New: Your feedback can help make our next website better!

Plan Commission minutes are transcribed in a summarized manner. Recordings are available in the Planning and Transportation Department for reference. DVDs are also available for viewing in the Audio-visual (CATS) Department (phone #349-3111 or E-mail address: of the Monroe County Public Library, 303 E. Kirkwood Ave.

The City of Bloomington Plan Commission (PC) met on April 11, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Members present were Nick Kappas, Isabel Piedmont-Smith, Susan Fernandes, Carol Stewart Gulyas, Brad Wisler, and Andrew Cibor.


Roach said I'd like to ask if any members of the Plan Commission would like to volunteer to act as our President this evening. Neither the President nor Vice President of the Plan Commission were able to come to the meeting.

**Brad Wisler volunteered. Isabel Piedmont-Smith seconded. Roll was taken. Motion passed, 6:0.

Wisler said we two petitions to be heard. I'd like to request we make a change to the order of the agenda this evening. I expect the sign ordinance petition may take a little while, I'd like to hear the second petition first.

**Susan Fernandes moved to hear UV-10-16 before ZO-8-16. Piedmont-Smith seconded. Motion passed through unanimous voice vote.


Andrew Cibor moved for approval. Nick Kappas seconded. The motion passed through unanimous voice vote.


1. RS-11-16 Resolution appointing Christy Langley Director of Planning and Transportation

Roach introduced Christy Langley, the newly appointed Director of Planning and Transportation. We're very excited to have Christy on board.

Christy Langley made an introduction. I attended undergraduate at Ball State in urban and regional planning. I went on to get my MPA at IU SPEA. I graduated there in 2006. I went to Sarasota for a year and was a neighborhood planner and then I came back to Indiana. I served as the Assistant Director of Economic Development for the City of Noblesville for 5 years. Then I was promoted to Planning Director and served as Planning Director for 4 years and then I did a quick stint as their Interim Deputy Mayor. That led me to this position. I fell in love with Bloomington when I here for grad school, my husband was born and raised in Bloomington and we are happy to be back.

**Piedmont-Smith made motion to appoint Christy Langley as Director of Planning and Transportation. Carol Stewart Gulyas seconded. Motion passed, 6:0.

Roach said I have a couple of other minor notes. I want to thank all the Plan Commission members for coming on our rescheduled meeting night. As you may recall, Josh Desmond and I were in Phoenix, AZ last week at the national planning conference. We learned a lot about what they're doing in the southwest and have some great ideas for the future here in Bloomington. We have a reduced number of commissioners tonight. We have 6 members instead of 9. It does take a vote of 5 members to take action. It's a majority of the membership, not a majority of the members in attendance. Lastly, we have our lunch work session tomorrow.


DP-6-16 Allen Dunn and Susan Peters Dunn

3727 E Cameron Ave.

Preliminary and final plat approval of a two-lot subdivision for a new single family lot.

Case Manager: Eric Greulich

SP-1-16 Three Guys Funding, LLC

1909 W 3rd St.

Site plan approval for three commercial buildings totaling approximately 18,500 sq. ft.

Case Manager: Jackie Scanlan


UV-10-16 Fox Property and Development

415 S Washington St.

Use variance to allow a first floor residential use in a Commercial General zoning district.

