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.