All right. Welcome. Good evening. Welcome to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for Thursday, September
24th. Could I please have a roll call. Here. Fernandez. Because Cinco Smith here. Throck Morton here.
Resolutions any communications from staff before I go over the agenda nothing from staff. Thank you
anything from the board Thank you Okay, we have the following Petitions tonight. We don't have any continued.
Did I read that correctly? It's continued Yep, okay. So we do have one expedited agenda item. That's
ZR twenty twenty six zero eight zero zero three eight That's a sign
Ordinance issue then we have two petitions that we'll be hearing this evening. The other will Those
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
have ZR 20 26 dash 0 7 dash 0 0 3 3 and that is request at 530 South Washington Street concerning an
administrative appeal of a notice of violation and
Did I get all of those correct? Yes, and we also do have approval of minutes. I didn't see any distributed.
There was a link. There was a link in the agenda. If you click on approval of okay, I missed that. So,
okay. Well, I didn't read it then. So but do we have a motion to approve the minutes? Do I have a second?
Second. Go ahead and call it.
Burrell Yes, Fernandez Cosinco abstain Smith Yes, it's Rock Morton. I have to stand. I didn't have a
chance to read him. I didn't see the link Sorry Yeah, so those will just be continued to the next meeting.
Yeah. All right Sorry, I went back and looked I didn't look for a link. Thank you All right
That's why I skipped over Eric, but thank you the First thing is we'll go to the expedited agenda item
back to the staff for a presentation, please
Thank you. So this is a request for variance from signed standards for the use student housing or dormitory
or dormitory in the mixed use student housing district. So this is for a property at 1327 North Lincoln
Street. The property is on mixed use student housing and was approved for redevelopment for a somewhat
large student housing use. It is one building.
That kind of spans the blocks from 17th Street to the north 17th Street to the south to 19th Street
to the north Lincoln Street to the east and Washington Street to the west. So the UDO limits the amount
of wall signage that is allowed for multifamily uses to 24 square feet per building. So by
the UDO application the building would only be allowed 24 square feet.
Even though it is quite large and spans as I mentioned several street frontages and encompasses of a
wide section of the property And so the petitioner is requesting a variance from that 24 square feet
of signage to allow for In essence four signs on the front on the property one is for a wall sign on
the entrance on the east side of the property East side of the building a small sign
on the south side of the building and then two signs along the entry and exit of the parking garage
that are on the southwest corner of the building. So along the entry on the east side they're proposing
an approximately 14 square foot sign along the south side of the building on the top of the building.
They're proposing approximately 20 square foot sign and then on the entrance and exit to the parking
garage on the southwest corner.
of the building they're proposing to five square foot signs. So with that obviously staff has evaluated
this per variance criteria. We did not find that the approval would be injurious to the public health
safety morals or general welfare. We did not find any adverse impacts on adjacent use and value. And
in regards to peculiar conditions we certainly found that the presence of four street frontages along
this property
The size of the building and the sign is in relation to that and the restrictions of the audio though were.
Based on smaller buildings that were scattered throughout the property, you know, did not contemplate
a building of this size and massing. However, the signage that is being proposed is appropriate. So
we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with just the
one condition that is listed in staff's report. And I'm happy to answer any questions once the petitioners
come forward.
Thank you. Do we have petitioner in attendance this evening is so come forward I'll have you state your
first and last name Kevin Meyers And do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay and for those new here you'll have up to 20 minutes
in this initial presentation to us and
If you don't use all that time, it's in reserve and then after we've had discussion here amongst the
board You will have an opportunity to use the remainder of your time before a motion is acted upon We'll
keep it short the big thing is I'm sorry make sure you are in front of the microphone so everyone can
hear thank you the wall sign on the building that's within the 24 square feet and then the primary entrance
the main reason for that is there's a
Three secondary entrances so we won't have one main entrance for student safety that we know which where
to go as well where to drop off So that's the main reason why we wanted to add that sign the car park
signs. It's more for vehicular traffic Just be able to say entrance exit pretty simple reason why we
made them five square feet was just more for contrast color To be able to see it from where it was mounted
Okay. Thank you. We're back to the board with any questions for the petitioner or for the staff. This
is X is this expedited. So when we do public it's only three. Correct. Thank you. All right. So for
the board any questions before we go to the public for comment none. Okay. Is there anyone in the public
who would like to address this make a statement if so come forward to the podium sign in and you'll
have up to three minutes online.
If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition please use the raise hand function
and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody online. Seeing no more back to petitioner even though
you just finished without any comments. Do you have anything further you'd like to say before we go
to the board. Thank you. With that we're back to the board. Either further discussion questions or a
motion will be entertained.
variance recommend or requested under ZR twenty twenty six oh eight zero zero three eight and that the
variance approvals limit to the sign is as shown and discussed in the staff report and packet I Have
a motion to have a second second motion a second. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none I call
the question burrow Fernandez, yes
Kutsenko. Yes, Smith. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Okay Complaints are expedited agenda items We will now
move on to our petitions at this point. We'll move to five minutes of public comment We start with ZR
2026-05-0022 it's requested for 12 East Wiley Street and
Conditional use approval to allow for the use of a dwelling duplex And I do want to just check do we
have the petitioner in here this evening? Is petitioner in attendance, okay, very good. Thank you. All
right with that we'll go to the staff for presentation, please Senior zoning planner
So for this case the petitioner Mr. Kevin Spicer is requesting conditional use approval for a duplex
at 412 East Wiley Street in the residential small lot R3 zoning district. The petitioner is also also
requesting two variances from the maximum vehicle parking allowance and the vehicle parking location
and design standards in the allowed use table in the city's Unified Development Ordinance or UDO.
A duplex is a conditionally permitted use in the R3 zoning district and subject to the use specific
standards in section 20.03030B3. The first use specific standard is that the property owner does not
have any notices of violation on file with the planning and transportation department at the time of
their filing and this criteria is met. The second use specific standard for a duplex is that no more
than three unrelated adults
can live together in each unit and this is met on the proposed plan with only three bedrooms per unit.
The third standard is that each unit has a separate exterior entrance facing a street and this is met
on the proposed plan with both units having a separate entrance facing Wiley Street to the north. The
next use specific standard is the design elements.
There are four design elements and these are one roof pitch to front porch width and depth three front
building setback and four vehicle parking access. The UDO states that these four designs design elements
shall be similar in general shape size and design with the majority of existing single family homes
and duplexes on the same block face. Staff evaluated these four design elements and found that
They were met with the proposed duplex. The last specific standard standards for a duplex are that there
are a maximum of six bedrooms. They are not any other duplexes within 150 feet of the property and no
more than 15 duplexes can be approved each year. And all of these criteria are met with this proposed plan.
To provide a brief overview of the point two three acre site there is currently a detached single family
home on the property and that's proposed to be demolished for the new duplex and all the surrounding
properties in this area are also zoned R3 zoning. The property is not designated as a historic site
and not subject to any historic regulations. There is not closed canopy on the site so the UDO does
not regulate tree retention in this case.
And this petition was presented to the Brian Park and Elm Heights neighborhood associations in May of
this year. And that is one of the requirements for a conditional use duplex. This aerial map shows the
location of the subject property to the west. There is an unbuilt section of right away for Palmer Avenue.
Can I ask the staff to hold on for a minute? Joe, would you go ahead and finish what you're doing? So
are you finished?
Very good. Thank you. OK thank you. And then to the south of the subject property there is a 12 foot
platted alley alley and that is currently not improved. These are the proposed elevation drawings for
the duplex and these elevations were also presented to the board at the first public hearing for this
case in June.
The height to the peak of the structure is roughly 26 feet two inches with a 512 roof pitch. The orientation
of the roof lines run east to west and this is similar to other roof pitches on the block face. Some
of the houses along the block face include front porches similar to what is proposed for this home.
This is the floor plan proposed by the petitioner and the duplex is two stories tall and there are three
bedrooms per unit.
The petitioner also included the proposed sighting color for the duplex and that's shown on the screen.
And then this slide shows the block face for the case. The UDO defines block face as that portion of
a block adjacent and parallel to the abutting public street and normally extending from one intersecting
street to another. For this location the block face is from Dunn Street to the east and Grant Street
to the west.
There are a total of seven homes within the block face. When evaluating the four design elements,
roof pitch, front porch width and depth, front building setback, and vehicle parking access, the UDO
says that they should be similar in general shape, size, and design with other homes on the block face.
These two images show the existing conditions at 412 East Wiley. Since the alley behind the property
is not currently improved,
The petitioner has the option to access the property from Wiley Street or improve the alley to the south.
For conditional use duplex, the UDO has general compliance criteria, and these are compliance with the
UDO, other applicable regulations, utility service and improvement standards, and prior approvals. The
proposed duplex is in compliance with the UDO,
There are no other applicable regulations for the petition. Water and sanitary services will be coordinated
with City of Bloomington utilities and electrical service will be coordinated with Duke Energy. There
is adequate capacity in the city's water and sewer system to serve the site and there are no prior land
use approvals. The UDO has additional criteria applicable to conditional uses. The first criteria is
consistency with the comprehensive plan
and other applicable plans. This proposal is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and
the future land use map. This area is classified as mixed urban residential and the comprehensive plan
encourages opportunities for infill development and a diversity of housing types in the community. The
second criteria is that adequate public services and facilities are provided on the current site plan
Concrete walkways connect the proposed duplex to Wiley Street, and this provides pedestrian connections
on the site as the UDO requires. The next conditional use criteria is to minimize or mitigate adverse
impacts. In this case, there are no known regulated natural or scenic features that will be impacted.
No changes to trash and waste collection service are expected.
In response to feedback received at the neighborhood meeting the petitioner revised their site plan
to include a six foot tall privacy fence on the east side of the site. And this is to help buffer this
property from adjoining uses. Lastly no phasing is proposed with the plan and that covers the use specific
standards and the conditional use criteria for a duplex.
Next are the two variance requests. So the first variance being requested is to increase the maximum
number of parking spaces from four, which is the maximum in the UDO to five parking spaces. The second
variance request is to increase the size of the parking area allowed off an alley, which is restricted
by the UDO to 20 feet by 20 feet. And the petitioner is requesting to increase that to 20 feet by 42
and a half feet to accommodate the four
are the five parking spaces. This is the petitioners current site plan showing the improved alley to
the south. The petitioner is proposing a 20 foot by 42 and a half a parking pad off the alley for the
five parking spaces. And this plan requires two variances as I said. So the petitioner site plan shows
thirty six point seven five impervious surface coverage and that's compliant with the U.D.O.'s maximum.
The petitioners site plan also include includes a proposed walkway from the parking area to each of
the duplex units. So that was something that was added from the last meeting. So now addressing the
criteria and findings for each of the variance requests for the first variance request for maximum vehicle
parking one additional parking space that otherwise meets the design standards.
of the property is not expected to have a negative impact on the community at large adverse impacts
to the use and value of surrounding properties as a result of this variance to increase the maximum
number of parking spaces are not found. This property can be developed with a duplex that meets the
parking maximum of four spaces as permitted by the U.D.O. So in this
In this case staff did not find any peculiar conditions that prevent the petitioner from meeting the
parking maximum For the second variance from the vehicle parking location and design the petitioner
is requesting double the size then permitted by the UDO for parking often approved alley a wider interface
between the private and public spaces can create increased safety hazards the purpose of limiting the
size of the allowed parking area
off an alley is to manage vehicular access in the community. Safe alley access is important to the use
and value of surrounding properties, and a 42 and a half foot drive cut allowing direct access for five
vehicles is not comparable to the design of vehicle alley access with the surrounding properties. There
are not practical difficulties peculiar to the property that prevent the petitioner from meeting the
UDO's regulations.
limiting the parking pad size to 20 feet by 20 feet or 400 square feet. And the site can also be developed
with a compliant driveway off Wiley street, which was presented to you at the first hearing in June.