Case Manager: Jackie Scanlan

Jackie Scanlan presented. The property is located on the east side of S. Washington St. between E Smith and E 2nd St. The property is 1.572 acres zoned Commercial General. The site is currently vacant. The Growth Policies Plan designation is downtown. You can see it is bordered by alleys on the north and east sides of the property. The building on the right is owned by City of Bloomington Utilities. The project proposal is for a 3 story mixed use building. It has 856 sq. ft. of commercial space on the first floor and 9 1-bedroom apartments, including 1 ground floor unit. The reason the Plan Commission is reviewing the petition is because ground floor residential is not permitted in the CG zone so it requires a use variance. You will be making a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals on that variance and they will be making the final decision. The commercial facade will face the street. Directly across the street is another property the developer has recently built in the same style. I'm going to discuss some of the unique site issues here. Everything surrounding, except for the building owned by CBU, is Commercial Downtown or Residential Multi Family and are permitted have ground floor residential uses. The site is also constrained because of an existing underground culvert that crosses the site. CBU has long term plans to relocate the culvert but they don't have a time line for that. The site plan is not building forward because they are not able to build over the culvert. The GPP in the downtown calls for increased residential density, intensified usage of vacant and underutilized building areas, and expansion and diversification of a mix of uses at both the regional and neighborhood scale. The district intent for CG includes providing areas for medium scale services as long as they aren't detrimental to the surroundings and mixed use where standalone has traditionally dominated. The guidance given to the Plan Commission when looking at petitions in these areas suggests incorporation of mixed and commercial residential uses with shared parking and encouragement of the GPP goal of sustainable development- open space, mixed use, permeable pavers, consumption reduction. The Indiana State Building Code requires new developments like this have accessible units. The options for providing an accessible unit is to have one on the first floor or to provide an elevator for the upper floors. Because of the constraints of this site physically, including the height maximum and the small footprint, combined with the complete surrounding of other zones that allow first floor residential, staff finds the proposed used does not substantially interfere with the intent of the GPP. It is a mixed use development and compatible with surroundings and we recommend you recommend a positive recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Steve Brehob spoke for the petitioner. Justin Fox and Chris Smith are here as well. I don't have a lot to add to the staff presentation. I'd just like to reiterate it is a constrained site. That's really an understatement. It's not only constrained with the location of the existing culvert and what can be done on the site with the culvert in its present location but will be constrained in the future when that box culvert is relocated and also constrained during the construction phase of that change. It truly is an anomaly from zoning standpoint. If you look at all the zoning in the area, the total amount of CG zoning is less than ½ an acre in this area. It's surrounded by CD and RM zoning, both of which would allow ground floor residential. I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

Carol Stewart Gulyas said I think there is an allocation for commercial on the ground floor. Or is it all just residential on the ground floor?

Brehob said yes, there is 865 sq. ft. of commercial area on the first floor.

Gulyas said one of the reasons is you need to do this is because you need to have an accessible unit and you don't want to have to build an elevator in such a small footprint. Is that correct?

Brehob said yes.

Fernandes said have you explored vacating any of the alleys?

Brehob said no, we did not, and one of reasons is it appeared a lot of the adjacent properties use the alley for access.

Fernandes said I know the City doesn't like to do that anyway. What is the CBU property?

Brehob said it's the graffiti laden concrete building to the south. I understand CBU uses it for record storage.

Cibor said I have a quick question on the setbacks. I noticed in the report we're slightly deviating from the setbacks in the alleys and I'm curious if staff could comment on that. I think I saw the alleys are 12' wide and I know it's a constrained site but do you have any concerns or see any issues with deviating from those setback standards?

Scanlan said no. The original proposal was slightly closer and we worked with them to get more of a buffer. Directly north is the parking area for Middleway house. The alleys are used but they are so narrow people travel at such a slow speed, we didn't think it outweighed the constraints of the property as far as where the building could go and what setback encroachment they would need to make it work.

Roach said one of the things we look with these reduced setbacks is whether the parking spaces and the garage parking spaces can still truly function. If you have a 12' alley and you build that parking space right up to the edge of that alley, is there enough maneuvering room to realistically get a car into those spaces? Mr. Brehob put some turning templates together showing that is still possible. They're set back about 5' from the north/south alley and about 6' from the east/west alley to accomplish that.

Fernandes said how far is the proposed building set back from the building to the south?

Brehob said the CBU building is within a foot of the property line. The first floor of the proposed building is about 1 ½ ft. from the property line and then on the second floor of the building it steps back 5' so the second and third floor would be 6 ½' from the property line. That would allow windows and doors as a means of egress along that side of the building.

Fernandes asked to see the elevations. Elevations were shown to illustrate the proposed building and the existing building. Fernandes asked how deep the balconies are.

Roach said they are 5' deep.

Kappas said I'm reading you worked with CBU on an agreement addressing the installed parking before they do the culvert construction. It says an agreement in principle has been reached. What is the agreement?

Brehob said the agreement is we'll put parking in, they'll come through at some point in the future and dig it up and we'll put it back. Initially the parking area would just be asphalt. After CBU relocates the culvert and we rebuild the parking, then it will be constructed from permeable pavers.

Floor opened for public comment. There was none.

Piedmont-Smith said this is a very constrained site and I'm happy to see a development proposed for it. I think it will fit in well with the surrounding area.

Wisler said I concur this is a really difficult site. It looks like the petitioners did a nice job putting together a petition that will fit well and serve the neighborhood well and be a viable project even given the constraints.

