Duplex in central neighborhood OK’d by Bloomington after revisions to design
On Thursday, Bloomington’s board of zoning appeals (BZA) voted 3–1 to approve the conditional use application for a duplex on an empty lot northwest of Bryan Park in a central Bloomington neighborhood.
Dissenting was Barre Klapper. Voting for the duplex were: Tim Ballard, Flavia Burrell, and Jo Throckmorton.
Each half of the planned duplex has three bedrooms and three bathrooms.
The lot, which is on the south side of Wylie Street, is zoned R3 (residential small lot). That means a duplex is possible, but only as a conditional use, which means that it requires review and approval by the BZA.
It was the third time that Caylan Evans had appeared in front of the BZA as the owner and architect for the project. At the first meeting, on May 23, the BZA had deadlocked in a 2–2 tie.
At the Aug. 22 BZA hearing, the board postponed a decision, because the three members present could not take action without a unanimous vote.
In August, Tim Ballard appeared to be the only one of BZA members present who supported the duplex. Jo Throckmorton and Barre Klapper took the view that the design did not conform to the requirement in the Bloomington UDO (unified development ordinance) that requires similarity to other houses on the same block face.
In August, Klapper was looking for Evans to revise the design so that the gable would present to the street the long, flat side of the roof—instead of the A-shaped angled side. The revised design that Evans presented on Thursday did show the broad side of the roof facing north to the street.
The revised petition for Thursday stated: “Additionally, a street-facing gable roof pitch reflects similar roof styles found on the block face as well as the surrounding neighborhood. ”
But the tradeoff that Evans made was to design the duplex structure as a two-story building, instead of a one-and-a-half-story building. Klapper, who is herself an architect, said she did not think the two-story design allowed the duplex to connect visually to the surrounding houses.
Kapper put it like this: “I just feel it doesn’t relate to the houses around it.” She added, “The story and a half that was from the last proposal, if it were in the right orientation, is a form that is much more suitable to this location.” Klapper acknowledged that orienting the gable so that the broad side of the roof is facing the street reflected an improvement.
The section of the UDO in question states:
i. The following design elements of the duplex dwelling shall be similar in general shape, size, and design with the majority of existing single-family or duplex structures on the same block face on which it is located:
1. Roof pitch;
2. Front porch width and depth;
3. Front building setback; and
4. Vehicle parking access (i.e., front-, side-, or rear-access garage or parking area)
Ballard protested that what Klapper was doing was exactly what senior zoning planner Eric Greulich had said at the Aug. 22 meeting that the BZA should not do, namely try to function as a “design review committee”.
Burrell indicated that the BZA is not supposed to determine if a proposed design is “ugly, beautiful, or nice.” She said, “We are not the design committee,” adding, “We are here to make sure that the owner that…decides to do a conditional use, that they follow what the UDO has set up for us.” Burrell concluded that the proposed duplex “is following what the UDO is doing.”
Klapper briefly batted around the idea of imposing a condition of approval for the conditional use application that would say the design had to be for a one-and-a-half story structure. But Klapper concluded that such an approach would amount to “strong-arming” a particular form.
Speaking from the public mic in support of the duplex on Thursday was Deborah Myerson, who introduced herself as a homeowner in Elm Heights.
She introduced herself that way, she told the BZA, because their hearing was about a proposed rental property. She asked the BZA: How many renters have you heard from—the people who might wind up living in the duplex? The people who might live in the duplex are not the people the BZA is hearing from, Myerson said.
Myerson agreed with the planning staff’s assessment that the planned duplex complies with the requirements of the UDO. She pointed out that a single-family house could be built on the lot “by right” without any need to appear in front of the BZA.
The point about what could be built “by right” was a point that Ballard also highlighted during his commentary from the dais. Ballard called the by-right scenario “a worse scenario.” He added, “The by-right product that he could put in there is enormous—5–6,000 square feet, three stories. By right: No meetings. No questions. Done.”
Objections from several property owners in the neighborhood included the design considerations cited by Klapper, as well as total square footage, concerns about the impact of traffic, availability of parking based on the two three-bedroom units, and the lack of any income-restrictions (affordability) requirements.
Jon Lawrence, who is the president of the Bryan Park Neighborhood Association, told the BZA he was not representing the neighborhood that night, but had served as the main point of contact. Lawrence reviewed the basic objections that had been made by surrounding residents.
Lawrence also conveyed a certain weariness that residents were feeling having come out four times (one of the BZA meetings was canceled), to oppose the approval of the conditional use application.
Even though there were only eight or nine neighbors who were in attendance that night, Lawrence said, at the previous meeting, in August, there were around 20. “Unpaid neighbors get worn out,” Lawrence said.
