►
From YouTube: Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals, November 18, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
The
we
have
one
petition
that
is
continued
to
the
december
meeting.
That's
a
a
dash
20
21
sheila.
C
C
Maximum
that
are
allowed
so
just
to
briefly
go
over
this.
The.
C
C
C
And
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you
keegan
is
the
petitioner
here.
D
Keegan
is
that
jacob
or
daniel.
D
A
E
E
E
E
That
are
both
to
the
west
of
this
facility.
Both
of
those
facilities
have
much
larger
buildings.
E
For
through
a
building
about
a
third,
the
size
of
their
buildings,
the
difference
is:
is
that
we're.
E
E
Under
roof,
which
would
allow
for
more
parking
stalls
are
counting
as
parking
stalls.
So
so
you.
E
And
then
we're
proposing
13
additional
parks
for
crew
parking
and
patio
parking.
E
E
E
E
Minutes
to
order
get
their
food
and
and
eat.
So
if
you,
if
you
hold
them
to
a
five
minute.
E
E
E
E
There's
no
real,
it
there's
no
harm
to
anyone
for
the
granting
of
this
variance.
So
I
I'd
be.
E
A
Thank
you,
mr
staffer.
We
are
to
the
board
for
questions
of
the
petitioner
of
staff.
B
Hi,
this
is
eric
coyne,
yes,
quick
question.
Can
someone
show
me.
C
Yeah
so
yeah,
I
think
you
can
kind
of
see.
There's
this
dashed
line,
I
believe,
is.
C
The
campy
that
was
referenced
and
so
and
the
listener
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
C
But
no
that
that's
correct
and
if
the
dashed
lines,
the
angular
lines
that
have.
B
Not
not
about
the
design,
let's
see
if
anyone
else
has
any
questions.
Okay,
anyone
else.
B
Have
a
competitive
to
not
be
at
a
competitive
disadvantage?
Is
it
the
purview
of
this
board
that.
B
As
part
of
our
deliberations,
I'm
just
curious.
No,
I
would
say
you
know
your
your
purview
is
to.
A
F
E
That
is
correct.
The
parking
that
does
not
have
the
canopy
on
top,
which
is
the.
E
Up
there
that
will
have
outdoor
furniture
and
a
nice,
so
a
client,
a
client
potentially
can.
F
E
F
Okay,
thank
you.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions,
mr
stauffer,
so
do
I.
A
A
sonic
in
bloomington,
currently
there
is
not
okay.
I
was
just
curious
about
that.
A
Isn't
really
addressed
by
our
parking
audience
ordinance
in
any
particular
manner.
B
Yeah,
this
question
is
for
staff
again,
the
outdoor,
the
the
20
spaces
were
determined
based
on
the.
B
C
C
Sure
yeah,
I
would
say
so.
If
the
building
was
larger,
they
would
be
allowed
more
parking
spaces.
C
That's
a
good
question.
I
have
to
check
what
if
the
code
defines
that
I
don't
know
if
jackie,
if.
C
B
So
barry
then
that's
a
really
good
point,
since
it's
undefined.
B
B
D
B
But
can
I
ask
you
this
jackie
is:
do
you
have
there's
going
to
be
a
fire
code
as
far
as
how
many.
B
D
I
don't
know
fire
code
that
well,
but
I
might
guess
would
be
the
building.
A
D
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
the
point
the
sniper
was
making,
but
I
do
think
it's
a
fair
point
and.
D
Parking
space,
we
didn't
think
that
they
could
be
counted.
You
all
could
maybe
use
them
as
you.
D
D
Talk
about,
but
I
I
do
and
miss
clapper
again
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
part.
D
Of
the
question
what
you
know,
the
point
also
that
you
were
making
mr
throckmorton
is.
D
Large
to
meet
the
number
of
spaces
that
they
want,
that
seems
doable.
There
doesn't
seem.
D
A
reason
they
can't
do
that
they
don't
even
have
to
cover
it.
So
I
I
think
that
was
maybe
more.
D
Or
less
that
that's
a
point
of
point
right
to
make
it
right.
So
just
a
finer
point
for
the.
A
A
A
A
Really
have
a
specific
allowance
for
this
type
of
restaurant.
The
issue
around
the
variants
is.
A
B
B
Order
to
get
the
seven
additional
spaces
that
they
desire,
I
think
you'd-
have
to
be
at
least.
C
Maybe
jackie
can
correct
me
twelve
hundred
square
feet
right.
Third,.
B
D
For
you
know
that
there's
nothing
here
so
when
you
kind
of
look
at
this
site
plan
and
think
could.
D
D
D
This
sonic,
you
know,
has
an
interesting
ample
outside
seating
space
that
that
could
be
done.
A
Well,
I
think
a
question
could
be
to
the
petitioner.
Mr
trafford,
can
you
talk
about.
