's
- why we're here today. Voicing our concerns about the direction we see things are heading, and is this
- the camel that breaks the straw that breaks the camel's back? Who knows? Maybe, I'm not sure. But we
- need to take the opportunity to speak for what we think is important when we have the opportunity.
- With that said I'll ask you to agree with the others and decision about the appeal. Thank you Thank
- you Anybody else on chambers that would like to speak There's no one else can you look online please
- If there is anybody online I would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function
- and we can recognize you and
- I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay. So this will be the end of our public comment. We're back to the
- board for if you have any questions after hearing the public or if you have any questions for staff
- or the petitioner. Any comments this the time. What's the setback currently.
- The front building seven is actually a build to line. So it has to be a new house has to be at that
- 15 foot From the property line for the front So it's 15 feet from the property line, yes not Not the
- center of the road Correct in this case here Wiley is designated as a neighborhood residential and
- Street and so in that situation the setback is measured from the existing property line. I Notice here
- that in front of that lot There's a right away. Is that the city right away? I Mean I'm looking at the
- map here and I'm seeing Yeah, so their their survey that's in the packet, you know shows the planet
- 40-foot right-of-way Okay, and then so that shows where that property line and right-of-way line falls
- and so they're measuring the setback
- From that right away, which is their property line So the measurement the front of the house, sorry
- Just want to make sure here. So the the how the house will sit 15 feet from the lot line. Yes, not from
- the Beginning of the road correct. Correct. So it will be 40 feet plus 15 feet from this
- Well, so it'll be I mean just looking at the survey there's 15 feet 15 to 12 feet 10 feet or whatever
- from Yeah, kind of 30 feet from the road, correct. Yes approximate. I mean approximate and of course
- Yeah, I that's and that's what I was trying to figure out because I'm like wait the face will be too
- forward. Okay, I Think the existing house that's there too is roughly 15 feet from the properly
- property line to if that helps of course I just did the one that will be demolished on 4 4 4 12 yeah
- that's an estimate okay based on the GIS and measuring but it seems to be roughly 15 feet okay so the
- face of the the duplex will start roughly at the same where that where the existing house is that's
- what I'm seeing based on the GIS okay thank you that that's helpful
- I have a second question. So the the UDO ordinance the UDO rules are for parking spaces in the back
- Yeah, it's limited to a maximum of two per unit So that's a total of four for the duplex is the maximum
- that's allowed in your opinion is there room for more spaces of a variance was if a More parking was
- available in the back
- They are close to their maximum impervious surface because that's limited at 45%. So that's something
- that they would need to address. It's possible if they improve the alley to the south instead of having
- a driveway off Wiley that may reduce the overall pervious surface and allow for more parking. But I
- don't know precisely without doing those calculations. Thank you.
- I have another question and when we're talking block face, is it specifically to that block or is it
- blocks around? So we looked at, and this is defined in the UDO, so that's what we were basing it off
- of, the block face of South Dunn Street to the east and then, is it South Grand?
- Grant to the west. So that was the block face that was evaluated. We included all the way to South Grant
- because South Palmer Avenue is not actually a street and block faces defined as as to the nearest adjoining streets.
- Sorry I'm looking at every house here in that block. All right. Any more questions from the board. Questions
- for the petitioner. I'll entertain a motion or thoughts or comments.
- Yes, he still has 18 minutes correct the petition or how many minutes does he have? Yeah, they've got
- just a little bit over 18 minutes if they want to add anything if you if you'd like to add something
- you are already Remember you're still on the road
- Guess a couple things I just mentioned of course things that we've heard here this evening But you know,
- I know that there's been a lot of these duplexes built around town Definitely in older neighborhoods
- whether that's over on off of East 3rd Street or There's one up the street, you know, there's one block
- that we know in the 500 block
- some over off of Kinser Pike. My point is, the downtown, not downtown, but the inner area are definitely
- older areas, and so all of those areas were mainly one-story houses, whether that's on the east side
- of town or the west side of town.
- And I'm just my point is there's a lot of other two story duplexes going up all over town and they're
- also an older general neighborhoods that are one stories. Again likewise the one that's just up the
- street from this one in the five in the five hundred block. Any so we hear the word about block face you know.
