WEBVTT 00:00:00.386 --> 00:00:12.396 - All right. Welcome. Good evening. Welcome to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for Thursday, September 00:00:12.396 --> 00:00:24.062 - 24th. Could I please have a roll call. Here. Fernandez. Because Cinco Smith here. Throck Morton here. 00:00:28.994 --> 00:00:36.651 - Resolutions any communications from staff before I go over the agenda nothing from staff. Thank you 00:00:36.651 --> 00:00:45.074 - anything from the board Thank you Okay, we have the following Petitions tonight. We don't have any continued. 00:00:45.074 --> 00:00:52.807 - Did I read that correctly? It's continued Yep, okay. So we do have one expedited agenda item. That's 00:00:52.807 --> 00:00:58.014 - ZR twenty twenty six zero eight zero zero three eight That's a sign 00:00:58.690 --> 00:01:06.212 - Ordinance issue then we have two petitions that we'll be hearing this evening. The other will Those 00:01:06.212 --> 00:01:14.036 - two will be ZR 20 26 0 5 0 0 2 2 concerning the property at 412 East Wiley Street and then we will also 00:01:14.036 --> 00:01:21.634 - have ZR 20 26 dash 0 7 dash 0 0 3 3 and that is request at 530 South Washington Street concerning an 00:01:21.634 --> 00:01:25.470 - administrative appeal of a notice of violation and 00:01:27.746 --> 00:01:36.679 - Did I get all of those correct? Yes, and we also do have approval of minutes. I didn't see any distributed. 00:01:36.679 --> 00:01:45.198 - There was a link. There was a link in the agenda. If you click on approval of okay, I missed that. So, 00:01:45.198 --> 00:01:53.965 - okay. Well, I didn't read it then. So but do we have a motion to approve the minutes? Do I have a second? 00:01:53.965 --> 00:01:56.446 - Second. Go ahead and call it. 00:01:57.378 --> 00:02:07.288 - Burrell Yes, Fernandez Cosinco abstain Smith Yes, it's Rock Morton. I have to stand. I didn't have a 00:02:07.288 --> 00:02:17.787 - chance to read him. I didn't see the link Sorry Yeah, so those will just be continued to the next meeting. 00:02:17.787 --> 00:02:26.814 - Yeah. All right Sorry, I went back and looked I didn't look for a link. Thank you All right 00:02:31.522 --> 00:02:40.249 - That's why I skipped over Eric, but thank you the First thing is we'll go to the expedited agenda item 00:02:40.249 --> 00:02:44.062 - back to the staff for a presentation, please 00:02:53.474 --> 00:03:01.740 - Thank you. So this is a request for variance from signed standards for the use student housing or dormitory 00:03:01.740 --> 00:03:09.701 - or dormitory in the mixed use student housing district. So this is for a property at 1327 North Lincoln 00:03:09.701 --> 00:03:17.585 - Street. The property is on mixed use student housing and was approved for redevelopment for a somewhat 00:03:17.585 --> 00:03:21.182 - large student housing use. It is one building. 00:03:21.282 --> 00:03:28.398 - That kind of spans the blocks from 17th Street to the north 17th Street to the south to 19th Street 00:03:28.398 --> 00:03:35.798 - to the north Lincoln Street to the east and Washington Street to the west. So the UDO limits the amount 00:03:35.798 --> 00:03:42.274 - of wall signage that is allowed for multifamily uses to 24 square feet per building. So by 00:03:42.274 --> 00:03:47.326 - the UDO application the building would only be allowed 24 square feet. 00:03:47.426 --> 00:03:54.972 - Even though it is quite large and spans as I mentioned several street frontages and encompasses of a 00:03:54.972 --> 00:04:02.518 - wide section of the property And so the petitioner is requesting a variance from that 24 square feet 00:04:02.518 --> 00:04:10.064 - of signage to allow for In essence four signs on the front on the property one is for a wall sign on 00:04:10.064 --> 00:04:16.414 - the entrance on the east side of the property East side of the building a small sign 00:04:16.514 --> 00:04:23.095 - on the south side of the building and then two signs along the entry and exit of the parking garage 00:04:23.095 --> 00:04:29.940 - that are on the southwest corner of the building. So along the entry on the east side they're proposing 00:04:29.940 --> 00:04:36.653 - an approximately 14 square foot sign along the south side of the building on the top of the building. 00:04:36.653 --> 00:04:43.300 - They're proposing approximately 20 square foot sign and then on the entrance and exit to the parking 00:04:43.300 --> 00:04:45.406 - garage on the southwest corner. 00:04:45.506 --> 00:04:52.468 - of the building they're proposing to five square foot signs. So with that obviously staff has evaluated 00:04:52.468 --> 00:04:59.296 - this per variance criteria. We did not find that the approval would be injurious to the public health 00:04:59.296 --> 00:05:06.057 - safety morals or general welfare. We did not find any adverse impacts on adjacent use and value. And 00:05:06.057 --> 00:05:12.885 - in regards to peculiar conditions we certainly found that the presence of four street frontages along 00:05:12.885 --> 00:05:13.822 - this property 00:05:13.954 --> 00:05:20.574 - The size of the building and the sign is in relation to that and the restrictions of the audio though were. 00:05:20.674 --> 00:05:27.070 - Based on smaller buildings that were scattered throughout the property, you know, did not contemplate 00:05:27.070 --> 00:05:33.342 - a building of this size and massing. However, the signage that is being proposed is appropriate. So 00:05:33.342 --> 00:05:39.738 - we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with just the 00:05:39.738 --> 00:05:46.448 - one condition that is listed in staff's report. And I'm happy to answer any questions once the petitioners 00:05:46.448 --> 00:05:47.326 - come forward. 00:05:50.978 --> 00:05:57.614 - Thank you. Do we have petitioner in attendance this evening is so come forward I'll have you state your 00:05:57.614 --> 00:06:04.250 - first and last name Kevin Meyers And do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth 00:06:04.250 --> 00:06:10.886 - the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay and for those new here you'll have up to 20 minutes 00:06:10.886 --> 00:06:13.374 - in this initial presentation to us and 00:06:13.602 --> 00:06:18.912 - If you don't use all that time, it's in reserve and then after we've had discussion here amongst the 00:06:18.912 --> 00:06:24.432 - board You will have an opportunity to use the remainder of your time before a motion is acted upon We'll 00:06:24.432 --> 00:06:29.794 - keep it short the big thing is I'm sorry make sure you are in front of the microphone so everyone can 00:06:29.794 --> 00:06:35.472 - hear thank you the wall sign on the building that's within the 24 square feet and then the primary entrance 00:06:35.472 --> 00:06:37.470 - the main reason for that is there's a 00:06:38.114 --> 00:06:43.505 - Three secondary entrances so we won't have one main entrance for student safety that we know which where 00:06:43.505 --> 00:06:48.742 - to go as well where to drop off So that's the main reason why we wanted to add that sign the car park 00:06:48.742 --> 00:06:53.928 - signs. It's more for vehicular traffic Just be able to say entrance exit pretty simple reason why we 00:06:53.928 --> 00:06:59.422 - made them five square feet was just more for contrast color To be able to see it from where it was mounted 00:07:10.818 --> 00:07:17.575 - Okay. Thank you. We're back to the board with any questions for the petitioner or for the staff. This 00:07:17.575 --> 00:07:24.200 - is X is this expedited. So when we do public it's only three. Correct. Thank you. All right. So for 00:07:24.200 --> 00:07:31.155 - the board any questions before we go to the public for comment none. Okay. Is there anyone in the public 00:07:31.155 --> 00:07:37.780 - who would like to address this make a statement if so come forward to the podium sign in and you'll 00:07:37.780 --> 00:07:39.966 - have up to three minutes online. 00:07:42.690 --> 00:07:49.345 - If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition please use the raise hand function 00:07:49.345 --> 00:07:55.936 - and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody online. Seeing no more back to petitioner even though 00:07:55.936 --> 00:08:02.335 - you just finished without any comments. Do you have anything further you'd like to say before we go 00:08:02.335 --> 00:08:08.798 - to the board. Thank you. With that we're back to the board. Either further discussion questions or a 00:08:08.798 --> 00:08:10.590 - motion will be entertained. 00:08:19.042 --> 00:08:28.011 - variance recommend or requested under ZR twenty twenty six oh eight zero zero three eight and that the 00:08:28.011 --> 00:08:36.805 - variance approvals limit to the sign is as shown and discussed in the staff report and packet I Have 00:08:36.805 --> 00:08:45.686 - a motion to have a second second motion a second. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none I call 00:08:45.686 --> 00:08:48.734 - the question burrow Fernandez, yes 00:08:49.154 --> 00:09:00.346 - Kutsenko. Yes, Smith. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Okay Complaints are expedited agenda items We will now 00:09:00.346 --> 00:09:11.762 - move on to our petitions at this point. We'll move to five minutes of public comment We start with ZR 00:09:11.762 --> 00:09:18.142 - 2026-05-0022 it's requested for 12 East Wiley Street and 00:09:18.434 --> 00:09:26.239 - Conditional use approval to allow for the use of a dwelling duplex And I do want to just check do we 00:09:26.239 --> 00:09:34.198 - have the petitioner in here this evening? Is petitioner in attendance, okay, very good. Thank you. All 00:09:34.198 --> 00:09:40.766 - right with that we'll go to the staff for presentation, please Senior zoning planner 00:09:42.594 --> 00:09:49.363 - So for this case the petitioner Mr. Kevin Spicer is requesting conditional use approval for a duplex 00:09:49.363 --> 00:09:56.198 - at 412 East Wiley Street in the residential small lot R3 zoning district. The petitioner is also also 00:09:56.198 --> 00:10:02.967 - requesting two variances from the maximum vehicle parking allowance and the vehicle parking location 00:10:02.967 --> 00:10:09.534 - and design standards in the allowed use table in the city's Unified Development Ordinance or UDO. 00:10:09.634 --> 00:10:16.337 - A duplex is a conditionally permitted use in the R3 zoning district and subject to the use specific 00:10:16.337 --> 00:10:23.108 - standards in section 20.03030B3. The first use specific standard is that the property owner does not 00:10:23.108 --> 00:10:29.879 - have any notices of violation on file with the planning and transportation department at the time of 00:10:29.879 --> 00:10:36.649 - their filing and this criteria is met. The second use specific standard for a duplex is that no more 00:10:36.649 --> 00:10:38.526 - than three unrelated adults 00:10:38.754 --> 00:10:46.284 - can live together in each unit and this is met on the proposed plan with only three bedrooms per unit. 00:10:46.284 --> 00:10:53.741 - The third standard is that each unit has a separate exterior entrance facing a street and this is met 00:10:53.741 --> 00:11:01.198 - on the proposed plan with both units having a separate entrance facing Wiley Street to the north. The 00:11:01.198 --> 00:11:04.926 - next use specific standard is the design elements. 00:11:05.026 --> 00:11:12.639 - There are four design elements and these are one roof pitch to front porch width and depth three front 00:11:12.639 --> 00:11:20.400 - building setback and four vehicle parking access. The UDO states that these four designs design elements 00:11:20.400 --> 00:11:27.792 - shall be similar in general shape size and design with the majority of existing single family homes 00:11:27.792 --> 00:11:34.814 - and duplexes on the same block face. Staff evaluated these four design elements and found that 00:11:34.914 --> 00:11:42.198 - They were met with the proposed duplex. The last specific standard standards for a duplex are that there 00:11:42.198 --> 00:11:49.274 - are a maximum of six bedrooms. They are not any other duplexes within 150 feet of the property and no 00:11:49.274 --> 00:11:56.766 - more than 15 duplexes can be approved each year. And all of these criteria are met with this proposed plan. 00:11:59.042 --> 00:12:06.016 - To provide a brief overview of the point two three acre site there is currently a detached single family 00:12:06.016 --> 00:12:12.724 - home on the property and that's proposed to be demolished for the new duplex and all the surrounding 00:12:12.724 --> 00:12:19.366 - properties in this area are also zoned R3 zoning. The property is not designated as a historic site 00:12:19.366 --> 00:12:26.008 - and not subject to any historic regulations. There is not closed canopy on the site so the UDO does 00:12:26.008 --> 00:12:28.798 - not regulate tree retention in this case. 00:12:29.346 --> 00:12:35.782 - And this petition was presented to the Brian Park and Elm Heights neighborhood associations in May of 00:12:35.782 --> 00:12:42.282 - this year. And that is one of the requirements for a conditional use duplex. This aerial map shows the 00:12:42.282 --> 00:12:49.034 - location of the subject property to the west. There is an unbuilt section of right away for Palmer Avenue. 00:12:49.034 --> 00:12:55.470 - Can I ask the staff to hold on for a minute? Joe, would you go ahead and finish what you're doing? So 00:12:55.470 --> 00:12:56.606 - are you finished? 00:13:05.410 --> 00:13:13.109 - Very good. Thank you. OK thank you. And then to the south of the subject property there is a 12 foot 00:13:13.109 --> 00:13:20.884 - platted alley alley and that is currently not improved. These are the proposed elevation drawings for 00:13:20.884 --> 00:13:28.659 - the duplex and these elevations were also presented to the board at the first public hearing for this 00:13:28.659 --> 00:13:29.726 - case in June. 00:13:31.362 --> 00:13:38.707 - The height to the peak of the structure is roughly 26 feet two inches with a 512 roof pitch. The orientation 00:13:38.707 --> 00:13:45.512 - of the roof lines run east to west and this is similar to other roof pitches on the block face. Some 00:13:45.512 --> 00:13:52.251 - of the houses along the block face include front porches similar to what is proposed for this home. 00:13:52.251 --> 00:13:59.326 - This is the floor plan proposed by the petitioner and the duplex is two stories tall and there are three 00:13:59.326 --> 00:14:00.606 - bedrooms per unit. 00:14:02.146 --> 00:14:09.476 - The petitioner also included the proposed sighting color for the duplex and that's shown on the screen. 00:14:09.476 --> 00:14:16.595 - And then this slide shows the block face for the case. The UDO defines block face as that portion of 00:14:16.595 --> 00:14:23.995 - a block adjacent and parallel to the abutting public street and normally extending from one intersecting 00:14:23.995 --> 00:14:31.114 - street to another. For this location the block face is from Dunn Street to the east and Grant Street 00:14:31.114 --> 00:14:32.030 - to the west. 00:14:33.378 --> 00:14:39.875 - There are a total of seven homes within the block face. When evaluating the four design elements, 00:14:39.875 --> 00:14:46.570 - roof pitch, front porch width and depth, front building setback, and vehicle parking access, the UDO 00:14:46.570 --> 00:14:53.465 - says that they should be similar in general shape, size, and design with other homes on the block face. 00:14:53.465 --> 00:15:00.160 - These two images show the existing conditions at 412 East Wiley. Since the alley behind the property 00:15:00.160 --> 00:15:01.950 - is not currently improved, 00:15:02.306 --> 00:15:10.260 - The petitioner has the option to access the property from Wiley Street or improve the alley to the south. 00:15:10.260 --> 00:15:17.990 - For conditional use duplex, the UDO has general compliance criteria, and these are compliance with the 00:15:17.990 --> 00:15:25.719 - UDO, other applicable regulations, utility service and improvement standards, and prior approvals. The 00:15:25.719 --> 00:15:29.246 - proposed duplex is in compliance with the UDO, 00:15:29.538 --> 00:15:36.403 - There are no other applicable regulations for the petition. Water and sanitary services will be coordinated 00:15:36.403 --> 00:15:42.888 - with City of Bloomington utilities and electrical service will be coordinated with Duke Energy. There 00:15:42.888 --> 00:15:49.499 - is adequate capacity in the city's water and sewer system to serve the site and there are no prior land 00:15:49.499 --> 00:15:55.919 - use approvals. The UDO has additional criteria applicable to conditional uses. The first criteria is 00:15:55.919 --> 00:15:58.462 - consistency with the comprehensive plan 00:15:58.722 --> 00:16:05.240 - and other applicable plans. This proposal is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and 00:16:05.240 --> 00:16:11.888 - the future land use map. This area is classified as mixed urban residential and the comprehensive plan 00:16:11.888 --> 00:16:18.535 - encourages opportunities for infill development and a diversity of housing types in the community. The 00:16:18.535 --> 00:16:25.118 - second criteria is that adequate public services and facilities are provided on the current site plan 00:16:25.250 --> 00:16:32.120 - Concrete walkways connect the proposed duplex to Wiley Street, and this provides pedestrian connections 00:16:32.120 --> 00:16:38.858 - on the site as the UDO requires. The next conditional use criteria is to minimize or mitigate adverse 00:16:38.858 --> 00:16:45.596 - impacts. In this case, there are no known regulated natural or scenic features that will be impacted. 00:16:45.596 --> 00:16:49.758 - No changes to trash and waste collection service are expected. 00:16:50.082 --> 00:16:56.673 - In response to feedback received at the neighborhood meeting the petitioner revised their site plan 00:16:56.673 --> 00:17:03.461 - to include a six foot tall privacy fence on the east side of the site. And this is to help buffer this 00:17:03.461 --> 00:17:10.513 - property from adjoining uses. Lastly no phasing is proposed with the plan and that covers the use specific 00:17:10.513 --> 00:17:14.270 - standards and the conditional use criteria for a duplex. 00:17:15.682 --> 00:17:22.268 - Next are the two variance requests. So the first variance being requested is to increase the maximum 00:17:22.268 --> 00:17:28.984 - number of parking spaces from four, which is the maximum in the UDO to five parking spaces. The second 00:17:28.984 --> 00:17:35.700 - variance request is to increase the size of the parking area allowed off an alley, which is restricted 00:17:35.700 --> 00:17:42.286 - by the UDO to 20 feet by 20 feet. And the petitioner is requesting to increase that to 20 feet by 42 00:17:42.286 --> 00:17:44.894 - and a half feet to accommodate the four 00:17:45.090 --> 00:17:52.184 - are the five parking spaces. This is the petitioners current site plan showing the improved alley to 00:17:52.184 --> 00:17:59.348 - the south. The petitioner is proposing a 20 foot by 42 and a half a parking pad off the alley for the 00:17:59.348 --> 00:18:06.582 - five parking spaces. And this plan requires two variances as I said. So the petitioner site plan shows 00:18:06.582 --> 00:18:13.886 - thirty six point seven five impervious surface coverage and that's compliant with the U.D.O.'s maximum. 00:18:14.754 --> 00:18:21.260 - The petitioners site plan also include includes a proposed walkway from the parking area to each of 00:18:21.260 --> 00:18:27.767 - the duplex units. So that was something that was added from the last meeting. So now addressing the 00:18:27.767 --> 00:18:34.729 - criteria and findings for each of the variance requests for the first variance request for maximum vehicle 00:18:34.729 --> 00:18:39.934 - parking one additional parking space that otherwise meets the design standards. 00:18:40.098 --> 00:18:46.688 - of the property is not expected to have a negative impact on the community at large adverse impacts 00:18:46.688 --> 00:18:53.277 - to the use and value of surrounding properties as a result of this variance to increase the maximum 00:18:53.277 --> 00:18:59.867 - number of parking spaces are not found. This property can be developed with a duplex that meets the 00:18:59.867 --> 00:19:04.414 - parking maximum of four spaces as permitted by the U.D.O. So in this 00:19:04.674 --> 00:19:11.400 - In this case staff did not find any peculiar conditions that prevent the petitioner from meeting the 00:19:11.400 --> 00:19:18.059 - parking maximum For the second variance from the vehicle parking location and design the petitioner 00:19:18.059 --> 00:19:25.184 - is requesting double the size then permitted by the UDO for parking often approved alley a wider interface 00:19:25.184 --> 00:19:31.976 - between the private and public spaces can create increased safety hazards the purpose of limiting the 00:19:31.976 --> 00:19:34.174 - size of the allowed parking area 00:19:34.338 --> 00:19:41.128 - off an alley is to manage vehicular access in the community. Safe alley access is important to the use 00:19:41.128 --> 00:19:47.984 - and value of surrounding properties, and a 42 and a half foot drive cut allowing direct access for five 00:19:47.984 --> 00:19:54.839 - vehicles is not comparable to the design of vehicle alley access with the surrounding properties. There 00:19:54.839 --> 00:20:01.497 - are not practical difficulties peculiar to the property that prevent the petitioner from meeting the 00:20:01.497 --> 00:20:02.750 - UDO's regulations. 