►
From YouTube: Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals, March 23, 2023
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).
A
A
We
have
six
sets
of
minutes
to
be
approved,
and
will
we
do
these
individually,
typically
I.
A
Okay,
so
let
me
just
say
for
the
record
that
it
is
this
from
the
following
minutes:
from
the
following
meetings:
August,
the
25th
September,
the
22nd
October,
the
20th
November,
the
17th
and
December,
the
15th
all
from
2022
and
then
the
last
set
is
from
February
the
28th
2023..
A
A
C
A
So
I
will
entertain
a
motion
unless
there
are
any
comments,
questions.
E
B
Okay,
yeah;
okay,
it
does
I'm,
sorry,
okay
and
Throckmorton.
Yes,
Ann
Burrell,
yes,
okay,.
E
A
You
and
I
just
wanted
to
thank
Melissa
for
getting
this
up
to
date.
Thank
you
and
welcome.
This
I
think
this
is
the
first
time
that
you've
been
with
us
live
so
great,
great
and
then
I
also
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
to
welcome
Nikki
Farrell
as
our
newest
board
member.
Thank
you
so
much
for
agreeing
to
serve.
Of
course,
thank
you
reports,
resolutions
and
Communications.
E
E
So
we
will
ask
you
to
amend
the
agenda
to
move
him
to
the
front
so
that
then
you
can
go
ahead
and
vote
to
continue
that
other
than
that.
That's
our
only
kind
of
housekeeping
today,
okay,
great
so.
A
A
V-53-22
Lisa
Marie
Napoli
and
this
evening
the
petitions
as
they
are
listed
on
the
agenda
are
v-0323
David,
Howard,
Tabor,
Bruce,
architects,
v-06-23
Walnut,
star
LLC,
3,
Studio,
3,
Design,
Inc
and
aa-08-23
Leo
polakowski.
A
A
Okay,
so
at
this
point
I
don't
know:
do
we
hear
anything
or
do
we
just
make.
D
A
G
C
B
B
B
D
Sorry
I
just
want
to
clarify
commissioner
Burrell's
vote
was
that
was
a
yes.
A
H
Yes,
thank
you
Barry.
This
is
a
request
for
David
Howard
for
property
at
1301,
South,
Walnut
Street.
H
The
petitioner
is
here
tonight
to
request
a
variance
from
the
minimum
number
of
required
parking
spaces
to
allow
for
the
construction
of
two
ground
floor
dwelling
units
in
the
mixed-use
medium
scale,
zoning
District.
So
this
property
is
located
at
the
southeast
corner
of
South
Walnut
Street
and
East
Driscoll
Drive.
H
It
has
been
developed
with
a
mixed-use
building
and
received
a
use,
variance
and
a
variance
in
2019
to
allow
for
one
ground
floor
dwelling
unit
for
the
use
variants
and
then
a
variance
from
the
minimum
number
of
required
on-site
parking
spaces
to
allow
for
the
the
property
to
be
redeveloped.
So
the
petitioner
developed
a
property
with
a
ground
floor,
commercial
space
and
one
dwelling
unit
with
two
floors
of
dwelling
units
on
the
Upper
Floor.
For
a
total
of
nine
dwelling
units
on
the
property.
H
There
are
two
parking
spaces
that
are
provided
on
the
east
side
of
the
site
that
are
accessed
from
an
alley
both
of
those
are
designated
as
accessible
parking
spaces,
because
the
zoning
to
the
east
of
this
is
residential.
Small
lot:
R3,
the
zoning
code
does
have
a
minimum
number
of
on-site
parking
spaces
that
are
required,
and
so
the
petitioner
would
like
to
convert
some
of
the
existing
ground
floor
commercial
space
into
two
additional
dwelling
units.
H
So
when
the
variance
was
approved,
the
petitioner
created
three
or
four
on
street
parking
spaces
adjacent
to
the
site
in
order
to
offset
the
lack
of
of
any
parking
that
would
be
provided
on
the
site
for
the
the
dwelling
units,
and
so
the
variance
was
approved
kind
of
pending
or
based
on
the
the
provision
of
on-street
parking
spaces.
H
H
So
this
would
require
more
parking
and
there
is
not
any
additional
on-site
parking
that
can
be
provided
so
with
this.
Obviously,
there
are
three
criteria
that
staff
have
to
evaluate,
one
of
those
being
that
the
use
and
value
or
the
in
the
approval
will
not
be
injured
to
the
public
health
safety,
morals
and
general
welfare
of
the
community.
H
H
The
second
one
specifically
says
that
the
use
and
value
of
the
area
adjacent
to
the
property
will
not
be
affected
in
a
substantially
adverse
manner,
and
in
this
regard
we
were
not
able
to
make
findings
in
that,
mostly
the
the
lack
of
any
additional
on-site
parking
or
ability
to
create
any
new
on-street
parking
can
and
does
result
in
spillover
parking
in
the
adjacent
neighborhood.