**Piedmont-Smith made a motion to make a positive recommendation to the BZA on UV-10-16. Kappas seconded. Roll was taken. Motion was approved; 6:0.

ZO-8-16 City of Bloomington

Amendments to sections of the Unified Development Ordinance pertaining to the regulation and display of signs in the City zoning limits.

Case Manager: James Roach

Patty Mulvihill presented. I will briefly review. We're proposing these amendments in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that came down in the summer of 2015. That Supreme Court decision significantly impacted the ordinances of the City of Bloomington, as well as a significant number of other municipalities across the country. Staff spent 6 to 8 months working on ways to resolve these issues. We knew we had some issues when we came before you for the first meeting but we think we've resolved the bulk of those issues. I'm going to walk you through where we are today. Staff is prepared to ask for a positive recommendation on the amendments as proposed to go forward to the City Council in May.

In all there are 16 proposed amendments. It seems like a lot but the bulk of these sections aren't being heavily or substantively modified. Most of the changes from the March Plan Commission meeting were not substantive. We caught a few typographical errors, we synchronized some of our formatting, we deleted the "per side" requirement at Fernandes's request at the March meeting. The substantive change was in Amendment #5 which is subsection 79 dealing with vehicle signs. Most of you weren't comfortable with the second draft language we had for vehicles signs so we took your comments and we think we have proposed a draft you might prefer better. What it does is it notes vehicles, vans, trailers, and trucks can't be parking continuously in the same general location to be used to display signs. It does not prohibit them from displaying signs if the vehicle is in use on a regular basis and not continuously parking in one parking lot being used as to serve in the same manner as an additional free standing sign or temporary sign. We wrote that based off the suggestions we heard last time. If it's still not getting the point you wish staff will look into making changes.

Staff felt we had 4 major issues in February. We think we've resolved 3 of the 4. By resolved I mean the members of the community who were most impacted or communicated most consistently with staff seemed to be supportive. The first is real estate signs. If you remember when we came before you in February we had recommended that each property would receive 1 temporary sign of 5 sq. ft. without having to have a permit. When we talked with the Board of Realtors we learned there were some problems with that. First, the largest currently in use residential real estate sign is a little larger than 7.5 sq. ft. So we've noted that each property owner will be allowed to have 1 temporary sign that shall not exceed 8 sq. ft. without having a permit. This will allow the largest currently in use residential real estate sign to still be displayed. The 8 sq. ft. sign doesn't have to be a real estate sign because we can't classify them that way anymore but it will allow the realtors to be able to properly notice those properties that are for sale or for lease. The second thing we heard is that 5 sq. ft. is not going to work for commercially zoned properties that they are trying to lease or sell. If those properties are vacant or under construction, they will be entitled to 1 additional 32 sq. ft. temporary sign. If you take a large strip mall, each individual suite in there that is vacant or under construction will be entitled to an additional sign. Again, those signs can be used to say whatever they want but we think it will self-regulate and be used for real estate listing purposes. When we last spoke with the Board of Realtors they were happy with those changes. They had asked for an additional change that staff did not support, which was if a commercial property has two street frontages that each frontage be allowed a 32 sq. ft. sign. Staff thinks the 1 sign is enough. Considering how much additional signage we've given to the properties, we don't want to overly clutter the area. We're happy, the Board of Realtors would like more, but they've generally been supportive of other changes we've made over the last few months.

The 2nd issue was we wanted to be able to display more signs without a permit in front of our residences. People said if they have more than one kid, they wanted to be able to support all their kids' activities. We did some more digging and found some Supreme Court precedent that says when a sign is placed in front of someone's home, that sign has a stronger message than it would if it was in a public right-of-way or on a car. A home is a very personal thing and depending on who lives there it could have a very impactful meaning. In order to account for that allowance, the Supreme Court said municipalities are permitted to place a maximum on the number of signs a resident can have but that number needs to be more than 1. So we've recommend 2 additional 5 sq. ft. signs. Every property in Bloomington gets 1 8 sq. ft. sign, 2 5 sq. ft. signs and we don't regulate anything that's 1 ½ sq. ft. or smaller and recommend that stay the same.