- No, I had a question. Any specific thing you want to address that you heard from the public? No, it's
- just general stuff. You know what I mean? We talk about safety. There's lots of rentals in that area,
- not just mine. And I don't know that there's been any, you know, it's a university town. You know what
- I mean? I don't know that there's any one specific thing that could
- could point that just because you have a rental, I think maybe there's even people here that have rentals
- that makes them unsafe. So I've heard safety a lot. We want to make sure ours is safest too. No one
- wants anything that's unsafe.
- The other thing, as far as back to the block front, we did in meeting, of course, with planning, we
- kept our roof pitch going the same east-west along Wiley like the other houses. Yeah, we did put a little
- dormer on the front just to make it look
- so it wouldn't look cookie cutter to the one that was already built, you know, down the street. But
- we did take all that in effect. Granted, it's a two-story, you know. I mean, it is what it is, but we
- did take all the other items into consideration. And again, I go back, you know, we stayed within the
- UDO guidelines, and I'm not asking for one variance in any direction for anything.
- just because we tried to get it to make it fit and we did. So, and you couldn't, you just can't make
- that fit in a ranch style. It just won't work. So, and that's the reason why all these around town,
- this is not the first one, there's a bunch of them and you know they are, they're all two stories. Yes.
- Anything else? Yep. You're okay then? Okay. Thanks. All right, we're back to the board.
- Some decision comments or emotion.
- Are you crafting a motion there? I'll just say wait like John's looking up something. Thank you for
- everybody that came to speak and your passion about your neighborhood. It's it's appreciated that love
- for your neighborhood.
- I'm just struggling with the consistency here. I mean the scale is radically, in my opinion, different
- than the rest of that block. And I'm having a hard time with the adequate facilities requirement because
- of the, I mean there's no sidewalks. It's pretty narrow.
- There are two-story homes Around and you can you can look on the map as well and what she talked about?
- Can you say can you tell me again if it was grant Wiley done? And dogs is that the blockface you is
- that where you look at?
- Yes from Dunn Street to the east to Grant Street to the west along the south side of Wiley So again,
- you know the the use specific standards talk about roof pitch, you know a building shall be similar
- in general shape size and design with the following elements roof pitch front porch width and depth
- front building setback and parking access
- You know says mr. Spicer indicated, you know, he's oriented the roofs to slope toward the street similar
- to all of the houses along here You know that it is a pitched roof. It is not a flat roof design So
- in that capacity it is similar to the existing structures along that block face. He's incorporated front
- porches There's a mix, you know as we talked about in the staff report There is a mix of front porches
- along here some have them some have nothing But he has included those that have a similar
- Typical width and depth to what you'll see in the neighborhood as well as on other duplexes vehicular
- access comes from the street along Wiley similar to all the other structures along here So from the
- application of these specific standards, it is staffs interpretation and application You know, this
- is something we've talked about a lot in duplexes of
- You know, it's not measuring, you know, the use specific standards and not talking about the height
- of a building. It's talking about the roof pitch design, very basic elements. And so as we have applied
- this in numerous situations, you know, the orientation of the roof, having a pitch roof as opposed to,
- you know, a modern house with a flat roof, which is certainly not a compatible design or similar,
- you know, unless you're in a completely modern neighborhood, you know, those have been the most basic
- elements that we have looked at and applied
- in terms of the review of the use specific standards And that's what I I wanted to hear that height
- is not a standard specific Excuse me You speak when you go to the podium. Okay, so it's we shouldn't
- have participation from Where I
- Yeah, so that's what I was trying to figure out, because there are other two story homes in any area.
- Anything else there, John? I think this is my complete personal opinion. I don't mind the duplex.
- To me, it is just the six bedrooms and six bathrooms in the size of the duplex that I'm struggling with.
- However, there's no peculiarity. Everything's been approved by the UDO, except that it's duplex.
- No other comments or questions for staff I'll entertain a motion Just to clarify one more time If I
- read the code says it how are we defining block face? I mean, how far are we going? Yep, so there There
- is a very specific definition of the UDO of block face and it says that portion of a block adjacent
- and parallel to the abutting public street and
- Normally extending from one intersecting street to the other So in this case here the streets that are
- on the ground are done Street to the east to Grant Street to the west and along the south side of Wiley
- That does demonstrate that if that's helpful to the board I
- Well, I guess just so we can get down to it, I will make a motion to let me look at the staff report.