A
The
use
of
the
rest
of
the
property
is,
it
is,
I
think,
there's
some
retention
on
the.
C
But
this
is
a
detention
pond
on
the
north
and
then
there
is
some
wooded
area.
E
Currently
woods
to
the
rear
of
the
property
and
so
again,
theoretically,
we
we
could
build.
E
Like
I
said,
we
could
build
the
building
larger.
I
don't
know
that
that
doesn't
serve
any
benefit.
E
Other
than
to
to
meet
the
code,
and
which
is
why
we're
asking
for
the
relief
here
today.
A
Yes,
flavia
well
my
question:
this
is
definitely
a
different
business
model.
F
The
car
go
inside.
Of
course
they
have
the
drive
through
auction,
but
can
the
ordering
area.
F
On
ordering
area,
I
wonder
if
you
know
they're
getting
penalized
because
of
their
business
model.
F
A
Could
we
hear
a
little
bit
more
from
staff
about
just
that
parking
side
of
things
sort.
C
Yeah,
I
can
pull
up
the
definition
of
a
vehicle
parking
space,
but
you
know
maybe
to
touch
on.
C
Flavia's
point:
the
code
doesn't
really
make
a
distinction
between
a
parking
space
where
you.
D
The
same
as
parking
spaces
where
someone
gets
out
and
goes
in
and
gets
the
food,
so
you
know
the.
D
Code
is
written
this
way
with
parking
maximums
not
to
limit
business,
but
to
limit
our
impervious.
D
Surface
and
our
reliance
on
vehicles
and
to
encourage
you
know
other
types
of
development.
D
Code
is
trying
to
avoid
that
similar
to
how
we
discussed
when
we've
done
some
other
restaurant.
D
You
know
if,
if
this
board
was
interested
in
thinking
about
the
covered
ordering
spaces.
D
D
D
Need
because
I
own
a
lot
of
stores
but
showing
us
that
showing
you
that
that
this
is
a
need.
D
Not
a
want,
that's
something
we've
discussed
on
on
other
projects,
but
as
far
as
we're
as
far
as.
D
You
know
the
department
is
concerned,
we
just
don't
think
the
property.
We
don't
think
that.
D
D
D
Because
that's
not
the
model
that
they're
used
to
doing
and
our
you
know
our
code
requires
that.
B
B
1200
1500
feet
and
now
I
can
have
700.
I
can
have
my
seven
extra
spots
and
so
I
I
mean
that's.
B
B
That
they
have,
you
know
it
is
the
spots
that
you
know
you
go
to
the
drive
up
window
and
then.
B
B
So
I
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
struggling
on
this
is
and
then
confusingly
in
the
drive
up
window.
B
Like
which
13
are
we
talking
about?
What
are
we
counting,
so
I
I'm
kind
of
struggling
with.
B
Lot
and
the
result,
if
we
say
yes
or
no,
the
results
almost
the
same
and
that's
where
I'm.
B
A
B
Is
it
the
responsibility
of
the
board
to
work
with
petitioners
so
that
they.
B
Business
entity
right,
so
how
did
the
staff
respond
to
that
yeah?
I
would
say
that
the.
D
In
a
way
that
makes
the
use
of
those
properties
impossible,
or
you
know
very
difficult
so.
D
D
D
Goals
of
the
code
are
still
met,
but
that
so
that
the
goals
are
still
met,
even
if
they.
D
D
Determined
through
you
know,
council
and
the
administration
are
appropriate
and
also.
D
Cap,
the
you
know,
use
of
these
lots.
All
of
those
things
are
supposed
to
work
together.
They
don't.
D
You
know
they're
not
always
exactly
at
the
same
level
of
where
the
cap
is,
and
sometimes
we
have
to.
D
Sometimes
we
move,
you
know.
Sometimes
one
keeps
a
property
lower
on
development
than
the.
D
D
Hard
space
it
it
might-
yes,
it
probably
would
be
if
they
can't
fit
it
in,
but
they
would.
A
F
F
To
stop
and
order
their
food
since
they
are
ordering
from
their
car
and
eating
their
car.
D
Is
that
for
staff
lobby
or
the
other
members
for
staff
I'll
say
for
us?
No,
we
don't
think.
D
The
property
is
unique,
we
think
it's
over
parked.
I
it's
harder
to
say
I
mean
if,
if.
D
If
they
showed
similarly
sized
similarly
sized
buildings,
you
know
a
mile
and
a
half
from.
D
A
highway
you
know
if
it
was
all
very
similar
and
they
could
show
us.
You
know,
with
parking.
D
D
Something
that
we'd
have
to
talk
to
the
director
about,
but
we're
just
with
the
size
of
the
lot.
D
There,
but
that
doesn't
mean
you
all,
wouldn't
want
to
make
that
decision
with
that
data.