So that concludes the variance criteria. The department is recommending that the BZA adopt the proposed
findings, approve the conditional use request and deny the variance requests with the conditions listed
in the staff report.
And I'm happy to answer any questions from the board Thank you. It's petitioner ready to present. Okay,
come forward same thing as last time just state your first and last name for me, please My name is Kevin
Spicer and Kevin do you affirm that a testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth Yes, okay, and you'll have 20 minutes again what you don't use will be held in
reserve before the board takes action
I Will be real brief at the beginning. This is the third time so we've heard a lot of it a couple folks
were Not present last time. So just to kind of give you a quick synopsis of where we're at now
As we left last month, I was asked to bring back a different site plan than I had in the August hearing
and so which I have done which is the original one from June I To repeat we've changed the access to
the property trying to alleviate some of the
traffic on Wiley Street The I will mention the alley in the back It doesn't go any further to the east
Nor to the west from my property So it's not like the alley continues a long way once I would be to
rebuild the alley behind this property It goes in it doesn't go anywhere else There's only a two driveway
cuts prior
Right now off of that Palmer that leads to that alley The other thing that was talked about at the end
of our meeting last month was if there was any way to add additional parking in the front it was talked
about we did check into that and the engineering department does not allow that and
There's already on-street parking available. So it is what it is granted I am asking for the variances
tonight to get as much parking as I can to alleviate some of the neighbors concerns as far as The lack
of the on-street parking or hopefully would use less than the on-street parking So with that that's
just kind of an update on
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,
thank you Kevin go ahead and have you take a seat We're back to the board questions at this point for
the city and for the petitioner, I'm sorry Kevin We may call you back up Does anyone have a question
for the petitioner? Okay, anything for the city Yes
Thank you for the presentation really well done. So the on the driveway cut in the alley if there if
there was a smaller driveway cut would that be allowed. I'm talking about a smaller driveway cut almost
like a driveway correct that you go in and then the parking spaces up there.
You see what I'm saying. Not this whole block of concrete open in the back. I believe the regulation
would still be the same that it's limited to 20 feet wide off of the alley. There is an exception that
it can be longer than 20 feet if it's leading to a detached garage or something like that. But otherwise
if it's just a parking area it's limited to 20 feet wide.
20 feet from the alley total. Yes. So it wouldn't be a driveway. Yeah it's not exactly a driveway it's
a parking area but yeah yeah the width is 20 feet. Yeah I was just wondering you know like when you
have a driveway in the front of course you would have a driveway that it's the driveway with that meets
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.
Access comes exclusively from an alley you're allowed a 20 foot wide by 20 foot deep Parking area and
that's the extent as miss Kreindler said if it leads to a detached garage Then it can be deeper. It
can exceed that 20 foot depth to get to a garage But otherwise, it's always restricted to a 20 foot
width in the front
A driveway could widen once you get past the front building setback area, which I think is what you
were kind of alluding to But that's only in the front When it's accessed from a street So if the driveway
was in the front and it would come all the way from the back of the back of the house And then you can
have a wider bed in the back
Yes, so along the front the driveway width is restricted to 18 feet wide once you get past the building
setback Then you can widen past that Okay Thank you any other questions for the staff, yeah Have a question
I Think one of the things that was referenced is that the size of the parking pad
Exceeds the maximum geometry that's permitted. Is that correct. If it was just the if it was just the
permitted four spaces would have had that accommodates the four spaces being compliance. No. So with
the limitation of it being 20 feet by 20 feet that really only accommodates two parking spaces.
So even for four parking spaces, which is the maximum the UDO allows, you would still need a bigger
parking area. You need a variance, like what the petitioner is asking, to have a bigger parking pad.
The UDO only allows 20 by 20 feet, which really only accommodates the two parking spaces. So that meets
the minimum parking that the UDO allows, but it would limit it to two.
Any other questions Before we move on I do want to clarify one thing for for for the record the petitioner
did state that Something to the effect of he was asked to bring back an earlier design for us for this
petition Continuance it wasn't a request to bring back a previous design the statement that I made last
meeting was that design was closer to fulfilling the needs of
than the one that you presented to us last. So I do want to make sure that that's clear for the record
that the board did not ask for a specific design to be brought back to us. So with that, if there are
no other questions, we will go to the public. How many people to show a hand would like to speak tonight
to this? OK, great. So what we'll do is there's five minutes apiece. We'll just have you come up. There's
plenty of time. So come up. You'll need to sign in. And then same as everyone else, you'll state your
first and last name.
And then we will affirm your testimony and go on if you would like to do it in a certain order I'd be
happy to have you line up across the front in the order in which you'd like to speak or else you could
stay in your seat and come up when there's an opportunity so with that We'll have the first person sign
in And I before you do I just want to be clear about how this process works there won't be a
Questions and answers from the public to the board or to the city you can make statements you can ask
questions in your statements But the board nor the city are are compelled to actually specifically address
that with you So just please understand that but it's not to say that they're not being heard So I just
want to make that clear first and last name, please Jane st John and do you affirm the testimony? You're
about to give us the truth old truth of nothing with the truth I do and you have up to five minutes,
please. Thank you. I
Want to acknowledge first of all the stamina of everyone involved in this multi-month discussion Since
not everyone plans to speak tonight. If you were here today to oppose the building of this duplex, please
raise your hand Thank you as my neighbors will discuss in more detail after me the structure is inappropriate
for our neighborhood because it is disproportionately over massed and outstanding in its size and
Standing 26 feet tall and set close to the street its uninterrupted profile will loom excessively over
the lowest point on the block Furthermore this block of Wiley between Lincoln and Henderson lacks proper
infrastructure for cars bikes and pedestrians Unlike parallel streets. We have no curbs. No sidewalks
and several narrow pinch points the congestion at Henderson Wiley is well documented and
Councilwoman Piedmont Smith has highlighted the safety risk posed by this inadequate infrastructure
That factor alone is sufficient grounds to reject this proposal Since I support density I would like
to point out that this section of Wiley Street has already absorbed a significant amount of it We have
added to 13 residents on this block over the past eight years without demolishing a single house and
We understand how density can fit into our neighborhood. But this proposed structure is not the right
fit. I urge the board to deny this request. Thank you very much for your time and service. Thank you.
Does everyone have a copy they need? Do we need any okay, that's good. So state your first and last
name Jan sorby and do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth old truth and nothing
but the truth I do you have this many as five minutes, please This graphic that you're looking at right
now shows all six existing houses on East Wiley block face Sitting in the middle is a proposed duplex
The drawing is to scale and placed on the same baseline so you can compare the building without changes
in the elevation. One important note, the developer's drawings do not give the height for the exposed
foundations, so the duplex actually may sit somewhat higher than you see here. I made this graphic because
I think it's extremely difficult to look at photos and architectural drawings
And imagine how a proposed building will relate to the whole block face. But I hope putting them together
makes the relationship easier for you to see. These six houses are not identical, but they were built
about the same time and they form a very consistent group. They share similar proportions and scale.
Their shapes are primarily low and horizontal with simple front walls and rough lines. When we move
down a street, we experience these houses together as part of a street, a set, not one at a time. And
that is exactly why the block face matters. Now look at the proposed duplex sitting in the middle of
that group. The contrast is jarring. It interrupts the visual flow on the block face.
The ordinance asks you to compare shape, size, and design. So let's look at all three of those things.
Shape. Look at the silhouettes and the proportions. The existing houses are low and horizontal. The
duplex is tall and vertical. Size. Let's look at the overall scale. The existing houses have similar
modest scale. The duplex
has a much larger presence on the block face. Design. Look at how the building is put together. The
existing houses have simple front walls and roof lines. The duplex has multi-projections, recesses,
and intersecting roof lines. Now compare the duplex to the existing house as a group. Look at their
silhouette, compare their scale,
and look at how the buildings are put together. That is how you really see, that is the way in which
you can really see if the duplex fits the pattern of this specific block face. However, if we look at
just one house at a time, we probably can find something it shares with the duplex. But sharing one
feature with one house is not the same as being similar to the pattern of the block face.
When you look at the majority, the pattern becomes clear. The existing houses are low, horizontal, and
very simple. The proposed duplex is tall, vertical, and very complex. Compatibility means fitting into
the established built pattern of the block face. The questions you must answer tonight is if this proposed
duplex is similar in shape, size,
Design to the majority of the existing houses on this block base If you see the difference the answer
must be no, please reject this proposal. Thank you. Thank you
Eric before you I see one person in public online. Is that right? Just may want to keep track of that
too as we go along, please. Please state your first and last name. Do you see that er von der Schmidt?
Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
truth I do Please five minutes. Thank you. Good evening. I
The 2018 comprehensive plan as amended in April 2026 states and neighborhood background neighborhood
residential background and intent single-family residential development is the dominant land use activity
for this district in land use development approvals the plan says new and redevelopment activity for
this district is mostly limited to remodeling existing or
constructing new single-family residences and States single lot development should not dominate or detract
from the neighborhood context The plan recognized that an attraction of older homes quote can lead to
the phenomena of people purchasing these homes purely for their desirable urban locations and Tearing
down the existing structure to make way for brand new homes
Such homes may not fit into the period context of their surroundings and can negatively impact the fabric
of the entire neighborhood Unchecked this practice can lead to the loss of affordable housing stock
This proposal demolishes an affordable two-bedroom home to create a six-bedroom student oriented duplex it states
New multifamily housing projects catering largely to students must be better planned and distributed
adjacent to campus or in underdeveloped commercial corridors along transit routes outside downtown.
This is neither adjacent to campus nor along a commercial corridor or a transit route.
The plan also states adopt zoning regulations that ensure to the extent possible that any student oriented
multifamily housing development can successfully transition to serving other populations as the student
market evolves and demand changes. This design does not transition well to serving other populations.
Staff report asserts this meets the goals of policy 5.3.1.
However, the last sentence of 531 plainly states avoid placing these high-density forms in single-family
neighborhoods. Staff doesn't mention policy 5.3.4, redirect new student-oriented housing developments
away from downtown and nearby areas and toward more appropriate locations
closely proximate to the IU campus that already contain a relatively high percentage of student-oriented
housing units. Policy 5.2.1, evaluate all new developments and redevelopment in light of their potential
to positively or adversely impact the overall health and well-being of the people who live in the surrounding
neighborhood.
A six-bedroom, six-bath duplex in this block is not a positive impact on the people who live on Wiley
Street. As a conditional use, any redevelopment should be evaluated on its own, irrespective of past
approvals or denials. The UDO provides three reasons to deny this conditional use. The proposed duplex
is out of scale with five of seven houses on the block face.
In our three zoning specifically language was inserted stating demolition of single-family homes is
to be discouraged. The street as built does not support additional parking. Wiley is signed as a bike
route from Washington to Henderson. Forcing more vehicles to park on this street creates a real public
safety issue for pedestrians and cyclists.
Smaller single-story four-bedroom duplex probably wouldn't have received much objection An addition
to the rear with two or three bedrooms might not cause much concern either But what you have before
you is in fact a two thousand nine hundred and thirty square foot two-story duplex dwelling looming
over the streetscape that's a hundred and eight to a hundred and sixty three percent larger than four
out of seven existing homes and
If judged against the comprehensive plan in the UDO, a six bed, six bath, student-oriented duplex in
this location does not support the goals set forth in the 2018 comprehensive plan, and I urge you to
deny the conditional use. Thank you. Thank you.
