um well i’ll go ahead and call to order this meeting of the land use committee of the bloomington common council for wednesday september 9 2020. we have one item on the agenda and that is ordinance 20-15 to re-zone a 19.73 acre parcel from employment to residential estate regarding 2300 west tap road uncle duncan campbell petitioner um so let’s start with a staff um overview of this petition i think we have mr ryan robling to present from the planning and transportation department yes thank you i’ll share my screen here in just a second i hardly hear you oh uh is this better a little bit speak louder sorry uh kind of limited in my microphone okay hang on okay is is that better that’s uh basically yelling but okay sorry sounds great that’s good sounds good and we can see your screen okay thank you all right so uh this petition is for the property located at uh 2300 west tap road uh the property is currently zoned um employment em uh the property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling the comprehensive plan has designated the property as employment center the surrounding uses include vaping parcels to the north south west and uh clear clear creek trail is to the east uh the property to the south is a vacant quarry and is owned by the petitioner and it is also outside of the city’s jurisdictional bounds uh so this petition is proposing degrees on the property from its current zoning of employment to residential estate the em district does not allow for the construction or expansion of single-family dwellings uh the petitioner is therefore requesting to rezone this in order to expand the currently existing uh single-family structure uh so just a little bit of a history of the site the site includes a historic house constructed in the 1830s the property is within the borland house and first quarry state listed historic district the property was annexed by the city of bloomington and zone quarry the property had been identified by its adjoining use to the south while the property was within the areas intended for um annexation uh this caused the property to be brought into the city and zoned as court uh the newly adopted udo and its conversion map uh changed the zoning from quarry to employment uh again the comprehensive plan designates this portion of tap road as employment center the uh intent of employment center designation was to provide locations for a variety of commercial employment and utility uses the comprehensive plan uses a broad brush approach to land use mapping rather than parcel level analysis this allows for some flexibility uh when evaluating parcel level considerations um so the couple of things the comprehensive plan gives goals and guidance so the goal 2.2 sets a goal of preserving assets of historic and architectural significance policy 2. 5.2.3 is historic neighborhood and districts preserve and enhance authentic design characteristics such as building form by encouraging new or remodeling of structures to be of historic compatibility in neighborhoods or adjacent areas historic preservation is a goal uh the to enhance the sense of community and preserve stories of older cultures found in uh in the landmarks

and landscapes we visit and protect the memories of people places and events honored in our local uh monuments and markers uh the comprehensive plan proposes to ensure development decisions are balanced with the protection and conservation of both natural and historic resources comprehensive fan plan further this purpose with vision statement principle 9 which discusses the importance and desire to enhance our natural assets and protect historic resources vision statement principle 12 is focused on the virtues of historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures helping to ensure their continued use goal 3.4 is sets a goal to increase areas of native plants within the city these native plants help to improve uh soil air and water quality soil air and water quality and increase the ability for local wildlife to thrive within the city comprehensive plan also give guidance to allow residents to age in place including the ability to meet basic needs and ensure self-sufficiency goal 1.2 of health and safety seeks to support strategies that sustain and enhance health and safety of residents policy 4.4.5 encourages the special design to promote housing which is built for a range of ages uh policy 5.3.2 uh specifically seeks to enable seniors to remain in their homes allowing them to age in place here is a uh an overview of the site plan the proposed site plan um you can see the existing structures i don’t know if you can see my mouse i never remember how this works um so the existing primary structure there’s a detached garage a shed and a barn um and then you can also see the existing drive which runs along the western border uh and enters a long tap there here is a slightly more zoomed in uh version uh so you can see the addition to the southern portion of the site um along with the proposed setbacks uh it’s about 25 feet from the rear setback and uh 215 feet from the side here is a drawing of the proposed edition showing the additional first floor living spaces in the restroom this is the south elevation showing the proposed edition uh so there are some issues um which is why i showed those those items there are some issues with the rezoning the site to uh re um the re district has a minimum rear setback of 60 feet the current structure is already set at the 60 feet line from the rear property line uh so the proposed edition would encroach 35 feet into the rear building setback so it would require a variance in order to be constructed if this petition were approved additionally accessory structures are eliminated in the re district to 55 or 50 of the