- I move that we adopt the staff's proposed findings and approve the petition with the conditions as set
- forth in the staff report.
- I have a second. Second. Roll call please. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. No. Good Cinco. No.
- Motion fails. So I entertain another motion then do we have to.
- We have to Yes, there does need to be some action from the board either approval denial or continuance
- But if you vote no and it's rejected isn't that de facto Denial no, you need to vote to deny it and
- then have to approve. Yeah. Yeah two votes does not make a
- Voting for continuance. What would that do? Yeah, I mean You know what we would do voting for continuance.
- How are we gonna get anywhere? I
- Right. So that would be where you would make comments to the petitioner to possibly incorporate changes
- between this hearing and the next one and continue it with that intention. But there does need to be
- action. Yes correct. I guess what troubled me about it is scale. And I know you know you're looking
- at that block face. That's an issue. I mean
- And I mean no disrespect to Mr. Spicer or anyone in that business. I just think that, you know, we see
- all these duplexes and they're all rentals and duplexes don't have to be rentals. When we talk about,
- you know, the housing issues in Bloomington, you know, that missing middle can include owner occupied
- missing middle
- Structures as well You know, it just seems like we're Making it harder to increase density With the
- path we're on and I do we need to increase density The size of lots is a challenge in this neighborhood
- Which makes it difficult to I don't think yeah, I mean I
- You know there's just the infrastructure in that neighborhood is really you know it doesn't
- really accommodate higher density with the lack of sidewalks and some of the narrow streets. It just
- seems kind of problematic in terms of maintaining kind of character. So I'm not sure you know what that
- means in terms of a continuance.
- So what can it be built by right on this lot that they wouldn't even have to coming from the public
- I Mean in essence a single-family house is one of the few permitted over some variation of that. Yeah,
- but how large I Mean anything that would meet the setback requirements and the impervious surface coverage
- so you could end up with the same square footage of home Same or bigger
- Exactly. So you could put an eight hundred thousand dollar home there in this lot. You could sure. You
- know we like I said you know the setbacks and in previous surface guide that. So you know the development
- that is shown on the lot now in terms of the size of the building and parking area represents you know
- the maximum impervious surface coverage that could be achieved. So imagine filling that with a building and
- That's what it would be. Yes. And it could be two story. It could be the same size as this what he's
- proposing. Sure. Could be a three story. You know the maximum height I think is 40 feet. Yeah. I mean
- you could. Yeah. But I mean you know someone's going to build a large single family home to live in it.
- It's probably gonna have a garage. It's highly unlikely it's gonna have six bedrooms. I just, I mean,
- I know theoretically you could, but I just think in terms of practical, if it's gonna be a rental, it
- can't have six bedrooms. So I'm just not sure.
- You could definitely build a bigger home. That's for sure. I'll speak from being the renter on the board.
- I am I'm all for duplexes. I'm always like the first to go to bat for a duplex. This this seems quite
- different to me and just
- the neighborhood and it almost feels like you're slotting something in on a Lego thing that doesn't
- quite match. Just a second, please. Can he come back? I think it's time. If you ask a question. If we
- ask a question, yes.
- You can ask a question.
- I think, you know, again, I think we keep talking about a duplex, and we talk about a duplex, and of
- course a lot of them are two stories. This one is no different than one that was approved here a little
- over a year ago. Of course it was over 150 feet, but not a lot over. So I guess my question to you is,
- is what's the difference between what I have and what was approved
- A year ago again now go in different, you know, I know there's all kinds of you know, look other Other
- locations where these duplexes are going up all over the place What's the different and they and they
- got approved right here? What's the difference between those? And in what I've done there's there's
- no difference. So the house in the 500 block is probably even bigger I know they even got variances and
- I ask for no variances. So I don't understand how you can deny mine and approve all the others. Don't get it.