You state your first and last name Julie von der Schmidt and Julie do you affirm the testimony you're
about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Okay you have five minutes.
I'm here tonight to respectfully ask that you deny the conditional use request for this proposed duplex
dwelling. Other speakers have and will focus specifically on this lot and the proposal.
But we acknowledge that at last month's meeting the petitioner referenced other duplexes along Roosevelt
Woodburn as well as the existing duplex on Wiley as to why his proposal should be accepted. However
his proposal is different from those. North Roosevelt is the conversion of and in addition to an existing
structure. It does not change or overshadow the streetscape.
The parcel is in closer proximity to campus with access to campus amenities such as parking
and transportation. It is on the outer edge of the R3 zone just three lots from R.M. The street is designated
as no parking along the east side. North Woodburn is similarly a poor comparison as the property is
appropriately zoned M.M. and sits directly adjacent to R.M. zoning.
The street improvements along that block face include sidewalks curbs and residential permit parking.
The last comparison was 5 0 6 5 10 Wiley which was an infill build on a vacant lot and while duplexes
might be allowed but I feel counter to our three zoning this variance request did not involve the destruction
of a single family structure.
So the proposal before you tonight involves the demolition of an existing home in the heart of an R3
zone. The parcel is approximately two and a half blocks from the nearest change in zoning and sits next
to a pedestrian greenway. The street offers limited parking with no sidewalks or curbs and has signage
designating it a bike route. So those distinctions and differences in proposals are different and important.
Indifferences in proposals and locations are important but I have a specific concern over a portion
of last month's meeting and that is the discussion around parking and the proposal assertion that Mr.
Spicer and the city would work out regarding asphalt in the unimproved part of Wiley which Kevin took
part of my thunder there but I will cite an email from Andrew Seaboard city engineer.
Regarding parking between the three and four hundred blocks of Wiley or the in the three hundred and
four hundred blocks staff determined the road this is a quote staff determined the roadway width is
generally insufficient for vehicles to park on both sides of the road at a given point while maintaining
the 12 foot of space for traffic. And most importantly regarding that conversation was just using public
property to bail out of private projects that's a dangerous precedent.
and privatizing our public right of way in the absence of public discussion as was mentioned last month
is really not an option of additional note. And in the photo earlier from staff there is a fire hydrant
at the northwest corner of the parcel and state and local law do not allow for parking within 15 feet
of a hydrant which further limits the availability of additional parking. Having parking at the back
of the house with a long walkway to the house does not
Seem to be a wise choice because nobody's going to want to walk 50 to 70 feet with their groceries in
the winter. They will park on Wiley. Brian Park neighbors have firsthand knowledge of what happens when
this level of density transitions from checkboxes and forms to living reality. It has led to chronic
traffic issues and congestion that push beyond property line blocking narrow public right of way and
posing a threat to drivers pedestrians and cyclists.
And finally this project runs counter to public welfare converting permanent housing stock into speculative
investor driven rentals drives up localized land values through permit per bedroom pricing models. This
prices out the very people Bloomington needs to retain professionals families retirees who wish to establish
roots and embrace community whether owning or renting.
And while many of us work towards sustainable affordable urban infill this specific proposal on its
own merits runs counter to several core standards established in the UDO. It is an escalation of density
that will overshadow not enhance the block face and it poses a danger to the safety of those on the
street. I can ask you to vote no. Thank you.
Last name, please John Lawrence and John. Do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you five minutes. Thank you. So good evening.
I want to focus Tonight on two possible findings of fact that could support denial of this project The
first is a general finding under the conditional use standards. The second is a use specific finding
under the standard for duplexes I think both could be stated pretty simply first
Wiley Street and the surrounding infrastructure do not have adequate capacity for this proposed use
Simple and second this duplex is not similar in shape size and design to the majority of the structures
on this block face under section 20.0 6.0 4o D 6c the board is asked whether public services and facilities
are adequate including streets and vehicle and pedestrian access and whether significant adverse impacts
have been minimized or mitigated
So let me start there. Wiley Street is a narrow, minimally improved residential street. You can see
it up on the screen. There's a shot just the other day. This proposal would put a six-bedroom duplex
with four off-street parking spaces on it. The board could look at the width of the street, the way
cars park there now, the condition of the street edges, and the access to this property, and find that
adequate street and vehicle capacity has not been demonstrated for this level of use. So this is Wiley.
This is it here.
When cars are parked there the usable travel area gets a very narrow There are no conventional curbs
or sidewalks and the street edges are largely unimproved the city's own assessment supports that concern
as you heard from Julie that Andrew Seabor said that It's not big enough So this is more than saying
Wiley feels narrow The city has already recognized a real limitation on how parking and moving traffic
can coexist there. I Want to give you one local comparison
I was heavily involved in the development on South Dunn Street between Hillside and Grimes. This is
the street developed about 20 years ago, 2025, with multicolored bungalows. I measured the travel lane
near Grimes at about 14 feet wide. So in that sense, it's comparable to Wiley. But South Dunn was designed
around that narrowness. It has a dedicated parking lane on one side, sidewalks on both sides, green
strips separating pedestrians from traffic,
Short blocks and allies that give vehicles frequent places to turn off or get out of the way Wiley doesn't
have those protections. It's a long street with a relatively few alternate places to go If you're going
down the road and cars coming towards you, you got to back up half the time And even with the better
infrastructure on South Dunn emergency access was a major concern the fire chief initially objected
because of concerns about getting a fire truck down the street and
and ultimately agreed only after residential sprinklers were proposed and installed. That's why the
actual condition of Wiley matters. The question isn't whether one more car can physically drive down
it. The question is whether this street and the access it provides have adequate capacity for this particular
proposal while still serving the existing neighborhood.
The board could also find that the size and occupancy of this duplex, together with narrow street and
limited infrastructure, would create impacts on parking, circulation, and vehicle access that have not
been adequately mitigated. That gives you the first finding. The second finding is use specific. Section 20.03.030B3C2,
it's a mouthful,
says that a duplex must be similar in general shape, size, and design to the majority of the existing
single family or duplex structure on the same block face. That gives you a straightforward basis for
a finding. Look at the houses on the block face, look at the proposed duplex, compare its shape, size,
and design, then decide whether it's actually similar to the majority of what is already there. So really
I'm asking you to make two findings. First, Wiley Street and the surrounding infrastructure do not have
adequate capacity for this proposed use.
This duplex is not similar in shape, size, and design to the majority of the structures on this blackface.
And if the board wants help putting either finding into the right form, staff can assist. In past hearings,
staff has helped translate the board's reasoning into a clear finding of fact. A finding doesn't have
to be complicated. What is the standard? What are the facts? And do those facts meet the standard? Thank you.
Joe we do have one person online Let's go ahead and take that person sit and wait. We'll have you next
please You can go ahead and sign in though while you're waiting. Let's go to the person online. Could
you state your first and last name, please? Good evening members of board. My name is Eric Oates Eric,
do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I Do you have five minutes? Thank you. Thank you for letting me offer me public comment this evening
I'm speaking tonight regarding the petition for 412 East Wiley Street. The proposal before you would
demolish a naturally occurring single-family affordable home to construct an intensive two-story six-bedroom,
six-bathroom duplex. I request the board to deny this petition because it runs counter to the fundamental
standards set forth in our unified development ordinance for the R3 district.
Under Bloomington GDO the stated purpose of the R3 zoning district is clear to protect and
enhance established residential neighborhoods by increasing the viability of owner occupied and affordable
dwelling units. Crucially, the ordinance explicitly states that the conversion of existing housing stock
to more intense land uses is discouraged, especially where adequate infrastructure does not exist.
This fact has been evidence in the comments of prior speakers and I'm referring to the infrastructure
issues. Replacing existing modest modest starter home with an intensive rental structure does not create
affordability. Demolishing existing naturally occurring affordable housing under a premise notion that
newly constructed high density student oriented rentals will somehow filter down into affordability
or attainability
In terms of housing in the near or long term long term future in Bloomington, Indiana is contrary to
the purpose of our three zoning and to the evidence. The Board of Zoning Appeals exists precisely to
exercise discretion to safeguard the public interest and to ensure that new development is genuinely
compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.
With all due respect, this proposal will place severe pressure on already inadequate local infrastructure
and compound the negative effects already evidence. Increasing occupancy to six bedrooms on this parcel
will exacerbate street congestion and parking challenges on East Wiley, as well as post significant
impacts on emergency service response time, if not being a violation of Indiana Fire Code.
Growth in Bloomington should not come at the cost of erasing our established affordable homes and depleting
the few remaining entry-level owner-occupiable homes we have left. The UDO gives you the authority and
the responsibility to ensure conditional uses do not harm neighborhood character or run counter to zoning
district standards. I ask this board to deny the current petition for 412 East Wiley. Thank you for
your time and service to our community.
You've signed into first and last name, please Cory Gerhardt and do you affirm the testimony? You're
about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is. Thank you All right This
design fails to meet three of the four requirements for the use specific design elements in the UDO
One, the front porch widths and depths are not generally similar to any houses on the block face, much
less the majority required. The two porches on this proposal are not even generally similar in layout
to each other, and the block face simply doesn't have front porches. There's a metal awning over a portion
of the front deck on 400, and that's about it. The street view images of that aren't current,
by the way. There has been no attempt at a design consistent with the block face here.
Two, the front building setback is not compliant with the use specific standard. Mr. Spicer chose the
R3 build to line of 15 feet with no explanation of why this less restrictive, less specifically applicable
standard is appropriate. Monroe County GIS shows four properties with setbacks that are roughly 30 feet
or greater, including mine, and the map suggests these may be underestimates.
The staff report acknowledges 15 feet is out of step with the block face and the recently approved new
construction duplex at a thousand and four South Henderson also are three has a 25 foot setback. It's
unclear why 412 East Wiley is such an exception. Three is the most egregious. The rear access parking
is unlike any home on the block face.
The access must be generally similar to the majority of houses again seeking a consistent appearance
and zero of them use rear access parking six of them use front access one uses side access Mr. Spicer
is free to use all three of these design choices if he builds by right, but he chose not to he chose
conditional use none of these elements are compliant and Then there's the size
In your packet, you'll find a council staff memo from former State of Indiana Deputy Attorney General,
former Bloomington City Attorney, and current interim council staff attorney Larry Allen from less than
a month ago interpreting the design requirements for duplexes in Bloomington. He states that the plain
language, quote, by definition includes the massing of the proposed development as it compares to houses
adjacent to it, end quote. And the massing of this proposal is, again, without precedent on the block
face. Could you turn the page?
Thank you So there's no confusion. Here are the official numbers from Monroe County 2026 property record
cards, which are included in your packet The proposal is 39 percent larger by finished square footage
than the largest house on the block face The four houses most similar to each other in square footage
range from 1113 to 1412 in a very reasonable sense This is the general size of the majority of the houses
on the block face The proposal more than doubles the upper end of that
The petitioner suggested that these massing requirements should be applied to his proposal on a per
unit basis. Code does not support this. The language is careful to differentiate between each unit in
a newly constructed duplex dwelling and the duplex dwelling. General shape, size, and design applies
to the duplex dwelling. And it would make no intuitive sense for the UDO to require consistent massing
and then allow a building that doubles it or triples it or quadruples it
The property record cards also show that no that there are no two-story homes on this block face. Two
homes have finished attic space, five do not. Next slide, please. At a little over 26 feet high from
roof peak to the top of the foundation, the height of this proposal is also far out of step with the
block face. Using the same measurement, the tallest existing house is less than 20 feet tall. The second
tallest is 18.2. After that, we go down to 15 feet high or less, my own home included.