H
So
the
Udo,
the
provision
for
the
minimum
number
of
spaces,
is
a
requirement
when
properties
are
adjacent
to
the
R3
zoning
District,
where
there
typically
is
a
lot
of
on-street
parking
that
is
utilized,
and
so
the
reasoning
behind
the
minimum
parking
requirement
in
this
situation
is
to
prevent
spillover
parking
within
residential
neighborhoods,
and
so
staff
has
routinely
as
we've
gone
through.
This
Corridor
and
driven
by
this
site
routinely
noticed
that
there
are
cars
parked
in
some
of
the
restricted
parking
that
is
immediately
adjacent
to
this
site
on
the
street.
H
So
this
is
a
site
photo
taken
today.
You
know
showing
a
vehicle
parked
within
this
restricted,
curb
line
along
the
front,
and
this
has
been
something
that
we
have
routinely
seen
throughout
the
past
month
or
so,
as
this
petition
was
filed.
H
H
They
are
choosing
that,
but
there
is
a
requirement
for
additional
parking
to
go
along
with
that
which
they
are
not
able
to
meet.
So
there
is
not
a
a
deprived
use
of
the
property
by
not
allowing
these
spaces
to
be
converted
for
residences
without
providing
on-street
parking.
So
we
do
not
find
that
the
strict
application
of
the
terms
of
the
Udo
will
result
in
any
practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
that
property,
since
the
property
has
been
developed
just
recently
with
a
mixed
use.
Building
and
the
dwelling
units
are
fully
occupied.
H
I
Thank
you.
Thanks
keep
wanting
to
look
and
see
Eric
sitting
here,
thanks
Eric
yeah,
so
we
weren't
involved
in
the
initial
building
and
the
initial
petition.
We've
been
working
with
this
client
on
some
other
projects
and
he
discussed
this
with
us.
The
building
has
been
occupied
now
for
how
long,
two
years,
two
years
and
as
we
all
know,
I
mean
my
office-
is
just
a
few
blocks
up
the
street.
I
It's
an
area
that
has
been
slow
to
be
developed,
I,
think
a
lot
of
it
is
due
to
issues
that
we
face
in
that
area.
We've
got
a
lot
of
theft
off
our
porches.
We've
got
cleanup
of
messes
every
morning
on
our
property.
Again,
I
I
suffer
this
because
I'm
just
a
block
up
the
street,
and
so
this
space
for
two
years
is
commercial
space.
That
would
have
some
parking
if
it
were
commercial
space,
but
they've
they've
tried
to
lease
it
for
two
years
and
have
not
had
any
takers
on
this
space.
I
So
when
we
talk
about
a
difficulty
on
a
site,
I
think
this
area
has
a
difficulty
for
a
site,
so
they
were
still
trying
to
leave
some
commercial.
A
very
small
about
600
square
feet
at
the
street,
but
take
the
rest
of
the
space
that's
vacant
behind
it.
That
they've
again
they've
tried
to
lease
for
two
years
and
lease
that
space
out
I
think
the
the
my
client
could
could
tell
you
that
their
initial
I
guess
at
the
initial
approval
there
were
more
parking
on
the
on
the
street.
I
You
may
want
to
come
up
and
address
some
of
that
you're
more
familiar
with
the
history.
But
that's
why
we're
before
you
here,
because
it's
commercial
space,
it's
just
been
sitting
vacant
for
two
years
with
no
with
no
takers.
So
with
that
I'll
leave
some
time
for
David
to
speak
and
then,
if
you've
got
any
questions.
I'm
here
to
answer
those.
J
Good
evening,
David
Howard
do.
J
Okay,
thanks
yeah,
so
with
this
property,
we've
had
numerous
conversations
with
potential
people
to
lease.
In
most
cases,
we
can
at
least
get
a
solid
conversation
going,
but
as
soon
as
people
kind
of
come
to
the
site,
they
generally
walk
away.
So
we've
had
a
very
hard
time,
even
getting
you
know,
even
a
starting
conversation
on
leasing
commercially,
and
most
of
that
also
comes
down
to
there's,
not
enough
parking
for
the
commercial
aspect.
As
far
as
the
residents
go,
most
tenants
don't
even
have
vehicles.
J
We
even
asked
the
question
during
on
the
rental
side.
You
know
this
is
a
good
area
where
you
don't
really
need
a
vehicle.
The
bus
stop
is
right
at
the
corner
and
I'd
say
right
now.
Currently,
only
three
tenants
in
that
building
even
have
vehicles,
but
the
aspect
with
the
parking
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
too
much
of
an
issue.
I
know
they've
only
currently
started
enforcing
so
I'm
sure,
as
long
as
they
start
to
enforce
more
often
and
ticket
those
people,
they
won't
be
parking
in
the
restricted
areas.
J
As
Doug
was
saying,
we
had
three
more
spaces
on
that
site,
but
the
city
came
through
in
extended
that
yellow
restricted
line,
which
also
hindered
any
potential
aspect
for
a
commercial
to
have
parking
available,
and
it
just
kind
of
Suits
better
that
aspect
in
that
area
to
have
residential
versus
a
you
know:
commercial
space.
From
what
we've
been
you
know,
Finding
and
trying
to
fit
for
that
building,
and
we
just
like
to
see
it.
