WEBVTT 00:00:00.130 --> 00:00:09.174 - Okay. Welcome. Good evening. Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission 00:00:09.174 --> 00:00:17.877 - for Monday April 13th 2026. I'll start by giving just a brief overview of our agenda this evening. We 00:00:17.877 --> 00:00:26.750 - will have some internal housekeeping items first before we get to petitions. There is one petition that 00:00:26.750 --> 00:00:29.054 - has been continued that is 00:00:29.762 --> 00:00:39.768 - SUB 2025-12-0051 Petitioners Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein that is continued won't be heard tonight. We 00:00:39.768 --> 00:00:50.166 - have one petition on a consent agenda Tonight and then we have six petitions that will be heard Hopefully 00:00:50.166 --> 00:00:58.014 - I'll be heard in full tonight We have four of those are UDO amendments and then 00:00:58.210 --> 00:01:09.626 - The other two one is a site plan approval at five oh three North Rogers and then finally final plan 00:01:09.626 --> 00:01:21.271 - approval at 1320 South Rogers. So that is our agenda this evening. Let's start though by just calling 00:01:21.271 --> 00:01:27.550 - the roll for attendance. Bishop here. Burrell Seaborg. 00:01:28.098 --> 00:01:37.412 - Here co Rodke here Holmes here Kinsey here Stossburg here Whistler here All right seems we do have a 00:01:37.412 --> 00:01:46.818 - quorum so we can continue the next thing on our agenda is approval of minutes we have mission minutes 00:01:46.818 --> 00:01:57.054 - from the February 9th Planned Commission meeting for approval tonight. Are there any questions or corrections? 00:01:57.826 --> 00:02:09.622 - those minutes Is there a motion to approve those minutes All right, we have a motion in a second Let's 00:02:09.622 --> 00:02:20.158 - just do a voice vote on this tonight, we don't have any remote Participants tonight, do we? 00:02:24.098 --> 00:02:33.517 - All right, so let's all in favor of approving the February 9th minutes say aye All opposed. All right, 00:02:33.517 --> 00:02:42.936 - the minutes are approved Next up we have reports resolutions and communications. Are there any reports 00:02:42.936 --> 00:02:47.966 - from commissioners? All right any reports from staff I 00:02:48.642 --> 00:02:55.515 - Yes, several. First, we wanted to thank the Plain Commission for their patience as we work through the 00:02:55.515 --> 00:03:02.255 - new format of the agenda and how documents are organized within that. Staff is still working through 00:03:02.255 --> 00:03:09.595 - some of the learning curve with that, so we appreciate your patience as we put all the respective information 00:03:09.595 --> 00:03:12.798 - in packets and try to get that out to you guys. 00:03:13.058 --> 00:03:19.734 - Two things one of the additional petitions that will be heard tonight is being requested to be continued. 00:03:19.734 --> 00:03:26.096 - That is the petition at 1320 South Roger Street for built all to LLC. They are still working through 00:03:26.096 --> 00:03:32.394 - some issues with city of Bloomington utilities as of today and we're not able to work through those 00:03:32.394 --> 00:03:38.819 - and so they're requesting continuance to the May meeting. So that will need to take a vote since that 00:03:38.819 --> 00:03:41.086 - happened after the packet went out. 00:03:42.178 --> 00:03:50.831 - And then second, in your agenda, we have updated rules and procedures for the plan commission. So this 00:03:50.831 --> 00:03:59.484 - is kind of an upkeep of wording within there, removing old references to previous plans that have been 00:03:59.484 --> 00:04:07.970 - replaced, the comprehensive plan or the master plan, as well as new language regarding just a lot of 00:04:07.970 --> 00:04:10.238 - references to file naming, 00:04:11.042 --> 00:04:18.595 - filing fees just a lot of housekeeping stuff. We haven't done any housekeeping and rules and procedures 00:04:18.595 --> 00:04:26.220 - for playing commission a while. So that is one of the other items. You don't have to vote on that. We're 00:04:26.220 --> 00:04:33.918 - just giving that to you for reference. I'm sorry. You do have to vote on that. I'm sorry. Say again Brad. 00:04:46.850 --> 00:05:01.741 - Yes, so under reports and resolutions from staff, you should see a link to document titled updated rules 00:05:01.741 --> 00:05:12.094 - and procedures. Okay, is everybody else? Okay, it is working for others. 00:05:14.882 --> 00:05:21.751 - Yeah, again, thank you, we wanna thank you for the patience as we work through how documents are linked 00:05:21.751 --> 00:05:28.753 - in this new arrangement. The arrangement here of the agenda is to meet certain accessibility requirements 00:05:28.753 --> 00:05:35.755 - and so that is what is bringing forward a lot of these changes that you'll see in terms of how the packet 00:05:35.755 --> 00:05:42.558 - is formally presented to you now. And so I'm assuming we'll need a vote to adopt these new rules. Yes. 00:05:44.258 --> 00:05:50.986 - Recording in progress. Is this something that you want us to act on tonight or? You can if you want 00:05:50.986 --> 00:05:57.714 - additional time to look at that. We can certainly continue that to the May hearing and you can vote 00:05:57.714 --> 00:06:04.509 - on it at that time. There's nothing in there that's time sensitive that has to happen tonight. Okay. 00:06:04.509 --> 00:06:11.574 - Well, I would feel more comfortable having a little more time to read it over. So if that unless someone 00:06:11.574 --> 00:06:13.054 - else wants to move to 00:06:13.218 --> 00:06:20.695 - Vote on that tonight. I would just just soon take the time and Deal with it at the next meeting. Yes, 00:06:20.695 --> 00:06:28.172 - Commissioner Sasberg The notice the mailing notices was changed in a couple places from 21 days to 10 00:06:28.172 --> 00:06:35.870 - days and I guess I'm just Concerned like because it looked like some of those I guess I'm just concerned 00:06:35.870 --> 00:06:38.142 - about the speed of the mail. I 00:06:39.010 --> 00:06:49.537 - And so that was actually that was done in the UDO I think last year or the year before that. So this 00:06:49.537 --> 00:06:59.230 - is just syncing this data with what's in the UDO. Any other questions on the new rules. Yes. 00:07:00.162 --> 00:07:05.254 - So that one it's like it looks like a substantive change But it was to make it comply with rule changes 00:07:05.254 --> 00:07:10.297 - that had already existed elsewhere that controlled Yes are all of the changes like that because I look 00:07:10.297 --> 00:07:15.291 - through and there were many of them that were clearly technical But there were many of them that like 00:07:15.291 --> 00:07:20.286 - well that substantive so work Can you confirm that literally every one of the substantive changes was 00:07:20.286 --> 00:07:21.118 - to conform with? 00:07:21.314 --> 00:07:27.413 - Yes you know the rules and procedures aren't really laws. Those are just kind of best management practices 00:07:27.413 --> 00:07:33.113 - and how meetings are run. So you know the actual law the meat of it is the UDO. These are just kind 00:07:33.113 --> 00:07:39.382 - of the day to day housekeeping things that help run a lot of the basic things. So there's nothing substantial 00:07:39.382 --> 00:07:45.253 - that I can. I just mean substantive as opposed to technical correction like some of them were removing 00:07:45.253 --> 00:07:50.782 - commas and things like that. Yeah it's obviously not an issue but when you're changing dates and 00:07:51.010 --> 00:07:56.382 - things like that periods for reply and those types of things if they were all made to comply with changes 00:07:56.382 --> 00:08:01.652 - that have already been made Fine, but it sure were any of them. Yeah, we'll scan it quickly But I don't 00:08:01.652 --> 00:08:06.922 - think anymore Jackie Scanlon assistant director like we changed for example the appeal period from five 00:08:06.922 --> 00:08:12.040 - days to ten That was something we did in the UDO a couple of years ago so we are just trying to sink 00:08:12.040 --> 00:08:14.878 - that in here because it's confusing for people also the 00:08:15.362 --> 00:08:22.062 - The fee schedule stuff that's all already been approved by Planning Commission. It just doesn't live 00:08:22.062 --> 00:08:29.227 - in here correctly yet So all of that that you can see in the fee schedule Is the same we are now processing 00:08:29.227 --> 00:08:36.193 - class two permits differently so we Made some changes in here to note that And some of the other changes 00:08:36.193 --> 00:08:42.893 - related to like who interested parties are again, that's already been done in the Plan Commission. I 00:08:42.893 --> 00:08:44.286 - don't think I'm just 00:08:44.418 --> 00:08:52.475 - Quickly, but I don't think there were any other substantive that we wanted to or thought you might want 00:08:52.475 --> 00:09:00.455 - to address The 21 to 10 was done a number of years ago So that all of the boards and commissions could 00:09:00.455 --> 00:09:08.744 - be the same Because some were 21 and some were 10 that we staff just a second Yeah, and then just changing 00:09:08.744 --> 00:09:11.998 - some of the verbiage changing some of the 00:09:12.098 --> 00:09:19.455 - again to match the UDO. We took out like the minutes that you see are summary and it used to describe 00:09:19.455 --> 00:09:26.955 - them and say that they need to be described in more detail so we took that out because we've been doing 00:09:26.955 --> 00:09:34.240 - summary now for a couple of years which is what legal you know said was good for us to do. So yeah I 00:09:34.240 --> 00:09:37.918 - don't think there were any other substantive ones. 00:09:41.410 --> 00:09:48.308 - Any other questions? Commissioner Kinsey, I think you may have answered this Jackie in the comment you 00:09:48.308 --> 00:09:55.406 - just made but Regarding the sinking of the documents, but the one that stood out to me was the interested 00:09:55.406 --> 00:10:02.237 - party 300 feet versus the contiguous and adjacent if that's is that one of those instances too? Okay, 00:10:02.237 --> 00:10:06.590 - so now we're in sync with what is in the UDO. Okay. Thank you. I 00:10:08.450 --> 00:10:16.107 - And that particular language actually kind of increases the public notification requirement because 00:10:16.107 --> 00:10:23.763 - it's a broader circle. Thank you. All right. Any other questions. All right. Any other reports from 00:10:23.763 --> 00:10:31.650 - staff. Nope. Like I mentioned you will need to vote on the other continuance for that petition at 1320 00:10:31.650 --> 00:10:37.086 - South Rogers. OK. Yeah we can go ahead and do that now. It's a little. 00:10:39.074 --> 00:10:48.861 - Out of order but I would entertain a motion to continue S. P. Twenty twenty six dash oh three dash triple 00:10:48.861 --> 00:10:58.371 - oh five to the. May meeting. Motion to continue S. P. Twenty twenty six dash zero three dash zero zero 00:10:58.371 --> 00:11:05.758 - five built out LLC at 1320 South Rogers to the main meeting. Is there a second. 00:11:08.162 --> 00:11:21.854 - All right. Any discussion? Seems pretty straightforward. All right, let's call the roll on the motion 00:11:21.854 --> 00:11:37.022 - to continue. Seymour. Yes. Call Rodkey. Yes. Holmes. Yes. Kenzie. Yes. Smith. I'm sorry. Sorry. Holmes. Yes. No. 00:11:40.098 --> 00:12:04.126 - Their Stossberg, yes Whistler, yes, Burrell, yeah, Korodke Got you already I think we got it. Yes Okay 00:12:04.994 --> 00:12:12.600 - Motion carries that petition is continued to the main meeting. We'll move on now to petitions. We're 00:12:12.600 --> 00:12:20.282 - going to hear tonight beginning with our consent agenda. There is one item on the consent agenda that 00:12:20.282 --> 00:12:28.114 - is zio twenty twenty six dash oh four dash triple oh five. This is a resolution related to the creation 00:12:28.114 --> 00:12:34.590 - of a TIF allocation area for the summit PUD. Is there any commissioner who would like 00:12:34.850 --> 00:12:43.752 - That to be removed from the consent agenda and receive a full hearing tonight Or are we okay Moving 00:12:43.752 --> 00:12:53.188 - forward with the consent agenda So my understanding is we're supposed to approve a Declaratory resolution 00:12:53.188 --> 00:13:02.535 - and then the plan make sure it complies with UDO Is that what we normally do because I did not see those 00:13:02.535 --> 00:13:03.870 - items attached 00:13:04.418 --> 00:13:10.448 - Okay, so you do not approve the declaratory resolution. The RDC does that. You are looking 00:13:10.448 --> 00:13:17.273 - at that declaratory resolution, which is in the third party exhibits folder under this, what? I didn't 00:13:17.273 --> 00:13:23.966 - see that earlier. You did not see it. It was not there when you emailed earlier. You could get to it 00:13:23.966 --> 00:13:30.792 - through the other folders, but there wasn't a direct link. So that was added later this afternoon. I'm 00:13:30.792 --> 00:13:32.382 - happy to talk about it. 00:13:32.578 --> 00:13:42.168 - or Mr. Kirk can as well. But basically what you're doing as the plan commission is saying whether or 00:13:42.168 --> 00:13:51.948 - not you think the declaratory resolution and the redevelopment plan, which we know is summit a TIF for 00:13:51.948 --> 00:13:58.974 - the summit PUD or a number of tips for the summit PUD is in line with the 00:13:59.106 --> 00:14:06.373 - Development of our unit. So basically what the main I think easiest way to think about that is Is the 00:14:06.373 --> 00:14:13.498 - tip that they're proposing or a little group of tips in line with what the comprehensive plan wants 00:14:13.498 --> 00:14:20.836 - in that area Which is residential and that's what the tip is for So that's why we recommended that you 00:14:20.836 --> 00:14:27.961 - all Approve the proposed resolution and redevelopment plan But we do not have the is their language 00:14:27.961 --> 00:14:28.958 - to the TIF or 00:14:29.442 --> 00:14:39.013 - Yes, it's all in that third party exhibits folder and I can I'm happy to share some of that If you guys 00:14:39.013 --> 00:14:48.675 - want to pull it off the agenda I Just started to do it, but then I typically consent agenda is our items 00:14:48.675 --> 00:14:57.694 - that are you know housekeeping items or generally non-controversial items that staff doesn't feel 00:14:57.922 --> 00:15:07.018 - deserve a full hearing. If you wanna have a full hearing and have questions and debate about it, then 00:15:07.018 --> 00:15:16.115 - you would need to remove that from the consent agenda and have a full hearing. Go ahead, Commissioner 00:15:16.115 --> 00:15:25.389 - Kinsey. I know we're all getting used to the new format and it is challenging to sort through a variety 00:15:25.389 --> 00:15:27.262 - of different folders 00:15:27.554 --> 00:15:34.287 - I did see everything this afternoon but given the fact that some people have not seen everything we 00:15:34.287 --> 00:15:41.021 - could do this one as we could remove it from the consent agenda to treat it to make sure that we're 00:15:41.021 --> 00:15:47.956 - really giving it light of day and I don't think it would take too much time to do that just to be sure 00:15:47.956 --> 00:15:54.622 - in case there are any questions. So I would agree to that mostly because I think we're all getting 00:15:54.754 --> 00:16:06.714 - Oriented to the new folder structures here more than anything. Yes. So if you pull it it will go in 00:16:06.714 --> 00:16:18.913 - line Numerically, so it'll be the last item Which is fine. I'm just in case you thought we were gonna 00:16:18.913 --> 00:16:24.414 - talk about now we are not All right Last call 00:16:24.578 --> 00:16:35.209 - Mr. Stossberg, I was going to move to approve the consent agenda Second all right any final discussion 00:16:35.209 --> 00:16:45.840 - on the consent agenda Is there any public comment on the consent agenda All right, let's call the roll 00:16:45.840 --> 00:16:53.374 - on approval of the consent agenda co broad key yes Holmes yes Kinsey yes 00:16:53.858 --> 00:17:05.939 - Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Bishop. Yes, Burrell Seaborg. Yes All right motion carries and the consent 00:17:05.939 --> 00:17:18.137 - agenda is approved we're now on to Our full hearing petitions. We will start with zeo 2026-01-0019 These 00:17:18.137 --> 00:17:21.854 - are technical amendments to the 00:17:21.954 --> 00:17:29.118 - And I believe we've got Jamie Kreindler here, the case manager, to present. Take it away, Jamie. 