The proposed design is 80% taller than the block face median. That's nearly double. Next, please. Mr.
Allen's interpretation is consistent with the theme that runs through the Comprehensive Plan and the
UDO. The Comprehensive Plan's land use approval guidance for this area, cited by staff, advises, it's
important to protect the existing single-family housing stock within this district. The conversion of
dwellings to multi-family or commercial use should be discouraged.
And Section 531, also cited by staff, closes with, avoid placing these high density forms in single
family neighborhoods. For what it's worth, staff confirms all of the surrounding properties contain
single family homes. Thank you. Thank you.
My name is Marcus Moir Marcus. Do you? Marcus Marcus Marcus Marcus do you firm the testimony you're
about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Yes, I do. Thank you five minutes
My neighbor Jodi Atkins who lives at 401 East Odd Street has asked me to read her statement into the
record because she couldn't be here I did want to say in addition to that my wife and I have lived at
317 East Odd Street for 29 years now and
And I hope to continue to live there many for many years to come. So Jody's statement is that she's
writing to express. I'll just read this. I'm writing to express my concerns regarding proposed duplex
development on Wiley Street. I believe the structure is out of character with the design and architectural elements
that make the neighborhood such a beloved community. Beyond its appearance, I'm concerned that
the development will have an adverse impact on the safety, accessibility, and quality of life that residents
have come to expect in this area. In my view, this project does not promote affordable housing or sustainable
living. Rather, it is likely to attract college students who can afford higher rents and a newly constructed
residence located close to campus.
As a result, increased traffic, parking congestion, and overall density are significant concerns for
neighborhood residents, including children, pet owners, and elderly individuals. I also have a personal
concern regarding access to my property. My driveway and garage are located behind my home and are accessible
only via the alley west of the dead end of Palmer Street. This alley runs along the length of my backyard
and serves two other homes as well.
The only access point is the area where Palmer Avenue ends. I'm worried that vehicles belonging to duplex
occupants or visitors could block this access, preventing me and my neighbors from reaching our garages
or moving our vehicles when needed. I respectfully ask you that you consider the concerns of the residents
who call this neighborhood home. Please weigh in the long-term impacts this development may have on
the character, safety, and livability of the Bryant Park neighborhood and consider
Disproving this proposal. Thank you for your time consideration and service to our community Hi, I'm
Kim vent Can you hear me yes go ahead sign in have you said yes, I
And do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and that's but the
truth I do. Okay. Thank you. Well, I said it last month. I'm gonna say it again this month What's for
the greater good? Who are we? Our municipal code actually has some ideas protect the character the stability
of residential areas protect the scale and character of existing development from the encroachment of
incompatible uses and
Restrict the location and intensity of use of buildings in residential areas. Accommodate the need for
student housing while minimizing negative impacts of the housing on our residential areas. And encourage
the provision of affordable housing. Those are actually goals that the Board of Appeals are supposed
to follow, some of them. It's a small block.
we all know that, at most five bungalows on each side. What is best for the greater good? To keep that
house. Short of that, a reduction in the size, two bedrooms per side, one story. This would be in alignment
with a utile goal, compatible with the surrounding patterns.
Creating a driveway, pad for two cars off Wiley. We're all acutely aware, street's not wide enough.
As Isabelle's letter specifically states, the east and west entry points, as we already know, are best
one lane because of the other developments lacking compatibility. A redesign for affordability
Another you don't go would add to housing stock for our workforce. This is for the greater good. As
a citizenship, what's our goal? What do we want to do? There's no neighborhoods from 10th Street all
the way up to 22nd Street now. There's no neighborhoods. There used to be neighborhoods there.
They're gone. They're gone. This could happen. Here. Increasing density.
with affordability should be our goal. Not increasing density for profit alone. Duplex zoning in a college
town disproportionately benefits a developer without our firm oversight. Who are we? What should our
goals be as stewards of this neighborhood? Every single decision you make
As you know, it's mutually exclusive from any other decision. Decisions are made based upon the greater
good and the specific situation. What is best for the greater good, as the Udo outlines. This honey
block cannot sustain more. And I remember Kevin kinda laughing at one of the very first meetings we
had in here, that if he had to reduce it to the two bedroom,
We wouldn't be here. I remember him saying that, kinda laughing about it. But who wins in this denial?
We're all gonna win. As I said last month, Kevin, even you, when I asked you why at our neighborhood
meeting, you kinda laughed. You said you're gonna do all 40 some of your properties. You're gonna turn
them all into duplexes. So you still win. This is our only option. We live here. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Tatiana Moyer and do you affirm the testimony? You're about to give us the
truth and whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes You have five minutes I Respectfully ask that you
deny this petition this evening. This is not an argument against students or student housing students
need housing the question is where high density student housing belongs and
and what happens when established residential neighborhoods are gradually converted into student rentals.
I believe Bloomington needs to preserve walkable neighborhoods for permanent residents, whether they
rent or own. Our neighborhood is less than 10 minutes from downtown. We walk to the library,
grocery store, post office, restaurants, theater, and so on. Bloomington itself promotes
Walking and bicycling as alternative to driving But there is a fundamental contradiction if we promote
walking and biking while removing Modest homes that allow working people to afford to live close enough
to walk or bike to work a Local employee could live in a modest home like the one proposed for demolition
Walk a bicycle to work and become part of this permanent community
When that home is replaced with a six-bedroom student rental, we're not simply adding housing. We're
changing the type of housing available and changing who can live here. Bloomington's own comprehensive
plan recognizes minimizing displacement of working residents, preserving neighborhood stability and
character, encouraging reuse of existing structures,
and supporting permanent affordability. There's also a serious pedestrian safety issue. Wiley Street
has no sidewalks. Children play here. People walk, bicycle, walk their dogs in the roadway. Families
come to music lessons at, I believe, the house next door.
My husband has a near collision with a young driver living about a block away at the intersection of
Wiley and Henderson. He was approximately three inches from being seriously injured. Another neighbor
has experienced a similar near collision. I've personally witnessed several students riding bicycles
throughout the years or driving the wrong way on one way street nearby on Washington.
I'm not saying every student behaves this way, but adding four or five more vehicles to a narrow street
with no sidewalks increases an already existing safety problem. Do we really have to wait for somebody
to be seriously injured before we take this seriously? About a year ago, a similar student housing project
was approved nearby at Wiley and Henderson,
Residents warned about parking traffic and safety at the time those concerns have now become reality
Despite stackable off-street parking Vehicles are regularly parked on the street including near the
entrance and exit by the Wiley Henderson and Wiley Lincoln intersections on the other side So today
we have real-world evidence not speculation
We have also heard you approved similar projects before, but past approval is not a mandate for future
approval. If a previous decision produced unintended consequences, we should learn from that experience,
not compound it. If these properties are truly comparable, then compare the streets, sidewalks,
parking, pedestrian activity, traffic, and what actually happened after those projects were built. The
character of a neighborhood is not lost all at once. It changes one property at a time. We can house
students without sacrificing walkable neighborhoods, where permanent residents can afford to live, work,
raise families, and grow older.
help us preserve Wiley Street as a walkable and safe neighborhood for permanent residents while allowing
student housing in locations where that density is appropriate. We're asking you to learn from what
has already happened rather than simply repeat it. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you deny
this petition. Thank you.
Hello, my name is Pat Medland and have you signed in I can't see well enough to suck Okay, just give
me a moment then Pat Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth? I do you have five minutes? I wasn't prepared to speak. I'm just going to give
some anecdotal information My wife and I live at 505 East Dodd Street Right behind us a year or so ago
Duplex was put in it 504 506 East Wiley. It's got a dandy parking lot in the back and
In the back good enough for five or six cars Almost always the most we ever see is two sometimes three
cars in the meantime Wiley in front of the duplex has several cars in front of it once when IU is not
in session The street is pretty clear I walk I don't drive and as a result of this the driving and parking
arrangement
No longer walk along Miley when school was in session because it's so narrow and and to excuse me too
risky I don't know if the same thing would occur at this place, but I Do hope that you consider that.
Thank you. Thank you Make sure we get his name in the record, please
Go ahead and have you sign in and I'll go ahead and Swing in while you're doing that When you're finished
if you will affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth Yes, thank you and you'll have up to five minutes Isabel Good evening. My name is Isabel
Piedmont Smith. I serve on the City Council representing district one which includes this neighborhood
I know that you have strict guidelines as to what you can and cannot consider when you evaluate conditional
use and variance approvals. So I will just focus on two parts of the UDO that I believe are not met
by this proposal. First of all, it does not meet you specific standards. As has been said before, there are not
other houses of this size and massing on the block. And particularly, and I think only one other speaker
pointed this out, number four in those new specific standards where it's supposed to compare with the
other houses on the block face, says vehicle parking access. None of the other houses on this block
access the vehicle parking from an alley like, that's not even, the alley,
on the house, it's a parallel alley. But anyway, none of them access the parking from an alley that
comes from a different street. So I don't see how you can approve that. Even if you're not approving
the variance for the parking, that's the plan you have in front of you, so I don't see how you can approve
that. Secondly, it does not meet conditional use approval criteria. There's insufficient public facilities
at this location
The street is too narrow. It's already not safe for Pedestrians and bicyclists and cars to share there
are no sidewalks There already are concerns about emergency vehicles getting through the street and
as we heard Even if parking is provided behind the house It is highly likely that Residents and or their
guests will park on the street
So for those two reasons, plus the many that have been stated, but those are two reasons specifically
tied to what you're supposed to consider. Please vote no. Thank you. Thank you. And David, go ahead
and sign in. Good evening.
And do you affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth alters and that's but the truth Yes,
I do Dave you have five minutes. Thank you very much and Thank you board members for your service to
the community. I'm so many Good reasons to deny this. I think there's ample reasons to do so so I come
here to Add a context to this
Discussion and that is that Although I didn't support the plexing debate back in 2021 there was the
council affirmed a need to reflect in the code that the conditional use that you're considering Would
refer to the scale and massing of the proposed structures why because This was it was seen
This could be a mechanism for losing our affordable housing stock in conversion to much less affordable
plexed rentals and by maximizing the scale it is essentially providing an enormous incentive to eliminate
affordability in our community this was affirmed by the this concern for massing was
affirmed by our council attorney Larry Allen as Mr. Gerhard said in a memo to council members and For
clarification reasons several of us on the City Council including my colleague Isabel Piedmont Smith
are interested in sponsoring an amendment so that we we derive the clarity that might be lacking but
is essentially a
stated in various ways and But if you if you hear conflict and ambiguity There isn't on the part of
mr. Allen, but we want to make sure that that It is unambiguous in the future because it does matter
the size and massing That's what it was intended when the amendments to the UDO were sponsored back
in 2021 and as
Further evidence. I was I was given this which is very interesting. It's a memo to then planning director
Terry Porter and Scott Robinson from Clarion Associates, which was the consultant That was hired to
write the UDO Amendments and in this March 5th 2019
titled Bloomington UDO Update Consolidated Draft to the Planning Department. It states that, and this
is under the heading of the Ordnance Foundation, Chapter 20.01, and under 20.03.020, the Table of Allowed
Uses said is introducing several missing middle housing types, including Plexus.