00:20:02.882 --> 00:20:09.917 - limiting the parking pad size to 20 feet by 20 feet or 400 square feet. And the site can also be developed 00:20:09.917 --> 00:20:16.558 - with a compliant driveway off Wiley street, which was presented to you at the first hearing in June. 00:20:16.558 --> 00:20:23.395 - So that concludes the variance criteria. The department is recommending that the BZA adopt the proposed 00:20:23.395 --> 00:20:30.233 - findings, approve the conditional use request and deny the variance requests with the conditions listed 00:20:30.233 --> 00:20:31.614 - in the staff report. 00:20:32.002 --> 00:20:38.790 - And I'm happy to answer any questions from the board Thank you. It's petitioner ready to present. Okay, 00:20:38.790 --> 00:20:45.644 - come forward same thing as last time just state your first and last name for me, please My name is Kevin 00:20:45.644 --> 00:20:52.301 - Spicer and Kevin do you affirm that a testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and 00:20:52.301 --> 00:20:58.894 - nothing but the truth Yes, okay, and you'll have 20 minutes again what you don't use will be held in 00:20:58.894 --> 00:21:01.374 - reserve before the board takes action 00:21:02.722 --> 00:21:15.012 - I Will be real brief at the beginning. This is the third time so we've heard a lot of it a couple folks 00:21:15.012 --> 00:21:26.238 - were Not present last time. So just to kind of give you a quick synopsis of where we're at now 00:21:26.338 --> 00:21:37.598 - As we left last month, I was asked to bring back a different site plan than I had in the August hearing 00:21:37.598 --> 00:21:48.534 - and so which I have done which is the original one from June I To repeat we've changed the access to 00:21:48.534 --> 00:21:53.406 - the property trying to alleviate some of the 00:21:53.602 --> 00:22:03.128 - traffic on Wiley Street The I will mention the alley in the back It doesn't go any further to the east 00:22:03.128 --> 00:22:12.377 - Nor to the west from my property So it's not like the alley continues a long way once I would be to 00:22:12.377 --> 00:22:22.181 - rebuild the alley behind this property It goes in it doesn't go anywhere else There's only a two driveway 00:22:22.181 --> 00:22:23.198 - cuts prior 00:22:23.522 --> 00:22:33.477 - Right now off of that Palmer that leads to that alley The other thing that was talked about at the end 00:22:33.477 --> 00:22:43.528 - of our meeting last month was if there was any way to add additional parking in the front it was talked 00:22:43.528 --> 00:22:51.646 - about we did check into that and the engineering department does not allow that and 00:22:52.130 --> 00:23:00.498 - There's already on-street parking available. So it is what it is granted I am asking for the variances 00:23:00.498 --> 00:23:08.866 - tonight to get as much parking as I can to alleviate some of the neighbors concerns as far as The lack 00:23:08.866 --> 00:23:16.990 - of the on-street parking or hopefully would use less than the on-street parking So with that that's 00:23:16.990 --> 00:23:19.102 - just kind of an update on 00:23:19.362 --> 00:23:27.087 - We've heard it again and we'll hear some more and I'll have the rest of my time for at the end Yeah, 00:23:27.087 --> 00:23:34.888 - thank you Kevin go ahead and have you take a seat We're back to the board questions at this point for 00:23:34.888 --> 00:23:42.613 - the city and for the petitioner, I'm sorry Kevin We may call you back up Does anyone have a question 00:23:42.613 --> 00:23:46.590 - for the petitioner? Okay, anything for the city Yes 00:23:50.402 --> 00:24:00.555 - Thank you for the presentation really well done. So the on the driveway cut in the alley if there if 00:24:00.555 --> 00:24:11.010 - there was a smaller driveway cut would that be allowed. I'm talking about a smaller driveway cut almost 00:24:11.010 --> 00:24:18.750 - like a driveway correct that you go in and then the parking spaces up there. 00:24:19.522 --> 00:24:27.262 - You see what I'm saying. Not this whole block of concrete open in the back. I believe the regulation 00:24:27.262 --> 00:24:35.155 - would still be the same that it's limited to 20 feet wide off of the alley. There is an exception that 00:24:35.155 --> 00:24:43.201 - it can be longer than 20 feet if it's leading to a detached garage or something like that. But otherwise 00:24:43.201 --> 00:24:47.646 - if it's just a parking area it's limited to 20 feet wide. 00:24:48.354 --> 00:24:55.571 - 20 feet from the alley total. Yes. So it wouldn't be a driveway. Yeah it's not exactly a driveway it's 00:24:55.571 --> 00:25:02.577 - a parking area but yeah yeah the width is 20 feet. Yeah I was just wondering you know like when you 00:25:02.577 --> 00:25:09.863 - have a driveway in the front of course you would have a driveway that it's the driveway with that meets 00:25:09.863 --> 00:25:17.150 - the road and then it can be widened in the back to fit more cars. That's that's that's what I'm asking. 00:25:17.698 --> 00:25:25.536 - Access comes exclusively from an alley you're allowed a 20 foot wide by 20 foot deep Parking area and 00:25:25.536 --> 00:25:33.221 - that's the extent as miss Kreindler said if it leads to a detached garage Then it can be deeper. It 00:25:33.221 --> 00:25:40.906 - can exceed that 20 foot depth to get to a garage But otherwise, it's always restricted to a 20 foot 00:25:40.906 --> 00:25:42.366 - width in the front 00:25:42.690 --> 00:25:49.004 - A driveway could widen once you get past the front building setback area, which I think is what you 00:25:49.004 --> 00:25:55.696 - were kind of alluding to But that's only in the front When it's accessed from a street So if the driveway 00:25:55.696 --> 00:26:02.199 - was in the front and it would come all the way from the back of the back of the house And then you can 00:26:02.199 --> 00:26:04.030 - have a wider bed in the back 00:26:04.706 --> 00:26:15.221 - Yes, so along the front the driveway width is restricted to 18 feet wide once you get past the building 00:26:15.221 --> 00:26:26.140 - setback Then you can widen past that Okay Thank you any other questions for the staff, yeah Have a question 00:26:26.140 --> 00:26:34.430 - I Think one of the things that was referenced is that the size of the parking pad 00:26:35.298 --> 00:26:44.281 - Exceeds the maximum geometry that's permitted. Is that correct. If it was just the if it was just the 00:26:44.281 --> 00:26:53.176 - permitted four spaces would have had that accommodates the four spaces being compliance. No. So with 00:26:53.176 --> 00:27:01.630 - the limitation of it being 20 feet by 20 feet that really only accommodates two parking spaces. 00:27:01.922 --> 00:27:08.381 - So even for four parking spaces, which is the maximum the UDO allows, you would still need a bigger 00:27:08.381 --> 00:27:14.904 - parking area. You need a variance, like what the petitioner is asking, to have a bigger parking pad. 00:27:14.904 --> 00:27:21.620 - The UDO only allows 20 by 20 feet, which really only accommodates the two parking spaces. So that meets 00:27:21.620 --> 00:27:26.206 - the minimum parking that the UDO allows, but it would limit it to two. 00:27:32.290 --> 00:27:40.403 - Any other questions Before we move on I do want to clarify one thing for for for the record the petitioner 00:27:40.403 --> 00:27:48.212 - did state that Something to the effect of he was asked to bring back an earlier design for us for this 00:27:48.212 --> 00:27:56.097 - petition Continuance it wasn't a request to bring back a previous design the statement that I made last 00:27:56.097 --> 00:28:00.798 - meeting was that design was closer to fulfilling the needs of 00:28:01.186 --> 00:28:06.829 - than the one that you presented to us last. So I do want to make sure that that's clear for the record 00:28:06.829 --> 00:28:12.418 - that the board did not ask for a specific design to be brought back to us. So with that, if there are 00:28:12.418 --> 00:28:18.171 - no other questions, we will go to the public. How many people to show a hand would like to speak tonight 00:28:18.171 --> 00:28:23.979 - to this? OK, great. So what we'll do is there's five minutes apiece. We'll just have you come up. There's 00:28:23.979 --> 00:28:29.567 - plenty of time. So come up. You'll need to sign in. And then same as everyone else, you'll state your 00:28:29.567 --> 00:28:30.718 - first and last name. 00:28:30.850 --> 00:28:37.231 - And then we will affirm your testimony and go on if you would like to do it in a certain order I'd be 00:28:37.231 --> 00:28:43.674 - happy to have you line up across the front in the order in which you'd like to speak or else you could 00:28:43.674 --> 00:28:50.180 - stay in your seat and come up when there's an opportunity so with that We'll have the first person sign 00:28:50.180 --> 00:28:55.998 - in And I before you do I just want to be clear about how this process works there won't be a 00:28:56.098 --> 00:29:00.993 - Questions and answers from the public to the board or to the city you can make statements you can ask 00:29:00.993 --> 00:29:06.128 - questions in your statements But the board nor the city are are compelled to actually specifically address 00:29:06.128 --> 00:29:11.120 - that with you So just please understand that but it's not to say that they're not being heard So I just 00:29:11.120 --> 00:29:16.159 - want to make that clear first and last name, please Jane st John and do you affirm the testimony? You're 00:29:16.159 --> 00:29:21.006 - about to give us the truth old truth of nothing with the truth I do and you have up to five minutes, 00:29:21.006 --> 00:29:22.014 - please. Thank you. I 00:29:23.490 --> 00:29:30.729 - Want to acknowledge first of all the stamina of everyone involved in this multi-month discussion Since 00:29:30.729 --> 00:29:38.179 - not everyone plans to speak tonight. If you were here today to oppose the building of this duplex, please 00:29:38.179 --> 00:29:45.910 - raise your hand Thank you as my neighbors will discuss in more detail after me the structure is inappropriate 00:29:45.910 --> 00:29:52.798 - for our neighborhood because it is disproportionately over massed and outstanding in its size and 00:29:53.346 --> 00:30:00.870 - Standing 26 feet tall and set close to the street its uninterrupted profile will loom excessively over 00:30:00.870 --> 00:30:08.541 - the lowest point on the block Furthermore this block of Wiley between Lincoln and Henderson lacks proper 00:30:08.541 --> 00:30:15.992 - infrastructure for cars bikes and pedestrians Unlike parallel streets. We have no curbs. No sidewalks 00:30:15.992 --> 00:30:22.494 - and several narrow pinch points the congestion at Henderson Wiley is well documented and 00:30:23.298 --> 00:30:30.155 - Councilwoman Piedmont Smith has highlighted the safety risk posed by this inadequate infrastructure 00:30:30.155 --> 00:30:37.081 - That factor alone is sufficient grounds to reject this proposal Since I support density I would like 00:30:37.081 --> 00:30:44.144 - to point out that this section of Wiley Street has already absorbed a significant amount of it We have 00:30:44.144 --> 00:30:51.070 - added to 13 residents on this block over the past eight years without demolishing a single house and 00:30:51.650 --> 00:30:58.512 - We understand how density can fit into our neighborhood. But this proposed structure is not the right 00:30:58.512 --> 00:31:05.374 - fit. I urge the board to deny this request. Thank you very much for your time and service. Thank you. 00:31:33.026 --> 00:31:40.325 - Does everyone have a copy they need? Do we need any okay, that's good. So state your first and last 00:31:40.325 --> 00:31:47.843 - name Jan sorby and do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth old truth and nothing 00:31:47.843 --> 00:31:55.433 - but the truth I do you have this many as five minutes, please This graphic that you're looking at right 00:31:55.433 --> 00:32:02.878 - now shows all six existing houses on East Wiley block face Sitting in the middle is a proposed duplex 00:32:03.586 --> 00:32:11.126 - The drawing is to scale and placed on the same baseline so you can compare the building without changes 00:32:11.126 --> 00:32:18.521 - in the elevation. One important note, the developer's drawings do not give the height for the exposed 00:32:18.521 --> 00:32:26.279 - foundations, so the duplex actually may sit somewhat higher than you see here. I made this graphic because 00:32:26.279 --> 00:32:31.934 - I think it's extremely difficult to look at photos and architectural drawings 00:32:32.066 --> 00:32:40.473 - And imagine how a proposed building will relate to the whole block face. But I hope putting them together 00:32:40.473 --> 00:32:48.563 - makes the relationship easier for you to see. These six houses are not identical, but they were built 00:32:48.563 --> 00:32:56.574 - about the same time and they form a very consistent group. They share similar proportions and scale. 00:32:57.250 --> 00:33:04.768 - Their shapes are primarily low and horizontal with simple front walls and rough lines. When we move 00:33:04.768 --> 00:33:12.436 - down a street, we experience these houses together as part of a street, a set, not one at a time. And 00:33:12.436 --> 00:33:20.029 - that is exactly why the block face matters. Now look at the proposed duplex sitting in the middle of 00:33:20.029 --> 00:33:26.494 - that group. The contrast is jarring. It interrupts the visual flow on the block face. 00:33:27.458 --> 00:33:36.513 - The ordinance asks you to compare shape, size, and design. So let's look at all three of those things. 00:33:36.513 --> 00:33:45.305 - Shape. Look at the silhouettes and the proportions. The existing houses are low and horizontal. The 00:33:45.305 --> 00:33:54.184 - duplex is tall and vertical. Size. Let's look at the overall scale. The existing houses have similar 00:33:54.184 --> 00:33:56.382 - modest scale. The duplex 00:33:56.770 --> 00:34:05.120 - has a much larger presence on the block face. Design. Look at how the building is put together. The 00:34:05.120 --> 00:34:13.469 - existing houses have simple front walls and roof lines. The duplex has multi-projections, recesses, 00:34:13.469 --> 00:34:21.819 - and intersecting roof lines. Now compare the duplex to the existing house as a group. Look at their 00:34:21.819 --> 00:34:24.574 - silhouette, compare their scale, 00:34:24.962 --> 00:34:32.535 - and look at how the buildings are put together. That is how you really see, that is the way in which 00:34:32.535 --> 00:34:40.183 - you can really see if the duplex fits the pattern of this specific block face. However, if we look at 00:34:40.183 --> 00:34:47.682 - just one house at a time, we probably can find something it shares with the duplex. But sharing one 00:34:47.682 --> 00:34:54.430 - feature with one house is not the same as being similar to the pattern of the block face. 00:34:55.394 --> 00:35:03.999 - When you look at the majority, the pattern becomes clear. The existing houses are low, horizontal, and 00:35:03.999 --> 00:35:12.603 - very simple. The proposed duplex is tall, vertical, and very complex. Compatibility means fitting into 00:35:12.603 --> 00:35:21.542 - the established built pattern of the block face. The questions you must answer tonight is if this proposed 00:35:21.542 --> 00:35:24.382 - duplex is similar in shape, size, 00:35:24.610 --> 00:35:32.389 - Design to the majority of the existing houses on this block base If you see the difference the answer 00:35:32.389 --> 00:35:37.118 - must be no, please reject this proposal. Thank you. Thank you 00:36:07.490 --> 00:36:13.883 - Eric before you I see one person in public online. Is that right? Just may want to keep track of that 00:36:13.883 --> 00:36:20.340 - too as we go along, please. Please state your first and last name. Do you see that er von der Schmidt? 00:36:20.340 --> 00:36:26.796 - Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the 00:36:26.796 --> 00:36:30.494 - truth I do Please five minutes. Thank you. Good evening. I 00:36:31.586 --> 00:36:39.259 - The 2018 comprehensive plan as amended in April 2026 states and neighborhood background neighborhood 00:36:39.259 --> 00:36:47.311 - residential background and intent single-family residential development is the dominant land use activity 00:36:47.311 --> 00:36:54.984 - for this district in land use development approvals the plan says new and redevelopment activity for 00:36:54.984 --> 00:36:59.390 - this district is mostly limited to remodeling existing or 00:36:59.522 --> 00:37:06.932 - constructing new single-family residences and States single lot development should not dominate or detract 00:37:06.932 --> 00:37:13.995 - from the neighborhood context The plan recognized that an attraction of older homes quote can lead to 00:37:13.995 --> 00:37:21.059 - the phenomena of people purchasing these homes purely for their desirable urban locations and Tearing 00:37:21.059 --> 00:37:25.214 - down the existing structure to make way for brand new homes 00:37:25.762 --> 00:37:33.901 - Such homes may not fit into the period context of their surroundings and can negatively impact the fabric 00:37:33.901 --> 00:37:41.580 - of the entire neighborhood Unchecked this practice can lead to the loss of affordable housing stock 00:37:41.580 --> 00:37:50.334 - This proposal demolishes an affordable two-bedroom home to create a six-bedroom student oriented duplex it states 00:37:51.074 --> 00:37:58.176 - New multifamily housing projects catering largely to students must be better planned and distributed 00:37:58.176 --> 00:38:05.208 - adjacent to campus or in underdeveloped commercial corridors along transit routes outside downtown. 00:38:05.208 --> 00:38:11.326 - This is neither adjacent to campus nor along a commercial corridor or a transit route. 00:38:12.706 --> 00:38:20.832 - The plan also states adopt zoning regulations that ensure to the extent possible that any student oriented 00:38:20.832 --> 00:38:28.731 - multifamily housing development can successfully transition to serving other populations as the student 00:38:28.731 --> 00:38:36.477 - market evolves and demand changes. This design does not transition well to serving other populations. 00:38:36.477 --> 00:38:40.958 - Staff report asserts this meets the goals of policy 5.3.1. 00:38:41.826 --> 00:38:50.649 - However, the last sentence of 531 plainly states avoid placing these high-density forms in single-family 00:38:50.649 --> 00:38:59.220 - neighborhoods. Staff doesn't mention policy 5.3.4, redirect new student-oriented housing developments 00:38:59.220 --> 00:39:05.438 - away from downtown and nearby areas and toward more appropriate locations 00:39:05.538 --> 00:39:13.092 - closely proximate to the IU campus that already contain a relatively high percentage of student-oriented 00:39:13.092 --> 00:39:20.645 - housing units. Policy 5.2.1, evaluate all new developments and redevelopment in light of their potential 00:39:20.645 --> 00:39:28.559 - to positively or adversely impact the overall health and well-being of the people who live in the surrounding 00:39:28.559 --> 00:39:29.566 - neighborhood. 00:39:30.274 --> 00:39:37.486 - A six-bedroom, six-bath duplex in this block is not a positive impact on the people who live on Wiley 00:39:37.486 --> 00:39:44.627 - Street. As a conditional use, any redevelopment should be evaluated on its own, irrespective of past 00:39:44.627 --> 00:39:51.909 - approvals or denials. The UDO provides three reasons to deny this conditional use. The proposed duplex 00:39:51.909 --> 00:39:56.222 - is out of scale with five of seven houses on the block face. 00:39:57.218 --> 00:40:04.242 - In our three zoning specifically language was inserted stating demolition of single-family homes is 00:40:04.242 --> 00:40:11.407 - to be discouraged. The street as built does not support additional parking. Wiley is signed as a bike 00:40:11.407 --> 00:40:18.642 - route from Washington to Henderson. Forcing more vehicles to park on this street creates a real public 00:40:18.642 --> 00:40:21.662 - safety issue for pedestrians and cyclists. 