You
know
filled
out
so.
C
H
Yep
so
this
was
approved
in
2019,
and
so
there
is
not
a
minimum
parking
requirement
for
a
commercial.
It
is
only
the
residential
aspect
of
this
of
the
development
that
is
required
to
have
parking.
So
the
zoning
code
requires
0.5
parking
spaces
per
unit
for
a
studio,
so
they
were
required
to
have
I,
think
five
or
so
parking
spaces
on
site,
so
the
bza
granted
them
a
variance
from
that
minimum
number
of
on-site
parking
spaces
that
was
required
based
on
them,
creating
new
on-street
parking
spaces
immediately
adjacent
to
this.
H
Right
so
so
the
minimum
number
of
parking
spaces
has
to
be
provided
on
the
site,
so
the
board
as
part
of
their
review.
H
H
Correct
correct
the
ground
floor
units
are
allowed,
however,
they
do
come
with
them
a
requirement
for
additional
on-site
parking
which
they
are
not
able
to
provide.
So
the
variance
is
from
the
minimum
number
of
on-site
parking
spaces
required.
A
L
L
Thank
you.
I
live
at
1225
South,
Washington
Street,
which
is
on
the
corner
of
Driscoll
and
Washington.
So
it's
basically
one
block
from
this
building
and
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
the
reality
on
the
ground
in
the
neighborhood,
which
is
that
we
do
actually
have
substantial
difficulty
finding
parking
spaces
in
this
area.
There
are
simply
too
many
cars
around
also
on
a
typical
day.
L
If
you
go
down
Driscoll
between
walnut
and
Washington,
you
will
see,
especially
in
the
evening
hours
you'll,
see
us
there's
simply
a
line
of
cars,
basically
from
Washington
to
Walnut.
So
just
speaking,
subjectively
I
don't
really
have
any
hard
empirical
data
I.
Don't
think
there
is
any
room
for
this,
so
I
would
like
to
urge
the
board
to
deny
the
petition.
M
First
of
all,
I
just
want
to
thank
you
guys
for
what
you
do
and
your
service,
but
really
appreciate
it.
This
is
the
first
time
I've
spoken
at
a
meeting.
M
M
M
But
you
know
when
spring
break
happens,
there's
plenty
of
parking.
So
it's
kind
of
weird
to
me:
I
totally
understand
where
David
is
coming
from
when
they
put
when
they
decided
to
put
some
retail
space
down
there.
I
was
like
I
I,
can't
imagine
who's
gonna,
take
that,
first
of
all,
and
also
where
are
they
going
to
park.
M
So
it's
been
quite
an
adjustment
having
this
building
living
in
the
right
behind
this
building.
It's
it's
huge
and.
M
I
think
I.
This
is
just
kind
of
another
slap
in
the
face
honestly,
because
I
feel
like
the
first
time
it
got
approved.
It
was
a
little
bit
crazy
that
that
happened
and
I
couldn't
make
the
meetings,
because
I
was
out
of
town,
so
anyway,
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record.
M
It's
already
it's
already
kind
of
a
problem.
Thank
you.
E
A
Okay,
so
now
we
are
back
to
the
petitioner.
There
is
remaining
time
if
there's
anything
further
you'd
like
to
say
or
address
at
this
point.
I
Doug
Bruce
again
yeah
really
nothing
else
to
to
add
I
mean
it.
It
kind
of
is
what
it
is,
that
there's
empty
space
that
this
building
and
and
we
can't
get
it
filled
commercially,
so
I,
I,
think
David
and
I've
talked
and
Commercial
traffic
would
probably
be
more
cars
than
you
see
from
the
renters
that
are
there
and
and
I
I
know
Eric
put
some
pictures
up
of
cars
parking
there,
but
that
may
not
always
be
cars
that
are
tenants
of
just
this
building
either.
I
You
know
it.
We
want
more
housing
in
this
in
this
city
and
and
it's
going
to
be,
you
know
the
decisions
to
put
more
housing
in
and
how
we
do.
It
aren't
easy
decisions,
so
I
guess
that's
all
I
would
add,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
C
To
Eric
staff
was
this:
was
this
building
done
as
a
build
by
right,
or
did
it
have
to
seek
some
kind
of
variance.
H
So
the
building
itself
met
all
of
the
requirements.
It
was
just
the
lack
of
on-site
parking
and
the
use
variants
to
allow
for
the
one
ground
floor
dwelling
unit.
That
was
the
approval
aspect
of
it.
Since
then,
the
code
has
changed
and
ground
floor
dwelling
units
are
allowed,
so
that
aspect
is
not
being
discussed
tonight.
It's
just
the
minimum
number
of
on-site
parking
spaces,
I.
H
No
based
on
how
they
developed
the
site,
it
is
not
possible.
There's
no
more
green
space
left
to
put
any
on-site
parking.
You
know,
certainly
a
different
building
design.
Previously,
you
know
build
a
parking
under
the
building
or
other
options.
Stacked
parking
could
have
been
utilized,
you
know,
but
the
petitioner
chose
to
develop
it
in
this
manner.