cumulative footprint of the primary structure uh so that puts the the current structures accessory structures over the uh a limit as they are um roughly a thousand square feet over um what would be or over the what would be allowed excuse me uh so a variance would be required to legitimize these existing uh historic accessory structures all right so uh the in conclusion here uh the plane commission who voted 9-0 to send this petition to the council with favorable favorable recommendation uh and the department both promote uh the rezoning of this property which is both unique historic and environmental characteristics that should be preserved for the future uh the plant commission also feels that the current em zoning is not appropriate for a large residential property um that with a historic use on on it the current zoning does not allow for an expansion of the current historic use so again while the comprehensive plan does identify the site as employment center this is a result of existing zoning using existing zoning as guides and a desire to not make granular decisions about individual properties and instead to focus on broad strokes for large areas of the city uh parcel level changes were not part of the conversion map process but the possibility for some that some would be needed to be addressed uh was anticipated with the upcoming zoning map process so uh the department believes that aligning the zoning and the use

will best protect the historic structure and the surrounding properties in it and the surrounding properties is in line with the intent of the comprehensive plan the uh rezoned to a single family district will allow will also require future uses on surrounding properties to be set back further than they would otherwise additionally be required to further extending protections to the both the environmental and historic structure all right so there’s a couple things that the planning commission has to review um in order to make a recommendation uh the comprehensive plan um the recommendation of the comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan designates the property again as employment center but uh there there are goals and policies set in place to ensure things that um to ensure development uh is limited but allowed uh historic and environmental um uh development is allowed or allowed to continue and as well the agent era if sorry as well uh the um there is goals and policies set in place to allow residents to age in place current conditions and characters of structures use in the zoning district the current zoning district does not allow for the currently existing structure to exist uh or expand so the em district does not allow for single-family uses uh the re district however would uh the most desirable use uh for which the land in each zoning district is adapted uh the property contains a historic single-family dwelling which is unique and should be reserved the historic nature of the property makes for a single-family use to be the most desirable use for this property as a loss would be detrimental to the character of the city the property is heavily wooded and the re district would help further protect environmentally sensitive assets within the city the conservation of sensitive environmental features again the property is heavily wooded the re district is specifically created to allow for the conservation of protected environmental assets um and would limit the the large property to a single family use um with light agricultural uses that are associated uh the conversion of the property values uh throughout the jurisdiction um the property is currently developed by the single-family dwelling and has caused no detrimental effects to surrounding property values the properties to the north and west are currently vacant the property to the east is home to the clear creek trail and the property to the south again is owned by the petitioner and is outside of the city’s jurisdictional boundaries and then finally responsible development and growth the um the property is currently developed with a single family dwelling and has been for over 150 years uh it is responsible to protect the historic property and preserving it from becoming another more intense use this uh there are vacant airplanes set for more intense developments to the north and west of the property these properties are far more suitable for non-single-family uses whereas this property should maintain a single-family use that is finally the uh the when the plan commission reviewed case zo1620 uh the recommendation came with two conditions i just thought i would mention them here that again is that the proposed addition to structure uh will need a variance from rear yard setback or rebuilding setbacks and that the uh the accessory structures will need to be lit size will need to be legitimized and that is all i have for you and i can answer any questions all right thank you mr robling appreciate the presentation um so uh i just wanted to follow up because you mentioned several times um the uh part in the comprehensive plan that uh talks about aging in place and so uh maybe i can have the petitioner explain uh how that is relevant to this petition and make any additional statement that the petitioner would like to make at this time well if you have your if you can see us in the video you we can see that we’re already aging in place um we would you give your names for the record please well mine is duncan campbell it’s my wife cathy um we’ve lived here since the 80s and restored the entire