00:17:55.138 --> 00:18:00.957 - You'll have to bear with us a little bit. There appears to be a lag in Zoom between what we're doing 00:18:00.957 --> 00:18:05.566 - and what's showing on the screen. So give us just a minute here as it syncs up. 00:18:19.842 --> 00:18:26.394 - So real quick, I'll just kind of preface this and lead off the first section and then Jamie I'll take 00:18:26.394 --> 00:18:27.550 - over for the next 00:18:27.618 --> 00:18:33.540 - Chapter and kind of alternate. So what is coming for the Planning Commission tonight are the series 00:18:33.540 --> 00:18:39.581 - of annual amendments that we do to the UDO you know these range from cleanup of various items such as 00:18:39.581 --> 00:18:45.148 - punctuation and missing commas and capitalized words to Things that are that are a little bit 00:18:45.148 --> 00:18:51.188 - more substantial in nature So we'll point out the things that are substantial in nature And then just 00:18:51.188 --> 00:18:57.584 - kind of leave it open for what the Planning Commission might want to call out so the first petition that is 00:18:57.584 --> 00:19:03.909 - Before you tonight are for the amendments that we call or classified kind of the technical So these 00:19:03.909 --> 00:19:10.361 - are certainly the situations where you just have misspellings Commas that are missing a footnote that 00:19:10.361 --> 00:19:15.358 - might be off and so in these technical amendments we have about 18 or so about 00:19:15.778 --> 00:19:21.466 - amendments and I can just kind of go through those if you need to. As I mentioned, these are missing 00:19:21.466 --> 00:19:27.154 - commas, missing citations. Also, one of the things that we're doing in the UDO is removing or trying 00:19:27.154 --> 00:19:27.774 - to sync up 00:19:27.970 --> 00:19:34.294 - References to city departments. So we'll be removing references to city when we're saying city planning 00:19:34.294 --> 00:19:40.435 - department or city engineering and just saying planning department or engineering so you'll see that 00:19:40.435 --> 00:19:46.820 - commonality as we move through some of the chapters and some of the Sections so the technical amendments 00:19:46.820 --> 00:19:53.082 - as I mentioned there were just kind of cleaning up something removing some references to city and just 00:19:53.082 --> 00:19:56.670 - referencing the transportation department correcting typos 00:19:57.538 --> 00:20:03.941 - Yeah, that's that's pretty much a lot of what these technical amendments are to spelling a few spelling 00:20:03.941 --> 00:20:10.158 - errors some citations again to city and departments And so with that, you know We're happy to answer 00:20:10.158 --> 00:20:16.561 - any specific questions if you have about this particular section of the amendments All right. Are there 00:20:16.561 --> 00:20:18.654 - any questions from commissioners? 00:20:27.618 --> 00:20:35.863 - I have a question on the payments in lieu of sidewalks language So we will get to that that is in chapter 00:20:35.863 --> 00:20:43.642 - four So that will that will be the the next section after that. So go ahead and save that question. 00:20:43.642 --> 00:20:51.576 - Thanks Any other questions from commissioners about the technical corrections Commissioner Stossberg, 00:20:51.576 --> 00:20:57.566 - I Just have kind of a general question. I think because in your memo it says 00:20:57.698 --> 00:21:04.187 - It seems to imply the PDF version, which is not in sync with the Munich code version. And so some of 00:21:04.187 --> 00:21:10.805 - these corrections are to basically correct and Munich code things that already may have been corrected 00:21:10.805 --> 00:21:12.990 - in the PDF. Did I get that right? 00:21:13.186 --> 00:21:19.067 - There are I don't think in this particular section there is that situation I think in the next one or 00:21:19.067 --> 00:21:24.832 - two down the line There is one of those situations where we're fixing something or just sinking the 00:21:24.832 --> 00:21:30.598 - two There was a separate sheet in that Google sheet that you had that were some municode references 00:21:30.598 --> 00:21:36.421 - that we need to fix But that's not part of this. We're dealing with that separately with the clerk's 00:21:36.421 --> 00:21:42.878 - office But in this particular section, there aren't any of those situations where we're fixing a municode error 00:21:43.362 --> 00:21:48.922 - But in terms of like the PDF version that you're referencing, it's like what's linked from the planning 00:21:48.922 --> 00:21:54.376 - and transportation page. Is that the PDF version that you're? Yeah, that's the PDF version. I believe 00:21:54.376 --> 00:21:59.990 - this is the first year that we've done the redlining in Municode too. So that was a little bit different 00:21:59.990 --> 00:22:05.336 - for us and maybe different for some of you. But as we were working through the Municode redline, we 00:22:05.336 --> 00:22:10.843 - noticed there were some discrepancies that didn't quite match with the PDF version. So that's the goal 00:22:10.843 --> 00:22:11.966 - of this is to try to 00:22:12.098 --> 00:22:18.388 - Remedy those discrepancies and get that cleaned up Okay, are we still gonna be able to have the PDF 00:22:18.388 --> 00:22:24.866 - version in terms of like accessibility stuff? Or are we just gonna have like the entire you do as part 00:22:24.866 --> 00:22:31.281 - of me Munich code now and not have the separate PDF A version of the PDF the PDF itself does not meet 00:22:31.281 --> 00:22:37.571 - accessibility requirements So we've we've done a lot of work in-house to create a different version 00:22:37.571 --> 00:22:41.470 - of that That still looks that way. That's not the Munich code 00:22:41.666 --> 00:22:48.278 - look. So we're working on creating an equivalent version of that. Okay, so that will update them. Yeah, 00:22:48.278 --> 00:22:54.635 - we were able to convert the word doc of the PDF to a Google Doc, and we've been working through it. 00:22:54.635 --> 00:23:01.184 - So it might look a little bit different in terms of like the page numbers might not align one for one, 00:23:01.184 --> 00:23:06.206 - but we have success successfully made all the seven chapters accessible. There 00:23:06.306 --> 00:23:11.876 - We're currently split up into seven different chapters, though, so we're going to see if we can somehow 00:23:11.876 --> 00:23:17.393 - combine it into one. But it was a little bit of a struggle with such a large document trying to review 00:23:17.393 --> 00:23:22.749 - it for accessibility. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm just going to put a plug-in for that PDF version, 00:23:22.749 --> 00:23:28.105 - which is a lot easier to look up some of those subheading things than it is in Unicode, so I'm glad 00:23:28.105 --> 00:23:30.622 - that we're still going to manage to have that. 00:23:30.850 --> 00:23:37.633 - Yeah, we're certainly aware of that and that was one of the main benefits of the PDF is it's a lot more 00:23:37.633 --> 00:23:44.285 - user-friendly Especially with all the hyperlinks that are in there that allows you to jump around and 00:23:44.285 --> 00:23:51.003 - move through there So we certainly recognize that that is a high priority and so we're working on that 00:23:51.003 --> 00:23:57.916 - Any other questions So if I may so when we're reconciling the muni code and the PDF version is it because 00:23:57.916 --> 00:23:59.742 - one of them was changed and 00:24:00.578 --> 00:24:06.537 - And we have to yet update the other one like so was an amendment made and if that amendment was put 00:24:06.537 --> 00:24:12.556 - in Municode or whichever one and then the other one wasn't Or these discrepancies. Yes. So there are 00:24:12.556 --> 00:24:18.694 - some situations where we're just syncing these up There were some things that we don't we're not quite 00:24:18.694 --> 00:24:23.998 - sure where they got off the line in Municode So we're just kind of Is the one that's off 00:24:24.226 --> 00:24:31.269 - and that the PDF is the source of truth, or is Unicode the source of truth? Yes, the PDF should be that 00:24:31.269 --> 00:24:38.177 - way. However, there are some things that we've just found that we're not quite sure, like I said, how 00:24:38.177 --> 00:24:45.289 - they got there. Hi. I'm trying to see if I'm getting it. Is that on? OK. OK. So the PDF is this gigantic 00:24:45.289 --> 00:24:52.129 - Word document, actually, that the consultants made for us, Clary & Associates, six years ago. And so 00:24:52.129 --> 00:24:53.822 - every year we update it. 00:24:54.178 --> 00:24:59.560 - And it has some glitches in it. So sometimes we've seen we've brought amendments to you where we're 00:24:59.560 --> 00:25:04.996 - like taking out a Repeated part of the text that for some reason is just duplicating in the PDF, but 00:25:04.996 --> 00:25:10.539 - we haven't been able to figure out how to get it out So the PDF is what we've used in the past to show 00:25:10.539 --> 00:25:16.136 - you what should be in Unicode and whenever the Planning Commission approves a PDF that's what gets sent 00:25:16.136 --> 00:25:19.742 - to the codifier that they use to make the changes but occasionally 00:25:20.034 --> 00:25:28.135 - Sorry? Yes. So especially because of the accessibility discussion, we have determined that when we come 00:25:28.135 --> 00:25:36.469 - here now, we'll use the Municode version because it's just cleaner. So what we did was actually go through 00:25:36.469 --> 00:25:44.414 - and try to make sure they were all exactly the same. Some of the things that, most of the things were 00:25:44.578 --> 00:25:50.663 - Sorry, some things were missing from Municode. We were able to track down those old ordinances and say 00:25:50.663 --> 00:25:56.748 - to the clerk like, hey, can you check with the codifier because here is what should have been done and 00:25:56.748 --> 00:26:02.715 - they didn't do it. And so those things are being updated and you're not seeing that. But some of the 00:26:02.715 --> 00:26:08.682 - errors are in the PDF if they were like, if for some reason the PDF kind of like did some formatting 00:26:08.682 --> 00:26:13.822 - on its own. So that's why after this year it should be clear that the Municode is the, 00:26:14.562 --> 00:26:20.898 - legal version, yes. So are we voting on correcting the PDF? No. What are we voting on specifically? 00:26:20.898 --> 00:26:27.488 - You're voting on correcting the Munichode. So again, because of our new system, we should not have sent 00:26:27.488 --> 00:26:33.951 - you that whole Google sheet. We should have just sent you the sheets that say Munichode and PDF only, 00:26:33.951 --> 00:26:40.667 - because the PDF only ones we made when we were trying to decide how we were gonna do it, but those aren't 00:26:40.667 --> 00:26:43.582 - coming to you. It's just the Munichode fixes. 00:26:44.130 --> 00:26:49.607 - You say fixes. Do you mean these were errors or are these amendments? We're making some are so in the 00:26:49.607 --> 00:26:55.299 - technical in the technical version They're almost all they're either errors or like corrections of saying 00:26:55.299 --> 00:27:00.829 - engineering department instead of planning But the other ones in the other three ordinances those will 00:27:00.829 --> 00:27:06.253 - be amendments They're all amendments, but most of technical is fixes. Okay. Okay. I'm just trying to 00:27:06.253 --> 00:27:11.998 - make sure we're not voting to like we've got the municode it's the source of truth and now we're voting to 00:27:12.130 --> 00:27:22.555 - fix the PDF, just making sure we're not doing that. And then we will make an updated accessible version 00:27:22.555 --> 00:27:32.580 - in Google Docs based on those changes. Thank you. Any other questions on the technical corrections? 00:27:32.580 --> 00:27:38.494 - All right, is there any public comment on ZO 2026-01-0019? 00:27:42.818 --> 00:27:51.225 - Are there any online participants who would like to comment? If so, just click on your reactions button 00:27:51.225 --> 00:27:59.633 - and click to raise your virtual hand or send a message to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when 00:27:59.633 --> 00:28:07.070 - it's your turn to speak. I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay. Last call for public comment. 00:28:09.474 --> 00:28:18.258 - All right, we are back to the commission. Any final discussion or emotion on zero twenty twenty six 00:28:18.258 --> 00:28:27.480 - dash one dash zero zero one nine. I'll motion to approve the technical corrections in zero twenty twenty 00:28:27.480 --> 00:28:32.926 - six dash zero one dash zero zero one nine. Is there a second. 00:28:38.018 --> 00:28:56.840 - Let's call the roll on the motion to approve. Yes. Stossburg. Yes. Whistler. Yes. Bishop. Yes. Burrell. 00:28:56.840 --> 00:29:07.518 - Yes. Seaborg. Yes. Co. Rodkey. Yes. Holmes. Yes. And that. 00:29:08.002 --> 00:29:14.729 - The petition is approved. We're on now to Zio 2026-02-002. Okay, I'll go ahead and present this one. 00:29:14.729 --> 00:29:21.455 - So Jamie Kreindler senior zoning planner. So this is the proposed amendments for chapter four, which 00:29:21.455 --> 00:29:28.448 - deals with the development standards and incentives. So this is a big one. I won't touch on every single 00:29:28.448 --> 00:29:33.310 - one, but I'll try to highlight some of the more substantial changes that 00:29:33.634 --> 00:29:40.408 - you might be interested in and you're welcome to ask questions about anything. So the first few are 00:29:40.408 --> 00:29:47.589 - just adding some footnotes that we're missing. Footnote two has to do with the incentives, so just wanted 00:29:47.589 --> 00:29:54.702 - to make sure that matches other language in the UDO. And the proposed additions to the table 04-6, which 00:29:54.702 --> 00:30:01.950 - deals with types of exceptions that are allowed, we're proposing to add a new type of exception that would 00:30:02.082 --> 00:30:10.255 - Allow structures doing additions to get closer to compliance for build two ranges There is a proposed 00:30:10.255 --> 00:30:18.347 - change that deals with changing the small parcels from two acres to one acre and adding a preference 00:30:18.347 --> 00:30:27.161 - for heritage trees and Some of these two are dealing with technical changes like deal deleting an unnecessary 00:30:27.161 --> 00:30:30.366 - comma and removing the city label we're 00:30:30.626 --> 00:30:38.591 - proposing to modify the slope language to align with state law. So that says that we can't regulate 00:30:38.591 --> 00:30:46.795 - steep slopes or we can regulate if the maximum slope is 25%. And then there are some changes that deal 00:30:46.795 --> 00:30:54.839 - with adding that items that are exempt from getting a flood plain development permit are also exempt 00:30:54.839 --> 00:31:00.574 - from getting a conditional use permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals. 00:31:01.250 --> 00:31:07.828 - One of the bigger changes is that we're proposing to add new language about a fee in lieu of path sidewalk 00:31:07.828 --> 00:31:14.098 - or trail construction. So this would involve removing the determinant sidewalk variances. We would no 00:31:14.098 --> 00:31:20.430 - longer do those. Instead, we would have a fund. So if someone was not building a sidewalk as required, 00:31:20.430 --> 00:31:26.577 - they'd be contributing a payment and that would be a payment in lieu. So that's something different 00:31:26.577 --> 00:31:28.606 - that we are proposing this year. 00:31:33.602 --> 00:31:39.940 - There is an amendment that deals with adding that EV charging requirements for auto sales are based 00:31:39.940 --> 00:31:46.532 - on customer employee parking just to more clearly define how we do that. We're proposing to add roofing 00:31:46.532 --> 00:31:50.462 - materials within the mixed use and non-residential districts. 00:31:57.218 --> 00:32:05.124 - There's a, we worked with the urban forester throughout this process and he represents the tree commission. 