So
there
is
not
any
additional
room
to
create
on-site
parking.
Thank.
E
Nation,
just
because
it's
a
conversation,
we've
been
having
a
lot
lately
right
about
non-residential
and
residential.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
commercial,
it
just
can't
be
residential.
So
if
Mr
Howard
is
having
trouble,
you
know,
leasing
or,
if
they're
concerned
about
parking
that
commercial
brings.
There
are
lots
of
other
non-residential
uses
allowed
in
the
code
that
could
be
here,
and
we
do
want
more
housings.
E
Mr
Bruce
is
are
definitely
right
about
that
in
some
locations
in
in
this
case,
on
this
major
arterial
is
that
the
best
use
of
space,
I,
think
is
the
question
and
the
council-
and
you
know
and
plan
commission,
have
decided
that
if
you're
going
to
have
residential,
you
have
to
be
able
to
support
your
own
parking
to
some
extent
here
to
kind
of
protect
this
area
and
the
adjacent
neighborhoods
from
excessive
parking.
So
those
are
kind
of
all
things
that
we
want
to
make
sure
we're
being
clear
that
you're
weighing
as
well.
Okay,
thanks.
E
Sure,
well,
it's
interesting
that
we
talk
about
this
area
right
because
there
are
a
lot
of
non-profits
and
things
in
this
area
that
serve
the
community,
and
so
any
of
those
types
of
uses
are
allowed
any
sort
of
office
use
where
it's
not
public
facing
could
go
here.
E
You
know
it's
not
I,
think
sometimes
in
our
minds.
We
think
of
it
as
a
duality,
residential
or
commercial,
where
people
are
driving
or
coming
in
off
the
street,
but
we
have
lots
of
office
space
all
over
town,
where
the
only
people
who
go
there
all
day
are
the
two
people
who
work
in
there
and
is:
is
that
going
to
generate
as
much
income
as
Mr
Howard?
You
know
hopes
to
get
from
the
site.
E
H
And
and
I'll
also
add,
you
know
this
could
be
amenity
space
for
the
residents
that
are
here.
You
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be
leased
out
to
commercial
or
office.
You
know
it
could
be
used
for
the
residents
here
for
for
any
number
of
purposes.
F
Like
I
said,
can
I
follow
that
up
and
at
the
petitioner
Mr
Howard
just
asking
have
you
guys
explored
those
options
in
terms
of
the
Alternatives
that
the
city's
presented.
J
A
J
Had
multiple
types
of
different
options
approach
us
we've
had
non-for-profit
groups
look
into
the
space
a
lot
of
the
issues.
There
are
also
the
problems
with
that
area,
just
kind
of
the
people
that
come
through
there
a
lot
of
the
property
damage
that
happens.
It's
not
the
greatest
location
for
an
office,
but
also,
if
you
have
an
office
you're
going
to
need
parking
as
well.
J
J
We've
had
two
groups
that
we're
interested
in
Ace
base
just
for
office,
but
they
also,
it
was
only
going
to
be
an
accountant
and
a
a
bookkeeper
for
that
group,
but
they
needed
at
least
three
parking
spaces
that
they
could
allocate
for
just
themselves,
and
we
couldn't
you
know,
accommodate
that,
and
so
that,
next
to
that
one
as
well
as
far
as
amenity
space,
this
building,
we
don't
have
the
highest
rents.
It's
a
more
attainable
rent
structure,
so
we
wouldn't
really
have
funds
or
cost
to
put
an
amenity
space
for
these
tenants.
J
We
also
accommodated
in
the
initial
design
of
that
building,
to
move
the
sidewalk
onto
the
property
and
allowed
for
more
green
space
to
provide
that
parking,
that's
up
front
and
not
to
hinder
and
maximize
that,
but
either
way
it's
just
been
very
difficult
to
rent
that
and
we've
tried
all
options
and
even
discounting
very
highly.
We
have
the
rent
for
the
commercial
space
down
to
almost
eight
dollars.
A
square
foot
and
still
couldn't
find
anybody
to
you
know
even
start
the
design
process.
M
C
Help
us
sitting
on
the
board
for
us
to
talk
about
then
I'll
move
that
the
variance
v-03-23
3
be
denied.
A
Do
I
have
a
second
I'll.
Second,
okay,
any
last
comments:
yeah.
C
I
mean
I'll
comment.
This
is
odd.
I
just
put
that
out
there,
because
we
need
to
discuss
it
and
make
a
decision.
So
this
is
a
really
odd.
You
know
I
look
back
at
the
property
and
I
guess
you
know.
Since
it
went
through
bza,
we
already
gave
one
variance
to
allow
residential
and
part
of
it
in
order
to
try
to
accommodate.
C
You
know
that
area's
needs,
but
you
know
looking
at
it,
whether
it's
commercial,
business
or
residential,
it's
going
to
be
really
difficult
because
of
the
parking
situation
and
I'm
not
sure
what
the
situation
was
with
the
city
blocking
out
more
yellow
and
it
could
be
maybe
a
negotiated
differences.
You
know
give
us
two
two
spaces
there
so
that
we
can
open
it
up
for
for
retail
or
whatever
you
want
to
have
it
commercial
or
or
amenities
whatever.