A
Like
a
more
of
a
shopping
mall
situation,
where
there's
more
shared
parking,
I'm
just
thinking.
A
About
the
business
model
and
not
being
able
to
meet
our
code,
but
it's
the
type
of
property
that.
D
Step
in
we
have
had
other
restaurants,
not
exactly
this
business
model,
but
you
know.
D
They
are
able
to
offset
what
they're
missing
in
those
areas
you
know
we
have.
It
was
interesting.
D
D
You
know
is
obviously
what
we're
trying
to
avoid
with
this
code.
But
yes,
if
it
was.
D
Any
use
could
capitalize
on
shared
parking
other
than
on
a
solo
lot
like
this.
Thank
you.
A
Who,
I'm
sure
has
plenty
of
time
if
they
have
further
comments
or
thoughts,
they
would.
A
Like
to
share
at
this
point,
no,
I
I
appreciate
your
time
like
I
said
I
I
think
at
this
point.
It's.
E
If
you
wouldn't
care
to
just
go
ahead
and
vote
like
I
said
I,
I
do
think
that.
E
We
don't
our
business
model
does
not
specifically
fit
the
intent
of
your
code,
and
you,
like
I,
mean.
E
Impervious
area
here-
that's
not
necessary
so
that
that
I'll
just
leave
you
with
that.
A
Okay,
so
we
are
back
to
the
commission
for
discussion
and
ultimately
for
a.
B
We
can
discuss,
but
I
move
denial
of
v
dash
21-21.
Okay,
do
we
have
a
second.
A
I'll,
second,
it
okay,
so
we
are
now
we
can
discuss
and
I'll
all
start.
Since
I
made
the.
B
Motion
and
the
reason
for
the
denial
is
one.
The
petitioners
said
that
they're
gonna
move.
B
B
B
B
To
do
that?
Third,
it's
not
our
third
or
fourth
point:
it's
not
our
responsibility
to
try
to.
A
Peculiar
to
this
piece
of
property,
that
would
would
create
the
need
for
a
variance.
I
do
see.
A
Or,
or
in
a
way
that
would
allow
this
business
model
to
function
on
any
piece
of
property,
whether.
A
It's
this
or
one,
you
know
one
block
over,
and
so
I
just
don't
think
that
this
rises
to
the
to.
A
The
criteria,
the
finding
that
that
there's
something
peculiar
about
this
piece
of
property.
A
That
would
allow
us
to
to
grant
the
the
variance,
even
if
we
are
in
agreement.
A
That
our
our
code
does
does
not
really
provide
for
this
business
model
very
well.
B
B
B
B
You
know
what
about
the
unintended
consequences
of
this,
because
it
doesn't
fit.
There's
a
there's.
B
B
Cookie
cutter,
they
just
want
to
put
the
cookie
cutter
thing
in
and
ask
for
the
variants.
First.
B
B
In
this
particular
circumstance,
and-
and
I
think
you
know
there's
something
about
that-
that.
A
How
it
meets
this
criteria,
I
agree
with
you
that
we're
gonna
we
very
well.
May
you.
A
In
our
the
ultimate
goals
of
the
impervious
surface
coverage,
but
in
terms
of
our
purview.
A
I,
when
reading,
what
we're
supposed
to
be
kind
of
deciding
on
that's
kind
of
what
that's.
Where.
A
B
B
We're
talking
about
is
dining
area
space
it
could.
It
could
be
something
that
is
not
just
blacktop.
B
B
Within
the
code,
if
they're
going
to
expand
that
area,
so
I
I
don't
want
to
leave
to-
I
don't
want
to.
B
Just
accept
the
thought
that
it's
going
to
be
detrimental,
you
know,
with
with
a
you
know,.
B
B
A
You
know
what
keegan
do
you
mind
looking
up?
Is
there
a
definition.
A
Of
outdoor
park
outdoor
eating
area
to
see
how
that
is
defined
in
the
code.
C
Sure
I
was
looking
at
it
earlier.
There
isn't,
okay,
so
really
there
could
be
some.
A
Pretty
creative
and
interesting
solutions
from
a
design
perspective
that
would
allow
more.
A
Of
you
know
if
it's
not
necessarily
tied
to
impervious
surface
like
you,
it
maybe
doesn't.
A
A
B
B
B
You
know
pave
space,
you
know
again.
I
think
you
made
a
really
valid
point
that
there's
there's.
B
No
there's
just
nothing
here
that
says
that
we
need
to
go
around
the
code.
Thank
you.
A
So
the
just
the
motion
again
is
to
deny
the
petition
with
the
findings,
as
stated.
B
Okay,
the
could
the
yeah
yeah
the
denial.
It
was
a
straight
denial
v
dash
2121.
B
G
G
D
So
a
yes
vote
is
for
denial.
Correct,
yes,
coin,
yes,
barrel.