00:32:05.124 --> 00:32:12.518 - So some of the changes we talked about with Haskell and one of them is for the street trees to allow 00:32:12.518 --> 00:32:20.058 - one and a half inch caliper, which is a reduction, I think it's two inches now. So we would allow that 00:32:20.058 --> 00:32:24.670 - if approved by the urban forester. We're adding back language. 00:32:24.834 --> 00:32:33.226 - That was previously in the code then removed and now it's under our jurisdiction again. So that's about 00:32:33.226 --> 00:32:41.537 - plastic netting per MS4. Some of the changes have to do with species for street trees. And again, that 00:32:41.537 --> 00:32:49.687 - was working with the urban forester. And then another change I'll highlight is about the parking lot 00:32:49.687 --> 00:32:54.206 - perimeter landscaping. So the change now has to do with 00:32:54.434 --> 00:33:02.627 - we would only include it for the perimeter of the parking lot, and it would not be included in the interior 00:33:02.627 --> 00:33:10.288 - like it is now. And Eric worked on that, so he can give you more of the specifics. I think those are 00:33:10.288 --> 00:33:17.874 - the main changes I wanted to highlight at the end of this. There are a handful that have to do with 00:33:17.874 --> 00:33:22.046 - removing ornamental from the code, referring to trees. 00:33:22.370 --> 00:33:34.291 - Instead changing it to small medium in some cases are just not including it at all Eric did you have 00:33:34.291 --> 00:33:46.212 - anything you wanted to add with this? Planned commissioners have question about specific elements or 00:33:46.212 --> 00:33:52.350 - what we went over My question relates to the change 00:33:52.802 --> 00:34:00.599 - Regarding sidewalks and in the inclusion of payment in lieu or fee in lieu and I wonder what informed 00:34:00.599 --> 00:34:08.855 - that decision I'm gonna probably guess some of it but I would like to hear some explanation of the decision 00:34:08.855 --> 00:34:16.576 - to move to a fee in lieu and then I wondered about the the fund that that goes to and at one point I 00:34:16.576 --> 00:34:19.710 - remember there being a sidewalk fund and 00:34:19.970 --> 00:34:26.105 - That the sidewalk commission had some authority over to determine where sidewalks went and now I see 00:34:26.105 --> 00:34:32.423 - it indicates that this will go into the alternate Transportation fund and I wonder what else is in that 00:34:32.423 --> 00:34:38.558 - so just a little more explanation about that dimension of the changes, please Yep, so so we have had 00:34:38.558 --> 00:34:44.633 - an allowance within the udio for a determinant sidewalk variance for a long time So the determinant 00:34:44.633 --> 00:34:45.726 - sidewalk variance 00:34:45.858 --> 00:34:51.800 - Path allows for somebody to seek temporary relief from being required to install a sidewalk They have 00:34:51.800 --> 00:34:57.624 - to record a zoning commitment that says at some point in the future The city can require a sidewalk 00:34:57.624 --> 00:35:03.508 - to be constructed on a property And so we've done these in numerous situations and they're scattered 00:35:03.508 --> 00:35:07.294 - all over the city You know, we we have never to my knowledge yet 00:35:07.458 --> 00:35:13.540 - called one in. They can be somewhat difficult while they are required to be recorded on your deed and 00:35:13.540 --> 00:35:19.683 - so we certainly have a record of tracking them. It can be hard sometimes to know or be able to do that 00:35:19.683 --> 00:35:22.366 - research. Also, it could be very challenging 00:35:22.594 --> 00:35:28.057 - 35 years down the line for a completely different property owner for them to get a notification that 00:35:28.057 --> 00:35:33.790 - they've got to install a sidewalk on their property And mostly it just led to a lot of really challenging 00:35:33.790 --> 00:35:39.198 - situations where we we weren't accomplishing sidewalks in the community we were deferring it and so 00:35:39.458 --> 00:35:45.673 - One path that is prevalent in a lot of other communities is a payment in lieu option where somebody 00:35:45.673 --> 00:35:52.136 - can Make a contribution based on a set amount So every year we would have a set amount of what concrete 00:35:52.136 --> 00:35:58.538 - or asphalt would cost When a situation comes up and somebody's required to install a sidewalk they can 00:35:58.538 --> 00:36:01.086 - either build the sidewalk or make that a 00:36:01.218 --> 00:36:08.386 - So it would go to the sidewalk fund and I believe that that's something that the the City Council sidewalk 00:36:08.386 --> 00:36:15.152 - Commission would then administer in terms of where that gets used In addition to the money that they 00:36:15.152 --> 00:36:21.918 - also have as part of the yearly appropriations So this is just a better solution to the problem that 00:36:22.210 --> 00:36:29.771 - Results in sidewalks actually getting constructed in a more recent time frame rather than just Determinant 00:36:29.771 --> 00:36:37.332 - sidewalk variance that sits on a property and nothing ever really happens You know, it makes for sometimes 00:36:37.332 --> 00:36:44.398 - a lot of really difficult discussions at the Board of Zoning Appeals When we have these and so this 00:36:44.398 --> 00:36:52.030 - is a more pragmatic approach to situations where sidewalks are required If I may follow up that I guess I'm 00:36:52.258 --> 00:37:00.099 - I'm a little concerned about seeming to give up sidewalk construction and I certainly don't want to 00:37:00.099 --> 00:37:06.686 - create any policies that give up sidewalk construction or that somehow make it more 00:37:07.170 --> 00:37:12.722 - Feasible or attractive to just pay the fee Yep, so this is something that the that the department looks 00:37:12.722 --> 00:37:18.061 - at so this is not an allowance, you know There might be a situation where we say, you know based on 00:37:18.061 --> 00:37:23.934 - that criteria that are in here that no you you are not eligible For this and you have to install the sidewalk 00:37:28.642 --> 00:37:35.245 - Serious consideration. I mean, I mean I see the beginning of the statement. We support the installation 00:37:35.245 --> 00:37:41.658 - of paths sidewalks and trails and just one more thing that what else is is in the Alt Transportation 00:37:41.658 --> 00:37:48.134 - fund what else is that a lot of things or is it really exclusive to sidewalks paths? So this would be 00:37:48.134 --> 00:37:54.611 - a fund for this specifically to my knowledge I you know, I'm not aware of anything else that would be 00:37:54.611 --> 00:37:57.214 - contributing to this other than this and 00:37:57.890 --> 00:38:05.665 - Sorry Ryan Robin kid probably address that better. Yeah, I I guess I'm I'm You know certainly pro sidewalk, 00:38:05.665 --> 00:38:13.080 - so I want to make sure that we don't end up building other sorts of things Eric is partially right the 00:38:13.080 --> 00:38:20.351 - alternative transportation fund already exist several things pay into it a big one is excess funding 00:38:20.351 --> 00:38:24.670 - from parking revenue specifically neighborhood permits, but 00:38:24.802 --> 00:38:31.434 - It is a fund that is in control of council as Eric mentioned specifically the now called pedestrian 00:38:31.434 --> 00:38:38.266 - safety committee so that is formerly the sidewalk committee and is Made up of council members and then 00:38:38.266 --> 00:38:44.898 - voted on by all of council to make pedestrian improvements It used to just be sidewalks, but now we 00:38:44.898 --> 00:38:51.531 - are focusing on the high injury network So sidewalks and other pedestrian safety improvements along 00:38:51.531 --> 00:38:52.990 - high injury corridors 00:39:00.322 --> 00:39:10.262 - Any other questions? Yes Yeah, I wanted to do a follow-up on the payment in Lewis sidewalks as well 00:39:10.262 --> 00:39:12.350 - it says in here that 00:39:12.450 --> 00:39:18.569 - The payment in lieu would be determined by the Planning and Transportation Department when required 00:39:18.569 --> 00:39:24.811 - path or sidewalk and trail is not feasible due to existing practical difficulties associated with the 00:39:24.811 --> 00:39:31.052 - property. So it sounds like we're penalizing developers, property owners, when a sidewalk is not able 00:39:31.052 --> 00:39:37.416 - to be put in. We're going to require them to pay money for that. And that seems to be counterproductive 00:39:37.416 --> 00:39:38.334 - to the idea of 00:39:38.434 --> 00:39:44.530 - Collecting a payment when sidewalks cannot be put in because the developer does not want to not that 00:39:44.530 --> 00:39:50.566 - they cannot So could you clarify that please? Yep, so the criteria is set up so that you know There 00:39:50.566 --> 00:39:56.722 - has to be something unique about here that doesn't allow them to so it's not a you know We don't want 00:39:56.722 --> 00:40:02.818 - to you know, they they've got to show that they meet the criteria that are in there but if sidewalks 00:40:02.818 --> 00:40:05.534 - can't be put in why would we charge them and 00:40:05.698 --> 00:40:11.371 - Because they can't put sidewalks in so the alternative would be you know, they would seek determinate 00:40:11.371 --> 00:40:16.933 - sidewalk variants But again, as I mentioned, you know that doesn't result in a real accomplishment, 00:40:16.933 --> 00:40:22.662 - you know that just postpones something indefinitely Whereas this provides a mechanism that does result 00:40:22.662 --> 00:40:28.446 - in improvements within a more rational and you know Ryan can maybe supplement that a little bit if he I 00:40:29.474 --> 00:40:34.881 - Ryan rolling planning services manager again Eric's right, but I would also note that sidewalks are 00:40:34.881 --> 00:40:40.504 - always required It's the options are a determinant sidewalk variance Which means eventually you'll have 00:40:40.504 --> 00:40:46.127 - to pay for a sidewalk or you'll redesign your site so that a sidewalk does fit there are rules In place 00:40:46.127 --> 00:40:51.643 - to require that so this would give an option to not have to kick the can down the road It would allow 00:40:51.643 --> 00:40:57.374 - us to do something right now with that excess money and then later on the city can come in and redesign a 00:40:57.666 --> 00:41:05.007 - Either the right of way or the site to have a compliant sidewalk, which is difficult for some developers 00:41:05.007 --> 00:41:11.999 - right now Okay language just seems ambiguous. Is there a way to make it a little more clear because 00:41:11.999 --> 00:41:19.060 - The way I read is that if you're unable to build those then we will charge you for them and put them 00:41:19.060 --> 00:41:25.982 - into the alternative transportation fund Because it specifically says it's not feasible to do so I 00:41:27.874 --> 00:41:35.196 - And I just I can't wrap my head around that I Mean we're certainly open to suggestions the language 00:41:35.196 --> 00:41:42.737 - that we have in here now You know that talks about the constraints, you know the topography of the lot 00:41:42.737 --> 00:41:50.206 - or adjacent lots are undeveloped And that uniformity, you know the language that you see there now is 00:41:50.206 --> 00:41:55.038 - very identical to what the determinant sidewalk variance criteria 00:41:55.170 --> 00:42:01.824 - Supplemental findings I should say you know variance has always had to be based on the three stated 00:42:01.824 --> 00:42:08.545 - criteria and then there are additional review criteria that while not to be you know made as part of 00:42:08.545 --> 00:42:15.266 - specific findings of fact can be taken into consideration such as you know that the topography a lot 00:42:15.266 --> 00:42:22.387 - is is present some challenge or that you know adjacent properties aren't developed and there are developed 00:42:22.387 --> 00:42:23.518 - and you know the 00:42:23.778 --> 00:42:31.208 - Requirements or a sidewalk may not be met on adjacent lots at some point. I Mean, I think we're open 00:42:31.208 --> 00:42:39.153 - if you've got suggestions, but these criteria were very similar to if not identical to How we are currently 00:42:39.153 --> 00:42:46.951 - evaluating the determinant sidewalk variance requests Thank you Continuing on that so these are basically 00:42:46.951 --> 00:42:51.806 - circumstances where they would have been able to get a waiver and 00:42:52.418 --> 00:42:58.187 - Before if the conditions are present at the property that caused it to be not feasible to do it before 00:42:58.187 --> 00:43:03.900 - the right now the way It is they could get a waiver. Yep So the same criteria is what would have been 00:43:03.900 --> 00:43:09.500 - evaluated for the determinant sidewalk variance We know now we're like I said, we're utilizing that 00:43:09.500 --> 00:43:15.269 - for the payment in lieu option That results in that contribution and then we can use that for the area 00:43:15.269 --> 00:43:20.030 - or you know others Sorry just to add to that but it's not a permanent waiver the the 00:43:20.226 --> 00:43:25.732 - Determinant sidewalk variance means that you record a zoning commitment that says if the city decides 00:43:25.732 --> 00:43:31.130 - they want you to build it later You're on the hook for it financially. So In this way, it's more of 00:43:31.130 --> 00:43:36.689 - like an upfront you deal with the issue and you're moving on with your life And it's not following the 00:43:36.689 --> 00:43:42.141 - title of your property forever Which we think is also a benefit to the people living there, you know 00:43:42.141 --> 00:43:47.539 - they can decide whether or not they want to buy that property where they know they're gonna have to 00:43:47.539 --> 00:43:49.374 - you know pay this upfront because 00:43:49.538 --> 00:43:56.285 - it's not a permanent, the variance is not definitive, it's determinate, and so we could always call 00:43:56.285 --> 00:43:58.782 - back later and ask them to build it. 00:43:58.914 --> 00:44:04.808 - To make it because that probably doesn't happen that often, right? There's like how often does the city 00:44:04.808 --> 00:44:10.701 - come back and say we want you to build it? We're just tracking them and people are seeing them in their 00:44:10.701 --> 00:44:16.425 - title and it's not something that we're actually using Right. So like an example would be if we were 00:44:16.425 --> 00:44:22.205 - if the city was going through to build a sidewalk Along you know an eight block stretch if there were 00:44:22.205 --> 00:44:28.382 - determinant variances along there then we could ask those people for money to contribute to that project and 00:44:28.674 --> 00:44:35.377 - That's just kind of messy and not ideal. And so we're trying to make it simpler more expensive up front 00:44:35.377 --> 00:44:42.209 - for sure. I mean if this builder couldn't build it initially the city wouldn't be able to build it later. 