So
it's
a
little
difficult,
I'm
not
really
inclined
to
do
another.
C
You
know
variance
on
this
building
since
it's
already
now
it's
a
problem.
I
just
think
it's
going
to
get
worse,
so
I
think
we
need
to
some
I
know
it's
difficult
I'm,
not
a
developer!
I
get
it,
but
I.
Just
I'm
not
prone
to
doing
that,
based
on
what
I'm
hearing
from
the
community
but
I
could
be
convinced.
Otherwise,.
F
Yeah
I'll
just
yeah,
I
kind
of
concur.
You
know
in
terms
of
meeting
the
housing
needs
of
the
city
so
to
the
petitioner.
You
know
developing
anything
at
this
point
to
give
housing
is
an
improvement.
In
my
personal
opinion,
this
area,
in
particular
I'm,
very
familiar
with
I,
have
an
office
space
right
around
the
corner
from
here.
F
So
I
know
what
you're
talking
about
and
I
think
this
your
case
will
be
one
of
several
that
we're
probably
going
to
be
hearing
over
the
next
year
or
so
because
in
terms
of
where's,
the
development
space
left
it's
in
this
area,
but
yeah
I,
just
think
there's
you
know
even
with
that,
need
though
I
I
think
the
fact
that
there's
other
options
on
the
table,
potentially
you
know
discounting
the
rent
space.
F
A
I'll
just
comment:
I
think
you
know
there
isn't
really
A
peculiar
condition
related
to
this
property.
I
understand
that
the
whole
area
right
now
is
dealing
with
with
issues
that
are
city-wide
issues
and
and
yeah
I'm
completely
sympathetic,
I
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
I
think
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
scale
issue,
there's
a
big
jump
in
scale
between
the
neighborhood
scale
and
this
building
and
and
what
was
their
predating.
A
This
building
and
development,
and
so
I
think
part
of
the
the
the
having
the
on-site
requirements
for
parking
is
a
way
to
to
limit
building
size
it
because
there
are
a
lot
of
things
when
you're
going
to
design
a
building
that
you
have
to
meet
in
order
to
dictate
what
that
ultimate,
that
form
is
ultimately
going
to
be
and
how
big
it's
going
to
be
and
parking
is
a
big
one
here
and
so
I
think
so,
I
I
don't
know.
A
Maybe
it
got
dialed
up
a
little
too
much
and
and
so
I
think
you
know.
This
is
the
first
kind
of
new
development
on
this
part
of
the
street,
and
it
is
really
a
very
different
scale
and
so
I
think
we're
seeing
some
aspects
of
it
that
maybe
are
less
successful,
and
so
we
need
to
take
that
to
heart
as
we
move
forward
and
we
look
towards
other
development
in
these
properties
down
that
Corridor,
which
is
a
very
important
corridor,
also
being
aware
of
the
challenges.
The
real
challenges
are
out
there.
A
I
mean
what's
heartening
to
hear
is
that
there
are
people
interested
in
these
types
of
spaces
and
that
there
are
other
other
larger
issues
that
are
impacting
that
that
I
think
we
need
to
take,
take
notice
of
and
come
up
with
strategy
strategies
to
deal
with
that.
Hopefully
you
can
get
people
to
to
to
want
at
least
the
space
apart
from
the
parking
issues,
so
I
will
be
also
supporting
the
denial
tonight
and.
C
I
want
to
jump
on
that
and
just
stress
the
dichotomy
that
we're
stuck
with
personally
the
dichotomy
personally,
if,
if
I
wasn't
Bound
by
what
the
bza
does,
I
would
completely
approve
of
this.
This
variance,
because
I
understand
that
there's
been
good
faith.
Trying
to
do
this
and
I
would
also
question
why
we
allowed
a
building
to
be
built
without
any
parking
whatsoever
in
that
space
of
that
size.
C
A
Okay,
so
I
think
we're
ready
for
a
vote.
Please
can.
D
N
F
A
I
will
just
say
that
I
may
need
to
leave
Midway
because
I
might
be
needed
in
another
hearing
down
the
hallway,
and
if
that
happens,
then
I
will
be
transferring
leadership
of
the
meeting
to
Joe
Throckmorton,
the
vice
president,
and
there
will
still
be
four
members
who
can
vote
on
the
petition.
So
there's
no
problem
with
that
I'm
just
hoping
to
hear
it
if
I
can
for
its
entirety.
Okay,
so
we
are
ready
to
hear
case
v-06-2-3
Walnut
star
LLC.
H
Thank
you.
So
this
is
a
request
from
Walnut
star
LLC
for
property
at
3391,
South,
Walnut
Street.
The
petitioner
is
here
tonight
to
request
a
variance
from
the
minimum
required
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
that
are
required
in
the
Udo.
So
this
property
is
located
on
South
Walnut
Street.
It
was
previously
undeveloped.