00:40:22.754 --> 00:40:29.205 - Smaller single-story four-bedroom duplex probably wouldn't have received much objection An addition 00:40:29.205 --> 00:40:35.655 - to the rear with two or three bedrooms might not cause much concern either But what you have before 00:40:35.655 --> 00:40:42.106 - you is in fact a two thousand nine hundred and thirty square foot two-story duplex dwelling looming 00:40:42.106 --> 00:40:48.686 - over the streetscape that's a hundred and eight to a hundred and sixty three percent larger than four 00:40:48.686 --> 00:40:50.750 - out of seven existing homes and 00:40:51.650 --> 00:40:59.586 - If judged against the comprehensive plan in the UDO, a six bed, six bath, student-oriented duplex in 00:40:59.586 --> 00:41:07.522 - this location does not support the goals set forth in the 2018 comprehensive plan, and I urge you to 00:41:07.522 --> 00:41:11.294 - deny the conditional use. Thank you. Thank you. 00:41:34.178 --> 00:41:39.663 - You state your first and last name Julie von der Schmidt and Julie do you affirm the testimony you're 00:41:39.663 --> 00:41:45.256 - about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Okay you have five minutes. 00:41:45.256 --> 00:41:50.849 - I'm here tonight to respectfully ask that you deny the conditional use request for this proposed duplex 00:41:50.849 --> 00:41:55.582 - dwelling. Other speakers have and will focus specifically on this lot and the proposal. 00:41:56.130 --> 00:42:03.039 - But we acknowledge that at last month's meeting the petitioner referenced other duplexes along Roosevelt 00:42:03.039 --> 00:42:09.618 - Woodburn as well as the existing duplex on Wiley as to why his proposal should be accepted. However 00:42:09.618 --> 00:42:16.592 - his proposal is different from those. North Roosevelt is the conversion of and in addition to an existing 00:42:16.592 --> 00:42:20.606 - structure. It does not change or overshadow the streetscape. 00:42:21.346 --> 00:42:28.148 - The parcel is in closer proximity to campus with access to campus amenities such as parking 00:42:28.148 --> 00:42:36.281 - and transportation. It is on the outer edge of the R3 zone just three lots from R.M. The street is designated 00:42:36.281 --> 00:42:43.674 - as no parking along the east side. North Woodburn is similarly a poor comparison as the property is 00:42:43.674 --> 00:42:48.702 - appropriately zoned M.M. and sits directly adjacent to R.M. zoning. 00:42:48.962 --> 00:42:56.191 - The street improvements along that block face include sidewalks curbs and residential permit parking. 00:42:56.191 --> 00:43:03.420 - The last comparison was 5 0 6 5 10 Wiley which was an infill build on a vacant lot and while duplexes 00:43:03.420 --> 00:43:11.216 - might be allowed but I feel counter to our three zoning this variance request did not involve the destruction 00:43:11.216 --> 00:43:13.342 - of a single family structure. 00:43:14.050 --> 00:43:21.164 - So the proposal before you tonight involves the demolition of an existing home in the heart of an R3 00:43:21.164 --> 00:43:28.489 - zone. The parcel is approximately two and a half blocks from the nearest change in zoning and sits next 00:43:28.489 --> 00:43:35.744 - to a pedestrian greenway. The street offers limited parking with no sidewalks or curbs and has signage 00:43:35.744 --> 00:43:43.422 - designating it a bike route. So those distinctions and differences in proposals are different and important. 00:43:43.650 --> 00:43:50.156 - Indifferences in proposals and locations are important but I have a specific concern over a portion 00:43:50.156 --> 00:43:56.791 - of last month's meeting and that is the discussion around parking and the proposal assertion that Mr. 00:43:56.791 --> 00:44:03.427 - Spicer and the city would work out regarding asphalt in the unimproved part of Wiley which Kevin took 00:44:03.427 --> 00:44:09.022 - part of my thunder there but I will cite an email from Andrew Seaboard city engineer. 00:44:09.122 --> 00:44:15.176 - Regarding parking between the three and four hundred blocks of Wiley or the in the three hundred and 00:44:15.176 --> 00:44:21.170 - four hundred blocks staff determined the road this is a quote staff determined the roadway width is 00:44:21.170 --> 00:44:27.464 - generally insufficient for vehicles to park on both sides of the road at a given point while maintaining 00:44:27.464 --> 00:44:33.758 - the 12 foot of space for traffic. And most importantly regarding that conversation was just using public 00:44:33.758 --> 00:44:38.014 - property to bail out of private projects that's a dangerous precedent. 00:44:38.306 --> 00:44:44.647 - and privatizing our public right of way in the absence of public discussion as was mentioned last month 00:44:44.647 --> 00:44:50.988 - is really not an option of additional note. And in the photo earlier from staff there is a fire hydrant 00:44:50.988 --> 00:44:57.207 - at the northwest corner of the parcel and state and local law do not allow for parking within 15 feet 00:44:57.207 --> 00:45:03.365 - of a hydrant which further limits the availability of additional parking. Having parking at the back 00:45:03.365 --> 00:45:06.718 - of the house with a long walkway to the house does not 00:45:07.490 --> 00:45:13.125 - Seem to be a wise choice because nobody's going to want to walk 50 to 70 feet with their groceries in 00:45:13.125 --> 00:45:18.870 - the winter. They will park on Wiley. Brian Park neighbors have firsthand knowledge of what happens when 00:45:18.870 --> 00:45:24.450 - this level of density transitions from checkboxes and forms to living reality. It has led to chronic 00:45:24.450 --> 00:45:30.030 - traffic issues and congestion that push beyond property line blocking narrow public right of way and 00:45:30.030 --> 00:45:32.958 - posing a threat to drivers pedestrians and cyclists. 00:45:33.762 --> 00:45:40.590 - And finally this project runs counter to public welfare converting permanent housing stock into speculative 00:45:40.590 --> 00:45:47.165 - investor driven rentals drives up localized land values through permit per bedroom pricing models. This 00:45:47.165 --> 00:45:54.057 - prices out the very people Bloomington needs to retain professionals families retirees who wish to establish 00:45:54.057 --> 00:45:57.534 - roots and embrace community whether owning or renting. 00:45:58.498 --> 00:46:05.281 - And while many of us work towards sustainable affordable urban infill this specific proposal on its 00:46:05.281 --> 00:46:12.403 - own merits runs counter to several core standards established in the UDO. It is an escalation of density 00:46:12.403 --> 00:46:19.186 - that will overshadow not enhance the block face and it poses a danger to the safety of those on the 00:46:19.186 --> 00:46:22.238 - street. I can ask you to vote no. Thank you. 00:46:41.762 --> 00:46:47.562 - Last name, please John Lawrence and John. Do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth 00:46:47.562 --> 00:46:53.086 - the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you five minutes. Thank you. So good evening. 00:46:53.086 --> 00:46:58.776 - I want to focus Tonight on two possible findings of fact that could support denial of this project The 00:46:58.776 --> 00:47:04.355 - first is a general finding under the conditional use standards. The second is a use specific finding 00:47:04.355 --> 00:47:08.830 - under the standard for duplexes I think both could be stated pretty simply first 00:47:09.410 --> 00:47:15.887 - Wiley Street and the surrounding infrastructure do not have adequate capacity for this proposed use 00:47:15.887 --> 00:47:22.624 - Simple and second this duplex is not similar in shape size and design to the majority of the structures 00:47:22.624 --> 00:47:29.619 - on this block face under section 20.0 6.0 4o D 6c the board is asked whether public services and facilities 00:47:29.619 --> 00:47:36.420 - are adequate including streets and vehicle and pedestrian access and whether significant adverse impacts 00:47:36.420 --> 00:47:38.558 - have been minimized or mitigated 00:47:38.754 --> 00:47:44.276 - So let me start there. Wiley Street is a narrow, minimally improved residential street. You can see 00:47:44.276 --> 00:47:49.852 - it up on the screen. There's a shot just the other day. This proposal would put a six-bedroom duplex 00:47:49.852 --> 00:47:55.374 - with four off-street parking spaces on it. The board could look at the width of the street, the way 00:47:55.374 --> 00:48:01.061 - cars park there now, the condition of the street edges, and the access to this property, and find that 00:48:01.061 --> 00:48:06.803 - adequate street and vehicle capacity has not been demonstrated for this level of use. So this is Wiley. 00:48:06.803 --> 00:48:07.742 - This is it here. 00:48:09.474 --> 00:48:15.531 - When cars are parked there the usable travel area gets a very narrow There are no conventional curbs 00:48:15.531 --> 00:48:21.827 - or sidewalks and the street edges are largely unimproved the city's own assessment supports that concern 00:48:21.827 --> 00:48:27.884 - as you heard from Julie that Andrew Seabor said that It's not big enough So this is more than saying 00:48:27.884 --> 00:48:34.060 - Wiley feels narrow The city has already recognized a real limitation on how parking and moving traffic 00:48:34.060 --> 00:48:37.598 - can coexist there. I Want to give you one local comparison 00:48:38.338 --> 00:48:44.342 - I was heavily involved in the development on South Dunn Street between Hillside and Grimes. This is 00:48:44.342 --> 00:48:50.527 - the street developed about 20 years ago, 2025, with multicolored bungalows. I measured the travel lane 00:48:50.527 --> 00:48:56.952 - near Grimes at about 14 feet wide. So in that sense, it's comparable to Wiley. But South Dunn was designed 00:48:56.952 --> 00:49:02.956 - around that narrowness. It has a dedicated parking lane on one side, sidewalks on both sides, green 00:49:02.956 --> 00:49:05.598 - strips separating pedestrians from traffic, 00:49:05.730 --> 00:49:11.691 - Short blocks and allies that give vehicles frequent places to turn off or get out of the way Wiley doesn't 00:49:11.691 --> 00:49:17.484 - have those protections. It's a long street with a relatively few alternate places to go If you're going 00:49:17.484 --> 00:49:23.111 - down the road and cars coming towards you, you got to back up half the time And even with the better 00:49:23.111 --> 00:49:28.682 - infrastructure on South Dunn emergency access was a major concern the fire chief initially objected 00:49:28.682 --> 00:49:32.414 - because of concerns about getting a fire truck down the street and 00:49:32.770 --> 00:49:37.922 - and ultimately agreed only after residential sprinklers were proposed and installed. That's why the 00:49:37.922 --> 00:49:43.126 - actual condition of Wiley matters. The question isn't whether one more car can physically drive down 00:49:43.126 --> 00:49:48.793 - it. The question is whether this street and the access it provides have adequate capacity for this particular 00:49:48.793 --> 00:49:51.678 - proposal while still serving the existing neighborhood. 00:49:52.546 --> 00:49:59.302 - The board could also find that the size and occupancy of this duplex, together with narrow street and 00:49:59.302 --> 00:50:06.124 - limited infrastructure, would create impacts on parking, circulation, and vehicle access that have not 00:50:06.124 --> 00:50:14.072 - been adequately mitigated. That gives you the first finding. The second finding is use specific. Section 20.03.030B3C2, 00:50:14.072 --> 00:50:15.198 - it's a mouthful, 00:50:15.298 --> 00:50:20.770 - says that a duplex must be similar in general shape, size, and design to the majority of the existing 00:50:20.770 --> 00:50:26.189 - single family or duplex structure on the same block face. That gives you a straightforward basis for 00:50:26.189 --> 00:50:31.715 - a finding. Look at the houses on the block face, look at the proposed duplex, compare its shape, size, 00:50:31.715 --> 00:50:37.403 - and design, then decide whether it's actually similar to the majority of what is already there. So really 00:50:37.403 --> 00:50:42.982 - I'm asking you to make two findings. First, Wiley Street and the surrounding infrastructure do not have 00:50:42.982 --> 00:50:45.182 - adequate capacity for this proposed use. 00:50:45.346 --> 00:50:51.070 - This duplex is not similar in shape, size, and design to the majority of the structures on this blackface. 00:50:51.070 --> 00:50:56.848 - And if the board wants help putting either finding into the right form, staff can assist. In past hearings, 00:50:56.848 --> 00:51:02.305 - staff has helped translate the board's reasoning into a clear finding of fact. A finding doesn't have 00:51:02.305 --> 00:51:08.190 - to be complicated. What is the standard? What are the facts? And do those facts meet the standard? Thank you. 00:51:13.218 --> 00:51:19.186 - Joe we do have one person online Let's go ahead and take that person sit and wait. We'll have you next 00:51:19.186 --> 00:51:25.096 - please You can go ahead and sign in though while you're waiting. Let's go to the person online. Could 00:51:25.096 --> 00:51:31.064 - you state your first and last name, please? Good evening members of board. My name is Eric Oates Eric, 00:51:31.064 --> 00:51:37.090 - do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth 00:51:37.090 --> 00:51:42.942 - I Do you have five minutes? Thank you. Thank you for letting me offer me public comment this evening 00:51:44.642 --> 00:51:51.064 - I'm speaking tonight regarding the petition for 412 East Wiley Street. The proposal before you would 00:51:51.064 --> 00:51:58.058 - demolish a naturally occurring single-family affordable home to construct an intensive two-story six-bedroom, 00:51:58.058 --> 00:52:04.798 - six-bathroom duplex. I request the board to deny this petition because it runs counter to the fundamental 00:52:04.798 --> 00:52:09.758 - standards set forth in our unified development ordinance for the R3 district. 00:52:10.594 --> 00:52:16.323 - Under Bloomington GDO the stated purpose of the R3 zoning district is clear to protect and 00:52:16.323 --> 00:52:23.059 - enhance established residential neighborhoods by increasing the viability of owner occupied and affordable 00:52:23.059 --> 00:52:29.669 - dwelling units. Crucially, the ordinance explicitly states that the conversion of existing housing stock 00:52:29.669 --> 00:52:35.902 - to more intense land uses is discouraged, especially where adequate infrastructure does not exist. 00:52:36.834 --> 00:52:43.682 - This fact has been evidence in the comments of prior speakers and I'm referring to the infrastructure 00:52:43.682 --> 00:52:50.732 - issues. Replacing existing modest modest starter home with an intensive rental structure does not create 00:52:50.732 --> 00:52:57.647 - affordability. Demolishing existing naturally occurring affordable housing under a premise notion that 00:52:57.647 --> 00:53:04.361 - newly constructed high density student oriented rentals will somehow filter down into affordability 00:53:04.361 --> 00:53:05.502 - or attainability 00:53:06.050 --> 00:53:11.946 - In terms of housing in the near or long term long term future in Bloomington, Indiana is contrary to 00:53:11.946 --> 00:53:17.841 - the purpose of our three zoning and to the evidence. The Board of Zoning Appeals exists precisely to 00:53:17.841 --> 00:53:23.737 - exercise discretion to safeguard the public interest and to ensure that new development is genuinely 00:53:23.737 --> 00:53:27.998 - compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. 00:53:29.282 --> 00:53:35.870 - With all due respect, this proposal will place severe pressure on already inadequate local infrastructure 00:53:35.870 --> 00:53:42.334 - and compound the negative effects already evidence. Increasing occupancy to six bedrooms on this parcel 00:53:42.334 --> 00:53:48.550 - will exacerbate street congestion and parking challenges on East Wiley, as well as post significant 00:53:48.550 --> 00:53:54.206 - impacts on emergency service response time, if not being a violation of Indiana Fire Code. 00:53:54.882 --> 00:54:01.717 - Growth in Bloomington should not come at the cost of erasing our established affordable homes and depleting 00:54:01.717 --> 00:54:08.236 - the few remaining entry-level owner-occupiable homes we have left. The UDO gives you the authority and 00:54:08.236 --> 00:54:14.945 - the responsibility to ensure conditional uses do not harm neighborhood character or run counter to zoning 00:54:14.945 --> 00:54:21.274 - district standards. I ask this board to deny the current petition for 412 East Wiley. Thank you for 00:54:21.274 --> 00:54:23.806 - your time and service to our community. 00:54:24.386 --> 00:54:32.811 - You've signed into first and last name, please Cory Gerhardt and do you affirm the testimony? You're 00:54:32.811 --> 00:54:41.320 - about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is. Thank you All right This 00:54:41.320 --> 00:54:49.662 - design fails to meet three of the four requirements for the use specific design elements in the UDO 00:54:50.306 --> 00:54:55.934 - One, the front porch widths and depths are not generally similar to any houses on the block face, much 00:54:55.934 --> 00:55:01.508 - less the majority required. The two porches on this proposal are not even generally similar in layout 00:55:01.508 --> 00:55:07.355 - to each other, and the block face simply doesn't have front porches. There's a metal awning over a portion 00:55:07.355 --> 00:55:12.492 - of the front deck on 400, and that's about it. The street view images of that aren't current, 00:55:12.492 --> 00:55:17.246 - by the way. There has been no attempt at a design consistent with the block face here. 00:55:17.730 --> 00:55:23.431 - Two, the front building setback is not compliant with the use specific standard. Mr. Spicer chose the 00:55:23.431 --> 00:55:29.410 - R3 build to line of 15 feet with no explanation of why this less restrictive, less specifically applicable 00:55:29.410 --> 00:55:35.223 - standard is appropriate. Monroe County GIS shows four properties with setbacks that are roughly 30 feet 00:55:35.223 --> 00:55:39.582 - or greater, including mine, and the map suggests these may be underestimates. 00:55:39.682 --> 00:55:45.432 - The staff report acknowledges 15 feet is out of step with the block face and the recently approved new 00:55:45.432 --> 00:55:51.126 - construction duplex at a thousand and four South Henderson also are three has a 25 foot setback. It's 00:55:51.126 --> 00:55:56.821 - unclear why 412 East Wiley is such an exception. Three is the most egregious. The rear access parking 00:55:56.821 --> 00:55:58.942 - is unlike any home on the block face. 00:55:59.234 --> 00:56:05.469 - The access must be generally similar to the majority of houses again seeking a consistent appearance 00:56:05.469 --> 00:56:11.766 - and zero of them use rear access parking six of them use front access one uses side access Mr. Spicer 00:56:11.766 --> 00:56:18.001 - is free to use all three of these design choices if he builds by right, but he chose not to he chose 00:56:18.001 --> 00:56:22.878 - conditional use none of these elements are compliant and Then there's the size 00:56:23.490 --> 00:56:29.011 - In your packet, you'll find a council staff memo from former State of Indiana Deputy Attorney General, 00:56:29.011 --> 00:56:34.585 - former Bloomington City Attorney, and current interim council staff attorney Larry Allen from less than 00:56:34.585 --> 00:56:40.106 - a month ago interpreting the design requirements for duplexes in Bloomington. He states that the plain 00:56:40.106 --> 00:56:45.733 - language, quote, by definition includes the massing of the proposed development as it compares to houses 00:56:45.733 --> 00:56:51.200 - adjacent to it, end quote. And the massing of this proposal is, again, without precedent on the block 00:56:51.200 --> 00:56:52.862 - face. Could you turn the page? 00:56:53.666 --> 00:56:59.943 - Thank you So there's no confusion. Here are the official numbers from Monroe County 2026 property record 00:56:59.943 --> 00:57:06.040 - cards, which are included in your packet The proposal is 39 percent larger by finished square footage 00:57:06.040 --> 00:57:12.137 - than the largest house on the block face The four houses most similar to each other in square footage 00:57:12.137 --> 00:57:18.474 - range from 1113 to 1412 in a very reasonable sense This is the general size of the majority of the houses 00:57:18.474 --> 00:57:22.718 - on the block face The proposal more than doubles the upper end of that 00:57:23.458 --> 00:57:29.276 - The petitioner suggested that these massing requirements should be applied to his proposal on a per 00:57:29.276 --> 00:57:35.210 - unit basis. Code does not support this. The language is careful to differentiate between each unit in 00:57:35.210 --> 00:57:41.086 - a newly constructed duplex dwelling and the duplex dwelling. General shape, size, and design applies 00:57:41.086 --> 00:57:47.079 - to the duplex dwelling. And it would make no intuitive sense for the UDO to require consistent massing 00:57:47.079 --> 00:57:51.326 - and then allow a building that doubles it or triples it or quadruples it 00:57:52.066 --> 00:57:58.021 - The property record cards also show that no that there are no two-story homes on this block face. Two 00:57:58.021 --> 00:58:03.917 - homes have finished attic space, five do not. Next slide, please. At a little over 26 feet high from 00:58:03.917 --> 00:58:09.813 - roof peak to the top of the foundation, the height of this proposal is also far out of step with the 00:58:09.813 --> 00:58:15.943 - block face. Using the same measurement, the tallest existing house is less than 20 feet tall. The second 00:58:15.943 --> 00:58:21.022 - tallest is 18.2. After that, we go down to 15 feet high or less, my own home included. 