00:44:42.209 --> 00:44:48.655 - Sorry You said if the city comes in later, okay, maybe something like that. Okay, so maybe any rule 00:44:48.655 --> 00:44:50.846 - changes other rules And yeah Okay 00:44:51.522 --> 00:44:57.480 - So do we have any idea like how many this would be in a year like given the past year? Did you guys 00:44:57.480 --> 00:45:03.618 - count? Did you make a survey or an estimate of like what's the actual effect of this gonna be? I would 00:45:03.618 --> 00:45:09.576 - say maybe a handful of Determinant sidewalk variance requests that we hear Yes ballpark Turn into a 00:45:09.576 --> 00:45:15.713 - fee now instead of just getting a waiver. Yes now they'll effectively get a waiver But it's now called 00:45:15.713 --> 00:45:19.646 - payment in lieu and they'll have to pay for that waiver. Yes Okay 00:45:19.938 --> 00:45:29.292 - Is is that if you say a handful is that primarily developers or individual Homebuyers, we have most 00:45:29.292 --> 00:45:37.150 - of these situations are single-family homes situations You know, we don't we didn't 00:45:37.282 --> 00:45:42.953 - Don't really encounter this with You know multifamily development or commercial development because 00:45:42.953 --> 00:45:48.851 - they're developing a large piece of ground You know when you're talking about a 40 foot or 50 foot wide 00:45:48.851 --> 00:45:54.692 - single-family lot You know then that's an isolated situation. And so the determinant sidewalk variance 00:45:54.692 --> 00:46:00.647 - criteria might say hey, it's not not appropriate here because you're talking about an isolated situation 00:46:00.647 --> 00:46:05.694 - one lot, you know, whereas multifamily or commercial you have a much larger frontage and 00:46:06.082 --> 00:46:13.734 - So yeah, we don't really deal with this other than typically single-family lots or plexus So I may have 00:46:13.734 --> 00:46:21.312 - missed it there's a lot in this so how much is the payment in the So, you know as I mentioned it would 00:46:21.312 --> 00:46:29.111 - be based on you know what the the cost of concrete is You know just as a guess You know if you're talking 00:46:29.111 --> 00:46:35.070 - about a 50-foot wide lot, you might be talking about three or four thousand Okay 00:46:36.002 --> 00:46:42.133 - Thank you for that if I could maybe Ask other questions. So this kind of feels like a document dump 00:46:42.133 --> 00:46:48.754 - like we've got a ton of Changes that were being asked to accept and this is only one of four this technical 00:46:48.754 --> 00:46:55.007 - ones were easy, but these are full There are several substantive ones and you go through here many of 00:46:55.007 --> 00:47:01.138 - them I have no idea what the effect will be and there's no statement in here of the intended policy 00:47:01.138 --> 00:47:04.510 - purpose for the changes like there's no explanation of 00:47:04.770 --> 00:47:10.272 - I mean it says literally what the changes modifies the scope of this or changes the wording to this. 00:47:10.272 --> 00:47:15.884 - Certainly I've seen why why we're making the change and what we expect the outcome to be is that's for 00:47:15.884 --> 00:47:21.331 - me and for the sheer number of them that we're being asked to look at here. Is there any plan to do 00:47:21.331 --> 00:47:26.997 - some sort of further detail or add to this so that we have a little something to look at to understand. 00:47:26.997 --> 00:47:30.974 - This is why we're making this change because the why is entirely absent. 00:47:32.002 --> 00:47:38.149 - That's a great question and I would say, you know within the amendments that we've got on the table 00:47:38.149 --> 00:47:43.742 - tonight You know this and probably the the other one that is in this chapter in regards to 00:47:43.810 --> 00:47:49.350 - Landscaping changes for parking and then a later one that's dealing with the removal of the standardized 00:47:49.350 --> 00:47:54.678 - business are probably the three biggest things So you're right, you know, probably a little bit more 00:47:54.678 --> 00:48:00.165 - background could have been helpful on this one but that's where I guess a Presentation by staff in this 00:48:00.165 --> 00:48:05.599 - question and answer helps serve that purpose of what it is You know the amendments themselves are just 00:48:05.599 --> 00:48:06.654 - the black and white 00:48:06.882 --> 00:48:15.195 - Changes and so this dialogue here helps to try to supplement that but we can certainly look at adding 00:48:15.195 --> 00:48:23.672 - a little bit more language certainly this Moves to council because this is a big thing and we recognize 00:48:23.672 --> 00:48:31.822 - that Just while we're on that topic could you point us to the language that defines how the payment 00:48:31.822 --> 00:48:33.534 - is is calculated and 00:48:34.722 --> 00:48:41.199 - So that'll that'll be in the administrative manual, you know as I mentioned we'll have a price at the 00:48:41.199 --> 00:48:47.612 - beginning of every year that That that number is based on so it'll be a set amount based on you know 00:48:47.612 --> 00:48:54.279 - in dot has certain estimation numbers that they use there's certainly Standards that are in the industry 00:48:54.279 --> 00:49:00.755 - for what is utilized so that'll be published in the administrative manual for everyone. I See so it's 00:49:00.755 --> 00:49:03.422 - just reference to the administration it's 00:49:04.546 --> 00:49:10.830 - No calculation methodology included in the UDO. It'll just be a raw number, and it'll be a very basic 00:49:10.830 --> 00:49:17.299 - number. Obviously, with installation of sidewalks, there can be a wide range of factors, such as grading 00:49:17.299 --> 00:49:23.521 - and retaining walls, and so we're not factoring that in. We're just looking at a raw number of, this 00:49:23.521 --> 00:49:29.866 - is how much concrete costs per square foot, this is how much this property is, and it'll just be a raw 00:49:29.866 --> 00:49:34.302 - number of that, and a very basic amount. I got it, yeah, I see it's in, 00:49:40.418 --> 00:49:45.240 - Page 165 the fee calculation for approved payments in lieu of paths sidewalks and trails shall be based 00:49:45.240 --> 00:49:50.063 - on the adopted planning and transportation fee schedule That's that's what you're talking about. That's 00:49:50.063 --> 00:49:54.746 - the reference to the that's in the administrative manual. Okay, so just for reference I mean some of 00:49:54.746 --> 00:49:59.429 - you know this but some of you don't you used to have to build sidewalk no matter what if you built a 00:49:59.429 --> 00:50:00.542 - new single-family house 00:50:00.834 --> 00:50:06.473 - And so then people would call them sidewalks to nowhere. And then in 2018, we changed that rule. And 00:50:06.473 --> 00:50:12.168 - you only have to build, if you're building just a one-off single-family house, you only have to build 00:50:12.168 --> 00:50:17.863 - if you're on a classified road, so like one that is typically busier or might feel like it might need 00:50:17.863 --> 00:50:23.558 - more safety for a pedestrian, or if you're adjacent to a sidewalk. So we made that change in 2018. So 00:50:23.558 --> 00:50:28.862 - not every new single-family house we get requires a sidewalk. It's only if they meet the other 00:50:29.058 --> 00:50:36.745 - conditions and I Would say most of them these days they put them in and the plexes So like you can see 00:50:36.745 --> 00:50:44.357 - the new there are some new plexes along 10th Street like east of Lincoln like that's all new sidewalk 00:50:44.357 --> 00:50:52.118 - Most people put them in if they can't then this would be like an alternative. I'll say that eight years 00:50:52.118 --> 00:50:58.014 - ago engineering estimated So Andrew can tell me if this is wild Like 30 to 100 00:50:58.146 --> 00:51:04.535 - per lineal foot for a regular five foot wide sidewalk. And then of course, if there are other outstanding 00:51:04.535 --> 00:51:10.803 - situations for building an actual sidewalk, it could be more, but we'll just be basing ours on how much 00:51:10.803 --> 00:51:17.433 - does concrete cost, not what does your land look like. So we are trying to prioritize pedestrian connections, 00:51:17.433 --> 00:51:23.762 - and as Eric said, what has happened is that when we're doing these determinant sidewalk variances, we're 00:51:23.762 --> 00:51:25.630 - never getting that connection, 00:51:25.794 --> 00:51:35.198 - Or any other connection and so we're trying to find a way there has been a push Just like in the country 00:51:35.198 --> 00:51:44.513 - to kind of update how that's done. And so we are Trying to do that here as well. Thanks Thank you Let's 00:51:44.513 --> 00:51:53.022 - start all the way down at the end and and work our way back here sure just one question to the 00:51:53.154 --> 00:52:01.002 - Transportation Commission weigh in on the sidewalk fee and Lou discussion And what did they share? Yes, 00:52:01.002 --> 00:52:08.548 - the Transportation Commission this went in February to the Transportation Commission. They reviewed 00:52:08.548 --> 00:52:16.623 - it they made a recommendation that the proposal Be changed to not require the review of the Transportation 00:52:16.623 --> 00:52:20.094 - Commission. Otherwise they were supportive of 00:52:20.578 --> 00:52:28.101 - The original proposal or the proposal is to have the transportation as a reviewing body currently determinate 00:52:28.101 --> 00:52:35.009 - sidewalk variances are approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals or hearing officer and staff believes 00:52:35.009 --> 00:52:41.848 - that that is appropriate that someone should review it other than staff to ensure that some sort of 00:52:41.848 --> 00:52:48.414 - compliance or some sort of Criteria are being met rather than just a quick review. So Thank you 00:52:52.546 --> 00:52:58.618 - up on that first because I thought that it said in here that the Transportation Commission was going 00:52:58.618 --> 00:53:04.630 - to review all of those things and then I thought that what I just heard you say was that they don't 00:53:04.630 --> 00:53:10.822 - Want to review all of those things and now I'm confused. Yeah Transportation Commission said that they 00:53:10.822 --> 00:53:17.014 - would prefer to not review it staff still believes that the Transportation Commission is the best body 00:53:17.014 --> 00:53:20.862 - to review it That is the current plan yes, okay great thanks um 00:53:21.250 --> 00:53:28.242 - I have other questions about the payment and looting as well. I just want clarity So in terms of like 00:53:28.242 --> 00:53:35.097 - what we're asking people to pay it's just the cost of the Kong of Concrete as a single material not 00:53:35.097 --> 00:53:42.569 - the cost of any other Materials related to the sidewalk and not the cost of any labor or actual installation 00:53:42.569 --> 00:53:49.150 - or anything like that. It's just the concrete The raw amount of that concrete, okay and so that 00:53:50.050 --> 00:53:57.781 - Fee would not then actually be enough to cover potential construction of a sidewalk say somewhere else 00:53:57.781 --> 00:54:05.286 - I'm so sorry Eric mentioned that I don't actually know that in dots math is that simple and I would 00:54:05.286 --> 00:54:13.017 - actually defer to city engineer or see work I would expect that the cost would reflect the cost of the 00:54:13.017 --> 00:54:16.094 - material and the labor to install it and 00:54:16.226 --> 00:54:22.700 - That's just it would reflect just consistent unit fees that Contractors pay if the city is building 00:54:22.700 --> 00:54:29.369 - a new sidewalk or in data is building a new sidewalk and it's it would include everything to build the 00:54:29.369 --> 00:54:35.973 - sidewalk Number that was stated earlier three or four thousand still correct on say a fifty foot long 00:54:35.973 --> 00:54:42.706 - sidewalk. That's six I'm not in a position to say with confidence what the value would be but just that 00:54:42.706 --> 00:54:43.742 - it would be the 00:54:44.162 --> 00:54:50.405 - aggregate average price For installing it so some some places are very easy and would be much easier 00:54:50.405 --> 00:54:56.710 - to and some places much challenging more challenging more expensive So just be the average unit price 00:54:56.710 --> 00:55:03.077 - in the area. I'm really generally interested in what that number actually is and so just like when you 00:55:03.077 --> 00:55:09.568 - come to council that should be apparent because the Transportation Commission is the one that's actually 00:55:09.568 --> 00:55:11.422 - going to approve that fee and 00:55:11.586 --> 00:55:17.390 - Calculation each year. Is that also what I understood in here? So the fee schedule is fully within the 00:55:17.390 --> 00:55:23.475 - control of planning commission And so now we may not have the answer right now We will have it for council, 00:55:23.475 --> 00:55:29.278 - but also when we bring this up to change the fee schedule We'll tell you how the math works and we can 00:55:29.278 --> 00:55:34.462 - discuss it more then so plan commission has to approve the fee It is your fee. So yes, okay 00:55:37.218 --> 00:55:44.414 - OK, so I just want to make sure that we have alignment here between passing this and then also having 00:55:44.414 --> 00:55:51.468 - the fee go in. And then the other thing about the payment in lieu that I wanted to ask goes back to 00:55:51.468 --> 00:55:56.830 - what Mr. Bishop said earlier about that word feasible. And I was wondering, 00:55:58.466 --> 00:56:05.384 - Whether or not you wanted to wordsmith that word feasible because when you brought that up it was kind 00:56:05.384 --> 00:56:12.437 - of like Oh that that is kind of an interesting word there and wondering if we wanted to say So currently 00:56:12.437 --> 00:56:19.557 - it says Trail is not feasible due to existing practical difficulties associated with the property whether 00:56:19.557 --> 00:56:26.408 - We would be interested in changing that to it's not practical due to existing difficulties associated 00:56:26.408 --> 00:56:28.222 - with the property and then 00:56:28.898 --> 00:56:37.146 - Because in that one two three language below it mentions practice impracticality it mentions that kind 00:56:37.146 --> 00:56:45.554 - of language and I was just wondering whether that would Make mr. Bishop feel better practical reasonable 00:56:45.554 --> 00:56:53.561 - Either one yeah Does anybody else have a thought on changing feasible to practical and then getting 00:56:53.561 --> 00:56:58.686 - rid of practical in front of difficulties because that would be 00:57:03.938 --> 00:57:20.299 - I think that sounds great. Right. Which is basically what this is except they're going to the Transportation 00:57:20.299 --> 00:57:30.206 - Commission to appeal that right. Isn't that basically what it is. 00:57:33.826 --> 00:57:41.937 - that it's not field this the transportation. Yeah. All right. I maybe didn't understand the question. 00:57:41.937 --> 00:57:50.365 - I'm so sorry. If you were to appeal. So the payment in lieu is determined. If the criteria are met that's 00:57:50.365 --> 00:57:58.794 - determined by the Transportation Commission in the current language. If you were to appeal their decision 00:57:58.794 --> 00:58:03.326 - I guess I would still go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 00:58:05.762 --> 00:58:13.305 - So then if you were to appeal the decision in the Transportation Commission, it could go to the Board 00:58:13.305 --> 00:58:20.701 - of Zoning Appeals Was the language Written in this form so it gives people an opportunity to appeal 00:58:20.701 --> 00:58:28.466 - that's what I'm asked It was not written in this form so that it could give you an opportunity to appeal 00:58:28.466 --> 00:58:34.974 - it was written in this form to keep language consistent Practical difficulty is a state 00:58:35.234 --> 00:58:42.622 - Correct term and that is used for Board of Zoning Appeals decisions and that's why I thought it was 00:58:42.622 --> 00:58:50.010 - used that language because It's something that can be used someplace else as well Sort of yes, it's 00:58:50.010 --> 00:58:57.694 - just its language describing a specific set of difficulties that are practical to your property. Yes, I 00:59:04.994 --> 00:59:11.523 - It seems like we would first off. Are we eliminating the waiver? potential for this because Determinant 00:59:11.523 --> 00:59:18.304 - sidewalk variance path would be removed Somebody always has a path to or allowance to apply for a permanent 00:59:18.304 --> 00:59:24.770 - variance Okay, so wouldn't we want I mean if we pass this we want the the waiver the the idea that you 00:59:24.770 --> 00:59:31.111 - can get a waiver it's bad enough that we'll give a waiver don't we want that to match the payment in 00:59:31.111 --> 00:59:33.246 - lieu if those two don't match and 00:59:33.634 --> 00:59:39.226 - Then builders are gonna maybe end up in some situations having a choice of whether to build or make 00:59:39.226 --> 00:59:45.043 - the payment You see what I mean if they don't match if you qualify for both Well, so that's where we're 00:59:45.043 --> 00:59:50.691 - saying, you know, we we don't want we don't want the determinant sidewalk variance path You know, we 00:59:50.691 --> 00:59:56.675 - want because it's the same criteria in essence You know, so this is the option for that or you can request 00:59:56.675 --> 01:00:00.254 - a permanent variance, right? And so those language should match 01:00:00.514 --> 01:00:05.593 - Right, the standards for getting the waiver should match the standards for the payment in lieu. Well, 01:00:05.593 --> 01:00:10.972 - they can be different. You know, this is not a variance. You know, the variance has state mandated criteria 01:00:10.972 --> 01:00:16.101 - that those have to be evaluated on, whereas the payment in lieu or the fee in lieu, you know, that can 01:00:16.101 --> 01:00:16.798 - be different. 