To the use table to provide Dwelling units compatible in scale or only marginally larger than
the single-family homes and To help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living So they stated
there that massing mattered too, and that was their recommendation for the our code Which is reflected
in the code so I would ask you to deny this petition and
You have plentiful reasons to not to grant this conditional use and Let's do what we can to protect
affordable housing in our community. Thank you Thank you
Betty Rose Nagel and I'm signing in now. And Betty do you affirm the testimony you're about to give
us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Five minutes. I don't live
on Wiley. I don't live in Brian Park neighborhood. I live in Elm Heights.
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.
I love it. I love it absolutely as much as I do my own neighborhood. One point I'd like to make is that
the Bryan Park neighborhood and the Elm Heights neighborhood already have duplexes and I don't think
most people
driving by them would realize that there are any different from the rest, that you might not even know
that they are in fact duplexes. There's one, I don't think it's on Dodds, but there's one I passed in
the Elm Heights neighborhood that I had to pass several times before I stopped and looked and realized,
oh no, I mean, yes, it's a long, narrow structure, but yeah, there are two, one on each side.
So I don't think it's really a question of duplex. I think it's a question of the size of the duplex
and possibly the purpose of the duplex. A two sided duplex can belong to one family who lives in part
of it and rents the rest of it. It could belong to one very large family that has multi generations. But
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
that was recently built and is now being lived in at the corner of Henderson and First Street. That
is what seems to be getting to be the standard duplex model, which is six bedrooms, three on a side,
really intended for rental to students who will live there maybe a year, maybe two years. My experience
is students tend to move around a lot.
Sometimes they become integrated into a neighborhood, but less often do they. Somebody I forget who
at the beginning of this session referred to the patients of everybody and that would mean the board
that would be staff that would be the petitioner and the neighbors that we have done this and done this
and done this and been here. The neighbors. I am so impressed with this group of people. I was impressed
at the last meeting with the work that they had put in the way they had
and coordinated their efforts. But tonight makes me think, I don't see how you could possibly approve
it. The single graphic that Jan Sorby put up makes very clear the incompatibility. And the citations
of several people, most recently Dave Rollo, who was involved with the UDO, but also several of the
petitioners, citing book, chapter, and verse.
of the UDO that make clear that this is not what the designers, the writers, the authors, the approvers
of the UDO and the comprehensive plan had in mind for the infield and for the increase in affordability.
I honestly, looking at that graphic, listening to the citations that Mr. von der Schmitt, for example,
made of here's this from the UDO, here's this from the UDO, here's this,
I honestly don't understand how a non-biased person listening could understand how that duplex belongs.
I don't understand how that could be approved at all. I don't know why we're here for a third time.
And that really is all I have to say. I'm so impressed with these neighbors. I'm impressed with the
passion of Kim Vint.
I think I'm probably tending more in the direction of that than of the more sober Jan Sorby, for example,
and Mr. Von der Schmitt and the rest of them. They made very careful, very reasoned, not emotional
presentations. I honestly don't see, based on their arguments, based on their citations of evidence,
of documents of what the UDO is supposed to implement, I don't understand how a non-biased
board could approve this. Thank you. Also check to see if there is any further comments online please.
If there is anybody else online that would like to speak please use the raise hand function and we can
recognize you. While we're waiting is there anyone still remaining in chambers who'd like to make a
comment public comment. Anyone.
Online I'm not seeing anybody else online Okay, although this is not a precursor statement of any opinion
or direction following I do actually want to take a moment to say thank you to those who spoke because
it is refreshing to have people speak directly to the issues at hand Talking about the UDO and items
on which we can actually have direct contemplation and action on so I do appreciate taking the time to
Realign some arguments so that there are things that we can actually discuss in this chamber. So with
that We've had the public comment. We're back to the petitioner Who can use the remainder of your time?
To address anything you've heard or if you have further comments and how much time does he have left? I
Like 17 17 48. Yeah, okay, man So you have plenty of time there if you'd like to take that and again,
these are your comments after that point the remainder of the time will be spent answering questions
and the questions will be between the petitioner and The board and the city not the public Okay.
Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you very much So yeah several things I guess just as a reminder, you know
when we when I first came here in
in June I did have a driveway cut off of Wiley and you know the the Allowed parking for spaces in that
month. I asked for no variances whatsoever Of course as we heard again tonight parking is quite the
issue So I tried to help resolve that as well as I could as much as I could so again my thought was
to bring the
Access I have access off of the alley and that would keep my tenants off of Wiley trying to alleviate
some of that pressure and I've asked for a various for additional parking space so hopefully less of
my Tenant would need to park on the on-street parking is that is available that the city is the one that
Allowed that not me So anyhow, so yes, there are there is additional parking there So do I have a problem
putting a driveway on Wiley? Absolutely not That's what we did the first time but you know, I was trying
to again help alleviate some of the parking issue When we came back last night or I'm sorry last month.
I changed it
and went back with a story and a half, it was shorter, it maybe fit the neighborhood better, but then
there was some, anyhow, that wasn't liked as well either, and so that's the reason why I come back again
this evening with a two story as you see. We talk about size a lot. The size,
In the UDO square footage is not mentioned anywhere that I can see the size is determined on the impervious
space of the percentage and as of now there is 45 percent Allowable and I am just a little bit over
36 percent almost 37. So by rights this unit according to the UDO is
This is a reason why the planning and now two directors have recommended approval to the BZA is Because
I meet those requirements. It's my understanding that the City Council just This week maybe have increased
the impervious space percentage even higher than 45% to make infiltration building more paddable so
Again, we talk about size in my eyes. This unit could be made larger mice, but my units are 1465 square
feet per side When I looked at some of the others that y'all have approved whether that was just the
one up the street the ones on Henderson wherever most of those are way or somewhat over 1500 square feet
So again, we go back we talked about compatibility and blocks face and Again, it had to have met the
udos requirements and Due to the staff and now two directors giving that approval We talked about Wiley
Street. It must also meet their requirements of
Again for for them to continue to to approve now the third time Here has been proved by the by staff
I Find it a little ironic. We've now had several City Council members come out against this petition
I'd be in everywhere that I've looked the one up the street or the ones on Henderson or Roosevelt or
Woodburn I don't see I didn't see that happen before so I don't know if it's just because who lives
on that street And last month as I said and I say again Wiley Street is a typical Bloomington Residential Street
And yeah, in my opinion, it is compatible to other streets, whether of units that have already been
approved, whether it's on Henderson or Roosevelt or Woodburn. Roosevelt, I've driven down Roosevelt.
There's on-street parking. That's a very narrow road. That's a residential neighborhood. So in my opinion,
those streets are no different
Then Wiley Street being an older Bloomington Street built back in that day, whatever that was. All those
streets were all about the same.
I guess with that I I feel that Again size has talked about a lot size is not mentioned square footage
is not mentioned and I In my eyes, it could be bigger I left it the same which I feel is smaller than
a lot of the others that have been approved and also mentioned all the comments that we've heard tonight I feel
Are the same comments could have been heard on units that you have won already all have approved before
and could be the same comments.
for units that are yet to come. So it kind of makes me feel like what I hear tonight is maybe the UDO's
wrong. If the UDO's wrong, whether you want two bedrooms, it doesn't have to be two bedrooms. It has
to be no more than a maximum of three bedrooms. And that's, of course, what I've done. And obviously,
it looks like that's what a lot of other folks have done. So with that, it's been beat to death.
Being here three times now. I Represent and I asked for your approval. Thank you If you had questions,
yes, of course. Yes, I just stand by there instead of coming back over here You may want to have a seat
there if we don't get to you right away So with that we're back to the board Same as before we could
have further discussion or we could entertain a motion that discussion I'll go again towards the city
or the petitioner. Anyone have a question? I
Is not one of the items that we should consider correct Correct. Thank you Okay, I just have a quick
question was this put in was this put into the record Yeah, we got a copy of it as well. All right,
I just want to Make a couple of comments about what I'm looking at. I
specifically 414 412 the proposed duplex and for 408 I Want the city's opinion on the depiction and
the depiction area on 414 is a What looks like essentially a split level, but it's a an exposed lower
level that's in gray below the grade that's shown there and then
On 408, there's a grayed out exposed level, which is the lower level of an actual, looks like a split
level. I want your opinion on that. Should not the scale be determined by what is seen from the streetscape?
In other words, should 414's height really be seen as from that lowest part next to the garage door
to the tip of the roof line? And the same for 408, where you have
As you see the the left side of that house and in the dark color is below the line So it just looks
I want to make sure that I'm looking at something that's representative of what we should be Determining
as to whether the height is the same scale You understand my question? I think so. So this kind of relates
to the prior question about the height it's not one of the you specific standards that
that we evaluate for a duplex in the R3 zoning district. There is a height limitation and what's proposed
is compliant with the R3 standard for height. So when we're evaluating general shape size design it's
of the four design elements that are listed in the UDO which are the roof pitch the front porch width
and depth the front building setback and the vehicle parking access. So we're not evaluating
I thought there was some determination about scale in relation to the to the streetscape making sure
that it fit within that scale and scope Is that essentially true? See Joe. Yeah, may I yeah, please
So when I look at this, yeah, it's a very nice. I mean very well done. Yes, it is very well done except
they Forgot topography. Oh the one they forgot topography topography exactly topography so
On the on the house forty four hundred and thirty sits at six hundred and sixty two topography. OK.
So the house that the proposed duplex will sit six feet lower than this house. So the house on four
hundred and thirty is 18 feet tall plus six feet. It's 24. It will be 24 feet.
So it's not I mean the streetscape is not one straight line level straight line. I agree with that.
Do you see what I'm saying? Yes. And it goes to the heart of it should not look like it depicts here
because that on that east side those homes will be higher and then it goes down the hill. That makes
sense. Oh it does.
I didn't want to get into the topography, but I'm glad that you did, because I do think that that's
relevant. 100%. I was looking more at when someone drives by and they look at the front of the home,
they see what's exposed. And that kind of adds to the scale. That's kind of what I was getting at, just
trying to make sure I understood it. Yes? Leslie? I would add, too, if you bend it where it's at one
level, they are a different, they're not exactly two,
to scale for height, for where they should be. Like a 15 is lower. So take that into account as well.
And I think that's probably just a printing error or something. I'm not sure. But very well done, graphic.
That makes sense, and I appreciate that. I did have a couple of questions. I just want to make sure
I understand.
This I think is to the city is is if this if this were designed In the same size for a single-family
Would that be allowed Single families permitted use at this size I believe so. Yes. I mean the the setbacks
are all compliant. We don't have a square footage regulation and
The impervious surface coverage is met. So if it was a single family home, those are all the the same
factors we would We would be reviewing. Yeah, and I do think it goes to that previous and all of those
factors. So the real question is You know a Home of this scale could be built as a single resident home
on that space And let's say it's a large family. They could also have a number of cars and
So that's one thing about this particular sticky situation, correct? Thank you, Eric. Yes. All right,
so I want to make sure I understood that. And then I hear the term student-oriented a lot.
It's a student-oriented. Do we have some definition that we can look to as to what, is that a thing
or is that more of a perception?