00:58:21.378 --> 00:58:27.155 - The proposed design is 80% taller than the block face median. That's nearly double. Next, please. Mr. 00:58:27.155 --> 00:58:32.874 - Allen's interpretation is consistent with the theme that runs through the Comprehensive Plan and the 00:58:32.874 --> 00:58:38.651 - UDO. The Comprehensive Plan's land use approval guidance for this area, cited by staff, advises, it's 00:58:38.651 --> 00:58:44.428 - important to protect the existing single-family housing stock within this district. The conversion of 00:58:44.428 --> 00:58:48.222 - dwellings to multi-family or commercial use should be discouraged. 00:58:48.514 --> 00:58:56.901 - And Section 531, also cited by staff, closes with, avoid placing these high density forms in single 00:58:56.901 --> 00:59:05.288 - family neighborhoods. For what it's worth, staff confirms all of the surrounding properties contain 00:59:05.288 --> 00:59:08.894 - single family homes. Thank you. Thank you. 00:59:24.194 --> 00:59:30.815 - My name is Marcus Moir Marcus. Do you? Marcus Marcus Marcus Marcus do you firm the testimony you're 00:59:30.815 --> 00:59:37.635 - about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Yes, I do. Thank you five minutes 00:59:37.635 --> 00:59:44.322 - My neighbor Jodi Atkins who lives at 401 East Odd Street has asked me to read her statement into the 00:59:44.322 --> 00:59:51.075 - record because she couldn't be here I did want to say in addition to that my wife and I have lived at 00:59:51.075 --> 00:59:53.790 - 317 East Odd Street for 29 years now and 00:59:54.370 --> 01:00:02.993 - And I hope to continue to live there many for many years to come. So Jody's statement is that she's 01:00:02.993 --> 01:00:11.788 - writing to express. I'll just read this. I'm writing to express my concerns regarding proposed duplex 01:00:11.788 --> 01:00:21.790 - development on Wiley Street. I believe the structure is out of character with the design and architectural elements 01:00:22.210 --> 01:00:28.289 - that make the neighborhood such a beloved community. Beyond its appearance, I'm concerned that 01:00:28.289 --> 01:00:35.264 - the development will have an adverse impact on the safety, accessibility, and quality of life that residents 01:00:35.264 --> 01:00:42.303 - have come to expect in this area. In my view, this project does not promote affordable housing or sustainable 01:00:42.303 --> 01:00:49.278 - living. Rather, it is likely to attract college students who can afford higher rents and a newly constructed 01:00:49.278 --> 01:00:51.518 - residence located close to campus. 01:00:52.290 --> 01:00:58.661 - As a result, increased traffic, parking congestion, and overall density are significant concerns for 01:00:58.661 --> 01:01:05.222 - neighborhood residents, including children, pet owners, and elderly individuals. I also have a personal 01:01:05.222 --> 01:01:12.161 - concern regarding access to my property. My driveway and garage are located behind my home and are accessible 01:01:12.161 --> 01:01:18.847 - only via the alley west of the dead end of Palmer Street. This alley runs along the length of my backyard 01:01:18.847 --> 01:01:21.118 - and serves two other homes as well. 01:01:22.210 --> 01:01:28.172 - The only access point is the area where Palmer Avenue ends. I'm worried that vehicles belonging to duplex 01:01:28.172 --> 01:01:34.022 - occupants or visitors could block this access, preventing me and my neighbors from reaching our garages 01:01:34.022 --> 01:01:40.041 - or moving our vehicles when needed. I respectfully ask you that you consider the concerns of the residents 01:01:40.041 --> 01:01:45.665 - who call this neighborhood home. Please weigh in the long-term impacts this development may have on 01:01:45.665 --> 01:01:50.334 - the character, safety, and livability of the Bryant Park neighborhood and consider 01:01:50.498 --> 01:02:02.385 - Disproving this proposal. Thank you for your time consideration and service to our community Hi, I'm 01:02:02.385 --> 01:02:10.270 - Kim vent Can you hear me yes go ahead sign in have you said yes, I 01:02:20.002 --> 01:02:26.421 - And do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and that's but the 01:02:26.421 --> 01:02:32.903 - truth I do. Okay. Thank you. Well, I said it last month. I'm gonna say it again this month What's for 01:02:32.903 --> 01:02:39.830 - the greater good? Who are we? Our municipal code actually has some ideas protect the character the stability 01:02:39.830 --> 01:02:46.312 - of residential areas protect the scale and character of existing development from the encroachment of 01:02:46.312 --> 01:02:47.710 - incompatible uses and 01:02:49.026 --> 01:02:57.749 - Restrict the location and intensity of use of buildings in residential areas. Accommodate the need for 01:02:57.749 --> 01:03:06.641 - student housing while minimizing negative impacts of the housing on our residential areas. And encourage 01:03:06.641 --> 01:03:15.195 - the provision of affordable housing. Those are actually goals that the Board of Appeals are supposed 01:03:15.195 --> 01:03:19.006 - to follow, some of them. It's a small block. 01:03:19.106 --> 01:03:29.526 - we all know that, at most five bungalows on each side. What is best for the greater good? To keep that 01:03:29.526 --> 01:03:40.451 - house. Short of that, a reduction in the size, two bedrooms per side, one story. This would be in alignment 01:03:40.451 --> 01:03:46.622 - with a utile goal, compatible with the surrounding patterns. 01:03:48.418 --> 01:03:58.392 - Creating a driveway, pad for two cars off Wiley. We're all acutely aware, street's not wide enough. 01:03:58.392 --> 01:04:08.666 - As Isabelle's letter specifically states, the east and west entry points, as we already know, are best 01:04:08.666 --> 01:04:18.142 - one lane because of the other developments lacking compatibility. A redesign for affordability 01:04:19.106 --> 01:04:26.624 - Another you don't go would add to housing stock for our workforce. This is for the greater good. As 01:04:26.624 --> 01:04:34.216 - a citizenship, what's our goal? What do we want to do? There's no neighborhoods from 10th Street all 01:04:34.216 --> 01:04:41.358 - the way up to 22nd Street now. There's no neighborhoods. There used to be neighborhoods there. 01:04:41.358 --> 01:04:46.846 - They're gone. They're gone. This could happen. Here. Increasing density. 01:04:47.906 --> 01:04:58.796 - with affordability should be our goal. Not increasing density for profit alone. Duplex zoning in a college 01:04:58.796 --> 01:05:09.075 - town disproportionately benefits a developer without our firm oversight. Who are we? What should our 01:05:09.075 --> 01:05:16.606 - goals be as stewards of this neighborhood? Every single decision you make 01:05:17.762 --> 01:05:25.930 - As you know, it's mutually exclusive from any other decision. Decisions are made based upon the greater 01:05:25.930 --> 01:05:33.785 - good and the specific situation. What is best for the greater good, as the Udo outlines. This honey 01:05:33.785 --> 01:05:41.639 - block cannot sustain more. And I remember Kevin kinda laughing at one of the very first meetings we 01:05:41.639 --> 01:05:46.430 - had in here, that if he had to reduce it to the two bedroom, 01:05:46.978 --> 01:05:54.362 - We wouldn't be here. I remember him saying that, kinda laughing about it. But who wins in this denial? 01:05:54.362 --> 01:06:01.603 - We're all gonna win. As I said last month, Kevin, even you, when I asked you why at our neighborhood 01:06:01.603 --> 01:06:08.987 - meeting, you kinda laughed. You said you're gonna do all 40 some of your properties. You're gonna turn 01:06:08.987 --> 01:06:15.582 - them all into duplexes. So you still win. This is our only option. We live here. Thank you. 01:06:41.186 --> 01:06:48.097 - Good evening. My name is Tatiana Moyer and do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the 01:06:48.097 --> 01:06:55.216 - truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes You have five minutes I Respectfully ask that you 01:06:55.216 --> 01:07:02.265 - deny this petition this evening. This is not an argument against students or student housing students 01:07:02.265 --> 01:07:07.518 - need housing the question is where high density student housing belongs and 01:07:07.906 --> 01:07:15.334 - and what happens when established residential neighborhoods are gradually converted into student rentals. 01:07:15.334 --> 01:07:22.412 - I believe Bloomington needs to preserve walkable neighborhoods for permanent residents, whether they 01:07:22.412 --> 01:07:28.929 - rent or own. Our neighborhood is less than 10 minutes from downtown. We walk to the library, 01:07:28.929 --> 01:07:35.166 - grocery store, post office, restaurants, theater, and so on. Bloomington itself promotes 01:07:35.490 --> 01:07:43.443 - Walking and bicycling as alternative to driving But there is a fundamental contradiction if we promote 01:07:43.443 --> 01:07:51.473 - walking and biking while removing Modest homes that allow working people to afford to live close enough 01:07:51.473 --> 01:07:59.657 - to walk or bike to work a Local employee could live in a modest home like the one proposed for demolition 01:07:59.657 --> 01:08:04.830 - Walk a bicycle to work and become part of this permanent community 01:08:05.730 --> 01:08:13.913 - When that home is replaced with a six-bedroom student rental, we're not simply adding housing. We're 01:08:13.913 --> 01:08:22.258 - changing the type of housing available and changing who can live here. Bloomington's own comprehensive 01:08:22.258 --> 01:08:30.360 - plan recognizes minimizing displacement of working residents, preserving neighborhood stability and 01:08:30.360 --> 01:08:34.654 - character, encouraging reuse of existing structures, 01:08:35.074 --> 01:08:43.637 - and supporting permanent affordability. There's also a serious pedestrian safety issue. Wiley Street 01:08:43.637 --> 01:08:52.200 - has no sidewalks. Children play here. People walk, bicycle, walk their dogs in the roadway. Families 01:08:52.200 --> 01:08:57.118 - come to music lessons at, I believe, the house next door. 01:08:59.650 --> 01:09:07.356 - My husband has a near collision with a young driver living about a block away at the intersection of 01:09:07.356 --> 01:09:15.138 - Wiley and Henderson. He was approximately three inches from being seriously injured. Another neighbor 01:09:15.138 --> 01:09:22.844 - has experienced a similar near collision. I've personally witnessed several students riding bicycles 01:09:22.844 --> 01:09:29.406 - throughout the years or driving the wrong way on one way street nearby on Washington. 01:09:30.370 --> 01:09:38.828 - I'm not saying every student behaves this way, but adding four or five more vehicles to a narrow street 01:09:38.828 --> 01:09:47.205 - with no sidewalks increases an already existing safety problem. Do we really have to wait for somebody 01:09:47.205 --> 01:09:55.907 - to be seriously injured before we take this seriously? About a year ago, a similar student housing project 01:09:55.907 --> 01:09:59.486 - was approved nearby at Wiley and Henderson, 01:09:59.714 --> 01:10:08.060 - Residents warned about parking traffic and safety at the time those concerns have now become reality 01:10:08.060 --> 01:10:16.323 - Despite stackable off-street parking Vehicles are regularly parked on the street including near the 01:10:16.323 --> 01:10:24.586 - entrance and exit by the Wiley Henderson and Wiley Lincoln intersections on the other side So today 01:10:24.586 --> 01:10:28.222 - we have real-world evidence not speculation 01:10:28.930 --> 01:10:37.797 - We have also heard you approved similar projects before, but past approval is not a mandate for future 01:10:37.797 --> 01:10:46.837 - approval. If a previous decision produced unintended consequences, we should learn from that experience, 01:10:46.837 --> 01:10:55.102 - not compound it. If these properties are truly comparable, then compare the streets, sidewalks, 01:10:55.234 --> 01:11:03.052 - parking, pedestrian activity, traffic, and what actually happened after those projects were built. The 01:11:03.052 --> 01:11:10.719 - character of a neighborhood is not lost all at once. It changes one property at a time. We can house 01:11:10.719 --> 01:11:18.689 - students without sacrificing walkable neighborhoods, where permanent residents can afford to live, work, 01:11:18.689 --> 01:11:21.118 - raise families, and grow older. 01:11:21.346 --> 01:11:30.218 - help us preserve Wiley Street as a walkable and safe neighborhood for permanent residents while allowing 01:11:30.218 --> 01:11:38.667 - student housing in locations where that density is appropriate. We're asking you to learn from what 01:11:38.667 --> 01:11:47.369 - has already happened rather than simply repeat it. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you deny 01:11:47.369 --> 01:11:49.566 - this petition. Thank you. 01:12:01.538 --> 01:12:07.609 - Hello, my name is Pat Medland and have you signed in I can't see well enough to suck Okay, just give 01:12:07.609 --> 01:12:13.801 - me a moment then Pat Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and 01:12:13.801 --> 01:12:19.933 - nothing but the truth? I do you have five minutes? I wasn't prepared to speak. I'm just going to give 01:12:19.933 --> 01:12:26.124 - some anecdotal information My wife and I live at 505 East Dodd Street Right behind us a year or so ago 01:12:26.124 --> 01:12:31.294 - Duplex was put in it 504 506 East Wiley. It's got a dandy parking lot in the back and 01:12:31.490 --> 01:12:39.454 - In the back good enough for five or six cars Almost always the most we ever see is two sometimes three 01:12:39.454 --> 01:12:47.341 - cars in the meantime Wiley in front of the duplex has several cars in front of it once when IU is not 01:12:47.341 --> 01:12:55.614 - in session The street is pretty clear I walk I don't drive and as a result of this the driving and parking 01:12:55.614 --> 01:12:56.542 - arrangement 01:12:56.930 --> 01:13:04.401 - No longer walk along Miley when school was in session because it's so narrow and and to excuse me too 01:13:04.401 --> 01:13:11.872 - risky I don't know if the same thing would occur at this place, but I Do hope that you consider that. 01:13:11.872 --> 01:13:16.926 - Thank you. Thank you Make sure we get his name in the record, please 01:13:37.602 --> 01:13:44.879 - Go ahead and have you sign in and I'll go ahead and Swing in while you're doing that When you're finished 01:13:44.879 --> 01:13:51.744 - if you will affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing 01:13:51.744 --> 01:13:58.815 - but the truth Yes, thank you and you'll have up to five minutes Isabel Good evening. My name is Isabel 01:13:58.815 --> 01:14:05.886 - Piedmont Smith. I serve on the City Council representing district one which includes this neighborhood 01:14:07.554 --> 01:14:17.413 - I know that you have strict guidelines as to what you can and cannot consider when you evaluate conditional 01:14:17.413 --> 01:14:26.542 - use and variance approvals. So I will just focus on two parts of the UDO that I believe are not met 01:14:26.542 --> 01:14:36.766 - by this proposal. First of all, it does not meet you specific standards. As has been said before, there are not 01:14:36.930 --> 01:14:44.933 - other houses of this size and massing on the block. And particularly, and I think only one other speaker 01:14:44.933 --> 01:14:52.708 - pointed this out, number four in those new specific standards where it's supposed to compare with the 01:14:52.708 --> 01:15:00.330 - other houses on the block face, says vehicle parking access. None of the other houses on this block 01:15:00.330 --> 01:15:06.046 - access the vehicle parking from an alley like, that's not even, the alley, 01:15:06.178 --> 01:15:13.029 - on the house, it's a parallel alley. But anyway, none of them access the parking from an alley that 01:15:13.029 --> 01:15:19.948 - comes from a different street. So I don't see how you can approve that. Even if you're not approving 01:15:19.948 --> 01:15:27.279 - the variance for the parking, that's the plan you have in front of you, so I don't see how you can approve 01:15:27.279 --> 01:15:34.609 - that. Secondly, it does not meet conditional use approval criteria. There's insufficient public facilities 01:15:34.609 --> 01:15:35.774 - at this location 01:15:35.938 --> 01:15:44.619 - The street is too narrow. It's already not safe for Pedestrians and bicyclists and cars to share there 01:15:44.619 --> 01:15:53.047 - are no sidewalks There already are concerns about emergency vehicles getting through the street and 01:15:53.047 --> 01:16:01.897 - as we heard Even if parking is provided behind the house It is highly likely that Residents and or their 01:16:01.897 --> 01:16:04.510 - guests will park on the street 01:16:05.634 --> 01:16:16.422 - So for those two reasons, plus the many that have been stated, but those are two reasons specifically 01:16:16.422 --> 01:16:26.998 - tied to what you're supposed to consider. Please vote no. Thank you. Thank you. And David, go ahead 01:16:26.998 --> 01:16:29.854 - and sign in. Good evening. 01:16:37.666 --> 01:16:46.272 - And do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth alters and that's but the truth Yes, 01:16:46.272 --> 01:16:54.710 - I do Dave you have five minutes. Thank you very much and Thank you board members for your service to 01:16:54.710 --> 01:17:03.316 - the community. I'm so many Good reasons to deny this. I think there's ample reasons to do so so I come 01:17:03.316 --> 01:17:05.822 - here to Add a context to this 01:17:06.370 --> 01:17:16.558 - Discussion and that is that Although I didn't support the plexing debate back in 2021 there was the 01:17:16.558 --> 01:17:26.951 - council affirmed a need to reflect in the code that the conditional use that you're considering Would 01:17:26.951 --> 01:17:36.222 - refer to the scale and massing of the proposed structures why because This was it was seen 01:17:36.578 --> 01:17:46.696 - This could be a mechanism for losing our affordable housing stock in conversion to much less affordable 01:17:46.696 --> 01:17:57.009 - plexed rentals and by maximizing the scale it is essentially providing an enormous incentive to eliminate 01:17:57.009 --> 01:18:05.278 - affordability in our community this was affirmed by the this concern for massing was 01:18:05.474 --> 01:18:14.695 - affirmed by our council attorney Larry Allen as Mr. Gerhard said in a memo to council members and For 01:18:14.695 --> 01:18:23.826 - clarification reasons several of us on the City Council including my colleague Isabel Piedmont Smith 01:18:23.826 --> 01:18:32.957 - are interested in sponsoring an amendment so that we we derive the clarity that might be lacking but 01:18:32.957 --> 01:18:34.494 - is essentially a 01:18:35.010 --> 01:18:44.194 - stated in various ways and But if you if you hear conflict and ambiguity There isn't on the part of 01:18:44.194 --> 01:18:53.469 - mr. Allen, but we want to make sure that that It is unambiguous in the future because it does matter 01:18:53.469 --> 01:19:02.652 - the size and massing That's what it was intended when the amendments to the UDO were sponsored back 01:19:02.652 --> 01:19:04.030 - in 2021 and as 01:19:04.162 --> 01:19:14.915 - Further evidence. I was I was given this which is very interesting. It's a memo to then planning director 01:19:14.915 --> 01:19:25.059 - Terry Porter and Scott Robinson from Clarion Associates, which was the consultant That was hired to 01:19:25.059 --> 01:19:30.334 - write the UDO Amendments and in this March 5th 2019 01:19:31.234 --> 01:19:41.567 - titled Bloomington UDO Update Consolidated Draft to the Planning Department. It states that, and this 01:19:41.567 --> 01:19:52.305 - is under the heading of the Ordnance Foundation, Chapter 20.01, and under 20.03.020, the Table of Allowed 01:19:52.305 --> 01:20:00.510 - Uses said is introducing several missing middle housing types, including Plexus. 