01:00:18.338 --> 01:00:23.822 - Like said we're matching the the language that we use for the determinate sidewalk variance. It talked 01:00:23.822 --> 01:00:29.412 - about You know uniformity of development within an area, you know feasibility of developer of installing 01:00:29.412 --> 01:00:34.896 - the sidewalk on a particular property You know adjacent lots or tracks that are undeveloped that might 01:00:34.896 --> 01:00:40.487 - to be developed at a future time You know So that's that's where we're keeping that consistency in terms 01:00:40.487 --> 01:00:45.438 - of what the old requests were evaluated on and this is being evaluated on a very similar run 01:00:50.658 --> 01:01:06.105 - Feasible to reasonable and then keeping practical difficulties with that I'm seeing I'm seeing some 01:01:06.105 --> 01:01:19.390 - heads nodding You're welcome to to make a motion to amend the proposed amendment sure 01:01:20.226 --> 01:01:33.047 - to amend the proposed language and 2004 050 D 11 C Evaluation criteria from feasible to reasonable Is 01:01:33.047 --> 01:01:43.102 - there a second Second All right any discussion on the proposed amendment here I 01:01:51.778 --> 01:02:03.746 - Let's call the roll on the amendment. Stossberg. Yes. Whistler. I'm sorry. I should probably go to public 01:02:03.746 --> 01:02:15.262 - comment on that. Is there any public comment on the proposed amendment to change the word feasible to 01:02:15.262 --> 01:02:19.326 - reasonable. All right. Seeing none. 01:02:19.714 --> 01:02:33.988 - We are back to the roll call. Sorry about that. Yes. Whistler. Yes. Bishop. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seymour. 01:02:33.988 --> 01:02:42.910 - Yes. Co Rodkey. Yes. Helms. Holmes. I'm sorry. Yes. Kinsey. Yes. 01:02:44.738 --> 01:02:55.927 - That motion carries as we're back to questions on the Petition as amended now any other questions 01:02:55.927 --> 01:03:08.258 - Commissioner Stasburg, please. I do have another question that is unrelated to payment in lieu for sidewalk 01:03:08.258 --> 01:03:12.254 - fees under the 2004 06 o i7 D that 01:03:16.162 --> 01:03:24.117 - It's okay. So it removes parking areas for vehicles on display I Think what that what that does is requires 01:03:24.117 --> 01:03:31.630 - parking areas for vehicles on display to be striped Yes, okay. So does that include like like so does 01:03:31.630 --> 01:03:39.069 - every car dealer? Once this is approved have to go back and like stripe all of their stuff now Or do 01:03:39.069 --> 01:03:44.446 - they just like next time they pave they have to stripe like how is that? 01:03:44.642 --> 01:03:52.517 - Situation that doesn't meet a standard obviously is grandfathered, you know If they are doing something 01:03:52.517 --> 01:04:00.316 - in the future that requires compliance Then this would be an effect. So if they are repaving Then yes, 01:04:00.316 --> 01:04:08.040 - we would want to see a striping plan for that What is the reasoning for that I guess in terms of like 01:04:08.040 --> 01:04:11.902 - Vehicle well for one to delineate, you know where? 01:04:12.130 --> 01:04:18.318 - Those cars are parked there is a parking setback requirement. So, you know the areas on the site where 01:04:18.318 --> 01:04:24.565 - you are parking cars for sale versus drive aisles You know, it's important to delineate those two areas 01:04:24.565 --> 01:04:30.753 - So we have to have them striped in order to know, you know What has to meet a setback and what doesn't 01:04:30.753 --> 01:04:36.820 - have to meet a setback? I Guess I just feel like I often see car dealers like moving cars around and 01:04:36.820 --> 01:04:41.566 - putting them in different orientations for you know first for sales, right and 01:04:41.698 --> 01:04:51.070 - And I appreciate the need for the setback but I wonder if requiring the entire lot to be striped would 01:04:51.070 --> 01:05:00.534 - then negatively impact their ability to like display and think about their stock. Did you like. I would 01:05:00.534 --> 01:05:07.358 - say for the most part in general most car dealership lots are striped now. 01:05:07.906 --> 01:05:14.462 - There obviously there might be a rarity where there's one that isn't but I would say most of them are. 01:05:14.626 --> 01:05:19.783 - So we we actually to be honest, you know We thought that there already was a requirement in the unity 01:05:19.783 --> 01:05:24.990 - that says that they all had to be striped And then we found this and said they didn't he's like, okay, 01:05:24.990 --> 01:05:30.248 - you know, that's that's a problem because we do like said We do have to delineate where you are parking 01:05:30.248 --> 01:05:35.405 - cars were vehicles for display For sailor are parked versus their drive aisles. So we do need to have 01:05:35.405 --> 01:05:40.612 - that delineated You know can't just be you know, here's pavement put cars anywhere and everywhere, you 01:05:40.612 --> 01:05:44.606 - know We do have to have some and to make sure that you meet aisle requirements 01:05:44.738 --> 01:05:54.423 - You know so that there does have to be some order and delineation to the parking areas Okay, and that 01:05:54.423 --> 01:06:04.012 - would only be on like paved parking lots though, right in terms of correct some of those are gravel. 01:06:04.012 --> 01:06:13.982 - Okay Thanks Any other questions my question is also in the payment in lieu for past sidewalks and trails 01:06:14.146 --> 01:06:21.703 - Is there a Time limit, I mean is there in a deadline that for them to pay this I mean so you you have 01:06:21.703 --> 01:06:29.186 - a home under construction or a project under construction do you have a timeline to pay this payment 01:06:29.186 --> 01:06:36.596 - or is it a payment that you pay for a determined amount of time or Then it changes ownership. Let's 01:06:36.596 --> 01:06:43.486 - say they built and they sell now it changes ownership to the new owner gonna have to pay and 01:06:44.034 --> 01:06:51.491 - Usually with the occupancy of the building while we don't specifically do inspections for occupancy 01:06:51.491 --> 01:06:59.247 - for single-family residences That is something that we'd work with the building department to make sure 01:06:59.247 --> 01:07:06.704 - that we were involved with Do you see what I'm saying? There's a potential problem for That whoever 01:07:06.704 --> 01:07:12.670 - made the Whoever was the owner at the time and they had a contract and it was a 01:07:12.770 --> 01:07:18.146 - Doing the payment in lieu if they sell it now, it's another person. Does it go with the deed? Do you 01:07:18.146 --> 01:07:23.521 - see what I'm saying? Yeah, so it would certainly as I mentioned be required with the the person that 01:07:23.521 --> 01:07:28.843 - got the permit and built the house and was occupying it So that's how we would tie it to that owner 01:07:28.843 --> 01:07:34.325 - Okay, you know we can certainly look at establishing a more definitive timeline when we issue a permit 01:07:34.325 --> 01:07:39.382 - but it would be tied to occupancy so would they have to pay for their sidewalk during the time 01:07:39.382 --> 01:07:40.446 - of construction and 01:07:41.058 --> 01:07:49.134 - No, just prior to them moving in and using the house. Okay. But do you see what do you see the potential 01:07:49.134 --> 01:07:56.902 - issues? I mean, I just know some people plan to live in a house and then they sell it immediately as 01:07:56.902 --> 01:08:04.286 - soon as it's constructed. So potential issues, I guess. That's what I'm trying to address here. 01:08:22.050 --> 01:08:28.202 - Before I move on to a different topic So you said the majority of these go to one for one to four family 01:08:28.202 --> 01:08:34.236 - homes is the expectation of the payment in lieu So if these are paid into the alternative fund There's 01:08:34.236 --> 01:08:40.212 - no guarantee when a sidewalk would be put in for any of these homes or that one would be put it in at 01:08:40.212 --> 01:08:46.246 - all Is that correct? So that the timing of when the funds would be utilized would be determined by the 01:08:46.246 --> 01:08:48.414 - council if that's what you're asking 01:08:48.674 --> 01:08:54.332 - It's more of a it's not a one-to-one. So if I have my house and I do a payment in lieu because it's 01:08:54.332 --> 01:09:00.273 - not Practical or reasonable to put a sidewalk in because none exists and so I pay my three four thousand 01:09:00.273 --> 01:09:05.988 - dollars into that Year or two down the road more houses are there and all of a sudden there's enough 01:09:05.988 --> 01:09:12.382 - people to have a sidewalk But no sidewalk exists and I go on for a couple more years and still no sidewalk. So I 01:09:12.770 --> 01:09:18.507 - Where is the guarantee that if I pay into that that I will eventually return a sidewalk to me at some 01:09:18.507 --> 01:09:24.188 - point as the homeowner Sure. Yeah, so that there is no I guess guarantee That that money that you've 01:09:24.188 --> 01:09:29.870 - contributed would at some time period be utilized for a sidewalk in front of your property You know, 01:09:29.870 --> 01:09:35.832 - that would be something that the council would way of you know Here's the money here are the needs within 01:09:35.832 --> 01:09:39.038 - the community and where should that money be used for? I 01:09:40.066 --> 01:09:46.771 - So is the homeowner what's the direct benefit to me of paying into the in lieu fund. So the you know 01:09:46.771 --> 01:09:53.477 - the benefit is that you know you don't have something that's hanging on your your your deed that you 01:09:53.477 --> 01:09:57.726 - have this worry that at any point in the future or you sell it. 01:09:57.922 --> 01:10:03.363 - You know really maybe more so for the person down the line of their acquiring this thing, you know And 01:10:03.363 --> 01:10:08.857 - it might be looked at as a liability That is on their deed that at any point in the future we can reach 01:10:08.857 --> 01:10:14.140 - out and say you owe us a sidewalk You know which can be an unexpected financial burden for somebody 01:10:14.140 --> 01:10:19.581 - who was not expecting that Let me through you the inverse then so let's say instead of the the in lieu 01:10:19.581 --> 01:10:23.966 - because I'm the only house in the the block and I put in a sidewalk to nowhere and 01:10:24.610 --> 01:10:31.649 - Years down the road when a full sidewalk decides to be built in Are you going to come after a homeowner 01:10:31.649 --> 01:10:38.620 - for whatever? sidewalk, you know Transgressions may have you know come together if they don't meet the 01:10:38.620 --> 01:10:45.456 - right requirements of you know five or six or ten feet or anything like that or a certain setback or 01:10:45.456 --> 01:10:52.360 - green space between I I don't foresee us coming over after an owner who put in a sidewalk that didn't 01:10:52.360 --> 01:10:54.526 - meet a standard at the time and 01:10:54.946 --> 01:11:00.203 - You know, there is there is language in the UDO that allows for some flexibility for you know a situation 01:11:00.203 --> 01:11:05.360 - where there's a five foot sidewalk and a six foot might be what Is required or you know with a standard 01:11:05.360 --> 01:11:10.469 - is six foot and now we change it to eight foot or seven foot or whatever might happen So there is some 01:11:10.469 --> 01:11:15.428 - language there that allows for existing facilities to remain, you know, it's also very possible You 01:11:15.428 --> 01:11:20.437 - know, depending on how much time period has elapsed there that if we come and do a corridor we might 01:11:20.437 --> 01:11:22.718 - just do everything along there as a whole and 01:11:22.882 --> 01:11:31.840 - And replace something that was non-compliant or was you know put in in some? Some other situation. Okay, 01:11:31.840 --> 01:11:40.372 - super helpful. The other question I had is relating to trees and shrubs on the perimeter of parking 01:11:40.372 --> 01:11:45.918 - lots page 88 part one letters B and C Used to be that there were 01:11:46.082 --> 01:11:54.256 - three shrubs per parking spot. And it's now gone up to every 35 lineal feet of perimeter. And instead 01:11:54.256 --> 01:12:02.350 - of what would have been, we'll call it 12 shrubs over three, let's see here, four, nine foot parking 01:12:02.350 --> 01:12:10.604 - spots, we're now up to 20 trees or shrubs. And there's a lot of mention of shrubbery. Is someone a fan 01:12:10.604 --> 01:12:11.966 - of Monty Python? 01:12:12.834 --> 01:12:18.788 - Yep, so the math in general works out as you go along that linear distance that that 35 feet and the 01:12:18.788 --> 01:12:24.920 - quantity of shrubs that is required there And just for reference, you know that the language that we're 01:12:24.920 --> 01:12:30.933 - using here is is pretty much exactly the language that the county is using now And so the reason that 01:12:30.933 --> 01:12:37.182 - we are making this particular change is that you know, we frequently encounter situations especially with 01:12:37.314 --> 01:12:43.016 - very large parking lots that require hundreds amounts of shrubs within interior areas just based on 01:12:43.016 --> 01:12:48.832 - the raw number of parking spaces that there's just Logistically isn't room to get all those in and so 01:12:48.832 --> 01:12:54.876 - the county's development ordinance looks at it from a different perspective of Requiring a certain amount 01:12:54.876 --> 01:13:00.863 - of interior area green space within an area within the parking area that has to be landscaped and that's 01:13:00.863 --> 01:13:03.486 - kind of based on the size of that so you have 01:13:03.586 --> 01:13:09.694 - two different landscaping requirements. One is a perimeter and then two is an interior. So what you 01:13:09.694 --> 01:13:15.924 - might see if there's any reduction of shrubs along the perimeter of a very minute nature, that's made 01:13:15.924 --> 01:13:22.215 - up for on an interior requirement to install green space within there that has shrubs and trees within 01:13:22.215 --> 01:13:23.070 - the interior. 01:13:23.714 --> 01:13:30.913 - How much of an anticipated cost increase do you have for businesses that are having to undergo this 01:13:30.913 --> 01:13:38.327 - change from the you know three shrubs per parking spot to now 20 per 35 millennial feet because that's 01:13:38.327 --> 01:13:46.462 - you know a significant increase Honestly, I think the cost would go down because you're as I mentioned your your 01:13:46.594 --> 01:13:54.449 - Can be looking at hundreds of shrubs, you know, just based on the raw number Which doesn't really take 01:13:54.449 --> 01:14:02.075 - a very pragmatic approach to how you're actually creating green space within the interior itself So 01:14:02.075 --> 01:14:10.083 - honestly, I would say the amount of landscaping Cost anyway probably goes down a little bit. Okay. Thank 01:14:10.083 --> 01:14:14.430 - you Any additional questions commissioners Mr. Stossberg 01:14:16.354 --> 01:14:22.652 - I'm just wondering about the change from the ornamental trees to the small medium canopy trees Are we 01:14:22.652 --> 01:14:28.888 - talking about the same subset of types of trees and we're just naming it something different Doesn't 01:14:28.888 --> 01:14:35.309 - actually break down trees and ornamental it's large medium and small Ornamental was just kind of a word 01:14:35.309 --> 01:14:41.606 - that had been used in previous versions of the UDO and realized, you know It really doesn't reference 01:14:41.606 --> 01:14:43.582 - anything specifically Thank you 01:14:49.442 --> 01:14:55.588 - Call for questions from commissioners But I would ask this a question for staff because I'm I would 01:14:55.588 --> 01:15:01.918 - my preference is going to be to continue these and not vote on them because I think there's a lot here 01:15:01.918 --> 01:15:08.432 - and I would like to see The why and the effect right? What is the policy? Why are we making these changes 01:15:08.432 --> 01:15:14.578 - and we're talking about some of them and we're getting answers and that's great but we're having to 01:15:14.578 --> 01:15:16.606 - go through and pick them out and 01:15:16.898 --> 01:15:22.039 - And in the weekend that we've had access to this, that's not enough time, honestly, for us to go through 01:15:22.039 --> 01:15:26.934 - this and make informed decisions on these things. I'd like to continue this. I would like for staff 01:15:26.934 --> 01:15:31.830 - to tell us why they're making the change. It can be just a sentence. It can be very simple and what 01:15:31.830 --> 01:15:37.117 - the effect is. Some of them, it won't be able to be a sentence, right? Some of these things are complicated 01:15:37.117 --> 01:15:42.307 - and there are big reasons for it. If it's related to other statutory changes. But I want that information 01:15:42.307 --> 01:15:44.510 - before I vote on this in order to pass this. 01:15:44.610 --> 01:15:50.292 - Like this is one of our legislative functions, and these are supposed to originate with us. Patrick, 01:15:50.292 --> 01:15:56.031 - could you make sure your mic's on? People online are saying they have a hard time hearing you. Sorry, 01:15:56.031 --> 01:16:01.769 - my apologies. So not to repeat all that, but I'd like to see the why. Why are we doing this? What was 01:16:01.769 --> 01:16:07.451 - the policy reason that we're asking for these changes? And then the effects that we expect. Like how 01:16:07.451 --> 01:16:13.246 - many of these sidewalks are there per year, really? What are we talking about? How big is the payment? 