house and property it was pretty much of a disaster when we acquired it and um we’ve been able to manage to raise kids here and have our family life here but now we have one bathroom which is upstairs where the bedrooms are um the basement entry was outside and so for our own convenience especially as we get older we plan to enclose the basement entrance put a second bathroom on the on the primary floor of the house the first floor and create another bedroom suite if you will to accommodate us if we get to wheelchair status or basically we’ve created an accessible addition and so um and it’s created some modern space for us that will add to our comfort i don’t know if you’ve ever tried to heat a house it was built in the 1830s but we pretty much live in sweatshirts and flannels all winter and so we’ve put in radiant floor and we’ve done some other things to just make it more comfortable for us and we you know we in terms of aging in place we spent quite a bit of time thinking okay well maybe it’s time to let go of this and move to town and live in a condo or do whatever people are supposed to do and we just couldn’t part with the property we’ve spent our lives here and we don’t really want to want to stop doing that so when i when i and i’m a preservationist by trade so i i designed this edition with an architect friend kathy and i did and and started to consider all these things that might make it easier for us to stay here and it wasn’t until i went to get a building permit that i realized that i was zoned out of permission to live here so and i never complained about it because it was quarry for years it was agriculture before that and then of course it was here forever before there was any such thing as zoning so but this is the consistent use i mean it’s been a big farm it’s obvious you’ve read my petitioner statement we feel like we’ve done a really good job of stewarding it we’ve spent our you know the second half of our lives if you will protecting it and getting it listed and um participating with it in this in the culture of the city and so we just we don’t want to let go of it and this was the plan for us to be able to stay here all right very good thank you are there questions uh from committee members either for staff or for the petitioner council uh committee member volun yes hello uh mr campbell ms biaggio good to see you um this seems very promising uh you know i i don’t think that uh the property hadn’t even contemplated being brought into the city limits of bloomington uh let alone subject to zoning law but um can you talk a little about the potential someday 50 years from now when none of those are around of the property to be for to i’ll just use the d word developed uh is there any reason to think that it could be developed is there any reason to think that it should be further developed than it already is or is it permanently historic uh i like i just don’t know uh what to make of the the place there are some uh some physical and legal restrictions uh on on building anything here because about a third of the property is flood plain so there as you come in that long driveway to the east between us and the clear creek trail is an enormous wetland and it right now it’s dry but most of the year it’s it’s soggy so it can’t it can’t be developed because it’s in a flood plain and then um uh the a significant portion of we own we own an additional 30 acres behind us which is all abandoned quarry okay so that’s that was developed as industry as mining industry and now that’s been left on its own and i think you’ll see in my statement i i use that you know we we use that to give tours for the city and visitors center and stuff like that and i’m an advocate for the limestone industry so it’s we’ve we’ve basically put it on the state register of historic places in order to to that that doesn’t actively preserve it that that basically calls attention to it and and makes people think okay well maybe this is something i want to see or participate in um do you think that local designation uh

for the entirety of it i mean i i uh i know i’m yeah this has been a conundrum for me professionally i’ll i’ll i’ll be totally upfront with you about it i’ve served in both as a an advisory capacity and also as a voting member of the bloomington preservation commission i wrote it i wrote the ordinance i’ve been there almost since the beginning um i still think it’s one of the very best state ordinances city ordinances today and and i’ve been i’m not actively a voting member i’m not really quite sure why the administration hasn’t seen fit to appoint me but it hasn’t but i am actually appointed by the council as an advisory member and over the years and i and i’m not i don’t think this is a bad thing but over the years i’ve seen volunteers and other membership members come and go there was a time when we had a very well-established professional representation on that commission and other and i mean people who were trained in in aspects of historic preservation and both in the law about it as well as in the sort of the more socially the social meaning and purpose of it and more recently that has not been the case we have several very very qualified members from other walks of life but when i look to stewarding my own property i look to trust myself and my own professional training and my own judgment about how to best take care of it and i have not been convinced recently that i want to put it in the hands of the city of bloomington until they take this such time as they create commissions that are professionally capable of doing it so i’m maybe i should rephrase it i’m actually afraid to designate it locally because i can’t because i’ve seen the local commission damage historic property okay so i i guess maybe i should to make a fine point on this in other words uh you’re not concerned about it uh well i i can’t quite tell what your concern is whether you’re concerned about them messing up the existing property as it is