01:20:00.770 --> 01:20:08.598 - To the use table to provide Dwelling units compatible in scale or only marginally larger than 01:20:08.598 --> 01:20:17.009 - the single-family homes and To help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living So they stated 01:20:17.009 --> 01:20:25.587 - there that massing mattered too, and that was their recommendation for the our code Which is reflected 01:20:25.587 --> 01:20:30.334 - in the code so I would ask you to deny this petition and 01:20:30.978 --> 01:20:43.755 - You have plentiful reasons to not to grant this conditional use and Let's do what we can to protect 01:20:43.755 --> 01:20:51.038 - affordable housing in our community. Thank you Thank you 01:21:01.058 --> 01:21:10.283 - Betty Rose Nagel and I'm signing in now. And Betty do you affirm the testimony you're about to give 01:21:10.283 --> 01:21:19.508 - us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Five minutes. I don't live 01:21:19.508 --> 01:21:26.334 - on Wiley. I don't live in Brian Park neighborhood. I live in Elm Heights. 01:21:26.882 --> 01:21:36.241 - I walk a lot in Elm Heights and I also walk a lot in Bryan Park on Dodds on Dixie on Davis and on Wiley. 01:21:36.241 --> 01:21:45.510 - I love it. I love it absolutely as much as I do my own neighborhood. One point I'd like to make is that 01:21:45.510 --> 01:21:54.512 - the Bryan Park neighborhood and the Elm Heights neighborhood already have duplexes and I don't think 01:21:54.512 --> 01:21:55.582 - most people 01:21:56.578 --> 01:22:02.948 - driving by them would realize that there are any different from the rest, that you might not even know 01:22:02.948 --> 01:22:09.256 - that they are in fact duplexes. There's one, I don't think it's on Dodds, but there's one I passed in 01:22:09.256 --> 01:22:15.688 - the Elm Heights neighborhood that I had to pass several times before I stopped and looked and realized, 01:22:15.688 --> 01:22:21.502 - oh no, I mean, yes, it's a long, narrow structure, but yeah, there are two, one on each side. 01:22:22.018 --> 01:22:30.569 - So I don't think it's really a question of duplex. I think it's a question of the size of the duplex 01:22:30.569 --> 01:22:39.204 - and possibly the purpose of the duplex. A two sided duplex can belong to one family who lives in part 01:22:39.204 --> 01:22:48.094 - of it and rents the rest of it. It could belong to one very large family that has multi generations. But 01:22:48.898 --> 01:22:55.772 - It's getting to be, it seems to me, you can look at a house that was, or excuse me, not a house, a duplex 01:22:55.772 --> 01:23:02.256 - that was recently built and is now being lived in at the corner of Henderson and First Street. That 01:23:02.256 --> 01:23:08.805 - is what seems to be getting to be the standard duplex model, which is six bedrooms, three on a side, 01:23:08.805 --> 01:23:15.549 - really intended for rental to students who will live there maybe a year, maybe two years. My experience 01:23:15.549 --> 01:23:18.078 - is students tend to move around a lot. 01:23:18.210 --> 01:23:24.118 - Sometimes they become integrated into a neighborhood, but less often do they. Somebody I forget who 01:23:24.118 --> 01:23:30.085 - at the beginning of this session referred to the patients of everybody and that would mean the board 01:23:30.085 --> 01:23:36.229 - that would be staff that would be the petitioner and the neighbors that we have done this and done this 01:23:36.229 --> 01:23:42.432 - and done this and been here. The neighbors. I am so impressed with this group of people. I was impressed 01:23:42.432 --> 01:23:46.686 - at the last meeting with the work that they had put in the way they had 01:23:46.850 --> 01:23:54.873 - and coordinated their efforts. But tonight makes me think, I don't see how you could possibly approve 01:23:54.873 --> 01:24:02.818 - it. The single graphic that Jan Sorby put up makes very clear the incompatibility. And the citations 01:24:02.818 --> 01:24:10.684 - of several people, most recently Dave Rollo, who was involved with the UDO, but also several of the 01:24:10.684 --> 01:24:14.302 - petitioners, citing book, chapter, and verse. 01:24:14.722 --> 01:24:22.034 - of the UDO that make clear that this is not what the designers, the writers, the authors, the approvers 01:24:22.034 --> 01:24:29.416 - of the UDO and the comprehensive plan had in mind for the infield and for the increase in affordability. 01:24:29.416 --> 01:24:36.658 - I honestly, looking at that graphic, listening to the citations that Mr. von der Schmitt, for example, 01:24:36.658 --> 01:24:41.790 - made of here's this from the UDO, here's this from the UDO, here's this, 01:24:42.754 --> 01:24:51.088 - I honestly don't understand how a non-biased person listening could understand how that duplex belongs. 01:24:51.088 --> 01:24:59.102 - I don't understand how that could be approved at all. I don't know why we're here for a third time. 01:24:59.102 --> 01:25:07.115 - And that really is all I have to say. I'm so impressed with these neighbors. I'm impressed with the 01:25:07.115 --> 01:25:08.798 - passion of Kim Vint. 01:25:09.378 --> 01:25:17.246 - I think I'm probably tending more in the direction of that than of the more sober Jan Sorby, for example, 01:25:17.246 --> 01:25:24.594 - and Mr. Von der Schmitt and the rest of them. They made very careful, very reasoned, not emotional 01:25:24.594 --> 01:25:32.091 - presentations. I honestly don't see, based on their arguments, based on their citations of evidence, 01:25:32.091 --> 01:25:38.846 - of documents of what the UDO is supposed to implement, I don't understand how a non-biased 01:25:38.978 --> 01:25:47.587 - board could approve this. Thank you. Also check to see if there is any further comments online please. 01:25:47.587 --> 01:25:56.197 - If there is anybody else online that would like to speak please use the raise hand function and we can 01:25:56.197 --> 01:26:04.555 - recognize you. While we're waiting is there anyone still remaining in chambers who'd like to make a 01:26:04.555 --> 01:26:07.230 - comment public comment. Anyone. 01:26:08.898 --> 01:26:15.977 - Online I'm not seeing anybody else online Okay, although this is not a precursor statement of any opinion 01:26:15.977 --> 01:26:22.855 - or direction following I do actually want to take a moment to say thank you to those who spoke because 01:26:22.855 --> 01:26:29.600 - it is refreshing to have people speak directly to the issues at hand Talking about the UDO and items 01:26:29.600 --> 01:26:36.478 - on which we can actually have direct contemplation and action on so I do appreciate taking the time to 01:26:36.770 --> 01:26:43.033 - Realign some arguments so that there are things that we can actually discuss in this chamber. So with 01:26:43.033 --> 01:26:49.420 - that We've had the public comment. We're back to the petitioner Who can use the remainder of your time? 01:26:49.420 --> 01:26:55.806 - To address anything you've heard or if you have further comments and how much time does he have left? I 01:26:58.658 --> 01:27:05.021 - Like 17 17 48. Yeah, okay, man So you have plenty of time there if you'd like to take that and again, 01:27:05.021 --> 01:27:11.321 - these are your comments after that point the remainder of the time will be spent answering questions 01:27:11.321 --> 01:27:17.372 - and the questions will be between the petitioner and The board and the city not the public Okay. 01:27:17.372 --> 01:27:23.797 - Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you very much So yeah several things I guess just as a reminder, you know 01:27:23.797 --> 01:27:25.918 - when we when I first came here in 01:27:26.338 --> 01:27:35.328 - in June I did have a driveway cut off of Wiley and you know the the Allowed parking for spaces in that 01:27:35.328 --> 01:27:44.056 - month. I asked for no variances whatsoever Of course as we heard again tonight parking is quite the 01:27:44.056 --> 01:27:52.783 - issue So I tried to help resolve that as well as I could as much as I could so again my thought was 01:27:52.783 --> 01:27:53.918 - to bring the 01:27:54.722 --> 01:28:03.474 - Access I have access off of the alley and that would keep my tenants off of Wiley trying to alleviate 01:28:03.474 --> 01:28:12.140 - some of that pressure and I've asked for a various for additional parking space so hopefully less of 01:28:12.140 --> 01:28:21.150 - my Tenant would need to park on the on-street parking is that is available that the city is the one that 01:28:21.346 --> 01:28:29.339 - Allowed that not me So anyhow, so yes, there are there is additional parking there So do I have a problem 01:28:29.339 --> 01:28:37.256 - putting a driveway on Wiley? Absolutely not That's what we did the first time but you know, I was trying 01:28:37.256 --> 01:28:45.098 - to again help alleviate some of the parking issue When we came back last night or I'm sorry last month. 01:28:45.098 --> 01:28:46.078 - I changed it 01:28:46.434 --> 01:28:55.881 - and went back with a story and a half, it was shorter, it maybe fit the neighborhood better, but then 01:28:55.881 --> 01:29:05.606 - there was some, anyhow, that wasn't liked as well either, and so that's the reason why I come back again 01:29:05.606 --> 01:29:12.830 - this evening with a two story as you see. We talk about size a lot. The size, 01:29:12.994 --> 01:29:23.323 - In the UDO square footage is not mentioned anywhere that I can see the size is determined on the impervious 01:29:23.323 --> 01:29:32.887 - space of the percentage and as of now there is 45 percent Allowable and I am just a little bit over 01:29:32.887 --> 01:29:39.486 - 36 percent almost 37. So by rights this unit according to the UDO is 01:29:39.842 --> 01:29:49.771 - This is a reason why the planning and now two directors have recommended approval to the BZA is Because 01:29:49.771 --> 01:29:59.987 - I meet those requirements. It's my understanding that the City Council just This week maybe have increased 01:29:59.987 --> 01:30:09.534 - the impervious space percentage even higher than 45% to make infiltration building more paddable so 01:30:09.762 --> 01:30:18.553 - Again, we talk about size in my eyes. This unit could be made larger mice, but my units are 1465 square 01:30:18.553 --> 01:30:27.090 - feet per side When I looked at some of the others that y'all have approved whether that was just the 01:30:27.090 --> 01:30:35.966 - one up the street the ones on Henderson wherever most of those are way or somewhat over 1500 square feet 01:30:36.482 --> 01:30:46.611 - So again, we go back we talked about compatibility and blocks face and Again, it had to have met the 01:30:46.611 --> 01:30:57.040 - udos requirements and Due to the staff and now two directors giving that approval We talked about Wiley 01:30:57.040 --> 01:31:01.854 - Street. It must also meet their requirements of 01:31:01.954 --> 01:31:14.016 - Again for for them to continue to to approve now the third time Here has been proved by the by staff 01:31:14.016 --> 01:31:26.078 - I Find it a little ironic. We've now had several City Council members come out against this petition 01:31:26.210 --> 01:31:35.184 - I'd be in everywhere that I've looked the one up the street or the ones on Henderson or Roosevelt or 01:31:35.184 --> 01:31:44.070 - Woodburn I don't see I didn't see that happen before so I don't know if it's just because who lives 01:31:44.070 --> 01:31:54.110 - on that street And last month as I said and I say again Wiley Street is a typical Bloomington Residential Street 01:31:54.370 --> 01:32:02.657 - And yeah, in my opinion, it is compatible to other streets, whether of units that have already been 01:32:02.657 --> 01:32:11.026 - approved, whether it's on Henderson or Roosevelt or Woodburn. Roosevelt, I've driven down Roosevelt. 01:32:11.026 --> 01:32:19.893 - There's on-street parking. That's a very narrow road. That's a residential neighborhood. So in my opinion, 01:32:19.893 --> 01:32:22.462 - those streets are no different 01:32:22.658 --> 01:32:34.731 - Then Wiley Street being an older Bloomington Street built back in that day, whatever that was. All those 01:32:34.731 --> 01:32:38.526 - streets were all about the same. 01:32:54.594 --> 01:33:04.158 - I guess with that I I feel that Again size has talked about a lot size is not mentioned square footage 01:33:04.158 --> 01:33:13.630 - is not mentioned and I In my eyes, it could be bigger I left it the same which I feel is smaller than 01:33:13.630 --> 01:33:24.030 - a lot of the others that have been approved and also mentioned all the comments that we've heard tonight I feel 01:33:24.130 --> 01:33:32.985 - Are the same comments could have been heard on units that you have won already all have approved before 01:33:32.985 --> 01:33:35.710 - and could be the same comments. 01:33:36.994 --> 01:33:44.555 - for units that are yet to come. So it kind of makes me feel like what I hear tonight is maybe the UDO's 01:33:44.555 --> 01:33:51.898 - wrong. If the UDO's wrong, whether you want two bedrooms, it doesn't have to be two bedrooms. It has 01:33:51.898 --> 01:33:59.314 - to be no more than a maximum of three bedrooms. And that's, of course, what I've done. And obviously, 01:33:59.314 --> 01:34:06.366 - it looks like that's what a lot of other folks have done. So with that, it's been beat to death. 01:34:07.842 --> 01:34:14.303 - Being here three times now. I Represent and I asked for your approval. Thank you If you had questions, 01:34:14.303 --> 01:34:20.826 - yes, of course. Yes, I just stand by there instead of coming back over here You may want to have a seat 01:34:20.826 --> 01:34:27.161 - there if we don't get to you right away So with that we're back to the board Same as before we could 01:34:27.161 --> 01:34:33.559 - have further discussion or we could entertain a motion that discussion I'll go again towards the city 01:34:33.559 --> 01:34:36.382 - or the petitioner. Anyone have a question? I 01:34:47.906 --> 01:34:58.531 - Is not one of the items that we should consider correct Correct. Thank you Okay, I just have a quick 01:34:58.531 --> 01:35:09.050 - question was this put in was this put into the record Yeah, we got a copy of it as well. All right, 01:35:09.050 --> 01:35:16.414 - I just want to Make a couple of comments about what I'm looking at. I 01:35:17.986 --> 01:35:27.069 - specifically 414 412 the proposed duplex and for 408 I Want the city's opinion on the depiction and 01:35:27.069 --> 01:35:36.334 - the depiction area on 414 is a What looks like essentially a split level, but it's a an exposed lower 01:35:36.334 --> 01:35:42.238 - level that's in gray below the grade that's shown there and then 01:35:43.106 --> 01:35:50.854 - On 408, there's a grayed out exposed level, which is the lower level of an actual, looks like a split 01:35:50.854 --> 01:35:59.133 - level. I want your opinion on that. Should not the scale be determined by what is seen from the streetscape? 01:35:59.133 --> 01:36:06.729 - In other words, should 414's height really be seen as from that lowest part next to the garage door 01:36:06.729 --> 01:36:11.742 - to the tip of the roof line? And the same for 408, where you have 01:36:12.226 --> 01:36:18.545 - As you see the the left side of that house and in the dark color is below the line So it just looks 01:36:18.545 --> 01:36:25.180 - I want to make sure that I'm looking at something that's representative of what we should be Determining 01:36:25.180 --> 01:36:31.941 - as to whether the height is the same scale You understand my question? I think so. So this kind of relates 01:36:31.941 --> 01:36:37.438 - to the prior question about the height it's not one of the you specific standards that 01:36:38.018 --> 01:36:45.306 - that we evaluate for a duplex in the R3 zoning district. There is a height limitation and what's proposed 01:36:45.306 --> 01:36:52.319 - is compliant with the R3 standard for height. So when we're evaluating general shape size design it's 01:36:52.319 --> 01:36:59.332 - of the four design elements that are listed in the UDO which are the roof pitch the front porch width 01:36:59.332 --> 01:37:05.726 - and depth the front building setback and the vehicle parking access. So we're not evaluating 01:37:06.018 --> 01:37:13.550 - I thought there was some determination about scale in relation to the to the streetscape making sure 01:37:13.550 --> 01:37:21.008 - that it fit within that scale and scope Is that essentially true? See Joe. Yeah, may I yeah, please 01:37:21.008 --> 01:37:28.764 - So when I look at this, yeah, it's a very nice. I mean very well done. Yes, it is very well done except 01:37:28.764 --> 01:37:35.550 - they Forgot topography. Oh the one they forgot topography topography exactly topography so 01:37:35.650 --> 01:37:46.017 - On the on the house forty four hundred and thirty sits at six hundred and sixty two topography. OK. 01:37:46.017 --> 01:37:56.384 - So the house that the proposed duplex will sit six feet lower than this house. So the house on four 01:37:56.384 --> 01:38:04.574 - hundred and thirty is 18 feet tall plus six feet. It's 24. It will be 24 feet. 01:38:06.882 --> 01:38:15.633 - So it's not I mean the streetscape is not one straight line level straight line. I agree with that. 01:38:15.633 --> 01:38:24.472 - Do you see what I'm saying? Yes. And it goes to the heart of it should not look like it depicts here 01:38:24.472 --> 01:38:33.311 - because that on that east side those homes will be higher and then it goes down the hill. That makes 01:38:33.311 --> 01:38:34.974 - sense. Oh it does. 01:38:35.074 --> 01:38:41.466 - I didn't want to get into the topography, but I'm glad that you did, because I do think that that's 01:38:41.466 --> 01:38:47.922 - relevant. 100%. I was looking more at when someone drives by and they look at the front of the home, 01:38:47.922 --> 01:38:54.570 - they see what's exposed. And that kind of adds to the scale. That's kind of what I was getting at, just 01:38:54.570 --> 01:39:01.026 - trying to make sure I understood it. Yes? Leslie? I would add, too, if you bend it where it's at one 01:39:01.026 --> 01:39:04.478 - level, they are a different, they're not exactly two, 01:39:04.770 --> 01:39:12.893 - to scale for height, for where they should be. Like a 15 is lower. So take that into account as well. 01:39:12.893 --> 01:39:21.415 - And I think that's probably just a printing error or something. I'm not sure. But very well done, graphic. 01:39:21.415 --> 01:39:29.379 - That makes sense, and I appreciate that. I did have a couple of questions. I just want to make sure 01:39:29.379 --> 01:39:30.494 - I understand. 01:39:34.018 --> 01:39:43.500 - This I think is to the city is is if this if this were designed In the same size for a single-family 01:39:43.500 --> 01:39:53.640 - Would that be allowed Single families permitted use at this size I believe so. Yes. I mean the the setbacks 01:39:53.640 --> 01:39:59.742 - are all compliant. We don't have a square footage regulation and 01:40:00.386 --> 01:40:07.696 - The impervious surface coverage is met. So if it was a single family home, those are all the the same 01:40:07.696 --> 01:40:15.078 - factors we would We would be reviewing. Yeah, and I do think it goes to that previous and all of those 01:40:15.078 --> 01:40:22.532 - factors. So the real question is You know a Home of this scale could be built as a single resident home 01:40:22.532 --> 01:40:29.054 - on that space And let's say it's a large family. They could also have a number of cars and 01:40:30.338 --> 01:40:39.568 - So that's one thing about this particular sticky situation, correct? Thank you, Eric. Yes. All right, 01:40:39.568 --> 01:40:47.803 - so I want to make sure I understood that. And then I hear the term student-oriented a lot. 01:40:47.803 --> 01:40:56.852 - It's a student-oriented. Do we have some definition that we can look to as to what, is that a thing 01:40:56.852 --> 01:40:59.838 - or is that more of a perception? 01:41:00.546 --> 01:41:07.429 - We certainly do have a definition of student housing. Could you. Well student oriented is what they 01:41:07.429 --> 01:41:14.793 - have determined oriented is not a defined term. We have a defined land use and a definition called student 01:41:14.793 --> 01:41:15.550 - housing to 01:41:15.746 --> 01:41:22.623 - work alongside what is the difference between the use dwelling comma student housing or dormitory and 01:41:22.623 --> 01:41:29.365 - the use multifamily dwelling comma multifamily. So it describes you know what is a development that 01:41:29.365 --> 01:41:37.118 - is student housing. So situations where rooms are rented on a per bedroom basis you have a certain percentage over 01:41:37.250 --> 01:41:44.183 - three bedrooms or four bedrooms or five bedrooms you have certain units that are fully furnished. So 01:41:44.183 --> 01:41:51.459 - we have a definition to distinguish between student housing and multifamily development. You know student 01:41:51.459 --> 01:41:58.460 - oriented goes to who you think might be renting that or leasing to and we obviously can't control who 01:41:58.460 --> 01:42:00.382 - lives there. So you know to 01:42:00.642 --> 01:42:06.762 - The phrase student oriented, you know, it's hard to compare to this because you know that use student 01:42:06.762 --> 01:42:13.002 - housing isn't allowed use here, but that's not what we're talking about, right? You know, we're talking 01:42:13.002 --> 01:42:19.302 - about a single-family dwelling or a duplex in this case, which is two single-family dwellings that share 01:42:19.302 --> 01:42:25.422 - a common wall. Okay, and you stated in in that thank you for that. So just remind me once again, what 01:42:25.422 --> 01:42:26.622 - is student housing? 