We certainly do have a definition of student housing. Could you. Well student oriented is what they
have determined oriented is not a defined term. We have a defined land use and a definition called student
housing to
work alongside what is the difference between the use dwelling comma student housing or dormitory and
the use multifamily dwelling comma multifamily. So it describes you know what is a development that
is student housing. So situations where rooms are rented on a per bedroom basis you have a certain percentage over
three bedrooms or four bedrooms or five bedrooms you have certain units that are fully furnished. So
we have a definition to distinguish between student housing and multifamily development. You know student
oriented goes to who you think might be renting that or leasing to and we obviously can't control who
lives there. So you know to
The phrase student oriented, you know, it's hard to compare to this because you know that use student
housing isn't allowed use here, but that's not what we're talking about, right? You know, we're talking
about a single-family dwelling or a duplex in this case, which is two single-family dwellings that share
a common wall. Okay, and you stated in in that thank you for that. So just remind me once again, what
is student housing?
What's our definition? Yep So it is it is the term dwelling comma student housing or dormitory and it
was just recently updated so you'll have to bear with me as I Take a moment. I want to make sure I understand
what it is. I pulled it up on the screen. It's a pretty lengthy Definition. I'm happy to read it if
you'd like but it says a multifamily dwelling design
Primarily as housing for undergraduate or postgraduate students including but not limited to and there
are six different criteria that help Clarify what would be considered student housing or dormitory?
So when I see that it says multiple family dwellings that contain any living units with four or more
bedrooms. That's one and multiple family dwellings with More than ten dwelling units. Okay, that's another
Okay, so let's just say looking at number one multiple family dwellings that may That contain any living
units with four or more bedrooms. Okay. That's one example of what we classify student housing, correct?
Correct. Yes, so multifamily dwelling buildings That fall under the use multifamily dwelling that have
any four or five bedroom units in them are Classified as student housing. Okay, and it's student housing
allowed in this
Area. No, that's a no. Okay A couple other things I just want to clear up. What? Yeah, go ahead. Please
Leslie piggyback off that so I'm number five So if it's advertised and leased by the room how it I mean
you wouldn't be able to know that and Like until we're way past this point Yeah, so that's something
obviously when multifamily
Developments are advertising their buildings for rent. They'll be very clear, you know that buildings
are or bedrooms are available for rent individually So in the student housing district where this use
is allowed That's certainly fine and appropriate and that's one of the defining characteristics That
classifies that as student housing to differentiate that from multifamily house multifamily dwellings
Okay My other question, I'm sorry Leslie was that Okay
So in the city's opinion, I know we've gone through this, but please go through it again with me. What's
the validity, do you think, of some of the arguments we've heard about the width of the street? Do you
think that's compelling or not? Because I did hear, especially the petitioner, you did mention Roosevelt,
let's say. I don't know just offhand if Roosevelt has any duplexes, but for example, what do you feel
about the validity of those concerns? Because you are saying that you would approve this,
with some conditions not being granted. But what do you think about that argument. How did the city
approach that. So specifically to the question of on street parking we did consult our city legal on
that and we don't consider on street parking to be a public service or a facility. So in the case of
adding a duplex to this property that is not a relevant criteria that our city legal department you
know has advised us to consider.
That's really not relevant in our analysis in your analysis. Perfect. Thank you for that. That's excellent
And then I did Have one question. Could you remind me and this may be in your records and someone here
on the board may remember? Well, what was the particular objection on the first petition, which I did
not hear? Was it size? What was the the general objection? I Know what it was last time because I'm
the one who brought up the
objection The first time this petition was heard I was not present and the petitioner mentioned that
You know something about the the objection to the first petition. What was it? Okay
Okay Because I did know that on our second hearing I objected to the aesthetics. So I remember that
I was just curious if it was different So safety was a part of that. The only other thing I have is
a comment Which would be just in general to the board which is because it can be larger. Should it be
larger? I'm the only other question that stuck out. But those are my only comments. Does anyone else
have any questions or comments? I
for the petition. Are you planning on doing individual leases or joint and several liability on the
leases? You mean like renting out rooms? Yeah, is that you're saying? Oh, no, absolutely not Yeah, I
just wanted to get to the point because I mean typically if You know when we try and define student housing
One of the issues is that as Eric was mentioning for a lot of the big bigger multi tenant buildings,
you know, individual bedrooms are marketed as individual bedrooms. You're not leasing the entire unit.
So I was just wondering in this case whether the petition was planning on requiring that all of the
tenants be joint and several severably liable for the entire lease.
Yeah, I mean it will be rented per as a unit. There'll be two units They're not it won't be written
by bedrooms. Yeah, that's my question. Thanks Any other questions from the board for the petitioner
for the city I'm sorry. I do have another question because and this is you know, hopefully for the benefit
of the City Council members that are in in the audience
I mean, I totally understand the dueling interpretations of our code on the conditions, but I'm just
struck by the fact that we lay out the criteria for conditional uses and it talks about size, shape,
general design, and then the criteria, you know, has the one through four with roof slope.
I'm just curious, why isn't like height actually relevant?
I mean, and I'm not saying it should be because you can by right the maximum height limit in our three
is 35 feet. So someone could build this house as a single dwelling by right. Correct. I'm just curious
why that level of detail isn't included in the conditional uses because it seems to create this conflicting
interpretation of
compatibility Yes, obviously it's hard to In our in our brains go back and recall all the conversations
that happened at City Council and playing Commission during the course of You know these these conversations
and certainly as the board recognizes and certainly what staff recognizes as well as you know What we
have to review this by is the language that is in front of us today And so that's it is very specific,
you know when it says the following design elements
And it talks about in very lists those four specific things roof pitch, you know It could have been
expanded to say other elements other features, but it just clearly simply says roof pitch So as we evaluate
these elements and you know The only two of these that are specifically designed elements of the building
are roof pitch front porch width and depth You know, we look at those elements individually
And the best that we can do is visually observe those from the road and make a subjective analysis of
you know The roof pitch of this house is in keeping with the variability of roof pitches along here,
you know The front porch is along here. There is great variability as one of the members of the public
said some Some houses don't even have porches some have awnings So, you know, we looked at these is
just from a very general subjective perspective Given the very basic terms that were listed
Did you have another question John. I just want to look at the recommendations here again. So just just
to be clear on the city recommendations you're saying to deny the variance for the
Proposed parking plan. Is that correct? Yes, our recommendation has stayed in the staff report and in
the presentation is denial of the two variances that are being requested the maximum in the in the in
the access Yeah, that's addressing the maximum number of parking spaces and then the size of the parking
pad off of the alley And one thing I do want to bring up and I think we mentioned this last time I
You know with the approval we would want to see Certainly and this is up to the board's discretion,
you know, if you want to allow for a site plan that also features a driveway You know include that in
your fire in your condition that you know if you deny the variance from the parking, you know So the
petition would be restricted to either a 20 by 20 pad or they could install a compliant driveway to
be clear in that so that there is that clarity and
And then Kevin going back to John's question you're saying that each Unit of the duplex is gonna be
rented as a unit. It's not per bedroom, correct per unit Yeah, it's yeah, they'll beat. Yep two units
there Is that something that can the to the city's that's something he can change afterwards and say
oh I've changed my mind. I want to rent it per per bedroom. Is that possible? I
Would actually need to check because I think that the housing and neighborhood development require one
lease Okay, I'm not a hundred percent positive I think that that that is a requirement that is just
one lease with all the tenants on that lease Thank you Procedural question so denying would Okay, so
denying would mean that that
The only parking available parking space is 20 by 20 correct If it's if it's off the alley and what
Eric was saying is there's still that option to have alley access or a driveway Okay, my procedural
question is even with the denial this can still be built with 20 by 20
So if the conditional use in itself is approved and I think Eric was advising to have a condition so
it's clear about if you would prefer a parking pad that's to code off the alley or if you would prefer
a compliant driveway off Wiley, that could be a condition of the conditional use and you can vote separately
on the variances if that makes sense. So the variances could be denied but you could approve the conditional use.
I'm not talking about the additional conditional use I'm saying so if this is denied this duplex could
still be built, correct? It would require you to approve the conditional use which is different from
the Yeah, so there are two there are two requests before the board one and there are two separate motions
that we would like to kind of hear those under one is the conditional use for the duplex and then the
second is the variance for the
entrance and drive and the number of spaces off of the back So I think to get to your question,
you know, if you deny the variance they can either do a 20 by 20 parking pad or and that's what I was
saying in the motion to include the allowance for there to also either or be a driveway the UDO doesn't
allow both you either get one or the other and then the six-foot fence is not in a
It was in the original recommendation but it's not in this recommendation. It is in this recommendation
as well and it's shown on the site plan as well. I swap them because one has two and one has three.
I have a question for the city. So with the driveway are you talking about just the driveway not a pad
17 feet wide.
Yep, so the udio for a driveway from a street allows for a maximum width of 18 feet between the street
and the building setback And then once you get past the building setback, you could widen it You know
given the design of this site plan and the house, you know It couldn't widen any capacity until it gets
back around to the back of the house. I
Okay, I'm gonna at this point I'm gonna wait in with the city about some of these nuances where There
was there were some statements that were presented throughout this hearing about Kind of the nuances
of it's this is something that should probably not occur in this area they were using a lot of language
from various memos or or other parts of the UDO what was what's your take on that in terms of
Would you agree with some of those statements to say that? Yeah, this is probably not what we ideally
were targeting for a place for a duplex. That was kind of that was kind of how the the statements were
presenting it. I think the city's position is based on, you know, it's what's in our staff report. So
we evaluate the conditional use criteria and our analysis shows they're all met. So I think that's our
response to that.
You know, Joe, I was just comment on that because I think the this is another one of those issues where
there's inconsistencies because if you you know that the ordinance permits duplexes in our three zones
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
the map in terms of level of infrastructure.
I mean some of the neighborhoods have wide streets with parking on both sides and sidewalks and some
don't but it is a large area So, I mean our our three is not some Generic generic consistent thing in
the built environment. It's you know, it's varies but Did you have permitted in our three did you have
an opinion on what you heard on those because you've had more exposure to that than I have in terms
of some of Those nuances that were brought up
Trying to indicate that this might not be the place for a duplex What's the question those statements
that were being made about you know, like this is this is not I don't know. I yeah, I mean I've got
opinions, but they're not really relevant to the vote I mean to our charge. I mean, that's a different
conversation I think yeah, okay. I mean I'm trying to just follow our purview and
Yeah, I think that my question really goes towards is that something we should be considering because
it does sound like it's part of some of the official language and it does sound like that there are
some nuance there and you were saying too that there is some ambiguity. And I think where the ambiguity
really starts to rear its head is exactly what you said, which is the R3 areas wide and it's not a uniform
conformity. And so I think what concerns me about this particular unit is because of the street
And they already have a problem that's been created by a duplex one block away we have an issue with
We've talked to Kevin before about he may have to extend the side of the road in order to provide additional
parking So there to me there are some complexities to it that are introduced by Where this is and I
agree if you go somewhere else on an r3 certainly on my street. We have plenty of room
So I could see where my street could get a duplex So that's that's what I'm trying to struggle with
and then when I hear that it is a difficult thing for the city to put together a UDO Incredibly difficult.
I watched the process. It was a years-long process. Okay, so I know that That's why I think it becomes
important in a situation like this for us to say well I'm not really sure that this is exactly what
we were trying to do here is to jam this into a small street now Is that fair or not?
is the question, and now I've heard some statements that are made saying, well, this is in some of the
documentation, you know, there's things saying we're dissuade this, this isn't really what we're trying
to do on these types of things, so I'm just curious. I did not have direct exposure to the UDO creation.
Yeah, I hear you, Joe. I mean, I always worry in these situations that, you know, there's a risk of
over-correcting, too, if we start tweaking things even further.