or whether you’re concerned about them uh densifying the property either okay either but okay well that’s a but um i mean i could give you some specific examples which i you know i i we fully intend to preserve this property through covenant or through uh easements or through uh legal agreement with indiana landmarks or somebody else so we’re not going to die away and just let this go to whoever whatever real estate developer wants to get his hands on it i so but i don’t i haven’t so far been convinced that the best strategy is to put it in the hands of the city of bloomington as much as i love the city and have served it myself i i just you know i just don’t think that’s i just don’t think that’s the best strategy i imagine that’s a difficult thing to admit i i’m sorry you know i mean i i want you to hear it in a way because i think i might be able to convince you that it’s true but on the other hand for my own purposes and to protect the property itself stewardship of historic property isn’t about ownership it’s about long-term preservation it isn’t the person who lives there isn’t the important person you know the culture that holds on to it and respects it and understands it and takes meaning from it that’s that’s what’s important about it so the trick in preservation is to put that in the best hands that you can to make sure that that happens and there are lots of different ways to do it one of which is through easements and and other legally binding methods that can’t be violated by anybody who comes along as the next owner and we’re you know at this age looking at how we best want to do that and we will do it so i may have more questions but uh isabel can i jump in i was going to say thanks for thanks for your stewardship and very interesting and i have some more questions i think i’ll hold on to them do you have something to say to this sure i just wanted to add to that um that uh duncan makes a good point about the floodplain on most of the property so part of the reason that we chose that the re zoning district as opposed to others is that uh those environmental restrictions would make it difficult to develop in the future it it could be possible um to do some sort of subdivisions here of a smaller or slightly slightly a larger scale but

uh it’s unlikely um with one with the intent of having the home be preserved and the surrounding lands and then two just with the floodplain that does exist and with the shape of the property it’s just kind of an odd um an odd uh little piece down there and as duncan mentioned you know if they choose to do uh deed restriction to protect the house um we felt that the zoning the re zoning also makes sense for what is there now so it it could allow something in the future but it does match what’s there and what has been there historically um so that’s kind of how we came to that all right thank you ms ganlin are there other questions from council members councilmember flaherty did you have a question uh yes a couple maybe um i feel like i we waded into preservation waters that are deeper than with my understanding um but uh i was wondering if staff could comment on um the the memo which which mentioned that um uh would help ensure the long-term preservation of the of the historic structure but it is designated by the state in some capacity what what state designation what what does that designation do to already protect the property uh you know absent the zoning uh let’s say this is zoned um mixed use or r4 or something instead for instance what what type of protections would this structure have based on that the state the state designation is honorary okay it doesn’t it you know this this local city designation is as is puts legal restrictions on what you can do and creates certificates of appropriateness and uh the commission would have control over what alterations were made to the exterior of the building and so on the state designation is usually given um at the time of a national national register recognition and it’s a way for the state to sort of align itself with the national park service recognition standards and so when i first bought the property i was i was involved professionally with the state office the division of historic preservation and archaeology which is the state historic preservation office and one of the staff persons there said well you know to put it on the state register if you can’t get around to putting it on the national register at this time we can put it on the state register with a letter and so i wrote up a legal description of the property and i did some historic research and i gave it to the state and they designated it but it doesn’t do anything other than at you on the back basically got it so so uh to the to the question at hand for staff to i appreciate that mr campbell the the the answer basically is is the state historical designation won’t do anything and and this zoning um the residential estate zoning would help to preserve the property’s current use is that that’s right yes yeah that’s correct yes um i have a second i can wait for second round or just go ahead if uh the chair wishes whatever go ahead council member flaherty um so it was also mentioned um in your presentation mr rubling in the packet that um uh the kind of broad strokes of the conversion mapping process led to this being zoned employment um is this something you would have anticipated encountering and and correcting or addressing in the next year as we go through the zoning mapping process with the udo is this the type of granularity that that that staff anticipates getting into in other words if um petitioner was coming to us a year or two later uh could is it likely this already would have been rezoned to residential estate uh so it’s hard to