H
It
is
zoned
as
mixed-use
Corridor
and
the
petitioner
came
to
the
plan
Commission
in
2022
to
approve
a
site
plan
to
allow
for
this
property
to
be
developed
with
several
multi-family
buildings,
and
so
the
petitioner
received
that
site
plan
approval,
and
they
are
here
tonight
to
request
this
variance
from
the
minimum
required
number
of
electrical
vehicle
charging
stations
to
not
require
any
electrical
vehicle
stations
actually
to
be
installed.
So
when
this
came
to
the
plan
commission
for
their
site
plan
approval,
they
showed
the
required
five
electrical
vehicle
charging
stations.
H
The
Udo
requires
an
electrical
vehicle
charging
station
for
every
25
vehicular
parking
spaces.
There
are
121
parking
spaces
shown
on
the
site,
so
there
were
five
electric
vehicle
charging
stations
that
were
required
and
those
were
shown
with
the
site
plan.
It
was
approved
as
well
the
as
well
as
with
the
grading
permit
that
was
approved,
so
the
petitioner
showed
all
of
those
spaces,
as
well
as
the
required
infrastructure
to
support
them
and
they're
here
tonight
to
request
a
variants
to
not
require
those
to
be
installed.
H
So
with
this
the
obviously,
the
staff
is
again
required
to
evaluate
this
based
on
the
criteria
in
the
unified
development
ordinance.
The
first
of
those
as
we've
kind
of
gone
through
before
is
that
the
approval
will
not
be
injurious
to
the
public
health
safety,
morals
and
general
welfare
of
the
community.
We
were
not
able
to
make
findings
in
this
regard.
H
H
It
was
a
requirement
to
kind
of
promote
several
aspects
both
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
well
as
general
goals
of
the
community
to
promote
alternative
transportation,
a
higher
level
of
environmental
stewardship
and
so
requiring
these
electrical
vehicle
charging
stations
was
a
way
to
promote
a
lot
of
those
goals,
as
well
as
to
raise
awareness
of
the
availability
of
this
resource
and
having
these
charging
stations,
both
obviously
functional,
as
well
as
visually
on
the
ground,
helps
make
it
aware
and
clear
to
the
members
of
the
community
as
well
as
the
residents
here,
that
this
is
readily
available
resource
to
them.
H
To
help
promote
this,
this
alternative
fuel
design,
so
the
second
criteria,
the
use
and
value
of
the
area
adjacent
to
the
property.
We
did
not
find
any
adverse
impacts
to
the
the
use
and
value
adjacent
to
this
property.
However,
again
for
the
third
criteria,
that's
a
strict
application
of
the
terms
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
will
result
in
Practical
difficulties
in
the
use
of
the
property.
We
were
not
able
to
find
any
findings
here
that
would
suggest
that
the
property
could
not
be
used
in
the
manner
for
which
it's
zoned.
H
The
property
was
approved
with
the
multi
family
residences,
which
are
allowed,
there's
nothing
unique
about
this
property
that
does
not
allow
them
to
install
the
electrical
vehicle
charging
stations.
The
petitioner
just
simply
feels
that.
That's
not
something
that
they
want
to
do
at
this
time,
so
they
have
not
demonstrated
anything
that
is
unique
about
this
specific
property
that
would
not
allow
them
to
install
the
Chargers.
You
know,
as
the
board
is
aware,
this
is
one
of
the
very
basic
requirements
of
evaluating
a
variance
request.
H
Is
you
have
to
demonstrate
something
that
is
unique
about
a
property
that
does
not
allow
you
to
meet
code,
that
there
is
some
peculiar
condition
about
this
property?
So
staff
has
not
found
any
of
that
criteria,
nor
has
to
petition
or
demonstrated
anything
that
is
unique
about
their
property.
That
does
not
allow
them
to
install
the
Chargers.
So
with
that,
we
are
recommending
that
the
board
of
zoning
appealed
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
deny
the
petition
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
O
About
that
yeah
there
we
go.
Thank
you
Eric,
as
always
for
presenting
the
petition.
One
clarification
I
do
want
to
make,
and
Eric
mentioned
it
several
times
is
that
we
are
looking
to
eliminate
all
of
these
charging
stations,
and
that
is
not
true.
Our
petitioner
statement
and
our
petition
when
filed,
said
that
we
are
looking
to
install
the
infrastructure
up
front
for
all
five
stations,
underground
infrastructure,
so
they're
EV
ready,
which
is
a
kind
of
a
class
of
requirement.
O
Many
other
municipalities
and
day
one
we'd
like
to
install
two
of
the
required
five
and
with
the
flexibility
to
look
at
Trends
over
time
and
look
at
data.
That's
collected
from
these
Chargers
over
the
course
of
the
first
year
of
operation
and
have
the
ability
to
add
the
remaining
three
stations
as
that
demand
becomes
necessary
on
site.
So
I
think
that's
an
important
clarification
based
on
what
was
in
the
petition
or
in
the
cities
packet
today.
O
O
In
the
case
that
you
have
101
parking
spaces
and
you'd
be
required
to
hit
that
fifth
space
based
on
Indiana's
current
registered
electric
vehicles,
the
ratio
of
electric
vehicles
in
the
state
is
roughly
half
of
one
percent,
so
you
know
again
up
to
10
times
less
than
what
the
Udo
is
is
trying
to
require,
and
while
we,
you
know,
appreciate
the
sustainability
aspect,
we
appreciate
bloomington's
forward-thinking
approach.