01:42:31.426 --> 01:42:39.267 - What's our definition? Yep So it is it is the term dwelling comma student housing or dormitory and it 01:42:39.267 --> 01:42:47.724 - was just recently updated so you'll have to bear with me as I Take a moment. I want to make sure I understand 01:42:47.724 --> 01:42:55.412 - what it is. I pulled it up on the screen. It's a pretty lengthy Definition. I'm happy to read it if 01:42:55.412 --> 01:42:59.486 - you'd like but it says a multifamily dwelling design 01:42:59.618 --> 01:43:06.826 - Primarily as housing for undergraduate or postgraduate students including but not limited to and there 01:43:06.826 --> 01:43:13.825 - are six different criteria that help Clarify what would be considered student housing or dormitory? 01:43:13.825 --> 01:43:20.894 - So when I see that it says multiple family dwellings that contain any living units with four or more 01:43:20.894 --> 01:43:28.382 - bedrooms. That's one and multiple family dwellings with More than ten dwelling units. Okay, that's another 01:43:30.274 --> 01:43:37.465 - Okay, so let's just say looking at number one multiple family dwellings that may That contain any living 01:43:37.465 --> 01:43:44.657 - units with four or more bedrooms. Okay. That's one example of what we classify student housing, correct? 01:43:44.657 --> 01:43:51.711 - Correct. Yes, so multifamily dwelling buildings That fall under the use multifamily dwelling that have 01:43:51.711 --> 01:43:58.902 - any four or five bedroom units in them are Classified as student housing. Okay, and it's student housing 01:43:58.902 --> 01:43:59.998 - allowed in this 01:44:00.546 --> 01:44:09.538 - Area. No, that's a no. Okay A couple other things I just want to clear up. What? Yeah, go ahead. Please 01:44:09.538 --> 01:44:18.531 - Leslie piggyback off that so I'm number five So if it's advertised and leased by the room how it I mean 01:44:18.531 --> 01:44:27.263 - you wouldn't be able to know that and Like until we're way past this point Yeah, so that's something 01:44:27.263 --> 01:44:29.598 - obviously when multifamily 01:44:29.698 --> 01:44:36.246 - Developments are advertising their buildings for rent. They'll be very clear, you know that buildings 01:44:36.246 --> 01:44:42.795 - are or bedrooms are available for rent individually So in the student housing district where this use 01:44:42.795 --> 01:44:49.279 - is allowed That's certainly fine and appropriate and that's one of the defining characteristics That 01:44:49.279 --> 01:44:55.827 - classifies that as student housing to differentiate that from multifamily house multifamily dwellings 01:44:55.827 --> 01:44:59.358 - Okay My other question, I'm sorry Leslie was that Okay 01:45:00.098 --> 01:45:06.259 - So in the city's opinion, I know we've gone through this, but please go through it again with me. What's 01:45:06.259 --> 01:45:12.303 - the validity, do you think, of some of the arguments we've heard about the width of the street? Do you 01:45:12.303 --> 01:45:18.523 - think that's compelling or not? Because I did hear, especially the petitioner, you did mention Roosevelt, 01:45:18.523 --> 01:45:24.509 - let's say. I don't know just offhand if Roosevelt has any duplexes, but for example, what do you feel 01:45:24.509 --> 01:45:29.790 - about the validity of those concerns? Because you are saying that you would approve this, 01:45:30.082 --> 01:45:36.805 - with some conditions not being granted. But what do you think about that argument. How did the city 01:45:36.805 --> 01:45:43.595 - approach that. So specifically to the question of on street parking we did consult our city legal on 01:45:43.595 --> 01:45:50.385 - that and we don't consider on street parking to be a public service or a facility. So in the case of 01:45:50.385 --> 01:45:57.107 - adding a duplex to this property that is not a relevant criteria that our city legal department you 01:45:57.107 --> 01:45:59.326 - know has advised us to consider. 01:45:59.618 --> 01:46:06.707 - That's really not relevant in our analysis in your analysis. Perfect. Thank you for that. That's excellent 01:46:06.707 --> 01:46:13.531 - And then I did Have one question. Could you remind me and this may be in your records and someone here 01:46:13.531 --> 01:46:20.288 - on the board may remember? Well, what was the particular objection on the first petition, which I did 01:46:20.288 --> 01:46:26.913 - not hear? Was it size? What was the the general objection? I Know what it was last time because I'm 01:46:26.913 --> 01:46:28.702 - the one who brought up the 01:46:29.218 --> 01:46:41.864 - objection The first time this petition was heard I was not present and the petitioner mentioned that 01:46:41.864 --> 01:46:52.382 - You know something about the the objection to the first petition. What was it? Okay 01:47:05.570 --> 01:47:10.922 - Okay Because I did know that on our second hearing I objected to the aesthetics. So I remember that 01:47:10.922 --> 01:47:16.274 - I was just curious if it was different So safety was a part of that. The only other thing I have is 01:47:16.274 --> 01:47:21.733 - a comment Which would be just in general to the board which is because it can be larger. Should it be 01:47:21.733 --> 01:47:27.138 - larger? I'm the only other question that stuck out. But those are my only comments. Does anyone else 01:47:27.138 --> 01:47:28.958 - have any questions or comments? I 01:47:33.666 --> 01:47:43.265 - for the petition. Are you planning on doing individual leases or joint and several liability on the 01:47:43.265 --> 01:47:52.959 - leases? You mean like renting out rooms? Yeah, is that you're saying? Oh, no, absolutely not Yeah, I 01:47:52.959 --> 01:48:03.326 - just wanted to get to the point because I mean typically if You know when we try and define student housing 01:48:04.194 --> 01:48:11.865 - One of the issues is that as Eric was mentioning for a lot of the big bigger multi tenant buildings, 01:48:11.865 --> 01:48:19.687 - you know, individual bedrooms are marketed as individual bedrooms. You're not leasing the entire unit. 01:48:19.687 --> 01:48:27.282 - So I was just wondering in this case whether the petition was planning on requiring that all of the 01:48:27.282 --> 01:48:32.446 - tenants be joint and several severably liable for the entire lease. 01:48:32.898 --> 01:48:40.822 - Yeah, I mean it will be rented per as a unit. There'll be two units They're not it won't be written 01:48:40.822 --> 01:48:48.746 - by bedrooms. Yeah, that's my question. Thanks Any other questions from the board for the petitioner 01:48:48.746 --> 01:48:57.225 - for the city I'm sorry. I do have another question because and this is you know, hopefully for the benefit 01:48:57.225 --> 01:49:01.662 - of the City Council members that are in in the audience 01:49:01.890 --> 01:49:10.354 - I mean, I totally understand the dueling interpretations of our code on the conditions, but I'm just 01:49:10.354 --> 01:49:18.819 - struck by the fact that we lay out the criteria for conditional uses and it talks about size, shape, 01:49:18.819 --> 01:49:26.445 - general design, and then the criteria, you know, has the one through four with roof slope. 01:49:26.445 --> 01:49:31.390 - I'm just curious, why isn't like height actually relevant? 01:49:31.874 --> 01:49:41.155 - I mean, and I'm not saying it should be because you can by right the maximum height limit in our three 01:49:41.155 --> 01:49:50.436 - is 35 feet. So someone could build this house as a single dwelling by right. Correct. I'm just curious 01:49:50.436 --> 01:50:00.168 - why that level of detail isn't included in the conditional uses because it seems to create this conflicting 01:50:00.168 --> 01:50:01.790 - interpretation of 01:50:02.626 --> 01:50:09.224 - compatibility Yes, obviously it's hard to In our in our brains go back and recall all the conversations 01:50:09.224 --> 01:50:16.140 - that happened at City Council and playing Commission during the course of You know these these conversations 01:50:16.140 --> 01:50:22.612 - and certainly as the board recognizes and certainly what staff recognizes as well as you know What we 01:50:22.612 --> 01:50:29.147 - have to review this by is the language that is in front of us today And so that's it is very specific, 01:50:29.147 --> 01:50:32.446 - you know when it says the following design elements 01:50:32.834 --> 01:50:39.304 - And it talks about in very lists those four specific things roof pitch, you know It could have been 01:50:39.304 --> 01:50:46.291 - expanded to say other elements other features, but it just clearly simply says roof pitch So as we evaluate 01:50:46.291 --> 01:50:53.150 - these elements and you know The only two of these that are specifically designed elements of the building 01:50:53.150 --> 01:50:59.102 - are roof pitch front porch width and depth You know, we look at those elements individually 01:50:59.266 --> 01:51:05.105 - And the best that we can do is visually observe those from the road and make a subjective analysis of 01:51:05.105 --> 01:51:10.887 - you know The roof pitch of this house is in keeping with the variability of roof pitches along here, 01:51:10.887 --> 01:51:16.783 - you know The front porch is along here. There is great variability as one of the members of the public 01:51:16.783 --> 01:51:22.507 - said some Some houses don't even have porches some have awnings So, you know, we looked at these is 01:51:22.507 --> 01:51:27.774 - just from a very general subjective perspective Given the very basic terms that were listed 01:51:44.098 --> 01:51:59.864 - Did you have another question John. I just want to look at the recommendations here again. So just just 01:51:59.864 --> 01:52:12.446 - to be clear on the city recommendations you're saying to deny the variance for the 01:52:12.642 --> 01:52:19.513 - Proposed parking plan. Is that correct? Yes, our recommendation has stayed in the staff report and in 01:52:19.513 --> 01:52:26.384 - the presentation is denial of the two variances that are being requested the maximum in the in the in 01:52:26.384 --> 01:52:33.457 - the access Yeah, that's addressing the maximum number of parking spaces and then the size of the parking 01:52:33.457 --> 01:52:40.126 - pad off of the alley And one thing I do want to bring up and I think we mentioned this last time I 01:52:40.226 --> 01:52:46.421 - You know with the approval we would want to see Certainly and this is up to the board's discretion, 01:52:46.421 --> 01:52:52.739 - you know, if you want to allow for a site plan that also features a driveway You know include that in 01:52:52.739 --> 01:52:58.996 - your fire in your condition that you know if you deny the variance from the parking, you know So the 01:52:58.996 --> 01:53:05.191 - petition would be restricted to either a 20 by 20 pad or they could install a compliant driveway to 01:53:05.191 --> 01:53:08.350 - be clear in that so that there is that clarity and 01:53:11.010 --> 01:53:17.835 - And then Kevin going back to John's question you're saying that each Unit of the duplex is gonna be 01:53:17.835 --> 01:53:24.797 - rented as a unit. It's not per bedroom, correct per unit Yeah, it's yeah, they'll beat. Yep two units 01:53:24.797 --> 01:53:31.690 - there Is that something that can the to the city's that's something he can change afterwards and say 01:53:31.690 --> 01:53:37.150 - oh I've changed my mind. I want to rent it per per bedroom. Is that possible? I 01:53:37.442 --> 01:53:46.270 - Would actually need to check because I think that the housing and neighborhood development require one 01:53:46.270 --> 01:53:54.840 - lease Okay, I'm not a hundred percent positive I think that that that is a requirement that is just 01:53:54.840 --> 01:54:03.497 - one lease with all the tenants on that lease Thank you Procedural question so denying would Okay, so 01:54:03.497 --> 01:54:05.982 - denying would mean that that 01:54:07.074 --> 01:54:16.566 - The only parking available parking space is 20 by 20 correct If it's if it's off the alley and what 01:54:16.566 --> 01:54:26.059 - Eric was saying is there's still that option to have alley access or a driveway Okay, my procedural 01:54:26.059 --> 01:54:32.798 - question is even with the denial this can still be built with 20 by 20 01:54:34.690 --> 01:54:41.471 - So if the conditional use in itself is approved and I think Eric was advising to have a condition so 01:54:41.471 --> 01:54:48.386 - it's clear about if you would prefer a parking pad that's to code off the alley or if you would prefer 01:54:48.386 --> 01:54:55.704 - a compliant driveway off Wiley, that could be a condition of the conditional use and you can vote separately 01:54:55.704 --> 01:55:03.358 - on the variances if that makes sense. So the variances could be denied but you could approve the conditional use. 01:55:03.554 --> 01:55:10.368 - I'm not talking about the additional conditional use I'm saying so if this is denied this duplex could 01:55:10.368 --> 01:55:17.050 - still be built, correct? It would require you to approve the conditional use which is different from 01:55:17.050 --> 01:55:24.063 - the Yeah, so there are two there are two requests before the board one and there are two separate motions 01:55:24.063 --> 01:55:30.811 - that we would like to kind of hear those under one is the conditional use for the duplex and then the 01:55:30.811 --> 01:55:32.862 - second is the variance for the 01:55:33.346 --> 01:55:40.550 - entrance and drive and the number of spaces off of the back So I think to get to your question, 01:55:40.550 --> 01:55:48.205 - you know, if you deny the variance they can either do a 20 by 20 parking pad or and that's what I was 01:55:48.205 --> 01:55:56.009 - saying in the motion to include the allowance for there to also either or be a driveway the UDO doesn't 01:55:56.009 --> 01:56:02.238 - allow both you either get one or the other and then the six-foot fence is not in a 01:56:02.690 --> 01:56:12.175 - It was in the original recommendation but it's not in this recommendation. It is in this recommendation 01:56:12.175 --> 01:56:21.295 - as well and it's shown on the site plan as well. I swap them because one has two and one has three. 01:56:21.295 --> 01:56:30.689 - I have a question for the city. So with the driveway are you talking about just the driveway not a pad 01:56:30.689 --> 01:56:31.966 - 17 feet wide. 01:56:34.178 --> 01:56:40.769 - Yep, so the udio for a driveway from a street allows for a maximum width of 18 feet between the street 01:56:40.769 --> 01:56:47.296 - and the building setback And then once you get past the building setback, you could widen it You know 01:56:47.296 --> 01:56:53.950 - given the design of this site plan and the house, you know It couldn't widen any capacity until it gets 01:56:53.950 --> 01:56:56.510 - back around to the back of the house. I 01:57:04.418 --> 01:57:11.629 - Okay, I'm gonna at this point I'm gonna wait in with the city about some of these nuances where There 01:57:11.629 --> 01:57:18.769 - was there were some statements that were presented throughout this hearing about Kind of the nuances 01:57:18.769 --> 01:57:26.121 - of it's this is something that should probably not occur in this area they were using a lot of language 01:57:26.121 --> 01:57:32.766 - from various memos or or other parts of the UDO what was what's your take on that in terms of 01:57:32.994 --> 01:57:39.399 - Would you agree with some of those statements to say that? Yeah, this is probably not what we ideally 01:57:39.399 --> 01:57:45.867 - were targeting for a place for a duplex. That was kind of that was kind of how the the statements were 01:57:45.867 --> 01:57:52.272 - presenting it. I think the city's position is based on, you know, it's what's in our staff report. So 01:57:52.272 --> 01:57:58.740 - we evaluate the conditional use criteria and our analysis shows they're all met. So I think that's our 01:57:58.740 --> 01:57:59.870 - response to that. 01:58:04.866 --> 01:58:12.788 - You know, Joe, I was just comment on that because I think the this is another one of those issues where 01:58:12.788 --> 01:58:20.633 - there's inconsistencies because if you you know that the ordinance permits duplexes in our three zones 01:58:20.633 --> 01:58:28.250 - and if you pull up a zoning map, there's a hell of a lot of land that's our three and it's all over 01:58:28.250 --> 01:58:31.678 - the map in terms of level of infrastructure. 01:58:31.842 --> 01:58:38.377 - I mean some of the neighborhoods have wide streets with parking on both sides and sidewalks and some 01:58:38.377 --> 01:58:44.976 - don't but it is a large area So, I mean our our three is not some Generic generic consistent thing in 01:58:44.976 --> 01:58:51.640 - the built environment. It's you know, it's varies but Did you have permitted in our three did you have 01:58:51.640 --> 01:58:58.110 - an opinion on what you heard on those because you've had more exposure to that than I have in terms 01:58:58.110 --> 01:59:01.086 - of some of Those nuances that were brought up 01:59:01.346 --> 01:59:07.797 - Trying to indicate that this might not be the place for a duplex What's the question those statements 01:59:07.797 --> 01:59:14.122 - that were being made about you know, like this is this is not I don't know. I yeah, I mean I've got 01:59:14.122 --> 01:59:20.636 - opinions, but they're not really relevant to the vote I mean to our charge. I mean, that's a different 01:59:20.636 --> 01:59:25.822 - conversation I think yeah, okay. I mean I'm trying to just follow our purview and 01:59:27.170 --> 01:59:32.985 - Yeah, I think that my question really goes towards is that something we should be considering because 01:59:32.985 --> 01:59:38.687 - it does sound like it's part of some of the official language and it does sound like that there are 01:59:38.687 --> 01:59:44.616 - some nuance there and you were saying too that there is some ambiguity. And I think where the ambiguity 01:59:44.616 --> 01:59:50.717 - really starts to rear its head is exactly what you said, which is the R3 areas wide and it's not a uniform 01:59:50.717 --> 01:59:56.190 - conformity. And so I think what concerns me about this particular unit is because of the street 01:59:56.418 --> 02:00:03.980 - And they already have a problem that's been created by a duplex one block away we have an issue with 02:00:03.980 --> 02:00:12.141 - We've talked to Kevin before about he may have to extend the side of the road in order to provide additional 02:00:12.141 --> 02:00:19.628 - parking So there to me there are some complexities to it that are introduced by Where this is and I 02:00:19.628 --> 02:00:26.142 - agree if you go somewhere else on an r3 certainly on my street. We have plenty of room 02:00:26.754 --> 02:00:32.637 - So I could see where my street could get a duplex So that's that's what I'm trying to struggle with 02:00:32.637 --> 02:00:38.932 - and then when I hear that it is a difficult thing for the city to put together a UDO Incredibly difficult. 02:00:38.932 --> 02:00:44.992 - I watched the process. It was a years-long process. Okay, so I know that That's why I think it becomes 02:00:44.992 --> 02:00:50.875 - important in a situation like this for us to say well I'm not really sure that this is exactly what 02:00:50.875 --> 02:00:55.934 - we were trying to do here is to jam this into a small street now Is that fair or not? 02:00:57.218 --> 02:01:02.909 - is the question, and now I've heard some statements that are made saying, well, this is in some of the 02:01:02.909 --> 02:01:08.655 - documentation, you know, there's things saying we're dissuade this, this isn't really what we're trying 02:01:08.655 --> 02:01:14.457 - to do on these types of things, so I'm just curious. I did not have direct exposure to the UDO creation. 02:01:14.457 --> 02:01:19.982 - Yeah, I hear you, Joe. I mean, I always worry in these situations that, you know, there's a risk of 02:01:19.982 --> 02:01:23.518 - over-correcting, too, if we start tweaking things even further. 