The 3rd major issue for us is sandwich board signs- could we allow them, how would we allow them, where would we allow them. When we came before you in February we had recommended deleting them. We worked really hard and consistently with several outside entities, including several professors from the Law School, and determined we could write it in a way to allow sandwich board signs in the Commercial Downtown and Commercial Limited zoning district. What we've done is said it has to be a property that is immediately adjacent to the sidewalk in one of those zoning areas. If it's one large property with multi-tenants, they will be entitled to additional signage but the signage has to be at least 8 linear ft. away from other signs. We've spoken with the Chamber of Commerce about this and they were supportive of our change. I also spoke with CFC since they're one of the larger property owners in on the square and they were supportive. The only change we made from what you see now in the sandwich board ordinance is we removed the provision requiring a 10 lb. ballast because we don't enforce that currently.

The last issue, which we have not be able to resolve to the satisfaction of all the parties we've heard from, is the not for profit signs. This has been an issue for us since the Supreme Court came out with their decision. One of key rulings from that decision is we can't regulate signage by type. If you start saying not for profit, political or real estate sign, you're regulating content and you can't do that. So we knew we would have a problem because we've allowed our not for profit signs in the right-of-way. The Supreme Court decision also said you have to treat people equally when you're talking about city property. We have not resolved this problem and staff does not believe we can. Our position from the beginning has been it is better for the overall community to not permit signage in the right of way. There are safety reasons, clutter reasons, there's a time and staffing issue for when we need to perform work in the right of way. When we were working on some possible amendments this week we stumbled across a Indiana code provision in the Motor Vehicle title. It's been around for years and we didn't know about it until we started doing this research but Indiana code section 9-21-4-6 prohibits advertising signs to be placed in the right of way between a sidewalk and a roadway. So all the signage that's there now is currently not permitted. So we've not made any one happy and we apologize for that. After our meeting in March I met with Gabe Coleman who represents some in the art community. He had stressed he thought there could be some type of economic development exception we could use to utilize signage in the right of way but I can't find a way to do this with current case law. There was some discussion that perhaps we could have certain areas of town where they would be permitted and you certainly could carve out sections of the right of way, but if you open the right of way to one sign type, you open it to everyone. From an administrative perspective we think it will be cluttered and problematic. We heard today from some individuals from 4th St. festival who are encouraging us to try to find a way to help them advertise. Staff has exhausted all our research efforts, we've worked with individuals at the Law School and we can't find a way to make an exception other than allowing everyone in the right of way. We are encouraging stronger relationships between commercial private businesses and our not for profits. All of the businesses in the downtown area and all of the properties in our residential areas are now going to be allowed three temporary signs without needing a permit. Those temporary signs can be used to advertise things like not for profit events. Sandwich board signs could also be used to advertise these things. We understand it makes it more difficult for not for profits but we can't find a solution.

Those are the big issues and that's what we've spent all this time talking about but there were some other smaller changes we made that weren't as controversial and didn't get as much discussion. Since we think this will be the last discussion the Plan Commission has about this, I want to go over them again briefly so everyone knows what they're voting on when they vote on this package of amendments. We have some updated general purpose standards to state these new amendments are not meant to impinge upon the free speech rights granted by the US or the State of Indiana's Constitution. We're deleting the requirement to remove abandoned sign structures because there is a State statute that makes us compensate sign owners for removing their sign structures and that's expensive. We've change the window sign calculation to be based on the window frame, not the window pane. The freestanding sign setbacks are changing to 2' from the property line or outside the clear zone whichever is greater unless approved by the Transportation and Traffic Engineer. We moved street addressing out of the sign standards and to the Municipal Services section of the UDO. We created a new allowance for 24 sq. ft. of wall signage for multifamily developments. Currently permanent display cabinets are their own subsection and those have been moved to each applicable zoning district. In nonresidential areas, we've noted sq. ft. allowances can't include residential areas. If you have a three story building where one story is commercial and two stories are residential, we don't want you counting those residential areas for the overall signage calculation you'll use for the commercial purposes. In the CL district wall signs on the back or rear of the structure will only be prohibited only if they face a residential use. We've spent a lot of time, energy and effort in Bloomington trying to make our alleys user friendly and what you see now are a lot of alleys with commercial uses on both sides. It doesn't make sense to staff to prohibit wall signage in those areas when it's commercial against commercial. That's a quick rundown of what we've accomplished over the last three months. We're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Fernandes said I urge you to continue looking for any solutions to allow not for profit signs in the right of way. Sooner or later someone will find a compromise. I know you've looked everywhere, but this is very important for our organizations.