Always
we
feel
like
it's
just
something.
That's
overburdening
developments
from
the
start
kind
of
in
opposite
of
the
previous
petition.
O
We
just
heard
you
know
we're
looking
to
kind
of
capture
those
extra
quote-unquote
normal
spaces
on
site
to
help
provide
the
105
potential
residents
on
the
site
as
many
parking
spaces
as
we
can.
This
is
located
kind
of
on
the
south
side
of
town.
This
is
not
a
typical
kind
of
student
housing
development
where
you
may
have
something
in
the
dense
Urban
core,
a
lot
of
Walkers
a
lot
of
bike
riders,
a
lot
of
public
transportation
users.
O
Looking
at
one
of
the
statements
that
Eric
made
was
looking
to
promote
awareness
for
this
resource
in
Bloomington,
going
back
to
a
couple
of
the
larger
garages
that
have
been
opening
opened
recently
again,
these
are
public
use
garages
for
people
all
over
the
city,
not
just
for
this
private
development,
the
trades
District
Garage
on
May
and
may
of
2021
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
on
this
has
350
parking
spaces.
Only
six
of
those
are
electric
vehicle
based
on
the
udo's
requirement.
Now
there
would
need
to
be
14..
O
The
Fourth
Street
Garage
from
August
2021
has
500
spaces
with
only
10
electric
vehicle
stations
again
based
on
the
current
Udo.
That
would
be
20.,
so
you're.
Looking
at
these
public
garages
that
are
serving
everyone,
not
just
a
private
development,
having
half
of
what
the
udo's
trying
to
do
so
again,
we
appreciate
that
forward-thinking
approach
and
and
the
thought
for
sustainability,
but
it'd
be
good
to
see
that
happening
on
everything.
Not
just
you
know.
Smaller
private
developments.
F
I
guess
oh
yeah
to
the
petitioner:
did
you
find
any
data
in
terms
of
the
state
of
Indiana?
But
again,
as
you
already
stated,
Bloomington
is
a
different
stands
out
right.
We
know
this
very
forward
thinking,
but
numbers
I,
don't
even
know
if
they're
available
or
not,
but
to
me
I
would
want
data
that
concentrates
on
Monroe
county
in
the
state
in
the
city
of
Bloomington,
because
I
guarantee
that's
going
to
contrast
to
the
State
numbers.
O
Probably
does
to
some
extent,
I'd
be
pretty
confident
in
saying
that
it's
nowhere
near
that
four
and
five
percent
Mark,
but
I
I,
probably
agree
it's
maybe
slightly
higher
than
the
overall
data
we
did
find
data
from
kind
of
similar
municipalities
around
the
state.
You
know,
Indianapolis
has
two
EV
spaces
for
anything
over
500
parking
spaces.
So
again
stark
contrast
to
what's
here
looking
at
Lafayette
Muncie
Fort
Wayne,
similar
size,
towns,
University
towns,
some
of
them
currently
have
no
requirements.
O
So
again
we
realize
that
everybody's
on
a
different
path
for
planning
and
things
like
that,
but
that
just
shows
where
kind
of
the
burden
is
being
placed
on
development.
Again,
this
is
a
fairly
small
development
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things
based
on
some
of
the
stuff
that's
gone
up
recently,
but
yeah.
We
just
feel
like
the
five
five
spaces
is
just
overly
burdensome
for
the
development
as
a
whole.
A
B
Yes,
so
my
question
is:
what
is
the
burden
to
for
the
developer?
Is
this
financial
because
you're
going
to
have
the
infrastructure
put
in
already,
so
it's
just
having
the
units
to
to
the
Chargers
put
in
place.
You're
gonna
have
two
Chargers
already
you're
gonna
have
the
infrastructure
already
I
drive
an
electric
car
and
it's
very
difficult
to
find
places
to
park
or
recharge
the
car,
so
I'm
a
little
biased
on
that?
In
that
sense,
so
I
just
wanted
to
know
from
the
developer.
O
So
certainly
Financial
is
there.
I
would
say:
that's
not
the
primary
driver
for
this.
It's
it's
obviously
additional
dollars
to
putting
these
charging
stations
they're,
not
cheap
items
to
put
in,
but
more
than
that
we
have
103
units,
105
bedrooms
on
site
and
121
parking
spaces,
five
of
which
are
electric
vehicles,
and
we
just
feel
like
again
based
on
the
data
that
we've
seen
the
data
that
we
have.
You
know
finding
that
I
think
it's
4.17
percent
of
users
are
not
going
to
be
necessarily
needing
that
that
kind
of
dedicated
space
again.
O
This
is
not
a
public
project
where
anybody
from
the
public
can
come
and
charge
because
I
agree.
Those
spaces
are
scarce
throughout
most
of
the
state
and
in
this
area.
But
this
is
a
private
development
with
with
residents
living
on
site
and
the
data
just
doesn't
support.