01:16:13.474 --> 01:16:19.429 - And so why are we doing this if it's only going to raise 20 or 30 thousand dollars a year but it's going 01:16:19.429 --> 01:16:25.158 - to increase the cost of the whole. Why are we doing this. Right. So I'd like to see that for most of 01:16:25.158 --> 01:16:30.886 - these. Right. Any of them that are more than just a minor technical amendment. I'd like to see that. 01:16:30.886 --> 01:16:36.728 - So not really a question but I didn't thought that was the appropriate time. Are you intending to make 01:16:36.728 --> 01:16:42.910 - a motion to continue. Yes I make a motion to continue the UDO amendments to Chapter 4 that we're discussing. 01:16:46.946 --> 01:16:59.455 - amended Thank you And I'd continue to the May meeting Sure, sir second for that motion I'll second All 01:16:59.455 --> 01:17:11.721 - right any discussion on the motion to continue Commissioner Stossberg public comment first I'm sorry 01:17:11.721 --> 01:17:15.486 - Should we have public comment? 01:17:15.746 --> 01:17:27.789 - Before any continuing happens just in case there's any member of the public who wanted to comments about 01:17:27.789 --> 01:17:39.946 - these UDO changes We certainly could I don't know that we'd be required to but If we're not taking action 01:17:39.946 --> 01:17:45.566 - on it tonight But I'm happy to do that Any other 01:17:48.130 --> 01:17:56.000 - discussion before we do that before you know in our typical fashion we might ask you know what what 01:17:56.000 --> 01:18:04.105 - the delay would mean for Action on this is are we on some sort of time constraint here with not making 01:18:04.105 --> 01:18:12.053 - these amendments? I know we do this annually Is there a cost for waiting? Staff perspective, there's 01:18:12.053 --> 01:18:13.470 - no urgency. No, I 01:18:14.530 --> 01:18:24.075 - You know, certainly we do try to time things though to the so that they do get to council before their 01:18:24.075 --> 01:18:33.435 - summer recess But you know, there's no immediate time urgency Thank you Comments All right Certainly 01:18:33.435 --> 01:18:40.478 - the commissioners to us burden that actually does bring up a question is it 01:18:40.578 --> 01:18:48.756 - Because the state made some changes around the timeline between UDO changes after it gets out of the 01:18:48.756 --> 01:18:56.286 - Plan Commission to council How long council has to deal with those? Is it 60 days right now, 01:18:56.286 --> 01:19:04.383 - or is it 90 days? It is still 90. Okay. Great. Thanks All right, is there any public comment on zio 01:19:04.383 --> 01:19:05.598 - 2026-02-0002 I 01:19:11.298 --> 01:19:25.758 - Seeing none we are back to the Commission any final comments before we call the roll on the motion to 01:19:25.758 --> 01:19:39.934 - continue All right, let's call the roll Whistler Yes Bishop yes, Rell. Yes seaboard. No Co Rodke no 01:19:40.962 --> 01:19:59.273 - Holmes yes Kinsey no Stossberg no Believe that failed okay, so We're back to the Commission we're gonna 01:19:59.273 --> 01:20:10.718 - need another motion Either a motion to Approve or Something else 01:20:10.978 --> 01:20:21.874 - We're not going to continue it. I would motion to approve zero to twenty twenty six dash zero to zero 01:20:21.874 --> 01:20:32.556 - zero zero to the chapter four amendments with the amendment regarding the one word change regarding 01:20:32.556 --> 01:20:37.470 - sidewalks. Yes. So approving this discussion. 01:20:39.682 --> 01:20:53.710 - All right, let's call the roll on the motion to approve as the amendments as amended Bishop No, 01:20:53.710 --> 01:21:09.054 - I'm sorry. What was that? No Burrell Yes Seabour Yes, Korotky. Yes Holmes. No Kinsey. Yes Stossberg. Yes 01:21:09.794 --> 01:21:21.002 - Whistler. Yes. All right. Motion carries. That is approved. We are on now to the next set of amendments 01:21:21.002 --> 01:21:32.318 - here 0 20 26 dash 0 2 dash 0 0 3. And I think Jamie Kreiner is going to present again. Eric do this one. 01:21:32.578 --> 01:21:41.903 - Thank you. So again, these are adjustments to the administration section administration procedures section 01:21:41.903 --> 01:21:51.054 - of the UDO chapter six So these as we mentioned or I guess maybe a little bit contrast with last version 01:21:51.054 --> 01:21:59.856 - of what we were just hearing This particular section is just updating some references and removal of 01:21:59.856 --> 01:22:02.558 - references to city in terms of 01:22:02.754 --> 01:22:09.232 - As I mentioned, we are sinking references city departments. We're removing just city referencing the 01:22:09.232 --> 01:22:15.837 - department as a whole Adding an exemption for nonprofits and government agencies from inspection fees. 01:22:15.837 --> 01:22:22.764 - That's reflecting that there's not a filing fee for those petitions So we're exempting them from inspection 01:22:22.764 --> 01:22:29.819 - fees We're removing a reference to require Site development permits in cases where site stormwater management 01:22:29.819 --> 01:22:31.358 - permit is not necessary 01:22:32.258 --> 01:22:41.029 - Removing a reference to grading permit, which is no longer in the UDO. It changes the inspection timeline 01:22:41.029 --> 01:22:49.386 - for final occupancy. Removing a section that talks about final acceptance for public improvements to 01:22:49.386 --> 01:22:58.323 - the engineering department. Amending the table of procedures that states that DRC is required for secondary 01:22:58.323 --> 01:23:02.046 - plats where other sections says it does not. 01:23:02.434 --> 01:23:11.773 - and fixes a numbering issue with one of the sections. And for the most part, these are relatively benign, 01:23:11.773 --> 01:23:20.584 - as I mentioned, mostly just removing and altering references to city departments, removing calendar 01:23:20.584 --> 01:23:25.694 - days, cleaning up references to Board of Public Works and 01:23:25.986 --> 01:23:34.643 - bonding issuance and then Removing the determinant sidewalk variance criteria that we reference that 01:23:34.643 --> 01:23:43.214 - were connected to the payment in lieu for the sidewalks so with that Happy to answer any questions. 01:23:43.214 --> 01:23:51.870 - Thank you. Are there questions from commissioners? Let's start down here on my right How about to my 01:23:51.870 --> 01:23:54.270 - left Commissioner Stossberg 01:23:57.506 --> 01:24:05.585 - Wants to know at the very last last couple that talk about subdivision standards and the minimum width 01:24:05.585 --> 01:24:13.429 - and allows lot With minor modifications up to ten percent. I just want to understand how that might 01:24:13.429 --> 01:24:20.645 - actually affect subdivision proposals Yep, so there is a section of the UDO that deals with 01:24:20.645 --> 01:24:23.390 - minor modifications that give some 01:24:23.522 --> 01:24:30.861 - flexibility at a staff level to slightly adjust within very narrow percentage points. Some development 01:24:30.861 --> 01:24:38.271 - standards within the UDO. One of those does allow for a reduction in lot area. However, there's nothing 01:24:38.271 --> 01:24:45.966 - that allow for a reduction of lot width. So we were just building in a somewhat corresponding 10% allowance 01:24:45.966 --> 01:24:52.094 - to allow for a 10% reduction in lot width for a subdivision or a lot line adjustment. 01:24:54.018 --> 01:25:01.129 - Does that answer your question? I think so. I guess I'm just thinking about the Dunn Street proposal, 01:25:01.129 --> 01:25:08.170 - which is still not, you know, which has continued at this point. And I think that their variance was 01:25:08.170 --> 01:25:15.560 - denied to allow for the smaller widths, but I wasn't sure like, you know, how much 10% really does change 01:25:15.560 --> 01:25:16.606 - it in terms of 01:25:17.058 --> 01:25:22.709 - Lot widths specifically versus yeah, so, you know in that case there's you know lots required to be 01:25:22.709 --> 01:25:28.474 - 60 feet wide So obviously 10% would allow them to go down to 54 feet wide Which is not what they were 01:25:28.474 --> 01:25:34.182 - looking to go to they were going for much less than that But it gives a little bit of room. Okay, so 01:25:34.182 --> 01:25:39.833 - it's actually probably pretty minimal. It's not like you could throw a whole extra lot in there No, 01:25:39.833 --> 01:25:45.654 - you you'd obviously have to get it, you know 10 of them or so to get anything substantial out of that. 01:25:45.654 --> 01:25:46.558 - Okay. Thanks. I 01:25:49.154 --> 01:26:01.566 - Any other questions? All right, is there any public comments on 02026-02-0003? 01:26:25.986 --> 01:26:34.721 - We are we are dealing with please state your name for the record and then you'll have five minutes to 01:26:34.721 --> 01:26:43.713 - speak My name is Joe Davis. I'm a resident at 530 South Washington Street In the In the sort of nutshell 01:26:43.713 --> 01:26:51.934 - version here that I'm looking at the memo regarding the chapter 6 administration and procedures 01:26:52.194 --> 01:27:02.707 - It states that nonprofits and governmental agencies are exempt from inspection fees And I feel like 01:27:02.707 --> 01:27:13.430 - Members of the public who are low-income also too should be able to Apply or for or submit a verified 01:27:13.430 --> 01:27:20.894 - motion such that they could proceed in form of popper s in other words 01:27:20.994 --> 01:27:34.018 - to obtain a fee waiver if they're going through processes like that. That seems like that would bring 01:27:34.018 --> 01:27:47.425 - equity to lower income people as well. This is not dealing with the in lieu sidewalk. Is this the, okay, 01:27:47.425 --> 01:27:48.830 - all right. 01:27:48.962 --> 01:27:56.860 - Thank you. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much Thank you. Is there any other public comment? 01:27:56.860 --> 01:28:04.532 - If you're joining us online and you'd like to make comment click the reactions button click the raise 01:28:04.532 --> 01:28:12.430 - hand button Send a chat message to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when it's your turn to speak 01:28:12.430 --> 01:28:14.686 - We have any online commenters 01:28:16.738 --> 01:28:26.447 - No, we don't see anybody online as Commissioner Whistler said if there is anybody online that would 01:28:26.447 --> 01:28:36.446 - like to speak, please use the raise hand function All right, we're back to the Commission then for any 01:28:36.446 --> 01:28:44.990 - final discussion or emotion Mr. Sussberg Can you clarify what those inspection fee is I 01:28:45.826 --> 01:28:53.154 - Like what are what are they inspecting in terms of the concern for low income folks. So these inspections 01:28:53.154 --> 01:29:00.759 - would be for what our enforcement folks do when it comes time for building occupancy when you're constructing 01:29:00.759 --> 01:29:02.142 - a new building. So. 01:29:02.210 --> 01:29:08.632 - Nonprofits and other government entities don't have to pay permit fees and filing fees And so there 01:29:08.632 --> 01:29:15.119 - is technically an inspection fee that is required so as the member of the public reference, you know 01:29:15.119 --> 01:29:22.056 - certain housing projects That are affordable are usually nine times out of ten operated by a non-for-profit 01:29:22.056 --> 01:29:28.478 - So this is just relieving them of a requirement to pay an inspection fee for that that organization 01:29:29.218 --> 01:29:37.434 - So it's not like an inspection fee that an average resident would pay. It's a developer sort of fee 01:29:37.434 --> 01:29:46.061 - when somebody is developing a new construction prior to getting an occupancy permit. Yeah. So this would 01:29:46.061 --> 01:29:54.441 - be a one time inspection that you do after you're finished constructing your project. OK. Thanks. Any 01:29:54.441 --> 01:29:55.838 - other questions. 01:30:00.706 --> 01:30:14.430 - Is there a motion motion to approve? Not all at once I'll motion to approve zio 2026 0-0 2-0 0 0 3 the 01:30:14.430 --> 01:30:28.021 - ud o amendments for chapter 6 is there a second second All right Let's call the roll on the motion to 01:30:28.021 --> 01:30:29.886 - approve Beryl 01:30:30.306 --> 01:30:44.704 - Yes, seaboard. Yes, Korodke. Yes Holmes No Kenzie. Yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Bishop. Yes All 01:30:44.704 --> 01:30:59.390 - right motion carries and that petition is approved we are now to our final petition related to you do 01:30:59.778 --> 01:31:06.666 - Amendments, this is zero twenty twenty six dash zero two dash zero zero four Okay, thank you. So this 01:31:06.666 --> 01:31:13.689 - deals with chapters two which regulates zoning districts chapter three which deals with use regulations 01:31:13.689 --> 01:31:20.509 - chapter five for subdivision standards and chapter seven which has all the definitions and There are 01:31:20.509 --> 01:31:27.262 - 14 amendments from chapter two. These mostly involve clarifying some footnotes footnotes and adding 01:31:27.426 --> 01:31:35.469 - the removing the ornamental tree language similar to one of the prior chapters. There are three amendments 01:31:35.469 --> 01:31:43.136 - from chapter three that remove the standardized business language from the UDO and we're proposing to 01:31:43.136 --> 01:31:50.878 - add new standards for drive throughs. And then in chapter five there are three amendments that clarify 01:31:51.106 --> 01:31:58.636 - the regulations for major site plans and adjusting the situations when environmental easements are required 01:31:58.636 --> 01:32:05.747 - to be recorded. So that would be for the major site plans and for new subdivisions. In chapter seven, 01:32:05.747 --> 01:32:12.859 - there are eight proposed amendments that deal with a variety of topics, including refining the common 01:32:12.859 --> 01:32:19.901 - area definition, adding a definition for decorative stone, which has come up at some Board of Zoning 01:32:19.901 --> 01:32:21.086 - Appeals hearings 01:32:21.218 --> 01:32:27.579 - modifying the restaurant definition, adding architectural features to the wall sign definition. This 01:32:27.579 --> 01:32:33.876 - has also come up at some Board of Zoning Appeals hearings and making the student housing definition 01:32:33.876 --> 01:32:40.363 - more objective. So I believe there are a total of 28 amendments in those four chapters and we're happy 01:32:40.363 --> 01:32:47.038 - to go into any more of the specifics or answer any questions. Are there any questions from commissioners? 01:32:57.730 --> 01:33:06.989 - my first series of questions is about the student housing definition, because both in number four and 01:33:06.989 --> 01:33:16.248 - number six, it talks about, I mean, they're basically like, we're defining it using lease agreements. 