Because I'm a fan of duplexes. I mean if we want to talk about affordability That's a phenomenal way
to address and the missing middle is a really important part of You know a deficiency in my opinion
in Bloomington's housing stock You know as someone pointed out I think the petitioner I mean we've just
changed the Code in certain areas. I didn't follow it all in detail about shrinking and
you know, minimum lot sizes or maximum lots. I can't remember which but I mean, there's just lots of
lots of different things happening simultaneously that don't always feel very consistent. But they're
all well intentioned responses to certain issues. So I don't know, I think are the biggest thing that
I think about the conditional uses is I don't like them.
all because it punts policy decisions. And then the current language around conditional uses you know
needs to be clearer. I mean there's just it's too vague. I mean when we talk about size consistency
all these kinds of things and then it doesn't include height it just seems
Like it's missing if that's a concern. But on the other hand I mean you know you could do a single family
home on this site that's 35 feet tall. So that's one and I don't think we should change that in our
ones either to be clear. You can't increase density a house in a city and expect that every home is
going to be a single story dwelling.
You're not going to increase density with that approach. I mean if we have to build everything that
the same as it was built, you know 60 years ago, you're not gonna In you know, you're not going to change
density and facilitate just folks online that can't hear what's being said Well and to follow up on
that it would be very very easy for me to
Say yes to this if it was four bedrooms Because so much more would be corrected by that We talked about
over correcting so I don't Necessarily well and it's not to say that you think on this particular case.
We're over correcting So I'm not gonna to make that statement what I'm saying is that does get me to
think am I over correcting and I don't think I am and I don't think I'm over correcting because two
bedrooms that we don't want is still two bedrooms in each side and
Helps address affordable housing and I don't think Kevin should look at one one Building one one development
is solving our entire housing stock problem So I do think that looking at this for me looking at the
street the size the problems that they currently have already the issues that we're having with the
parking And already seeing what has happened at another duplex and I don't know or care who lives there
I'm just saying that it
It does demonstrate a natural proclivity of most people, which is I want to park in the driveway. I
want to park out front. That's what people do. And we're not here to debate that. But I do think having
two bedrooms on each side is something I could easily say that makes sense for this space. And it's
still a conditional use, because it's a duplex. But I do think it fits. And I like, that's a really
compelling argument, too, about we can't build homes like we did in the 50s or the 40s, because that's
true, we can't. But I do think,
That was another thing that I had here is a note about There has been I had it on here I Wondered what
years these homes were built that again this great chart I wondered what year they were built because
I bet they were built at a time when the the size of the street meant nothing but now the size of the
street really does kind of mean something to us because so many people own cars and they want to park
it on the street so again, that's why I
Certain developments there's wide streets and this would work perfectly, but I just don't think it works
in this on the street So those are some of the issues I'm having I'm having the same issues Joe I'm
having issues with the street with and the safety on the street still I I think as it stands with the
three three bedrooms and three bedrooms There isn't going to be a lot big enough in the back that can
take all of the parking and that there will be street parking and
I'm struggling and I see both sides and I'm completely struggling with Right, and I think that what's
interesting here is that Kevin can actually build this he can build a duplex here So I certainly don't
feel that there's been a denial of that I also agree with John's statement about this idea of punting
to the board to the BZA Because you know this conditional use has been a bane since it's been introduced
we've been dealing with this all the time and we are oftentimes being asked to
to make some very, very subjective decisions. And this is one of them, which is we're having to make
subjective decisions based on what we're seeing in that particular space. And sometimes it could be
perceived or thought of as being favoritism or something, but instead of trying to do what's right for
the city, and especially for the neighborhood as well, within the code. So I see all of those things.
So that's why I did want to just stress that this is a difficult, it's just difficult because
You know we're being asked to rectify or address something that the UDO just doesn't Just a little question
on the on the two-bedroom or three-bedroom Of course on my With what I work. I mean a three-bedroom
would be something essential for a family to rent You know a two-bedroom. Yeah, you're gonna end up
with students. I
Or somebody that's single or yes, but it goes back to it's not up to us who rents it. The question is
Us to decide that and there's a very big danger To talk about who rents it exactly when it comes to
fair housing, which I respect tremendously. Yes, so In terms of the two-bedroom and three-bedroom, I
think it's irrelevant It's going to be a rental property and
The tenants might choose to bike. They might choose to walk. So we are making assumptions. Of course,
we know that everybody has, you know, most people have cars. It might be two cars. If it's a family,
it will be two cars, you know, at least. So those are assumptions. My only
I listened to one of the petitioners that talked about the alley because they use the alley to park.
And when I look at the current proposed parking that has the large bed in the back that might cause
some issues some safety if people are coming to park in their garage and then you have people coming
out and not looking or you know different things like that or walk people that walk in the alley.
I see that I hear from the petitioner that he does not you're not opposed to putting back the driveway.
So you put the back the driveway for his own sake in a sake of renting. He can make this driveway long
and that fits several cars. He can do that and that will be a by right situation correct.
It would not require the variance. Yes it would not require the variance so it could park. I mean it
will be 18 feet to start but then he can widen past the right the setback. Yes and the setbacks were
just shortened. I don't know if this will apply to this. We talked about that last year. So well I don't
want to suggest that that I'm assuming who's going to rent the particular
of the two-bedroom versus the three-bedroom is simply that I can I feel that it's Fairly accurate to
say there'll be less cars that's why I say it because Even if it is a family and their family that they
have two kids that are driving I mean, it's just more cars that could be on site and I think that's
adding to this whole issue of safety and parking and all of that not who I think might be renting because
You know, we can't consider that. And I'm not considering that, but I am considering that two less bedrooms
is gonna be two less number of people or possibly a couple, because a couple I suppose could, I don't
know how that works in a duplex. If you have three bedrooms, they all have to be related. And if they
could be married, they could have two couples that are married and then a child or something. And what
I'm saying is that there could be a lot of people actually in that three bedroom, but I think there'd
be less in a two bedroom.
Therefore there'd be less likelihood to have cars and those kind of issues. That was my thinking Yeah
in terms of housing stock the three-bedroom will give more opportunities for for family a larger group.
Yes, I understand Is this and I'd have to go back and look again I have not looked at the floor plan,
but is a is it a bathroom per bedroom? so In that I know that makes no difference, but I'm just I know
it it gives a perception that's
That is the trend right now even for a single-family home. Yeah, if that is the Trend of nuke and I
think it's important for people to hear that. Yeah New construction now people expect each bedroom to
have a bedroom. So Any other comments questions either to the petitioner or to the city if not, I'll
entertain a motion just one quick comment I I do think that we should you know acknowledge that the
petitioner You know responded to feedback
Around the arguments on inadequate infrastructure and tried to come up with a reasonable alternative
to mitigate the concerns about Parking on Wiley Street. Yes and then we're you know It's recommended
that we deny a variance to accommodate what he was trying to do based on feedback so I do want to acknowledge
that he made that effort and good faith and
We're recommending that we deny the variance So we again we do have two things in front of us which
is an approval is being requested for the conditional use and Then the city's recommending that we deny
the two instances in which they're asking for the variance for parking that there were two is that right
to two variances on the parking so that's the recommendation from the city and
To approve the conditional use which is the duplex itself, but to also deny those two points about the
parking request So if there's no further comments or questions for the petitioner for the city then
we we can look to make an emotion and seeing where things stand
Okay, I'll make a get the ball rolling here. I'll move that Approval of the conditional use for SR 26
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
the staff report
I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. Is there any further discussion from the
board? Can we fourth condition that he can either do the alley per code or a front driveway per code?
Staff request this friendly amendment. So it was recommended that we include a fourth condition that
would give him the option, the option to either put it into code off the alley or code off Wiley.
To do a yeah, why don't you say that again and I'll agree to the friendly amendment Condition four would
be to allow him to put in parking to code either off the alley or off of Wiley following our design
guidelines driveway cut either a driveway cut or the alley improvement of the alley. Yeah
So I now have a motion. I now have an amended motion and the second applies corrects second apply still
in We had an amendment. Do we need another second? Second we have a second. So we have a new amendment
with it has an amendment. Thank you Lynn and a second. Thank you Chris any further discussion Okay,
so a vote of yes would be to approve the conditional use of a
was proposed by the petitioner for a duplex and to deny the request for the Parking variances with the
exception of the fourth condition which was to allow for build-by-code in the alley Did I state that
correct or a traffic cutoff of Wiley? Or a driveway cut off a while. I hear that in the amendment or
that was in there. Okay. Yeah. Thank you Any further discussion
Just to make sure we're all on the same page with the fourth condition We're still denying the variance
To allow the four or the five spaces as opposed to four off of the alley but that can be replaced with
the drive off of
Wiley or adjusting the alley giving him permission to build It all has to be to code so it doesn't require
variance exactly, but it's stated though for Is that right am I seeing it right Chris All right any
further discussion any questions about the motion In that case, I'll call the question Burrell yes
Fernandez, yes, could Cinco no Smith. Yes, Throckmorton. No Thank you Do you does anyone need a break
because we can take a five, okay, we have a five-minute break We'll reconvene at five minutes before
the hour of eight All right. Let's let's do this
The BZA is now for Thursday, September 24th is reconvened. I do want to state for the record because
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.
The motion passed and I apologize for not making that clear. I think I just said okay because I was
tired. So that's my fault. Thank you.
We are now reconvened. At this point, we are now ready to hear the petition for ZR 2026-07-003. It's
a request at 530 South Washington Street for an administrative appeal of a notice of violation. I do
wanna state just before we start that I did ask the petitioner to please bring the exhibit to the front
of the chambers so that we could all see it easily. And with that, let's have a staff report.
Certainly, my name is Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner. And we should have something up there in a
moment. Yes, this is an administrative appeal of a notice of violation warning letter for a sign in
the public right of way, which is a prohibited sign location. Location was at 530 South
Washington Street. There is a map of it and aerial image. That's Walnut Street on the left side there.
So this is one block off of Walnut. In May, the transportation department received a complaint of signage
in the street. And then later that same month, staff observed the signage in the public right of way.
In June, staff sent a notice of violation
warning letter on July 6th, the property owner filed a timely appeal, and it came to a hearing last
month, and at the appellant's request, the BZA continued the hearing to this September meeting, which
is why we're here. This was the image in the notice of violation warning letter. This is a photo taken
from the street. We're looking toward
the edge of the street and the house. And we can see some features, some items in the right of way.
Just wanna put this up here. We may want to come back to it if you have any questions, but this is the
UDO definition of sign. So we'll just skip over it. We can come back to it if you want. And the UDO
prohibits signs in the public right of way. This is the part of code that explains that any public right
of way is a prohibited sign location.
Staff does not consider this as vehicle signage. However, to the extent that you could consider it to
be vehicle signage, the UDO makes it clear that vehicle signs are a prohibited sign type. Here's the
language about vehicle signs. Again, I'm not going to read it now, but we could come back to it if you
want to review that in detail. This being an administrative appeal, the staff report does not make a
formal recommendation. Thank you.