Mulvihill said the only thing that's possible is to open mini free for all zones and we're just not comfortable with that because we think it will look like a polling station on election day.

Fernandes said it's balancing the needs of our non-profits with a certain amount of clutter. Those signs are temporary. They go away.

Mulvhill said they are temporary but we stopped enforcing our ordinance when this decision came down. We see a lot more of these signs across the community and we've received a lot more complaints about it. I know it's not as convenient but commercial property owners in the business community are interested in reaching out to these not for profits to give them ways to display their signs. We've also heard from many individual property owners who are willing to use their front yards as a sign. I think it will require more work and coordination but I'm optimistic that our private industry will work with our not for profits to help get their advertising out.

Fernandes said a lot of organizations like to know people are willing to have a sign in their yard. That's important to them as much as having them in front of a business. Are you going to produce some form of guidance, like a handout, for this?

Mulvihill said we will after they're approved. We will try to work on education campaign. We've envisioned speaking at the Chamber, the Board of Realtors, BIRA, some other big heavy hitters in the business sector and then trying to reach out to the individual neighborhood associations. It's not going to reach everybody, but it will get a lot of people. There are a couple not for profit alliances that work together in Bloomington and we'd like to reach out to them and then we want to give people a really big learning curve. There will be people who unintentionally make mistakes and our intent is not to bring the hammer down. We want to educate first when we see a violation- let them know there's been a change, give them the opportunity to come get their sign and provide them options for where they can put it.

Piedmont-Smith said I have some small changes to wording to make things more clear, starting with Amendment 5 on page number 12. This is a section listing miscellaneous signs. At the top of page 12 the former heading was "Private Signs" but the term private has been struck out so now it is just titled "Signs". In this paragraph we're talking about the very small signs, so could we make the heading "Small Signs"? On page 14 item 5 addresses a vehicle continuously parked in the same parking lot but what about a vehicle that is continually parked on the street in the same parking space? Like in front of B-town Diner. I would propose saying "This does not prohibit vehicle or vehicle owners from having vehicles or trailers with signs provided the vehicles or trailers are in use on a regular basis and are not continuously parked in one parking lot or parking space and are being used to serve in the same manner." Further down on the same page, number 8 "Temporary Signs". I don't know if this was just an error or what, but it seems the last phrase is just redundant. The words are the same and same section number is listed as a reference at the beginning and end of the sentence. Is that just an error?

Mulvihill said I think we can just put a period in after the word "banners". I will note that despite our best efforts there are still some incorrect section references because we've made so many section amendments over the last months. We were going to ask there be a condition staff be allowed to make minor corrections to subsections to make sure the references are correct. I thought I caught all the mistakes, but until it is cleaned up and put in ordinance format, I don't think I'll be able to catch them all.

Piedmont-Smith said amendment 6 on page 17 under "Multifamily" in the very last paragraph says "Multifamily developments containing more than 2 and fewer than15 dwelling units shall be permitted one wall sign not to exceed 24 sq. ft. I know in a lot of neighborhoods there are houses built like singe family houses but they're split up into apartments. It seems a 24 sq. ft. sign on the side of that building would be pretty ugly. First of all I want to ask if this is a new allowance and second, can we increase number of units to more than 4 or 5 instead of 2?

Mulvihill said it's not new. We've actually made it more stringent because we didn't want it to be applicable to duplexes.

Piedmont-Smith asked if we have any idea how many buildings are out there that have between 2 and 5 units?

Roach said I don't. I know the more common sign you may see are in the range of 2-4 sq. ft. showing the property name owned and managed by X company with a phone number. We see those quite often, but I don't know the number of properties. There could be ways you could write this to deal with conforming uses vs non-conforming uses. That might be one way to go about it so you would take into effect these 3 to 15 units in multifamily districts but not necessarily those in single family districts. Another option would be to ratchet down the size from 24 sq. ft. to 12 or 6.

Piedmont-Smith said since I sit on the City Council I can mention it there. But this is something that bothers me.

Fernandes said I got an email from Jack Baker proposing an amendment, but I can't open it. Is it somewhere in the packet?

Mulvihill said we told Jack we weren't going to put it in because the administration was not supportive of it. I have one hard copy I can give you if you to look at.

Piedmont-Smith said I spoke with Jack about proposing that amendment tonight but I've changed my mind and I do not plan to propose it.