01:33:16.248 --> 01:33:26.142 - And I guess I'm kind of wondering how we would determine that prior to the occupancy, or whether we need to. 01:33:26.594 --> 01:33:34.727 - And I guess the example that so number four says units intended to be leased as partially or fully furnished. 01:33:34.727 --> 01:33:42.120 - And then number six says rooms are advertised and leased by the room. And we have definitely I will 01:33:42.120 --> 01:33:49.809 - say had experiences with developments that don't say upfront that they are student housing development. 01:33:49.809 --> 01:33:54.910 - And after they get built now they are renting furnished by the room. 01:33:55.682 --> 01:34:05.532 - instead of any other rental agreements. So like I guess what is the purpose of putting this way. You 01:34:05.532 --> 01:34:07.678 - know there's kind of. 01:34:07.778 --> 01:34:13.996 - two ways of looking at this. One is developers know what the definition, whenever we have these conversations 01:34:13.996 --> 01:34:19.649 - with prospective developers and we say, are you student housing? What is your use? And we give them 01:34:19.649 --> 01:34:25.472 - the definition. These are the defining characteristics. So they can look at this very clearly and say, 01:34:25.472 --> 01:34:31.294 - oh, hey, our business model was going to be fully furnished or a certain percentage of fully furnished 01:34:31.294 --> 01:34:32.990 - and we know we can't do that. 01:34:33.090 --> 01:34:38.842 - So that that helps identify it on the front end and then certainly down the line You know whether it's 01:34:38.842 --> 01:34:44.986 - the building permit or afterwards, you know if it comes to our attention that you know They have incorporated 01:34:44.986 --> 01:34:50.627 - some of these things then we have a mechanism for enforcement to go back and say, you know You can't 01:34:50.627 --> 01:34:56.211 - rent per bedroom, you know, you can't have certain percentage that are fully furnished So that that 01:34:56.211 --> 01:35:01.182 - allows us to deal with it in that capacity as well and is this retroactive at all? No or 01:35:01.410 --> 01:35:09.568 - So I mean anybody who's come in Under whatever law was in place at the time, you know, they would meet 01:35:09.568 --> 01:35:17.646 - that definition so I guess you know my answer would be You know if If they've changed, you know, like 01:35:17.646 --> 01:35:22.398 - let's say they came in and they weren't fully furnished and 01:35:22.754 --> 01:35:30.476 - And then they want to change to be that and it was multifamily before but now they would be student 01:35:30.476 --> 01:35:38.507 - housing based on this new thing Then they would meet this current definition I guess what I'm wondering 01:35:38.507 --> 01:35:46.538 - is if currently there's a multifamily Dwelling that is in a zoning district that does not allow Student 01:35:46.538 --> 01:35:51.326 - housing but they are renting by the rooms and doing furnished 01:35:52.354 --> 01:35:59.599 - And and furnished and so once we changed it to this like are they no longer allowed to do that anymore 01:35:59.599 --> 01:36:06.633 - Like can we actually like enforce that in that location now? Like how do we grandfather somebody in 01:36:06.633 --> 01:36:14.019 - to that or not because we don't necessarily know at this point What all the lease agreements are because 01:36:14.019 --> 01:36:19.646 - like legally we can't get involved in lease agreements in the state of, Indiana 01:36:21.026 --> 01:36:32.664 - Yeah, that's a that's a good question. Let me think about that for a minute You know, I guess my answer 01:36:32.664 --> 01:36:43.518 - would be You know, like like I said initially, you know if they came in and we had some proposal 01:36:43.586 --> 01:36:48.123 - Or they were on the ground and they were fully furnished and they've been doing that, you know, they 01:36:48.123 --> 01:36:52.750 - would be a non-conforming use. It'd be student housing. So they'd be restricted. You know, we wouldn't 01:36:52.750 --> 01:36:57.691 - say that this use would no longer be allowed, you know, if they're now meeting the student housing definition 01:36:57.691 --> 01:37:02.363 - and they were already doing that. But certainly if they came time for expansion or to do something else 01:37:02.363 --> 01:37:06.990 - and we say, hey, this use is not a conforming use. You're not allowed here. Then we would have to deal 01:37:06.990 --> 01:37:11.572 - with, you know, what is required to bring it into compliance, whether it's a conditional use approval 01:37:11.572 --> 01:37:12.830 - or they can't do the thing. 01:37:13.378 --> 01:37:22.342 - They can't do the expansion. So basically any any multifamily housing that's currently Not defined as 01:37:22.342 --> 01:37:31.219 - student housing but would with these two additions be defined as student housing is Grandfathered in 01:37:31.219 --> 01:37:41.150 - yes, and how do we how are we gonna net like say two years from now that gets identified? How is there gonna be? 01:37:41.538 --> 01:37:47.988 - Like how do we know that they were grandfathered in now? So, you know the burden of proof would be on 01:37:47.988 --> 01:37:54.565 - them, you know They would have to give us evidence that they were this thing before, you know They were 01:37:54.565 --> 01:38:01.141 - renting by the bedroom where they were fully furnished or you know some proof the burden of proof would 01:38:01.141 --> 01:38:05.694 - be on them Okay, and and just for clarity I need to go back to that now 01:38:05.826 --> 01:38:15.855 - It's not those aren't and statements right. Those are or statements in terms of like a housing development 01:38:15.855 --> 01:38:25.227 - meeting. Any of those one through I guess there's seven now qualifications just meeting one of them 01:38:25.227 --> 01:38:32.350 - would classify them as student. Yes. Okay thank you. Can you maybe explain. 01:38:33.090 --> 01:38:40.625 - The rationale for number five. I mean as I read that that just means If you're if you're anywhere close 01:38:40.625 --> 01:38:47.870 - to a mixed-use institutional, you're just automatically considered student housing if you have more 01:38:47.870 --> 01:38:53.086 - than 50 dwelling units So, you know with so the mixed-use institutional 01:38:53.250 --> 01:38:59.700 - District, you know for the most part is I you there are some situations where you have churches and 01:38:59.700 --> 01:39:06.150 - schools that are zoned mixed-use institutional but if you have Dwelling units that are more than if 01:39:06.150 --> 01:39:12.923 - you have a building with more than 50 dwelling units and you're within, you know a quarter mile of those 01:39:12.923 --> 01:39:19.953 - districts 99 times out of 10, you know, you're adjacent to the IU district and you are advertising marketing 01:39:19.953 --> 01:39:21.566 - towards students but why 01:39:21.666 --> 01:39:30.865 - Why is the proximity necessary to define that I mean that basically means I if I what if I wanted to 01:39:30.865 --> 01:39:40.702 - build? 50 unit Retirement home on 3rd Street, that's gonna be considered student housing If you if you were 01:39:40.834 --> 01:39:47.643 - Apartments if you were multifamily dwelling, you know not a retirement home or you know a care facility 01:39:47.643 --> 01:39:54.190 - like that Then yes, you would automatically if you're more than 50 units and within 1300 feet of an 01:39:54.190 --> 01:40:00.803 - MI you would be student housing Why is that why is that necessary? Why are the other definitions not 01:40:00.803 --> 01:40:04.862 - enough to? To catch those. Yeah, so, you know when we look at 01:40:05.154 --> 01:40:11.070 - You know we're the mixed use institutional districts and we looked at you know what are the developments 01:40:11.070 --> 01:40:16.703 - that are 50 units or more. You know like I said those are all oriented towards student housing. You 01:40:16.703 --> 01:40:22.337 - know we haven't seen anything that's come in that isn't. So you know when we look at these defining 01:40:22.337 --> 01:40:28.027 - things you know these are things that are almost always associated with student housing development. 01:40:28.027 --> 01:40:32.478 - But that doesn't answer my question. Why are the other definitions not enough. 01:40:33.154 --> 01:40:39.141 - When if they are oriented towards students wouldn't one of the other six definitions They certainly 01:40:39.141 --> 01:40:45.486 - can certainly and if the Plain Commission feels that this particular Element this line of this definition 01:40:45.486 --> 01:40:51.293 - isn't something that that they feel is appropriate to be included with this You know, obviously, 01:40:51.293 --> 01:40:54.526 - you know, that would be your ability to take that out 01:40:56.130 --> 01:41:01.981 - We were simply approaching it from you know, what are the defining characteristics that we see almost 01:41:01.981 --> 01:41:07.890 - always? There doesn't have to be you know, certainly as you mentioned it could be something other than 01:41:07.890 --> 01:41:13.856 - that But we were looking at it from a perspective of what are the almost always? Situation so as I said 01:41:13.856 --> 01:41:19.592 - if you feel like that particular element is inappropriate or shouldn't be in there then It's within 01:41:19.592 --> 01:41:25.214 - your purview to remove that I'm gonna think on it for a minute, but it I'm concerned that it'd be 01:41:25.442 --> 01:41:32.755 - Red to be interpreted that that's you can only build student housing within that proximity to If you're 01:41:32.755 --> 01:41:40.068 - gonna be classified that way by the zoning code anyway, it seems like that's the only thing that people 01:41:40.068 --> 01:41:47.099 - would ever bring within within that Geographic and it's very possible, you know within this area as 01:41:47.099 --> 01:41:53.849 - well You know that student housing may may or may not be in allowed use. So that's an important 01:41:53.849 --> 01:41:55.326 - distinguishing point 01:41:56.546 --> 01:42:04.277 - All right. Thanks other questions from commissioners Following up on that point is there a waiver or 01:42:04.277 --> 01:42:12.314 - appeals process for the number five guilt by association No, you you know with the definition you cannot 01:42:12.314 --> 01:42:20.198 - request a variance from that You can request an appeal, you know of our classification of a use so you 01:42:20.198 --> 01:42:24.638 - can you can request that from the Board of Zoning Appeals 01:42:24.962 --> 01:42:31.334 - Is that fairly straightforward or is that a kind of a long lengthy convoluted process? Well, so, you 01:42:31.334 --> 01:42:37.643 - know the board of zoning appeals meets once a month so you you would petition for an administrative 01:42:37.643 --> 01:42:38.526 - appeal of our 01:42:38.722 --> 01:42:45.050 - Classification of this, you know the point the purpose of this was to make this more objective And not 01:42:45.050 --> 01:42:51.193 - a subjective, you know, the current language uses language such as you know It says may be marketed 01:42:51.193 --> 01:42:57.459 - to students. That's very subjective, you know So we were trying to make this more objective, which is 01:42:57.459 --> 01:43:02.558 - why you see these hard numbers in here to reduce that subjectivity Okay. Thank you 01:43:09.506 --> 01:43:16.492 - I have some questions about the restaurant the several of the restaurant Changes and I wonder you know, 01:43:16.492 --> 01:43:23.679 - I appreciate what Commissioner Holmes was asking is kind of what what's behind This and help us understand 01:43:23.679 --> 01:43:30.598 - what we're gonna achieve with this and this one's a little bit of a mystery tree What is it that we're 01:43:30.598 --> 01:43:34.494 - trying to achieve with the proposed language? relating to 01:43:35.426 --> 01:43:41.704 - Drive-through and and seating areas. Can you just go over those a little bit for me, please? Yep So 01:43:41.704 --> 01:43:48.108 - there's there's a nuance of the definition of restaurant that requires a seating capacity to that And 01:43:48.108 --> 01:43:54.512 - so we have encountered situations where somebody wants to do a walk-up type business And not have any 01:43:54.512 --> 01:43:55.454 - indoor seating 01:43:55.522 --> 01:44:01.039 - And so we you know, we certainly don't have a problem with that particular element You know the things 01:44:01.039 --> 01:44:06.394 - that we don't want are the buildings that are simply a drive-through restaurant, you know You don't 01:44:06.394 --> 01:44:11.804 - even have a place to seat. It's completely vehicle oriented. You know, that's the lane deuce that we 01:44:11.804 --> 01:44:17.213 - don't want So we're adding an allowance here to allow for a use that doesn't have indoor seating but 01:44:17.213 --> 01:44:22.462 - you're not allowed to have a drive-through as part of that so, you know, just imagine some of the 01:44:22.530 --> 01:44:33.933 - You know the walk-up businesses. I think you see along 10th Street or maybe on Kirkwood where you know, 01:44:33.933 --> 01:44:45.007 - it's just a walk-up type of facility Can you talk about to just the delivery only ghost kitchen That 01:44:45.007 --> 01:44:50.270 - too, I mean just curious about that as well and 01:44:51.362 --> 01:44:56.832 - Yeah, so again, you know, this is kind of what we were talking about where you have a business that 01:44:56.832 --> 01:45:02.411 - doesn't have any indoor seating, but they don't have a drive-through, you know, it is just a delivery 01:45:02.411 --> 01:45:07.006 - only business and we certainly see those and want to you know, the code is kind of. 01:45:07.650 --> 01:45:13.748 - somewhat silent to whether or not you can even have that use at all. But we do recognize they do exist. 01:45:13.748 --> 01:45:19.612 - And again you know that's that's not the problem we're trying to solve for you know a building with 01:45:19.612 --> 01:45:25.710 - no indoor seating that's not a restaurant and it's completely a drive through you know. And so you know 01:45:25.710 --> 01:45:31.867 - this does just give an allowance and a recognition that we do have these uses existing in the community. 01:45:31.867 --> 01:45:35.678 - And you know that's that's something that we need to legitimize. 01:45:42.562 --> 01:45:49.886 - Another provision somewhere in the code that allows for food trucks So that that is 01:45:50.082 --> 01:45:55.519 - dealt with in two different scenarios. If they're on the right of way, then you need a permit from the 01:45:55.519 --> 01:46:01.168 - controller's office or economic and sustainable development. If it's something that's occurring on private 01:46:01.168 --> 01:46:06.605 - property, if it leaves every day, we're not regulating that. If it's something that establishes itself 01:46:06.605 --> 01:46:11.990 - and doesn't leave, then it needs a temporary use permit. But if it's just something that is there and 01:46:11.990 --> 01:46:17.797 - leaves, we're not regulating that. But in the right of way, that's dealt with through a different department. 01:46:17.797 --> 01:46:19.486 - So would they still be allowed? 01:46:20.034 --> 01:46:27.185 - I mean because it doesn't fit That's not a brick-and-mortar building, you know, that's a vehicle So 01:46:27.185 --> 01:46:34.550 - we don't we don't regulate vehicles in that capacity. We regulate uses temporary uses, you know things 01:46:34.550 --> 01:46:41.843 - that stay there You know your Christmas trees your fireworks your mattress sales, whatever, you know, 01:46:41.843 --> 01:46:49.566 - they've established. They're not leaving every night So food trucks are okay Yes, okay other question I had 01:46:49.730 --> 01:46:58.821 - Back to the student housing. So so one one comment some of the things in here studio apartments basically 01:46:58.821 --> 01:47:07.998 - small spaces for people. It seems like there would be some overlap with low income and I realize generally 01:47:08.418 --> 01:47:14.223 - Like the locations around campus are popular for students and things like that. But some things that 01:47:14.223 --> 01:47:20.314 - would fit these definitions also look like they would possibly fit the definitions for low income housing 01:47:20.314 --> 01:47:26.176 - units as well. And I'm just I'm not even sure that's a bad thing because what are the consequences of 01:47:26.176 --> 01:47:31.981 - being designated student housing. Is it just the use table or are there other provisions in the code 01:47:31.981 --> 01:47:35.774 - that will affect it. Well it does limit where that use can occur. 