Having
that
from
day,
one
again,
the
the
charge
charging
stations
that
that
are
being
installed
are,
you
know,
smart.
They,
they
collect
data,
they're
they're
wired
into
where
the
developer
can
see
how
often
they're
being
used.
How
many
unique
users
are
using
them.
O
So
having
the
flexibility
going
forward
to
see
once
the
project
opens,
how
often
those
two
that
we'd
like
to
put
in
are
our
use
and
how?
What
percentage
of
the
day
they're
used
by
how
many
people
will
allow
us
to
then
roll
out
the
other
three
spaces
as
necessary?
And
again
it's
in
the
developer's
interest.
If
there's
Demand
on
site
to
have
that
it's
just
from
day
one,
we
don't
know
what
that
demand
is
going
to
be,
and
we
don't
agree
with
the
five
total
spaces.
O
E
Yeah
Special,
pavement,
marking
or
signage
indicating
exclusive
availability
to
electric
vehicles,
I
will
say-
and
we
have
this
conversation
also
sometimes
on
small
projects
that
have
to
do
Ada
parking.
It's
like,
as
you've
said
this
isn't
public
parking,
there's.
No
one
patrolling
this
parking
lot
to
make
sure
that
everyone
in
those
spaces
is
charging
yeah
and
I'll
point
out
also
a
couple
things.
E
This
is
a
require,
so
Mr
Bodie
has
said
a
couple
times:
it's
like
a
fairly
small
development
which
compared
to
some
others,
maybe
maybe
it
is,
but
this
requirement
isn't
for
all
developments.
It's
for
developments
with
over
50
parking
spaces,
so
I
mean
having
121
surface
parking.
Spaces
is
not
something,
as
we've
discussed
many
times,
that
really
that
are
stated.
Community
goals,
support
and
so
one
way
that
we
kind
of
offset
that
is
by
saying.
E
Okay,
you
need
these
parking
spaces,
then
some
of
them
need
to
be
Progressive
toward
other
sources
of
fuel
and
that
that's
EV
in
this
situation,
and
so,
while
we
understand
you
know
the
arguments
that
Mr
Bode
is
making.
This
is
more
of
a
policy
question
where
counsel
or
plan
commission
if
they
think,
if
they
think
the
number
is
too
high
to
Advocate
there,
they
haven't
shown
that
they
are
meeting
the
three
requirements,
that
a
variance
would
give
them
relief
from
there's.
No
there's
no
reason
they
can't
do
it.
E
A
Great,
so
is
there
anybody
from
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak
to
this
petition?
Is
there
anybody.
A
C
Accept
comments
perform
motion
or
motion
first,
okay,
so
I
don't
have
questions,
but
I
do
have
a
few
comments,
a
personal
side
to
start
which
is
watch
TV.
Every
ad
for
a
car
is
for
an
electric
vehicle
reports
in
the
newspapers.
New
York
Times
on
down
is
that
they're
selling
faster
than
they
expected
so
Evie
is
the
wave
and
we
need
to
be
prepared
for
it,
which
leads
to
my
statement
of
we.
Don't
we
don't
plan
for
now
we
plan
for
the
future.
C
C
So
that's
not
a
really
good
idea
for
us
to
hang
our
hat
on
that
as
a
as
a
BCA.
So
I
would
say
that
I
wouldn't
agree
with
that
statement
from
the
petitioner
and
then
the
last
thing
is.
It
seems
obvious
that
it's
just
because
they
won't
they
want
more
spaces.
So
that's
why
I'm
not
going
to
vote
to
approve
this,
but
I'll
wait
for
a
motion.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
Okay,
are
we
ready
for
a
motion.
F
Oh
I
think
just
a
quick
note
too.
I
would
actually
have
the
opposite
kind
of
argument
that
you
guys
are
bringing,
in
this
case
to
me
that
could
incentivize
people
to
look
at
your
development
as
a
place.
They
would
want
to
live.
Given
the
fact
that
commissioner
Braille
there
mentioned
that
it's
extremely
difficult
to
find
these
and
exactly
right,
Joe
to
me,
it's
it's
about
Forward,
Thinking
and
again
good
data
data
is
important,
but
comparing
Lafayette
Indy.
You
know
Bloomington
stands
alone
and
we
stand
at
the
Forefront
because
we
want
to
be
that
way.
F
So
it
is
it's
about
Forward,
Thinking
and
planning
I.
Think
for
the
future.
So
to
me,
I,
wouldn't
necessarily
I
could
see
that
as
a
plus
for
your
development
in
the
future.
You
know
two
three
years
down
the
road
when
obviously
right,
the
demand
is
just
going
to
keep
going
going
higher.
So
maybe
to
be
able
to
utilize
that,
to
your
advantage
and
to
me
that's
a
win-win.
A
I
would
say
five
board,
members,
I,
don't
know
the
others,
but
at
least
two
of
us
have
electric
vehicles,
so
you
know
just
kind
of
shows
that
there
is
a
reasonable
percentages
of
people
in
this
room
as
random,
as
that
might
be
okay,
so
are
we
ready
for
a
motion?
Please.