Mulvihill said for those of you who haven't seen it, Jack had contacted us to request we create 4 or 5 mini free for all zones throughout the City that anyone can use. The language is written as Jack requested. We picked out 5 areas which took a while because of the state statute. We have a lot of sidewalks in this town so we tried to find streets that are not our primary arterial streets but regularly used local streets to find portions to use as free for all zones. We tried to stay away from parks and single family residences. We tried to look for commercial properties or sections of wooded areas. We didn't want a property owner to have their side or rear yard a haven for signs. This was more difficult than we thought it would be. We identified about 5 designated areas that would allow you to put in any sign that you want. They would be restricted to 3 sq. ft., they have to be temporary in nature, and there's a caveat that if the city or anybody who has to work in the right of way needs to they could pull those signs and they would not be replaced. The administration is not supportive of this amendment. We oppose it. We think it's completely inappropriate to use the right of way that way. We think if you create these clusters you will create chaos and the messages of these signs will be lost. But it's out there if someone wants to put it forward for discussion. The other thing to note is you're not the final decision. If the City Council thinks this will be an issue they will discuss it. This is an unresolved issue that can be discussed by the legislative body when they consider it.

Wisler said if there are significant amendments at the Council level, what does that do process wise? It still has to come back?

Mulvihill said if they make amendments it's kicked back to you. Ideally, they wouldn't be too complicated and you could approve them through the Consent Agenda. If you disagree, it's got to go back to City Council for them to override you. I have never been here when that happened. We have always been able to reconcile the two bodies without that and I would expect that not to happen here.

Wisler said I'm inclined to let the Council weigh in on these substantive issues rather than us trying to amend them now and then the Council undo what we did and send it back to us. We could accomplish the same thing with 2 steps instead of 3 if we let them take the first action on it.

Mulvihill said you can reach out to particular Council members if you want. The Administration will tell them that we are not supportive of such a request, but if there are certain Plan Commission members who feel differently than the Administration, I would encourage you to reach out to individual Council members and voice your concerns. Even offer to work with them if they need help on crafting an amendment themselves.

Wisler asked when the Common Council will hear this.

Mulvihill said it will be read into the record on May 4th with discussion and public comment the next 2 Wednesdays, May 11th and 18th. If it has to go longer they can. Those dates are based solely on the Plan Commission making a recommendation tonight. If you don't, those dates will have to be rescheduled.

Piedmont-Smith said I have a question about the multifamily developments on page 17 amendment 6 again. I seems there's an added sign allotment for multifamily developments containing at least 15 units through the wall signage. So in additional to the freestanding sign, with the changes they would be allowed a wall sign up to 24 sq. ft. What brought about that change?

Mulvihill said we did this months ago, so we're going to try to remember the rationale. I believe we talked about some of our larger complexes have multiple buildings and depending on where their building is facing, they may prefer to utilize the signage on their building. If it's a large scale development we didn't think it would be too much signage or too much clutter that it would be negatively impacting the aesthetic environment.

Roach said it was also to give property owners a choice between a wall or a freestanding sign. We see a lot of the time the sign will be artistically incorporated into the design of the building. This is really to allow additional options for the property owners.

Piedmont-Smith asked if this was considered at the request of property owners.

Roach said I don't believe so.

Piedmont-Smith said I have one other housekeeping item. It's at the end of the definitions on page 45 amendment 17. The definition of mixed tenant center. The proposed definition is a mixed tenant center is a structure that contains more than 1 use or more than one tenant. That could mean it's just a multifamily residential center, but I don't think that's what you mean. Don't you mean mixed use tenant center? At least one of the uses has to be residential?

Mulvihill said we were trying to get to you can have the same use but still have different tenants if you're in a commercial district. So, if you look at our use table, you could have a lawyer's office, a dentist's office, and an account's office. There're all a professional use but they're different tenants. That's what we were trying to get to. If it don't use this in residential zoning districts it doesn't matter.

Piedmont-Smith said do you see what I mean? If you have a single use of residences it's obviously multiple tenants living in the apartments and that could be called a mixed tenant center but I don't think that's what you want to call a mixed tenant center. Am I right?

Mulvihill said if we don't use it in a residential zoning district, it doesn't matter. I see your concern, I'm just not as concerned if it's not used in the residential zoning districts.

Wisler said could you simply add the words non-residential before tenant. To say a "structure that contains more than one use or more than one non-residential tenant".

Mulvihill said we could.

