BZA approves CMU wall extension at Dunkirk Square but denies request to use wood as primary facade material

The Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday split its decision on a two-part variance at 430 East Kirkwood (Dunkirk Square): the board approved a variance to permit extension of an existing concrete block (CMU) fire-rated wall on the building’s west side but denied a separate request to allow wood siding as a primary exterior material on the north (Kirkwood-facing) elevation.

Katie Gandhi, a zoning planner, told the board that the downtown character overlay and MDUV district prohibit wood and CMU as primary facade materials above the first floor; wood may be used only as a secondary material up to 20% of an elevation. Staff recommended denial of both variances because compliant materials exist and the strict UDO standards do not create a use‑related practical difficulty for this property.

Architect Michael Chamblee and owners of the Upstairs Pub said the design seeks to preserve the building’s 1970s character and to accommodate a historic Indiana University scoreboard the bar acquired. Chamblee argued that permitted materials that mimic wood would look inauthentic, and owner Steve Engle said the proposed CMU extension is hidden between buildings and would match the existing masonry.

Several nearby business owners — including Nick’s English Hut’s Greg Rago, Jimmy John’s manager Brian Isaacs, and other Dunkirk Square operators — spoke in support of the project, saying the materials maintain the character that supports local businesses.

The board separated the two requests. Members found that the west facade’s CMU extension faces an adjacent building and is largely obscured from the public realm; the board therefore approved that variance after making findings of practical difficulty tied to the wall’s configuration. For the north facade, board members concluded they could not make the legal findings required for the variance: siding material does not demonstrably create a practical difficulty in the use of the property, and staff and some board members said alternatives could meet the UDO while retaining character. The board voted to deny the north-facade wood-siding variance.

Board members and staff noted alternatives: the planning director may, in limited cases of partial renovations, waive certain design requirements, and the petitioner could seek a city-level amendment to the UDO. Following the votes, the board recommended that the petitioner consider design revisions or pursue administrative or legislative routes if they seek broader flexibility in materials.

The board approved the CMU wall variance and denied the wood‑siding variance; the CMU motion passed and the wood-siding motion failed after votes and a subsequent re-vote on the findings.