Thank you, Gabriel. The petitioner is here in chambers. And Joe, if you'll come forward, you'll have
20 minutes. And again, Joe, what you don't use initially, you can hold in reserve and make a final statement
before the board takes action. Thank you. Now, Joe, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. All right, you have 20 minutes My name is Joe Davis, thank you very much for allowing me
to present my appeal before you this evening I would like to reserve seven minutes of my 20 minutes
for a period following public comment and Questions coming from the from the board. I
Please note to please stop him at 13 minutes per his request. Thank you Joe. Go ahead. Thank you. I
Want to be clear after 13 minutes, so there'll be seven minutes left on the clock. I want to be clear
about that. Thank you Okay, okay. All right. Thank you very much I
Referring to I am here today to appeal a notice of violation warning letter for a an alleged sign in
the public right away a Prohibited Permanent standalone sign location As As planning and transportation
Notified me in their notice of In their notice of violation warning letter they did not say that a prohibited
They did not say that a permanent sign Was what they were necessarily accusing me of harboring but
But I am here to present that my utility cart with a sign is a transportation mode and It is not a permanent
standalone sign in the public Parkaway area of the street
Reside at 530 South Washington Street. You have seen an image of my sign parked in the public park away
area of the street between vehicles One a few questions that I would like to
Note or is that in planning and transportation's Receipt of complaint of signage in the street six weeks
took by took went by before planning and transportation Sent me a letter on June the 23rd of 2026 and
I questioned why it took six weeks and
for this to take place. Gabriel Holbro informed me that it was through an anonymous complaint that they
had been notified. And I question why anonymous complaints carry so much weight considering that we
don't know the
identity of the complainant and I am suspicious that The anonymous complaint came from a commercial
landlord who lives adjacent to me or not lives, but owns property properties all surrounding me By the
name of her name is Renata raper and she Has been
Notorious in making anonymous complaints against my property and against my vehicles claiming them to
be abandoned Furthermore I would like to question why the Planning and Transportation Department sent
out a letter to adjacent property owners when
None of the adjacent property owners or owner-occupiers surrounded me. Why? After speaking with my neighbors,
who are all renters, none of them had received the letter concerning my request to appeal this alleged
sign violation warning. It seems inappropriate that
the owners of the properties that surround aren't the only ones who need to be notified. It's actually
the tenants, the residents who are in those properties who have the most to say when it comes in regard
to this. Therefore, I would like to submit these as exhibits
This is a This includes the adjacent property owners listed who were notified by planning and transportation
and also to a letter from attorneys of Renata Raper of our place LLC
Who has been harassing me and as you can see from all the properties that she owns Surrounding me that
it's likely that this is just she is the one who probably Most likely made this claim and so I now present
to you these exhibits Yeah, yeah make sure that the city gets a copy and then
Board If you only have one copy we'll pass it down but that has to go to the city for me Whoops
so technically we just need to keep the copy at the end So if you need a third copy right now as long
as we get it back Now Gabriel go ahead and keep that we'll just we'll look at this that was provided I
Five seconds, okay All right So staff has stated that they do not consider petitioners signage to be
considered a feature of vehicles parked legally on the street The UDO clarifies that vehicle signs are
a prohibited sign type
When they do not move Okay According to Bloomington Bloomington Municipal Code tile 20 unified development
ordinance 20.04 dot 100 e development standards and incentives signs prohibited sign types
The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts unless specifically authorized by another
provision of section twenty point oh four point one zero zero or section twenty point oh three point
zero three zero h three and number five under vehicle signs Which should also include utility carts bicycles
utility trailers under number five vehicles vans trailers Utility carts as I say bicycles and utility
trailers should be included Gabriel Holbro told me that bicycles are authorized to be parked in the
in the public park away space and
Vehicles vans trailers utility carts bicycles utility trailers or trucks that are parked continuously
in the same general location to be used to blame signs This does not prohibit vehicle or trailer owners
from having vehicles or trailers with signs provided the vehicles or trailers are in use and
on a regular basis and are not continuously parked in one parking lot or parking space and are not being
used to serve in the same manner as an additional freestanding sign or temporary sign This exhibit that
I have brought today which I'm motioning to my utility car, which is a mode of transportation that also
has a sign much like a vehicle with a
Jimmy John's sign or an uber sign or a realtors sign This utility cart Moves around the city almost
on a daily basis its move from Its parked location from my home twice to downtown today Bloomington
Bloomington Municipal Code, Title 20, Unified Development Ordinance 20.07.010, defined words, sign,
any display or device placed on, and it should be included, or it should be inserted here, real property,
meaning real estate, not personal property,
Any fashion that can be seen from a public place or public right-of-way that is designated Intended
or used to convey any identification message or information other than an address number This is not
placed On real property this is placed in the area where transportation modes are parked so this does not
However, I would like to say that realtor signs, candidate signs, these are all allowed to be placed
on real property. Disallowing my transportation mode with a sign is unconstitutional according to the
First Amendment
right to free speech. My house, which I consider the Smile House Museum of Found and Contemporary Art,
as noted on my notice of appeal of the November warning letter in regard to the November warning letter
dated July 6, 2026, my house displays a smile
and currently a getting squeaky clean sign. These are all freedom of speech allowed by the First Amendment
of the US Constitution. Okay. Again, I would like to state
Petitioner the question before us tonight is whether or not Petitioner appellant sign is a freestanding
Permanent sign that is in a prohibited space the public park away space The answer is no petitioner
appellants Utility cart
Transportation you're at seven minutes if you'd like to retain that time or you can continue that That
simply displays It's a utility cart that simply displays a sign no different than a Jimmy John sign
or an Uber sign, or any other delivery sign, or a realtor sign that is slapped on the side of a vehicle
to promote their business as they're able. I would like to reserve the rest of my time in response for
after the questions and the public comment. Thank you. Thank you. We'll hold the clock there. You have
just a few seconds over six minutes left. We'll come back to that. You can have a seat.
For a moment, it will call you up if we have questions We're back to the board if you have any questions
of the petitioner or the staff Where this sign was on the street Yes from the from the city exhibit,
yes, thank you so much I
Okay. Thank you. Oh that was it. You just wanted to see it. All right. I thought you had a question
there. Okay. Okay. Any any questions. Okay. Seeing that we'll go to the public. Please.
I mean the petitioner refers to Vehicle signs, but that is not a defined term. Is that correct? I mean
I see sign comma portable And it refers Says including but not limited to signs designed to be transported
by means of wheels There's no Term for vehicular sign is there there
So in the videos defined words vehicle sign is not a defined word. That's why the regulation that prohibits
vehicle signs contains Regulation for how you determine if something is a vehicle sign or not So there
is something that that approaches the use of a definition, but it is not one of the defined terms in
the utl Any other questions for the staff or for the petitioner or
Sparked between cars on the street Or is it on the driveway? It's in the public right-of-way So there's
there's the sidewalk there's the curb and then there's the area where vehicles often park and it's a
lot Permitted to park there and that's where it is. So between the curb and the travel way where cars
pass Okay, so not on the street. It's on the I
It's on the street, but in the right away. Sorry, say your question again. Is it on the street? But
it's part of the right away. I think what you're getting at is you would not consider a part of the
street. It's not the part where vehicles travel. I would call that part of the street because you park
on the street, but that's a semantic. No, I don't have an agenda. I just want to know where it is. Is
it a parking space or is it considered road surface?
It would be a parking space. It's a designated lined out parking space Well, there's no lines on on
this part of so it's the water. It's part of the roadway Right. It's a part of the roadway where it
is legal to park. That's all that I think what's being asked, correct? Is it roadway? Yeah. Yeah. Okay,
so it's a roadway. Okay Any other questions Okay
We'll go to the public then for comments. We have anyone online because there's no one in in chambers
If there is anybody online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you for public comment
I'm not seeing anybody. Okay at this point then Joe is back to you to use the remainder of your time,
please 16 6 minutes and 18 seconds
Okay As I mentioned before Gabriel Holbro has Shared with the petition repellent that bicycles are allowed
to be parked in the Parking area of the public street
My utility cart is typically locked to my bicycle in the public street area. The current location is
roughly the same location as the image that was presented before. However, the mortar mixer is no longer there.
a bicycle and my cart and another chair Which these are locked to such that for safety reasons to prevent
theft If we if you could continue through the images, please Gabriel Continue Continue
Okay, now you can see, this is typically the manner in which this transportation mode that happens to
have a sign moves from where my house is, 530 South Washington Street, to uptown or downtown or wherever
I'm going. And as you can see, I'm moving in the bicycle lane and behind me is a delivery driver
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
top of this car in the background, and it has the Jimmy John logo on it. There we are, thank you. And
if we'll just continue to move through the images. And then here you can see I'm passing by, and we're
backed up here, but at any rate,
This demonstrates my point that this utility car, though it might be parked overnight in the area where
vehicles and bicycles and other items are allowed to be parked, it is ephemerally parked. It regularly
moves throughout the city. It is not a permanent standalone sign in place.
So Where's my I'm sorry. I'm looking for how much time I have left three minutes and 22 seconds three
minutes and 22 seconds So again, there are many types of transportation modes the UDO is incomplete
when it lists definitions for
for transportation modes that does not include bicycles you Bicycled utility trailers utility carts
as well as scooters as well as other Means that individuals used to move about throughout the city and
transport their belongings This
Incomplete list of definitions in the UDO Should not prevent a petitioner petitioner appellant from
being From his appeal being upheld It is not the fault of the petitioner appellant that the UDO is lacking
a larger Slate of transportation modes that are authorized to be moving about
along the street and utilize the bicycle space for Safety of bicycles and other modes of transportation
on the city streets, especially on South Washington South Lincoln any place where it's designated that
bicycles are to be are authorized to be moving about
So I ask that the board Uphold petitioner appellants Appeal and Deny planning and transportation's alleged
assumption that Petitioners utility cart is an unauthorized
permanent sign parked in the public Park away space of the public street This utility cart does not
block the right away It is just parked where other vehicles like realtor like realtor vehicles with
signs like uber vehicles with signs like food delivery vehicles with signs and
are able and authorized to park. Should the appeal be denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, I ask that
the BZA statement of fact and decision include specific ordinance and statute and include the fact that
I have mentioned my first and 14th amendment
constitutional rights the 14th being That the equal treatment under the law clause of the 14th amendment
Is appropriate in upholding my appeal Because otherwise I am being treated differently Than motor vehicle drivers
Have a sign then bicyclist who might have a sign very good and thank you very much Thank you for your
time on that. Okay now with that We're back to the board seeking either further discussion any further
questions you have with the petitioner or for the staff or we will entertain a motion Yes
Would be either to uphold the appeal or deny the appeal correct Are there findings of fact that have
to go with that? No, you're you're either affirming that it was a violation or you are not So an approval
would be approving his appeal a denial would be denying his appeal One of the very few types of motions
we can make that are so clear
Yeah, I'll make a motion to deny the appeal I have a motion to deny the appeal. Do I have a second?
Any further discussion so to deny the appeal would be to Well, I'm sorry, it'd be a denial of the appeal
administrative appeal any further discussions or questions I'll call the question Burrell Yes Fernandez
Kosenko, yes Smith. Yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes That motion is passed 5-0 we do have we do go on to Any
on any new business we did have a couple of items that wanted to come up Eric but For I guess for the record
Previous case that we have talked about that is I think 230 Morton I believe that somebody is How it
needs investigation if somebody is habiting that apartment to Make it clear to those on the board who
may not have been involved. It's the old Is it Ferris old Ferris market? What was the corner market there? I
Ferris market, so the old Ferris market they had Incorrectly placed apartment buildings next to the
street and had done a number of things in order to Try to bring it within code We denied them the ability
to continue to use those apartments in the current configuration. So I Believe I think that's correct.
We denied that Yes appeal. I'm sorry that petition for a variance and
So with that your question is you believe someone might actually be living there now due to some signage
You've seen and some other things correct. There's signage outside of the building about deliveries
For the unit right and we'd like to have you'd like to have that addressed Correct. So yep, so we'll
have our enforcement staff take a look and pursue it as necessary. Okay, very good Thank you. And with
that if there's no further new business This meeting is Adjourned Thank you