Roach said we went back and forth on different terms to use. We decided to keep with current term which is multi-tenant center. A multi-tenant center is a group of separate buildings with multiple tenants operating under a common name or management, a single building containing multiple uses where there are specific exterior entryways for individual uses, or a group of uses on separate but adjoining properties that request treatment as a multiuse complex. I think this definition of mixed tenant center is a remnant of past versions of these amendments but we don't use that term in the code anymore. Unless someone can find it somewhere. I can't.

Piedmont-Smith said I'm happy to leave this as housekeeping.

Mulvihill said if we don't use it any more we will delete it. If we do, we will add the "nonresidential" you requested.

Wisler recapped the suggestions and asked that we move forward with those as friendly amendments. The discussion about Amendment 6 should be brought up at Council.

Cibor said I would like to add for staff to check section references.

Floor was opened for public comment on the amendments to the petition just discussed. There was none.

**Piedmont-Smith moved for positive recommendation to the City Council as amended. Fernandes seconded.

Mike Carmin said I have several comments. I do want to give recognition to staff. I would not have envied anyone who tried to draft something to be in compliance. It's hard and despite all your efforts I think there are still a couple places that need more attention. Some of my points are just to raise questions. When I have clients come to me, I want to know what the answers are. I don't like to guess. I prefer clean cut rules. I didn't like the old sign ordinance but I understood it and that made it easier to help people understand what they can and can't do. I'd like to carry that forward on this. On page 12 there are reference to permitted signs that are not regulated. One of which is mural. Most people think they know what a mural is, but if those are not going to be regulated or considered a sign, I would prefer to have a definition of what it is if we're not going to regulate it and I don't find the definition in the ordinance. On page 14 the issue of signs that are imitations or appear to be public signs I'm not sure what we're doing about signs in private parking lots, say College Mall for example, with interior stop signs. I don't think those qualify as public signs under the definition of public sign but they're necessary and they're needed. Do those qualify as an improper imitation of a public sign. I'd like clarification on that before we have someone wanting to argue about it. On that same page in paragraph 4 about off premises signs, this is one I think it really questionable. I can see someone coming to me to try to challenge this because we'd be regulating content. You can't determine what's an off-premise sign without knowing what the content is because that's how you determine if it's off premises. You're not going to do this tonight but I hope someone will take this to heart to look at pole signs on page 14 paragraph 7. I hate to think what sign clutter would be created with 6' ground signs at Red Lobster, Midas, the motel, PC Max. They're dependent on pole signs. If those uses change or other things happen to cause those pole signs to disappear, they won't get a new one because you don't allow pole signs. The answer to that to me is to create pole signs as a conditional use because there are places where pole signs are essential. I understand for years the City has had an attempt to eliminate all pole signs through attrition, but there are some places where they need to be replaced. That needs to be dealt with as a special issue and the only way I know how to deal with it in a reasonable manner is to do it as a conditional use where you can define standards for when that pole sign would be allowed. I'm thinking of properties not adjacent to public frontage like Midas Jiffy Lube. Sure, they front on 46 but you don't enter from bypass. Without pole signs people won't know where to turn in. Ground signs for all those properties would become a traffic problem. Understand we need sandwich boards. As I understand we don't limit what the sandwich board says or who's it is. A business could sell the space if he doesn't need it. You have several places where signs are not permitted, all these easement issues. Many time the Plan Commission has directed parties to post signs regarding conservation areas, tree preservation areas because we want them identified with a sign and this says you can't put a sign there. Either we need to expand the definition of public sign to cover those so they are permitted or allow those identifying signs for the easement areas to be posted within the easement area because that's where you want it.

Keith Williamson is president of the Bloomington Board of Realtors. I just have a quick point of clarification to make sure I understand. I thought one of first slides talked about having 2 signs, one of them could be no larger than 5 sq. ft. and the 2nd no larger than 8. Is that what I saw on the slide?

Roach said it is 2 no larger than 5 sq. ft. and 1 no larger than 8 sq. ft.

Williamson said I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you for working with BBR for what we need to help us do our job.

Dawn Adams is the Vice President of the 4th St Festival. Thank you for hard work. About 6 years ago we were able to take the 4th St. Festival from a regional show to a more national show and it grew in quality and stature and reputation and a big part of that was a big bump in attendance. A major component of that was being able to use yard signs. That's why I'm fighting for them. I'm happy to hear there's some attempt to have designated areas where not for profits could post signs. I'm disappointed the City Administration is so against it. Perhaps if the areas were expanded or if they were a certain distance apart. That might take care of the concern about clutter. Thank you. I hope the City can work with us.