- All right. I'll entertain a motion for either a continuance so we can continue this discussion and come
- to the next meeting and
- Go over this again, or we can if you come up with a motion John Since when I have three members and
- we're gonna have to be unanimous It just seems like I would move that we do a continuance till we have
- the full board present So if we do a continuous
- He comes back but you need to have what you want to see from him in the next meeting. He can't just
- continue just to continue. You have to have some guidelines some guidance to the petitioner.
- That's what's required. I would move that we continue to see if we can continue conversations between
- staff and petitioner to scale back the size of the units. Anything else you want to address for him
- to address. Yeah I agree. I would like the full board here as well to represent.
- Can you repeat it I guess I would just move that we continue to the nets BZA meeting and in the interim
- see if there's an opportunity to scale back the number of bedrooms a Continuance it doesn't kill your
- petition you're still in play and next time when you come
- If there's any design changes from what it was presented today There's going to be more people here
- represented as well. You will have a better chance to Have a Does the number of bedrooms need the utl
- yes, it's limited to a maximum of three per unit and
- To the podium. Sorry because it needs to be recorded. Sorry The whole goal was to meet every
- every requirement so I had to ask for no variances So I'm not asking for a bedroom variance not asking
- for setback variance. I'm you know, I'm not asking for any variance So I met every UDO requirement that
- there is whether it's parking bedrooms baths and
- And that's the reason why I said a minute ago. So now you're turning me down. You approved the one up
- the street, and it's just like this one. And so now we're going to change the rules. And if that's fine,
- but then we need to change the UDO that doesn't allow three bedrooms. So none of these others all over
- town are going to be three bedrooms and or larger if they're in a different zone. So if we want less
- bedrooms, I'll do that.
- But we need to change the UDO So I I would have never came here with three bedrooms if that's not what
- the UDO said UDO does not say there's a minimum of three bedrooms. It's a maximum, right and I met that
- Correct So that's what I'm saying if if the UDO need to be changed in Yeah, so the maximum is not three
- if that's right
- That's the complication of the that we have John with with the conditional use because he's following
- everything that the UDO requires. He's not asking for anything outside of what the UDO has imposed.
- So then we're telling him that.
- I agree. I understand that. I also you know the code also says that you know we have to determine that
- it generally is in similar you know it's similar in shape size and design with the majority of the existing
- single family homes and that's not a you know automatic kind of yes no it's a interpretation it's a judgment
- I'm having a hard time saying but it might my Interpretation of that is different than the staff's and
- you know, it's not something that I think is it's not like a mathematical Formula it's it's an opinion.
- It's a judgment But but as we talked about as far as the roof the roof design porch designs all of that
- Meets all that so that's fine if you just want to set this president's and that's fine But man, you
- better make sure it goes all the way through for the next one, you know If we're changing if we're changing
- it and we got change it for everybody You know One of the big things I keep hearing about is is Because
- it's a two-story
- Because there's not a two story in that block. Yeah. So if we're going to change it we need to change
- it for everybody. Thank you. Well yeah everyone on the board and the staff has heard my heard my rants
- about this part of the code before so I won't repeat it.
- But I have problems with it. I agree. Do we need to make a motion for continuance. Well I believe Mr.
- Fernandez. This is because Cinco seconded it. So we just need a role. Are you still remaining with the same.
- And I'm in agreement with that See I have a hard time with that because we're asking him to do something
- that we don't we don't prescribe Which is why I think it'll be awful I
- the additional members of the board. I mean, you know, Flavia, I just I think that if it says that if
- the code says that, you know, the design elements of the duplex need to be similar in general shape,
- size and design,
- then we have to make an interpretation as to whether or not we think it is. And I'm just, it's just
- my individual opinion that I don't think it is. So, I mean, we're empowered to make that judgment and
- otherwise, you know, there shouldn't be a conditional approved requirement. It should just be required
- or just approved by right.
- And it's not by right. And that's where I think there's a real deficiency in the code because it puts
- us in this position of, you know, I mean, if we don't have any authority to impose judgment, then why
- the hell even bring it to the BZA? Just make it by right.
- 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
- go watch the US play. Correct. And I am going to vote yes for contingency not not because I agree with
- it but because I don't want this to I don't want you to be denied. And
- And let's see if we can come up with a better solution next time. But I and hopefully the whole board
- 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
- what is happening right now. Anyway roll call please bro. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Yes. We're adjourned.