02:01:23.682 --> 02:01:31.313 - Because I'm a fan of duplexes. I mean if we want to talk about affordability That's a phenomenal way 02:01:31.313 --> 02:01:38.868 - to address and the missing middle is a really important part of You know a deficiency in my opinion 02:01:38.868 --> 02:01:46.725 - in Bloomington's housing stock You know as someone pointed out I think the petitioner I mean we've just 02:01:46.725 --> 02:01:53.374 - changed the Code in certain areas. I didn't follow it all in detail about shrinking and 02:01:53.506 --> 02:02:01.433 - you know, minimum lot sizes or maximum lots. I can't remember which but I mean, there's just lots of 02:02:01.433 --> 02:02:09.439 - lots of different things happening simultaneously that don't always feel very consistent. But they're 02:02:09.439 --> 02:02:17.444 - all well intentioned responses to certain issues. So I don't know, I think are the biggest thing that 02:02:17.444 --> 02:02:21.918 - I think about the conditional uses is I don't like them. 02:02:24.994 --> 02:02:35.527 - all because it punts policy decisions. And then the current language around conditional uses you know 02:02:35.527 --> 02:02:45.853 - needs to be clearer. I mean there's just it's too vague. I mean when we talk about size consistency 02:02:45.853 --> 02:02:53.598 - all these kinds of things and then it doesn't include height it just seems 02:02:54.658 --> 02:03:02.835 - Like it's missing if that's a concern. But on the other hand I mean you know you could do a single family 02:03:02.835 --> 02:03:10.549 - home on this site that's 35 feet tall. So that's one and I don't think we should change that in our 02:03:10.549 --> 02:03:18.264 - ones either to be clear. You can't increase density a house in a city and expect that every home is 02:03:18.264 --> 02:03:21.118 - going to be a single story dwelling. 02:03:21.538 --> 02:03:29.767 - You're not going to increase density with that approach. I mean if we have to build everything that 02:03:29.767 --> 02:03:38.489 - the same as it was built, you know 60 years ago, you're not gonna In you know, you're not going to change 02:03:38.489 --> 02:03:46.718 - density and facilitate just folks online that can't hear what's being said Well and to follow up on 02:03:46.718 --> 02:03:50.174 - that it would be very very easy for me to 02:03:50.594 --> 02:03:57.130 - Say yes to this if it was four bedrooms Because so much more would be corrected by that We talked about 02:03:57.130 --> 02:04:03.667 - over correcting so I don't Necessarily well and it's not to say that you think on this particular case. 02:04:03.667 --> 02:04:10.014 - We're over correcting So I'm not gonna to make that statement what I'm saying is that does get me to 02:04:10.014 --> 02:04:16.299 - think am I over correcting and I don't think I am and I don't think I'm over correcting because two 02:04:16.299 --> 02:04:20.510 - bedrooms that we don't want is still two bedrooms in each side and 02:04:20.642 --> 02:04:27.944 - Helps address affordable housing and I don't think Kevin should look at one one Building one one development 02:04:27.944 --> 02:04:34.709 - is solving our entire housing stock problem So I do think that looking at this for me looking at the 02:04:34.709 --> 02:04:41.408 - street the size the problems that they currently have already the issues that we're having with the 02:04:41.408 --> 02:04:48.374 - parking And already seeing what has happened at another duplex and I don't know or care who lives there 02:04:48.374 --> 02:04:49.982 - I'm just saying that it 02:04:50.306 --> 02:04:55.779 - It does demonstrate a natural proclivity of most people, which is I want to park in the driveway. I 02:04:55.779 --> 02:05:01.471 - want to park out front. That's what people do. And we're not here to debate that. But I do think having 02:05:01.471 --> 02:05:06.944 - two bedrooms on each side is something I could easily say that makes sense for this space. And it's 02:05:06.944 --> 02:05:12.417 - still a conditional use, because it's a duplex. But I do think it fits. And I like, that's a really 02:05:12.417 --> 02:05:18.055 - compelling argument, too, about we can't build homes like we did in the 50s or the 40s, because that's 02:05:18.055 --> 02:05:19.806 - true, we can't. But I do think, 02:05:19.906 --> 02:05:26.673 - That was another thing that I had here is a note about There has been I had it on here I Wondered what 02:05:26.673 --> 02:05:33.375 - years these homes were built that again this great chart I wondered what year they were built because 02:05:33.375 --> 02:05:40.076 - I bet they were built at a time when the the size of the street meant nothing but now the size of the 02:05:40.076 --> 02:05:46.778 - street really does kind of mean something to us because so many people own cars and they want to park 02:05:46.778 --> 02:05:49.406 - it on the street so again, that's why I 02:05:49.666 --> 02:05:56.237 - Certain developments there's wide streets and this would work perfectly, but I just don't think it works 02:05:56.237 --> 02:06:02.494 - in this on the street So those are some of the issues I'm having I'm having the same issues Joe I'm 02:06:02.494 --> 02:06:08.877 - having issues with the street with and the safety on the street still I I think as it stands with the 02:06:08.877 --> 02:06:15.260 - three three bedrooms and three bedrooms There isn't going to be a lot big enough in the back that can 02:06:15.260 --> 02:06:19.390 - take all of the parking and that there will be street parking and 02:06:19.970 --> 02:06:26.138 - I'm struggling and I see both sides and I'm completely struggling with Right, and I think that what's 02:06:26.138 --> 02:06:32.367 - interesting here is that Kevin can actually build this he can build a duplex here So I certainly don't 02:06:32.367 --> 02:06:38.535 - feel that there's been a denial of that I also agree with John's statement about this idea of punting 02:06:38.535 --> 02:06:44.885 - to the board to the BZA Because you know this conditional use has been a bane since it's been introduced 02:06:44.885 --> 02:06:49.662 - we've been dealing with this all the time and we are oftentimes being asked to 02:06:49.826 --> 02:06:55.636 - to make some very, very subjective decisions. And this is one of them, which is we're having to make 02:06:55.636 --> 02:07:01.389 - subjective decisions based on what we're seeing in that particular space. And sometimes it could be 02:07:01.389 --> 02:07:07.315 - perceived or thought of as being favoritism or something, but instead of trying to do what's right for 02:07:07.315 --> 02:07:13.182 - the city, and especially for the neighborhood as well, within the code. So I see all of those things. 02:07:13.182 --> 02:07:18.590 - So that's why I did want to just stress that this is a difficult, it's just difficult because 02:07:18.754 --> 02:07:27.005 - You know we're being asked to rectify or address something that the UDO just doesn't Just a little question 02:07:27.005 --> 02:07:34.644 - on the on the two-bedroom or three-bedroom Of course on my With what I work. I mean a three-bedroom 02:07:34.644 --> 02:07:42.283 - would be something essential for a family to rent You know a two-bedroom. Yeah, you're gonna end up 02:07:42.283 --> 02:07:43.582 - with students. I 02:07:45.122 --> 02:07:53.191 - Or somebody that's single or yes, but it goes back to it's not up to us who rents it. The question is 02:07:53.191 --> 02:08:01.102 - Us to decide that and there's a very big danger To talk about who rents it exactly when it comes to 02:08:01.102 --> 02:08:09.092 - fair housing, which I respect tremendously. Yes, so In terms of the two-bedroom and three-bedroom, I 02:08:09.092 --> 02:08:13.918 - think it's irrelevant It's going to be a rental property and 02:08:15.042 --> 02:08:24.105 - The tenants might choose to bike. They might choose to walk. So we are making assumptions. Of course, 02:08:24.105 --> 02:08:33.078 - we know that everybody has, you know, most people have cars. It might be two cars. If it's a family, 02:08:33.078 --> 02:08:39.742 - it will be two cars, you know, at least. So those are assumptions. My only 02:08:40.322 --> 02:08:47.795 - I listened to one of the petitioners that talked about the alley because they use the alley to park. 02:08:47.795 --> 02:08:55.194 - And when I look at the current proposed parking that has the large bed in the back that might cause 02:08:55.194 --> 02:09:02.667 - some issues some safety if people are coming to park in their garage and then you have people coming 02:09:02.667 --> 02:09:09.918 - out and not looking or you know different things like that or walk people that walk in the alley. 02:09:10.850 --> 02:09:20.183 - I see that I hear from the petitioner that he does not you're not opposed to putting back the driveway. 02:09:20.183 --> 02:09:29.426 - So you put the back the driveway for his own sake in a sake of renting. He can make this driveway long 02:09:29.426 --> 02:09:37.502 - and that fits several cars. He can do that and that will be a by right situation correct. 02:09:38.658 --> 02:09:46.444 - It would not require the variance. Yes it would not require the variance so it could park. I mean it 02:09:46.444 --> 02:09:54.231 - will be 18 feet to start but then he can widen past the right the setback. Yes and the setbacks were 02:09:54.231 --> 02:10:02.325 - just shortened. I don't know if this will apply to this. We talked about that last year. So well I don't 02:10:02.325 --> 02:10:08.030 - want to suggest that that I'm assuming who's going to rent the particular 02:10:08.578 --> 02:10:15.308 - of the two-bedroom versus the three-bedroom is simply that I can I feel that it's Fairly accurate to 02:10:15.308 --> 02:10:22.239 - say there'll be less cars that's why I say it because Even if it is a family and their family that they 02:10:22.239 --> 02:10:28.902 - have two kids that are driving I mean, it's just more cars that could be on site and I think that's 02:10:28.902 --> 02:10:35.966 - adding to this whole issue of safety and parking and all of that not who I think might be renting because 02:10:37.250 --> 02:10:42.672 - You know, we can't consider that. And I'm not considering that, but I am considering that two less bedrooms 02:10:42.672 --> 02:10:47.793 - is gonna be two less number of people or possibly a couple, because a couple I suppose could, I don't 02:10:47.793 --> 02:10:52.913 - know how that works in a duplex. If you have three bedrooms, they all have to be related. And if they 02:10:52.913 --> 02:10:58.084 - could be married, they could have two couples that are married and then a child or something. And what 02:10:58.084 --> 02:11:03.205 - I'm saying is that there could be a lot of people actually in that three bedroom, but I think there'd 02:11:03.205 --> 02:11:04.510 - be less in a two bedroom. 02:11:05.090 --> 02:11:11.750 - Therefore there'd be less likelihood to have cars and those kind of issues. That was my thinking Yeah 02:11:11.750 --> 02:11:18.540 - in terms of housing stock the three-bedroom will give more opportunities for for family a larger group. 02:11:18.540 --> 02:11:25.200 - Yes, I understand Is this and I'd have to go back and look again I have not looked at the floor plan, 02:11:25.200 --> 02:11:31.925 - but is a is it a bathroom per bedroom? so In that I know that makes no difference, but I'm just I know 02:11:31.925 --> 02:11:34.014 - it it gives a perception that's 02:11:34.114 --> 02:11:40.722 - That is the trend right now even for a single-family home. Yeah, if that is the Trend of nuke and I 02:11:40.722 --> 02:11:47.461 - think it's important for people to hear that. Yeah New construction now people expect each bedroom to 02:11:47.461 --> 02:11:54.135 - have a bedroom. So Any other comments questions either to the petitioner or to the city if not, I'll 02:11:54.135 --> 02:12:00.743 - entertain a motion just one quick comment I I do think that we should you know acknowledge that the 02:12:00.743 --> 02:12:03.518 - petitioner You know responded to feedback 02:12:04.642 --> 02:12:13.066 - Around the arguments on inadequate infrastructure and tried to come up with a reasonable alternative 02:12:13.066 --> 02:12:21.490 - to mitigate the concerns about Parking on Wiley Street. Yes and then we're you know It's recommended 02:12:21.490 --> 02:12:30.664 - that we deny a variance to accommodate what he was trying to do based on feedback so I do want to acknowledge 02:12:30.664 --> 02:12:34.334 - that he made that effort and good faith and 02:12:35.362 --> 02:12:42.404 - We're recommending that we deny the variance So we again we do have two things in front of us which 02:12:42.404 --> 02:12:49.728 - is an approval is being requested for the conditional use and Then the city's recommending that we deny 02:12:49.728 --> 02:12:57.123 - the two instances in which they're asking for the variance for parking that there were two is that right 02:12:57.123 --> 02:13:02.686 - to two variances on the parking so that's the recommendation from the city and 02:13:03.042 --> 02:13:12.743 - To approve the conditional use which is the duplex itself, but to also deny those two points about the 02:13:12.743 --> 02:13:22.162 - parking request So if there's no further comments or questions for the petitioner for the city then 02:13:22.162 --> 02:13:28.190 - we we can look to make an emotion and seeing where things stand 02:13:34.562 --> 02:13:47.407 - Okay, I'll make a get the ball rolling here. I'll move that Approval of the conditional use for SR 26 02:13:47.407 --> 02:14:00.001 - 05 0 0 2 2 and deny the variance requested in ZR 20 26 0 7 0 0 3 5 with the conditions as stated in 02:14:00.001 --> 02:14:02.142 - the staff report 02:14:04.322 --> 02:14:11.696 - I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. Is there any further discussion from the 02:14:11.696 --> 02:14:18.999 - board? Can we fourth condition that he can either do the alley per code or a front driveway per code? 02:14:18.999 --> 02:14:26.230 - Staff request this friendly amendment. So it was recommended that we include a fourth condition that 02:14:26.230 --> 02:14:33.246 - would give him the option, the option to either put it into code off the alley or code off Wiley. 02:14:34.562 --> 02:14:42.807 - To do a yeah, why don't you say that again and I'll agree to the friendly amendment Condition four would 02:14:42.807 --> 02:14:50.659 - be to allow him to put in parking to code either off the alley or off of Wiley following our design 02:14:50.659 --> 02:14:57.726 - guidelines driveway cut either a driveway cut or the alley improvement of the alley. Yeah 02:15:03.362 --> 02:15:11.433 - So I now have a motion. I now have an amended motion and the second applies corrects second apply still 02:15:11.433 --> 02:15:19.426 - in We had an amendment. Do we need another second? Second we have a second. So we have a new amendment 02:15:19.426 --> 02:15:27.187 - with it has an amendment. Thank you Lynn and a second. Thank you Chris any further discussion Okay, 02:15:27.187 --> 02:15:31.998 - so a vote of yes would be to approve the conditional use of a 02:15:32.194 --> 02:15:39.794 - was proposed by the petitioner for a duplex and to deny the request for the Parking variances with the 02:15:39.794 --> 02:15:47.247 - exception of the fourth condition which was to allow for build-by-code in the alley Did I state that 02:15:47.247 --> 02:15:54.700 - correct or a traffic cutoff of Wiley? Or a driveway cut off a while. I hear that in the amendment or 02:15:54.700 --> 02:15:59.422 - that was in there. Okay. Yeah. Thank you Any further discussion 02:16:01.698 --> 02:16:15.261 - Just to make sure we're all on the same page with the fourth condition We're still denying the variance 02:16:15.261 --> 02:16:28.693 - To allow the four or the five spaces as opposed to four off of the alley but that can be replaced with 02:16:28.693 --> 02:16:30.910 - the drive off of 02:16:32.258 --> 02:16:42.540 - Wiley or adjusting the alley giving him permission to build It all has to be to code so it doesn't require 02:16:42.540 --> 02:16:52.149 - variance exactly, but it's stated though for Is that right am I seeing it right Chris All right any 02:16:52.149 --> 02:17:01.662 - further discussion any questions about the motion In that case, I'll call the question Burrell yes 02:17:02.114 --> 02:17:13.290 - Fernandez, yes, could Cinco no Smith. Yes, Throckmorton. No Thank you Do you does anyone need a break 02:17:13.290 --> 02:17:24.357 - because we can take a five, okay, we have a five-minute break We'll reconvene at five minutes before 02:17:24.357 --> 02:17:29.726 - the hour of eight All right. Let's let's do this 02:17:31.394 --> 02:17:39.822 - The BZA is now for Thursday, September 24th is reconvened. I do want to state for the record because 02:17:39.822 --> 02:17:48.418 - I failed to say it out loud is that the vote on ZR 2026-05-002 was passed with a vote of three to two. 02:17:48.418 --> 02:17:56.763 - The motion passed and I apologize for not making that clear. I think I just said okay because I was 02:17:56.763 --> 02:17:59.934 - tired. So that's my fault. Thank you. 02:18:00.482 --> 02:18:07.446 - We are now reconvened. At this point, we are now ready to hear the petition for ZR 2026-07-003. It's 02:18:07.446 --> 02:18:14.410 - a request at 530 South Washington Street for an administrative appeal of a notice of violation. I do 02:18:14.410 --> 02:18:21.581 - wanna state just before we start that I did ask the petitioner to please bring the exhibit to the front 02:18:21.581 --> 02:18:28.062 - of the chambers so that we could all see it easily. And with that, let's have a staff report. 02:18:29.282 --> 02:18:39.247 - Certainly, my name is Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner. And we should have something up there in a 02:18:39.247 --> 02:18:49.213 - moment. Yes, this is an administrative appeal of a notice of violation warning letter for a sign in 02:18:49.213 --> 02:18:57.982 - the public right of way, which is a prohibited sign location. Location was at 530 South 02:18:58.082 --> 02:19:06.615 - Washington Street. There is a map of it and aerial image. That's Walnut Street on the left side there. 02:19:06.615 --> 02:19:15.396 - So this is one block off of Walnut. In May, the transportation department received a complaint of signage 02:19:15.396 --> 02:19:23.847 - in the street. And then later that same month, staff observed the signage in the public right of way. 02:19:23.847 --> 02:19:27.326 - In June, staff sent a notice of violation 02:19:27.426 --> 02:19:35.579 - warning letter on July 6th, the property owner filed a timely appeal, and it came to a hearing last 02:19:35.579 --> 02:19:43.895 - month, and at the appellant's request, the BZA continued the hearing to this September meeting, which 02:19:43.895 --> 02:19:52.292 - is why we're here. This was the image in the notice of violation warning letter. This is a photo taken 02:19:52.292 --> 02:19:55.390 - from the street. We're looking toward 02:19:55.650 --> 02:20:02.135 - the edge of the street and the house. And we can see some features, some items in the right of way. 02:20:02.135 --> 02:20:08.815 - Just wanna put this up here. We may want to come back to it if you have any questions, but this is the 02:20:08.815 --> 02:20:15.300 - UDO definition of sign. So we'll just skip over it. We can come back to it if you want. And the UDO 02:20:15.300 --> 02:20:22.110 - prohibits signs in the public right of way. This is the part of code that explains that any public right 02:20:22.110 --> 02:20:24.574 - of way is a prohibited sign location. 