Roach said in the current code murals are defined. That definition is still valid and would still apply.

Mulvihill said we define public sign as signs erected by or on the order of a public official. Interior signs like at College Mall would meet the definition of a public sign. As to the issue of off premise signs, I understand Carmin's point that it could be seen as regulating content. When the Supreme Court makes a decision you have a majority opinion and you have several concurring opinions. Some of the Justice's agreed with the decision that the town of Gilbert's sign ordinance was unconstitutional but they had different reasons for their opinions. A couple of those concurring opinions specifically spell out that they think off premise sign regulation is still permitted despite the majority's opinion and the majority's opinion didn't actually deal with off-premises signs. We're left with an opinion that indicates at least some members of the Supreme Court think off premise regulation is still permitted under Gilbert. Based on that analysis we feel comfortable assuming the off premises distinction is still valid for us to regulate. If that would change either through the Supreme Court or the 7th Circuit we would have to come back for modification. You can feel however you want about pole signs; we're not recommending any changes at this point. Mike is correct about sandwich board signs. If a property owner wants to sell their sandwich board space to another merchant they are certainly able to do that. We are not regulating content so we knew that would be possible. We assume people who have the right to use it will use it appropriately. If we see sandwich board signs not being used in a manner they were not intended to be used for we can come back and rethink them.

Cibor said thank you for responding to all those comments. I had noted one other thing Carmin mentioned about signs in easements. I'm assuming that would be the same as public signs.

Mulvihill said that is correct. An example would be the roundabouts that have been beautified by different nursery organizations. They are required to maintain them and to have a sign in them. We've made sure in their agreements with us that those are public signs, they meet our definition, they meet our requirements, they are erecting them on our order. That would be the same way with our easements. If we would command a sign to be done we would give standards it would have to meet and it would be done on order of a public official. I think our definition of public sign is going to handle that easement issue.

Kappas said thank you for your hard work with vehicle signs. I had concerns and you answered them exactly to what I meant. In regards to murals, if we have definition in the UDO that we reference that in the section Carmin mentioned.

Piedmont-Smith thanked Patty and James and the rest of city staff who worked on these issues. This Supreme Court decision was very difficult to try to comply with and we did an admirable job and fixed other things in the process. This will be a big change for the arts organizations and nonprofits. I wish we could single out nonprofits because they enrich our community so much but if we have to choose between allowing everything or allowing nothing it's better for the whole community to allow nothing. We would have a mess of signs that will detract from the look of Bloomington. We've already seen it happening in the last 8 months or so. Sign me up for putting a 4th St. festival sign at my house. Get the word out to your supporters. Knowing our community I know we will have a good response from people putting signs in their own private properties. It makes sense to move this on to City Council at this point.

Wisler thanked staff. This has been a difficult task. On most of these issues there's a good resolution. I'm still a little uneasy with the right of way issues. I recognize this is really difficult. I have been to towns with no regulation on right of way signs and it is not pretty sometimes. Particularly around election season it gets so cluttered it really is a distraction but there are several issues where we've chosen to be optimistic about what people will do. I am uneasy being pessimistic when it comes to the right of way. It's a really fine line but if it were totally up to me I would have fallen on other side of line. I think we ought to err on the side of more speech rather than less even if it's not aesthetically what we would like to see. The point of all of this is to protect speech we don't like. I chose not to try to push that issue here because I think the Council will weigh in on it and I think that's a more appropriate place to weigh in on it. I didn't want to drag this process out just to have it hashed out again at Council, but I likely will share my thoughts with the Council. For tonight I think we've got a good form of the amendments in front of us and I'm happy to support moving it forward to Council.

**Roll was taken. Motion approved; 6:0.

Mulvihill said I was contacted by some representatives from the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns and they said you might be one of the first Plan Commissions in the State of Indiana to tackle this. All of you worked really hard with staff and we couldn't have done it without your input so I'd really like to thank you. From my perspective as a lawyer, particularly one who cares a lot about the First Amendment, it really means a lot that we were willing to tackle a very difficult issue that I think the vast majority of cities and towns aren't going to tackle until forced to do so by a court action. It means a lot to us that we'll be one of the first to resolve this issue.