say exactly but there is a good chance that uh properties such as this due to its size and nature would have been caught in a rezoning process of uh an entire map but um there again the granularity it does cause issues um at you know pinpointing exact spots like this but again a large property like this could potentially be found okay thank you ms scanlon i see you have reappeared did you want to add anything to that i have sorry oh i was going to say that in our preliminary look at the map and what it and um just things where issues have been raised we have been flagging areas where it feels like the comprehensive plan maybe was too broad and um little spots have come out so even if they had not come forward it’s very likely that we would have identified this because it’s a known property we know it came in in the afa with the other acreage as part of a quarry that it never you know really was it was uh you know obviously associated but not quarry land so um i do think this one we could say with confidence would probably have been identified thanks thank you um other questions from council members

um i have a question and it’s it’s uh sort of similar to uh councilmember flaherty’s question um and that is uh why uh the staff feels that re is the most appropriate residential zoning rather than a more dense residential zoning district and this is uh mainly because as we as we know we we need to allow more people to to live in the city it’s a more sustainable way of developing to have denser population in the city and the re zone really seems more rural to me but if you could describe why uh you settled on re as the most appropriate i would appreciate that sure of course so there’s a couple things at play here um the big one uh as mr campbell addressed is the floodplain uh exists and it covers a good chunk of that which would make developing hard but then there’s also other issues such as new uh single-family or residential excuse me residential properties need to front to a public right-of-way the pro current property has about 190 feet of uh right away a long tap so uh in to subdivide it into smaller um residential districts you would either need to be required to build a public right of way that can access through cap or um it would only create roughly two more lots two or three more locks depending on the zoning district you chose um so the those um those are reasons why we didn’t look at more dense but then also re has um protections in place for the environmental uh the heavily wooded lot which was something we wanted to make sure that we protected and subdividing it further would uh require you know roads and structures to be built further reducing that that area how much of the property is wooded i have it’s greater than 60 i don’t know if i have the exact number on the top of my notes but it is quite a bit of the the a lot is is wooded uh mr campbell might be able to go in for i think that’s that’s probably close that there could there are some old farm fields that we keep mowed that are in the wetland uh in the lowlands so they can’t they couldn’t be developed but we’ve kept the woods from encroaching there but most of the rest of it including a lot of the quarry space has grown back in over the time we’ve been here all right thank you very much any other questions for staff or the petitioner about this proposal okay well seeing none we will go to the public is there any member of the public who would like to speak to the petition to rezone 2300 west tap road from commercial or for from employment center to residential estate um you can either use the raise hand function within zoom or type into the chat directed to a council meeting host and mr lucas will assist us in seeing if anybody would like to speak i don’t see any raised hands mr lucas anything in chat i see no takers okay we’ll give it one more minute this is a public comment on the petition to rezone 2300 west tap road all right well seeing none will come back to committee members for any final comments or um a do pass recommendation or a motion to to have another hearing either way any committee members want to make a comment yes council member flaherty uh yeah thank you um mr gamble and and uh miss i’m sorry i forget your last name speech thank you both and thank you to staff for for such a detailed um uh packet and memo i thought that was really helpful and and for your answers tonight um i’m supportive of this petition tourism uh and in particular i think it’s an interesting sort of demonstration of an appropriateness of residential estate um which i think got sort of a misunderstood bad rap during

the udo discussions uh it was sort of made out to be a boogeyman of uh of zoning as this is like massive you know mcmansion uh states or something um and it’s actually quite the opposite it’s about like if you look at the conversion map it’s a farm in largely wooded lots in a few areas that are directly adjacent in most cases to other uh public amenities like griffey woods or in this case the clear creek trail so i think as a preservation uh as an environmental preservation uh tool it makes sense in in narrow and targeted ways and i think um for all the reasons described in in tonight’s presentation in the memo um it makes sense in this case so i’ll be voting in favor and i’d be happy to to do that tonight and send it back to um the council for second reading thank you thank you any other committee members wish to make a comment or a recommendation i’ll just say i also support this rezone i think this is one of the rare cases where a residential estate is appropriate to both because of the shape of the property as being so long and narrow having environmental constrictions and trying to preserve the tree cover these are all good