02:20:25.826 --> 02:20:32.642 - Staff does not consider this as vehicle signage. However, to the extent that you could consider it to 02:20:32.642 --> 02:20:39.391 - be vehicle signage, the UDO makes it clear that vehicle signs are a prohibited sign type. Here's the 02:20:39.391 --> 02:20:46.273 - language about vehicle signs. Again, I'm not going to read it now, but we could come back to it if you 02:20:46.273 --> 02:20:53.022 - want to review that in detail. This being an administrative appeal, the staff report does not make a 02:20:53.022 --> 02:20:55.294 - formal recommendation. Thank you. 02:20:57.122 --> 02:21:04.873 - Thank you, Gabriel. The petitioner is here in chambers. And Joe, if you'll come forward, you'll have 02:21:04.873 --> 02:21:13.237 - 20 minutes. And again, Joe, what you don't use initially, you can hold in reserve and make a final statement 02:21:13.237 --> 02:21:20.988 - before the board takes action. Thank you. Now, Joe, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to 02:21:20.988 --> 02:21:25.822 - give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 02:21:26.978 --> 02:21:36.398 - Yes, I do. All right, you have 20 minutes My name is Joe Davis, thank you very much for allowing me 02:21:36.398 --> 02:21:45.817 - to present my appeal before you this evening I would like to reserve seven minutes of my 20 minutes 02:21:45.817 --> 02:21:53.918 - for a period following public comment and Questions coming from the from the board. I 02:21:54.306 --> 02:22:03.060 - Please note to please stop him at 13 minutes per his request. Thank you Joe. Go ahead. Thank you. I 02:22:03.060 --> 02:22:11.989 - Want to be clear after 13 minutes, so there'll be seven minutes left on the clock. I want to be clear 02:22:11.989 --> 02:22:17.854 - about that. Thank you Okay, okay. All right. Thank you very much I 02:22:24.322 --> 02:22:38.667 - Referring to I am here today to appeal a notice of violation warning letter for a an alleged sign in 02:22:38.667 --> 02:22:53.438 - the public right away a Prohibited Permanent standalone sign location As As planning and transportation 02:22:53.602 --> 02:23:08.657 - Notified me in their notice of In their notice of violation warning letter they did not say that a prohibited 02:23:08.657 --> 02:23:22.206 - They did not say that a permanent sign Was what they were necessarily accusing me of harboring but 02:23:23.042 --> 02:23:37.346 - But I am here to present that my utility cart with a sign is a transportation mode and It is not a permanent 02:23:37.346 --> 02:23:44.958 - standalone sign in the public Parkaway area of the street 02:23:48.002 --> 02:24:04.732 - Reside at 530 South Washington Street. You have seen an image of my sign parked in the public park away 02:24:04.732 --> 02:24:17.118 - area of the street between vehicles One a few questions that I would like to 02:24:17.730 --> 02:24:30.308 - Note or is that in planning and transportation's Receipt of complaint of signage in the street six weeks 02:24:30.308 --> 02:24:42.526 - took by took went by before planning and transportation Sent me a letter on June the 23rd of 2026 and 02:24:42.526 --> 02:24:47.198 - I questioned why it took six weeks and 02:24:47.650 --> 02:25:00.899 - for this to take place. Gabriel Holbro informed me that it was through an anonymous complaint that they 02:25:00.899 --> 02:25:13.639 - had been notified. And I question why anonymous complaints carry so much weight considering that we 02:25:13.639 --> 02:25:15.550 - don't know the 02:25:16.290 --> 02:25:27.545 - identity of the complainant and I am suspicious that The anonymous complaint came from a commercial 02:25:27.545 --> 02:25:39.138 - landlord who lives adjacent to me or not lives, but owns property properties all surrounding me By the 02:25:39.138 --> 02:25:44.766 - name of her name is Renata raper and she Has been 02:25:45.570 --> 02:25:56.013 - Notorious in making anonymous complaints against my property and against my vehicles claiming them to 02:25:56.013 --> 02:26:06.456 - be abandoned Furthermore I would like to question why the Planning and Transportation Department sent 02:26:06.456 --> 02:26:11.166 - out a letter to adjacent property owners when 02:26:11.554 --> 02:26:23.972 - None of the adjacent property owners or owner-occupiers surrounded me. Why? After speaking with my neighbors, 02:26:23.972 --> 02:26:35.600 - who are all renters, none of them had received the letter concerning my request to appeal this alleged 02:26:35.600 --> 02:26:41.470 - sign violation warning. It seems inappropriate that 02:26:42.306 --> 02:26:53.238 - the owners of the properties that surround aren't the only ones who need to be notified. It's actually 02:26:53.238 --> 02:27:04.276 - the tenants, the residents who are in those properties who have the most to say when it comes in regard 02:27:04.276 --> 02:27:10.750 - to this. Therefore, I would like to submit these as exhibits 02:27:12.354 --> 02:27:27.440 - This is a This includes the adjacent property owners listed who were notified by planning and transportation 02:27:27.440 --> 02:27:36.990 - and also to a letter from attorneys of Renata Raper of our place LLC 02:27:37.634 --> 02:27:48.116 - Who has been harassing me and as you can see from all the properties that she owns Surrounding me that 02:27:48.116 --> 02:27:59.004 - it's likely that this is just she is the one who probably Most likely made this claim and so I now present 02:27:59.004 --> 02:28:06.942 - to you these exhibits Yeah, yeah make sure that the city gets a copy and then 02:28:07.394 --> 02:28:15.905 - Board If you only have one copy we'll pass it down but that has to go to the city for me Whoops 02:28:15.905 --> 02:28:24.947 - so technically we just need to keep the copy at the end So if you need a third copy right now as long 02:28:24.947 --> 02:28:34.078 - as we get it back Now Gabriel go ahead and keep that we'll just we'll look at this that was provided I 02:28:36.802 --> 02:28:49.500 - Five seconds, okay All right So staff has stated that they do not consider petitioners signage to be 02:28:49.500 --> 02:29:02.450 - considered a feature of vehicles parked legally on the street The UDO clarifies that vehicle signs are 02:29:02.450 --> 02:29:05.342 - a prohibited sign type 02:29:05.570 --> 02:29:19.195 - When they do not move Okay According to Bloomington Bloomington Municipal Code tile 20 unified development 02:29:19.195 --> 02:29:30.782 - ordinance 20.04 dot 100 e development standards and incentives signs prohibited sign types 02:29:30.946 --> 02:29:40.152 - The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts unless specifically authorized by another 02:29:40.152 --> 02:29:49.359 - provision of section twenty point oh four point one zero zero or section twenty point oh three point 02:29:49.359 --> 02:29:59.294 - zero three zero h three and number five under vehicle signs Which should also include utility carts bicycles 02:29:59.554 --> 02:30:08.791 - utility trailers under number five vehicles vans trailers Utility carts as I say bicycles and utility 02:30:08.791 --> 02:30:17.847 - trailers should be included Gabriel Holbro told me that bicycles are authorized to be parked in the 02:30:17.847 --> 02:30:20.926 - in the public park away space and 02:30:22.050 --> 02:30:29.581 - Vehicles vans trailers utility carts bicycles utility trailers or trucks that are parked continuously 02:30:29.581 --> 02:30:37.260 - in the same general location to be used to blame signs This does not prohibit vehicle or trailer owners 02:30:37.260 --> 02:30:44.126 - from having vehicles or trailers with signs provided the vehicles or trailers are in use and 02:30:44.354 --> 02:30:51.896 - on a regular basis and are not continuously parked in one parking lot or parking space and are not being 02:30:51.896 --> 02:30:59.366 - used to serve in the same manner as an additional freestanding sign or temporary sign This exhibit that 02:30:59.366 --> 02:31:06.836 - I have brought today which I'm motioning to my utility car, which is a mode of transportation that also 02:31:06.836 --> 02:31:09.566 - has a sign much like a vehicle with a 02:31:09.698 --> 02:31:23.616 - Jimmy John's sign or an uber sign or a realtors sign This utility cart Moves around the city almost 02:31:23.616 --> 02:31:37.534 - on a daily basis its move from Its parked location from my home twice to downtown today Bloomington 02:31:39.394 --> 02:31:50.874 - Bloomington Municipal Code, Title 20, Unified Development Ordinance 20.07.010, defined words, sign, 02:31:50.874 --> 02:32:03.043 - any display or device placed on, and it should be included, or it should be inserted here, real property, 02:32:03.043 --> 02:32:08.094 - meaning real estate, not personal property, 02:32:08.258 --> 02:32:17.888 - Any fashion that can be seen from a public place or public right-of-way that is designated Intended 02:32:17.888 --> 02:32:27.614 - or used to convey any identification message or information other than an address number This is not 02:32:27.614 --> 02:32:37.822 - placed On real property this is placed in the area where transportation modes are parked so this does not 02:32:38.274 --> 02:32:51.259 - However, I would like to say that realtor signs, candidate signs, these are all allowed to be placed 02:32:51.259 --> 02:33:04.373 - on real property. Disallowing my transportation mode with a sign is unconstitutional according to the 02:33:04.373 --> 02:33:06.430 - First Amendment 02:33:06.818 --> 02:33:17.786 - right to free speech. My house, which I consider the Smile House Museum of Found and Contemporary Art, 02:33:17.786 --> 02:33:28.860 - as noted on my notice of appeal of the November warning letter in regard to the November warning letter 02:33:28.860 --> 02:33:33.758 - dated July 6, 2026, my house displays a smile 02:33:34.114 --> 02:33:52.448 - and currently a getting squeaky clean sign. These are all freedom of speech allowed by the First Amendment 02:33:52.448 --> 02:34:02.558 - of the US Constitution. Okay. Again, I would like to state 02:34:03.682 --> 02:34:16.554 - Petitioner the question before us tonight is whether or not Petitioner appellant sign is a freestanding 02:34:16.554 --> 02:34:28.931 - Permanent sign that is in a prohibited space the public park away space The answer is no petitioner 02:34:28.931 --> 02:34:31.902 - appellants Utility cart 02:34:32.258 --> 02:34:42.144 - Transportation you're at seven minutes if you'd like to retain that time or you can continue that That 02:34:42.144 --> 02:34:51.742 - simply displays It's a utility cart that simply displays a sign no different than a Jimmy John sign 02:34:52.002 --> 02:34:59.794 - or an Uber sign, or any other delivery sign, or a realtor sign that is slapped on the side of a vehicle 02:34:59.794 --> 02:35:07.511 - to promote their business as they're able. I would like to reserve the rest of my time in response for 02:35:07.511 --> 02:35:15.229 - after the questions and the public comment. Thank you. Thank you. We'll hold the clock there. You have 02:35:15.229 --> 02:35:21.822 - just a few seconds over six minutes left. We'll come back to that. You can have a seat. 02:35:22.050 --> 02:35:33.146 - For a moment, it will call you up if we have questions We're back to the board if you have any questions 02:35:33.146 --> 02:35:43.820 - of the petitioner or the staff Where this sign was on the street Yes from the from the city exhibit, 02:35:43.820 --> 02:35:46.462 - yes, thank you so much I 02:36:04.418 --> 02:36:18.714 - Okay. Thank you. Oh that was it. You just wanted to see it. All right. I thought you had a question 02:36:18.714 --> 02:36:31.294 - there. Okay. Okay. Any any questions. Okay. Seeing that we'll go to the public. Please. 02:36:33.602 --> 02:36:44.552 - I mean the petitioner refers to Vehicle signs, but that is not a defined term. Is that correct? I mean 02:36:44.552 --> 02:36:55.927 - I see sign comma portable And it refers Says including but not limited to signs designed to be transported 02:36:55.927 --> 02:37:03.262 - by means of wheels There's no Term for vehicular sign is there there 02:37:03.362 --> 02:37:11.011 - So in the videos defined words vehicle sign is not a defined word. That's why the regulation that prohibits 02:37:11.011 --> 02:37:18.307 - vehicle signs contains Regulation for how you determine if something is a vehicle sign or not So there 02:37:18.307 --> 02:37:25.460 - is something that that approaches the use of a definition, but it is not one of the defined terms in 02:37:25.460 --> 02:37:30.206 - the utl Any other questions for the staff or for the petitioner or 02:37:38.978 --> 02:37:47.240 - Sparked between cars on the street Or is it on the driveway? It's in the public right-of-way So there's 02:37:47.240 --> 02:37:55.264 - there's the sidewalk there's the curb and then there's the area where vehicles often park and it's a 02:37:55.264 --> 02:38:03.368 - lot Permitted to park there and that's where it is. So between the curb and the travel way where cars 02:38:03.368 --> 02:38:07.102 - pass Okay, so not on the street. It's on the I 02:38:07.746 --> 02:38:13.817 - It's on the street, but in the right away. Sorry, say your question again. Is it on the street? But 02:38:13.817 --> 02:38:19.887 - it's part of the right away. I think what you're getting at is you would not consider a part of the 02:38:19.887 --> 02:38:26.140 - street. It's not the part where vehicles travel. I would call that part of the street because you park 02:38:26.140 --> 02:38:32.333 - on the street, but that's a semantic. No, I don't have an agenda. I just want to know where it is. Is 02:38:32.333 --> 02:38:35.550 - it a parking space or is it considered road surface? 02:38:36.194 --> 02:38:43.980 - It would be a parking space. It's a designated lined out parking space Well, there's no lines on on 02:38:43.980 --> 02:38:51.766 - this part of so it's the water. It's part of the roadway Right. It's a part of the roadway where it 02:38:51.766 --> 02:38:59.863 - is legal to park. That's all that I think what's being asked, correct? Is it roadway? Yeah. Yeah. Okay, 02:38:59.863 --> 02:39:03.678 - so it's a roadway. Okay Any other questions Okay 02:39:04.290 --> 02:39:12.779 - We'll go to the public then for comments. We have anyone online because there's no one in in chambers 02:39:12.779 --> 02:39:21.684 - If there is anybody online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you for public comment 02:39:21.684 --> 02:39:30.173 - I'm not seeing anybody. Okay at this point then Joe is back to you to use the remainder of your time, 02:39:30.173 --> 02:39:33.086 - please 16 6 minutes and 18 seconds 02:39:36.930 --> 02:39:54.622 - Okay As I mentioned before Gabriel Holbro has Shared with the petition repellent that bicycles are allowed 02:39:54.622 --> 02:40:03.550 - to be parked in the Parking area of the public street 02:40:05.826 --> 02:40:19.329 - My utility cart is typically locked to my bicycle in the public street area. The current location is 02:40:19.329 --> 02:40:34.302 - roughly the same location as the image that was presented before. However, the mortar mixer is no longer there. 02:40:34.882 --> 02:40:50.170 - a bicycle and my cart and another chair Which these are locked to such that for safety reasons to prevent 02:40:50.170 --> 02:41:02.718 - theft If we if you could continue through the images, please Gabriel Continue Continue 02:41:04.226 --> 02:41:13.823 - Okay, now you can see, this is typically the manner in which this transportation mode that happens to 02:41:13.823 --> 02:41:23.703 - have a sign moves from where my house is, 530 South Washington Street, to uptown or downtown or wherever 02:41:23.703 --> 02:41:32.830 - I'm going. And as you can see, I'm moving in the bicycle lane and behind me is a delivery driver 02:41:33.186 --> 02:41:41.680 - this car from Jimmy John's. I don't know if you can see the image, but there's a lit kind of sign on 02:41:41.680 --> 02:41:50.257 - top of this car in the background, and it has the Jimmy John logo on it. There we are, thank you. And 02:41:50.257 --> 02:41:58.919 - if we'll just continue to move through the images. And then here you can see I'm passing by, and we're 02:41:58.919 --> 02:42:01.694 - backed up here, but at any rate, 02:42:01.922 --> 02:42:11.303 - This demonstrates my point that this utility car, though it might be parked overnight in the area where 02:42:11.303 --> 02:42:20.593 - vehicles and bicycles and other items are allowed to be parked, it is ephemerally parked. It regularly 02:42:20.593 --> 02:42:27.358 - moves throughout the city. It is not a permanent standalone sign in place. 02:42:32.482 --> 02:42:45.452 - So Where's my I'm sorry. I'm looking for how much time I have left three minutes and 22 seconds three 02:42:45.452 --> 02:42:58.167 - minutes and 22 seconds So again, there are many types of transportation modes the UDO is incomplete 02:42:58.167 --> 02:43:01.982 - when it lists definitions for 02:43:02.274 --> 02:43:14.786 - for transportation modes that does not include bicycles you Bicycled utility trailers utility carts 02:43:14.786 --> 02:43:27.674 - as well as scooters as well as other Means that individuals used to move about throughout the city and 02:43:27.674 --> 02:43:31.678 - transport their belongings This 02:43:31.938 --> 02:43:42.120 - Incomplete list of definitions in the UDO Should not prevent a petitioner petitioner appellant from 02:43:42.120 --> 02:43:53.016 - being From his appeal being upheld It is not the fault of the petitioner appellant that the UDO is lacking 02:43:53.016 --> 02:44:00.958 - a larger Slate of transportation modes that are authorized to be moving about 02:44:01.634 --> 02:44:12.871 - along the street and utilize the bicycle space for Safety of bicycles and other modes of transportation 02:44:12.871 --> 02:44:24.000 - on the city streets, especially on South Washington South Lincoln any place where it's designated that 02:44:24.000 --> 02:44:29.726 - bicycles are to be are authorized to be moving about 02:44:30.946 --> 02:44:49.683 - So I ask that the board Uphold petitioner appellants Appeal and Deny planning and transportation's alleged 02:44:49.683 --> 02:45:00.190 - assumption that Petitioners utility cart is an unauthorized 02:45:00.546 --> 02:45:10.798 - permanent sign parked in the public Park away space of the public street This utility cart does not 02:45:10.798 --> 02:45:21.051 - block the right away It is just parked where other vehicles like realtor like realtor vehicles with 02:45:21.051 --> 02:45:29.150 - signs like uber vehicles with signs like food delivery vehicles with signs and 02:45:29.890 --> 02:45:42.109 - are able and authorized to park. Should the appeal be denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, I ask that 02:45:42.109 --> 02:45:54.327 - the BZA statement of fact and decision include specific ordinance and statute and include the fact that 02:45:54.327 --> 02:45:59.614 - I have mentioned my first and 14th amendment 02:46:00.066 --> 02:46:14.118 - constitutional rights the 14th being That the equal treatment under the law clause of the 14th amendment 02:46:14.118 --> 02:46:29.374 - Is appropriate in upholding my appeal Because otherwise I am being treated differently Than motor vehicle drivers 02:46:29.634 --> 02:46:39.967 - Have a sign then bicyclist who might have a sign very good and thank you very much Thank you for your 02:46:39.967 --> 02:46:50.401 - time on that. Okay now with that We're back to the board seeking either further discussion any further 02:46:50.401 --> 02:46:59.518 - questions you have with the petitioner or for the staff or we will entertain a motion Yes 02:47:05.218 --> 02:47:13.937 - Would be either to uphold the appeal or deny the appeal correct Are there findings of fact that have 02:47:13.937 --> 02:47:23.087 - to go with that? No, you're you're either affirming that it was a violation or you are not So an approval 02:47:23.087 --> 02:47:32.064 - would be approving his appeal a denial would be denying his appeal One of the very few types of motions 02:47:32.064 --> 02:47:34.654 - we can make that are so clear 02:47:35.938 --> 02:47:45.257 - Yeah, I'll make a motion to deny the appeal I have a motion to deny the appeal. Do I have a second? 02:47:45.257 --> 02:47:55.042 - Any further discussion so to deny the appeal would be to Well, I'm sorry, it'd be a denial of the appeal 02:47:55.042 --> 02:48:04.734 - administrative appeal any further discussions or questions I'll call the question Burrell Yes Fernandez 02:48:04.962 --> 02:48:19.326 - Kosenko, yes Smith. Yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes That motion is passed 5-0 we do have we do go on to Any 02:48:19.326 --> 02:48:34.526 - on any new business we did have a couple of items that wanted to come up Eric but For I guess for the record 02:48:36.226 --> 02:48:44.408 - Previous case that we have talked about that is I think 230 Morton I believe that somebody is How it 02:48:44.408 --> 02:48:52.672 - needs investigation if somebody is habiting that apartment to Make it clear to those on the board who 02:48:52.672 --> 02:49:01.502 - may not have been involved. It's the old Is it Ferris old Ferris market? What was the corner market there? I 02:49:02.498 --> 02:49:10.062 - Ferris market, so the old Ferris market they had Incorrectly placed apartment buildings next to the 02:49:10.062 --> 02:49:18.080 - street and had done a number of things in order to Try to bring it within code We denied them the ability 02:49:18.080 --> 02:49:25.871 - to continue to use those apartments in the current configuration. So I Believe I think that's correct. 02:49:25.871 --> 02:49:31.166 - We denied that Yes appeal. I'm sorry that petition for a variance and 02:49:31.266 --> 02:49:37.542 - So with that your question is you believe someone might actually be living there now due to some signage 02:49:37.542 --> 02:49:43.519 - You've seen and some other things correct. There's signage outside of the building about deliveries 02:49:43.519 --> 02:49:49.555 - For the unit right and we'd like to have you'd like to have that addressed Correct. So yep, so we'll 02:49:49.555 --> 02:49:55.712 - have our enforcement staff take a look and pursue it as necessary. Okay, very good Thank you. And with 02:49:55.712 --> 02:50:00.254 - that if there's no further new business This meeting is Adjourned Thank you