Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA allows Crumble Cookies two wall signs after members amend findings
Summary
The BZA approved a variance June 20 allowing Crumble Cookies to keep two wall signs at 1155 South College Mall Road after amending staff findings to address site‑specific conditions; staff had recommended denial based on UDO square‑foot limits.
The Bloomington City Board of Zoning Appeals voted June 20 to approve a variance that permits Crumble Cookies to install two wall signs at 1155 South College Mall Road, overturning staff’s recommendation to deny the petition.
Jamie Kryler, senior zoning planner, told the board that UDO rules for multi‑tenant centers allow 1.5 square feet of signage per lineal foot of tenant frontage; Crumble’s 27‑foot frontage yields 40.5 square feet of allowable wall signage. The petitioner proposed two signs totaling roughly 79.74 square feet — nearly double the code allotment — and staff recommended denial because the UDO’s language contemplates this scenario and staff found no peculiar property condition to justify a variance.
Thomas Hopkins of Sign Solutions, representing Crumble Cookies, said the two signs have been in place for about five years and that the request is largely a rebranding. "They've had the two signs at the property for 5 years," Hopkins said, adding that the signs had not caused safety problems and that refacing may not produce the desired branded look.
A member of the public, Betty Rosenagel, spoke in favor of allowing the signs, saying the signage helps visitors find businesses and that the board should use common sense. "I hope the cookie crumbles in the favor in in the support of the petitioner," Rosenagel said.
During deliberations a board member moved to amend the staff’s findings to state that adverse impacts to surrounding property uses and values were not found and to craft a site‑specific peculiarity finding (noting the building elevation and frontage landscaping that make strict UDO application ineffective). The motion to adopt the amended findings and approve the variance carried on roll call: Burrell yes; Fernandez yes; Cassino yes.
Why it matters: The staff report emphasized the UDO’s intended limit on wall signage, but the board concluded that site characteristics and the existing condition weighed in favor of allowing the signs with a condition that the installed signs match the package presented to the board.
What’s next: The petitioner may proceed under the approved variance; if a sign cabinet is removed and replaced later, new signage must meet current code unless a refacing approach is used, per staff guidance.