reasons to use the re zoning um any uh do i hear any other committee members feedback or a recommendation yes council member volun yeah i mean in a way this is still technically i guess you call it an upzoning like it’s going from from zero residential to one you know so uh it’s slightly getting slightly more urban you know and but of course uh not every part of the urban place needs to be uh gritted streets and uh multi-story buildings so um you know i i did have hope that maybe you know one other house could be built there or something just you know we anything for the cause of more housing but uh having said that you know we also talked a lot about uh uh you know in other contexts about uh uh climate change and it’s important to uh preserve the lungs of the city which this property does so or at least is trying to do the properties of trying to do it so um amen to that and uh you know i see certainly no harm here and plenty of benefit so thanks thanks for bringing it all right can i say one more thing uh yes go ahead i this is uh and this is address partly what steve is saying saying and i and i think you all probably know this but when this property this property was divided out from at one time it was close to 2 000 acres of agricultural land and they were the people who owned it and operated were fro pioneers if you will they were developers in their own right they helped build the university they became important citizens and they in the in the process they sequestered quite a bit of land and supported themselves by farming and over the next you know a couple of centuries it got it’s been divided out when we bought it um all that was offered for sale was the house and some surrounding property and because everything else was going to to development i mean their whole intention was to liquidate the property for you know uh as much as as much money as they could and they knew that the frontage along tap road was valuable and or if it wasn’t then would be and it that evolved into this development of the surgery center and some other things that we now have on tap road when kathy and i moved here you could drive all the way across tap road and we were the only residents i mean imagine so i’m not advocating one way or the other development can be good but this ended up being this piece ended up being a a remnant if you will the owner just happened to want to preserve the house and so they cut out the piece that we own and said we’re going to sell this separately to somebody who will do what essentially we’ve done and with full knowledge everything around you is going to go the way of the world and so we chose to do this because we understood it as a remnant and it was only subsequently that we ended up buying the quarries when they couldn’t sell them to anybody else and so and that’s the odd the odd thing is that i’m about to encroach on my own property which is you know i have one one lot and i objected to being anak in the first place because it just didn’t make any

sense to me i don’t even have any city services so it you know but i i lost that that fight but and i it’s fine i don’t want to argue that all over again but i just i think there are places like this when people come here they see it and they go oh my gosh look what we have right here in the city limits um and so you know we’ve really fought to preserve that notwithstanding the need for affordable housing and all kinds of other development that we you know in our time support but but this is this really is an odd piece and a remnant and we we feel lucky to have it and we’ve been we’ve been happy to take care of it um so i you know i appreciate your support and and um hopefully the council will see the same we’ll do the same thing thank you and i do want to thank you both for preserving the historic structure uh on this property i think it does have a lot of value for uh remembering the history of bloomington and yeah it’s an important place yeah so okay uh do we have a recommendation i did mr volun do you want me i just want you further i’ll make the recommendation but just say it’s rare that we have a petitioner who also would be the foremost expert on the topic that we’re discussing so i’m happy to allow the the debate uh but uh you know i think also we’ve learned something about uh the the area and certainly i’m no fan of uh sprawl development that happened around it uh so you know the kind of work that uh that they’re doing here is to be emulated you know all the more reason to support it and with that i’ll move the recommendation do pass just a point of order i thought i saw committee member rosenberger’s hand earlier i just wanted to check oh yeah how’s the map rosenberger thanks i was just going to chime in it’s nothing really of substance honestly um i was just going to say i appreciate such a thorough and detailed letter from you all with all the supporting evidence it was really great reading through everything and having that context there so thanks very much i support this you know staff recommendation was lovely that’s it all right well let’s go down the line then with this due pass recommendation council member flaherty yes councilmember rosenbarker yeah council member fallen yes and i also vote yes point of order recommendation yes council member holland so this is because of our vote tonight this is going to come back next week that the regular session of the 16th yes that’s right okay um that’s going to be a fun night so we need to schedule schedule this one first but yes let’s see what we can do about it yeah okay council president see what you can do about that i’ll talk to people okay all right okay well thank you very much to staff and the petitioner and everybody for your time thank you see you next week thanks you