01:47:36.066 --> 01:47:43.361 - And does have some spatial limitations for how close student housing can be particularly in the downtown 01:47:43.361 --> 01:47:50.655 - There's spatial limitations for that So again, this was just trying to utilize a very objective Standard 01:47:50.655 --> 01:47:57.950 - to say what is or isn't student housing and again, you know when we look at developments that have large 01:47:57.950 --> 01:48:00.798 - number of dwelling units You know having 01:48:00.994 --> 01:48:06.565 - high amount of studio units was something that was almost always characteristic of Housing directed 01:48:06.565 --> 01:48:12.246 - towards students. Okay, so you did make a sort of a study you looked at existing and applied Okay, if 01:48:12.246 --> 01:48:18.207 - these were the new rules then these buildings would change. Did you look at? No, I wouldn't say I wouldn't 01:48:18.207 --> 01:48:24.279 - say we looked at if you know what buildings would change but buildings and developments all the developments 01:48:24.279 --> 01:48:25.950 - that we have seen come in and 01:48:26.338 --> 01:48:31.883 - And that certainly build themselves as student housing, which is which is great. You know, it's certainly 01:48:31.883 --> 01:48:37.271 - a housing type that we need But we looked at you know, what are the bedroom counts? You know, how many 01:48:37.271 --> 01:48:42.606 - things do they have in there of bedroom breakdowns through there? You know, and this was one of those 01:48:42.606 --> 01:48:47.889 - characteristics again that we see time and time again So I can see matching it to the what we see as 01:48:47.889 --> 01:48:53.330 - current student housing I guess my question is what's the what's the overshoot how if you now take that 01:48:53.330 --> 01:48:55.422 - and try to match it to other places and 01:48:55.586 --> 01:49:01.503 - That aren't student housing is there going to be a large overlap because this will bring them in right 01:49:01.503 --> 01:49:07.305 - it can be some other use entirely But if it fits one of these criteria and now it's student housing, 01:49:07.305 --> 01:49:13.050 - right? So did you look at what isn't student housing that would fall under this definition? Yeah, I 01:49:13.050 --> 01:49:18.794 - would I would say within at least easily the past 10 years if not more I haven't seen anything with 01:49:18.794 --> 01:49:23.390 - more than 50 dwelling units and 50 studios that is anything other than that and 01:49:23.714 --> 01:49:34.738 - Most of all of these are in the downtown or you know student housing very specific oriented developments 01:49:34.738 --> 01:49:45.867 - And they you know, they make no attempt to say that they're not student housing Thank you Other questions 01:49:45.867 --> 01:49:51.326 - from commissioners mr. Brown On number five of 2007 01:49:52.834 --> 01:50:04.702 - 0 1 10 Talking about the distance between you know the 13 20 feet Close to the MI zoned MI District 01:50:04.702 --> 01:50:17.044 - zoning district Can you show us a map of the MI district current right now that we have in Bloomington? 01:50:17.044 --> 01:50:22.622 - So my question is so if we have that MI zoning 01:50:23.010 --> 01:50:30.969 - Anything that is 13 feet from that Will be student housing, but if that if the one that now is not on 01:50:30.969 --> 01:50:38.849 - zoning, but now it's student housing can Something else be built touching that building as well, you 01:50:38.849 --> 01:50:46.886 - know measured from that building. So it will be this ever-expanding Do you see what I'm saying is that 01:50:46.886 --> 01:50:48.446 - the intent or not I 01:50:49.058 --> 01:50:56.087 - So most of you know, just from a square footage standpoint And I'll say 80% of the land that's owned 01:50:56.087 --> 01:51:03.186 - MI is land occupied by Indiana University You'll have various outliers, you know churches and schools 01:51:03.186 --> 01:51:10.493 - that are owned MI But and those are you know, a lot of times just scattered all over the community Okay, 01:51:10.493 --> 01:51:16.478 - so you're talking a perimeter around the MI zone not something that keeps growing and 01:51:16.994 --> 01:51:23.142 - Yeah, so, you know, that's certainly a better way or a different way of looking at it You know as it 01:51:23.142 --> 01:51:29.595 - does create, you know within that border there a guarantee that you're not going to have student-oriented 01:51:29.595 --> 01:51:35.683 - developments You know adjacent to those or within a quarter mile of churches and schools that might 01:51:35.683 --> 01:51:41.892 - be zoned MI But you know as you can as Jamie's shown on the map here you can see that large area blue 01:51:41.892 --> 01:51:44.510 - that's owned MI that reflects land that is 01:51:44.642 --> 01:51:54.226 - Predominantly owned by IU or the Parks Department But most of my churches and schools in IU most of 01:51:54.226 --> 01:52:04.385 - land owned by parks is parks in open space so that area you see there's just the golf course and Hospital 01:52:04.385 --> 01:52:06.398 - area. Yeah Thank you 01:52:07.714 --> 01:52:17.890 - And again, you know keep my you know, these this is oriented to developments with more than 50 dwelling 01:52:17.890 --> 01:52:27.675 - units Which is which is a large amount of units within buildings Thank you I Want to follow up on a 01:52:27.675 --> 01:52:36.286 - few things that other people have said right now because all of a sudden I'm like, oh I 01:52:36.482 --> 01:52:44.576 - My goodness, um, following up from commissioner Burrell then about that 1320 feet because when I looked 01:52:44.576 --> 01:52:52.591 - at the zoning map all of a sudden I'm like, well, wait a minute. There's a whole lot of little pockets 01:52:52.591 --> 01:53:00.607 - of MI around because of MCC SC and I could actually imagine that being problematic for non for housing 01:53:00.607 --> 01:53:02.942 - that is not intended for, um, 01:53:03.746 --> 01:53:11.659 - undergraduate students or university students or student housing in any way, but might have more than 01:53:11.659 --> 01:53:19.728 - 50 units. And I'm suddenly trying to go, well, how far away is Fairview Elementary from our North Roger 01:53:19.728 --> 01:53:27.641 - Street petition that we have this evening? And thinking about Try North and how far away is Try North 01:53:27.641 --> 01:53:30.046 - from some of that housing that 01:53:30.274 --> 01:53:37.921 - that may or may not go in there that may or may not be student housing. So I guess my question is, have 01:53:37.921 --> 01:53:45.348 - you actually drawn a circle, a radius around all of the MI zones that this would impact in terms of, 01:53:45.348 --> 01:53:52.922 - because there's like a lot of them scattered all over the place and they're very small because they're 01:53:52.922 --> 01:53:58.878 - just like a single elementary school. No, to answer your question, we did not do 01:53:58.978 --> 01:54:07.417 - detailed map of the entire city and what developments might be within that 1300 foot radius that have 01:54:07.417 --> 01:54:15.691 - more than 50 dwelling units But like I said, you know a different way of looking that is is it does 01:54:15.691 --> 01:54:24.048 - create a buffer You know around those uses that would prohibit, you know unit there are developments 01:54:24.048 --> 01:54:28.350 - with more than 50 units from being within that area 01:54:28.482 --> 01:54:35.136 - And there's not a lot of, again, just kind of speaking in generalities, there's not a lot of open ground 01:54:35.136 --> 01:54:41.726 - around a lot of where the churches and schools are within the community that would probably accommodate 01:54:41.726 --> 01:54:48.253 - that. But to answer your question, no, we did not do a detailed analysis of every single property zone 01:54:48.253 --> 01:54:54.843 - MI, and are there buildings with more than 50 dwelling units within that 1,300-foot radius? OK, I guess 01:54:54.843 --> 01:54:57.758 - that makes me a little bit nervous right now. 01:54:58.050 --> 01:55:06.082 - And I had another follow-up on somebody, too, and I can't remember what it was now. I'll think of it 01:55:06.082 --> 01:55:14.115 - in a minute. Sorry. Oh, I know what it was. It was about the ghost kitchen thing, because I realized 01:55:14.115 --> 01:55:20.318 - when I read this earlier that maybe I incorrectly read it under 2003 030 D10. 01:55:20.514 --> 01:55:28.116 - It says that delivery only, ghost kitchen or similar concepts are not permitted as the primary means 01:55:28.116 --> 01:55:35.868 - of service and that would be in like a first floor retail. And I guess I'm wondering why that wouldn't 01:55:35.868 --> 01:55:43.394 - be permitted and if something like a catering service would not count then as a restaurant. Because 01:55:43.394 --> 01:55:48.286 - I guess I don't know why you wouldn't allow like a delivery only 01:55:53.794 --> 01:56:01.587 - So some some of those, you know, like a catering use obviously has a dip. It's a specific use food production 01:56:01.587 --> 01:56:08.104 - and processing So if that was their sole Activity there, you know that has a different land 01:56:08.104 --> 01:56:13.630 - use Classification so that doesn't count as a restaurant then right? Okay, so 01:56:24.098 --> 01:56:30.762 - Can I just follow up on that? Is there then, so you're saying ghost kitchens would be allowed, they're 01:56:30.762 --> 01:56:37.296 - not prohibited entirely, they're just not considered restaurants anymore if we adopt this challenge. 01:56:37.296 --> 01:56:43.831 - Correct, in a situation where it's a multi-tenant center. Are they specifically then included in the 01:56:43.831 --> 01:56:47.454 - use description for food production and processing use? 01:56:48.194 --> 01:56:54.053 - Yep, so that that's just a different use that would have its own if I don't know if top-of-the-head 01:56:54.053 --> 01:56:59.971 - if there any use specific standards that apply to it But it just has its own separate classification 01:56:59.971 --> 01:57:06.006 - So it wouldn't be a ghost kitchen because they're they're not running things out daily Or you know you 01:57:06.006 --> 01:57:11.865 - take an order and then you deliver it or whatever, you know, that's a separate use Yeah, I guess my 01:57:11.865 --> 01:57:16.670 - question is are they specifically allowed within another use or are we creating a 01:57:18.050 --> 01:57:23.598 - Are you are you asking like is a ghost kitchen allowed within a food production and processing? Yeah, 01:57:23.598 --> 01:57:29.037 - I don't know that we'd probably draw that line You know, it's hard within an interior floor plan of 01:57:29.037 --> 01:57:34.476 - a building to say I mean, we haven't dealt with the situation I'll just be honest, but I don't know 01:57:34.476 --> 01:57:40.187 - that we'd probably draw the line within that building of you know here's here's an element that is being 01:57:40.187 --> 01:57:41.982 - delivered on an hourly basis and 01:57:42.178 --> 01:57:49.341 - Because it's such a fine line, I guess, of how you differentiate those two things. I guess we'd have 01:57:49.341 --> 01:57:56.646 - to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis and certainly understanding of flexibility in terms of what the 01:57:56.646 --> 01:58:03.879 - intent of the business model is and what they're actually trying to do. So are there zones where food 01:58:03.879 --> 01:58:08.702 - production processing is allowed? Or let's say the other way, where 01:58:09.090 --> 01:58:15.454 - Restaurant is allowed but food production and processing would not be allowed Yes, I would say so because 01:58:15.454 --> 01:58:22.059 - restaurants you can have those in Mixed-use neighborhood scale districts where food production and processing 01:58:22.059 --> 01:58:28.123 - is not, you know food production and processing sometimes can be a lot heavier intensity in terms of 01:58:28.123 --> 01:58:34.367 - scale and Odors and delivery trucks and the like. So yeah, you'll you'll certainly have districts where 01:58:34.367 --> 01:58:38.270 - you can have a restaurant and not food production and processing 01:58:41.250 --> 01:58:47.929 - So if someone came to planning department said hey, I want to open a ghost kitchen Your would 01:58:47.929 --> 01:58:55.035 - your inclination be to steer them towards a zone where food production and processing is allowed or 01:58:55.035 --> 01:59:02.354 - is there some other use that you think would would capture that So so they would be allowed within the 01:59:02.354 --> 01:59:09.886 - multi-tenant center, you know based on the the language that we've introduced If I'm if I'm understanding 01:59:11.362 --> 01:59:34.046 - Your question. I read it. OK, hold on. I read it the opposite way. Yeah. So if somebody is just doing 01:59:34.046 --> 01:59:38.494 - a ghost kitchen and 01:59:39.650 --> 01:59:48.131 - That is their only thing, and they are delivery only. Then that would not be allowed. Right, I guess 01:59:48.131 --> 01:59:56.696 - that's my question, is where would they be allowed? Food production and processing. Okay, that was my 01:59:56.696 --> 02:00:02.238 - question. Okay, sorry, I was thinking about it too deep, I think. 02:00:12.866 --> 02:00:24.887 - Well for another question, I I do I would like to make a motion or Offer an amendment here. I would 02:00:24.887 --> 02:00:37.149 - like to move that we strike number five from the proposed change to the student housing definition in 02:00:37.149 --> 02:00:42.078 - chapter seven and renumber the remaining 02:00:45.090 --> 02:00:56.677 - the remaining clauses there appropriately. Any other discussion on that? Just to clarify, I'm just proposing 02:00:56.677 --> 02:01:07.520 - we strike the language that makes anything within 1,320 feet of MI be considered student housing. And 02:01:07.520 --> 02:01:11.134 - I think it's just unnecessary and 02:01:12.130 --> 02:01:18.915 - Anything that's truly student housing will be caught by one of these other definitions. Commissioner 02:01:18.915 --> 02:01:25.768 - Stossberg. I guess I'm not in favor of fully striking that, but I am kind of interested in continuing 02:01:25.768 --> 02:01:32.486 - this one to be able to think about that a little bit more and get a little bit more information and 02:01:32.486 --> 02:01:39.272 - data around like where that 1320 feet actually is. Cause I do think to some degree it makes sense in 02:01:39.272 --> 02:01:40.414 - terms of if it's 02:01:40.546 --> 02:01:49.425 - Proximal to Indiana University, but it doesn't necessarily make sense if it's proximal to you know Clear 02:01:49.425 --> 02:01:58.051 - Creek Elementary or Actually, I think they're creeks in the county. But anyway, you know what I mean. 02:01:58.051 --> 02:02:06.762 - So I guess I I would vote no on that but I Don't want to move it to council quite the way it is either 02:02:06.762 --> 02:02:09.214 - Any other questions comments 02:02:11.298 --> 02:02:19.380 - could comment on whether the the belief I'm of the same opinion that I think the other five definitions 02:02:19.380 --> 02:02:27.230 - cap would capture that I'm just trying to figure out what the unique contribution of that number the 02:02:27.230 --> 02:02:35.079 - current number five is and if you think that that I mean obviously you put it in here so you thought 02:02:35.079 --> 02:02:40.830 - it was important so I'm not questioning that but but do you think that it 02:02:41.538 --> 02:02:49.750 - We were really dealing with something that would not be already captured in the other five I Mean it 02:02:49.750 --> 02:02:57.880 - certainly does capture a Huge amount of things that are student housing that are within that square 02:02:57.880 --> 02:03:06.092 - foot that that linear distance That have those thresholds You know as as Christian members Stossberg 02:03:06.092 --> 02:03:09.182 - pointed out, you know, there are some 02:03:09.826 --> 02:03:16.661 - Certainly capture other things that were not intending to be that that are on the outliers But this 02:03:16.661 --> 02:03:23.634 - you know does capture a great amount that would not be captured by you know, the fully furnished, you 02:03:23.634 --> 02:03:30.606 - know individual bed individual bedroom rental I Mean the unit count probably I guess would be the the 02:03:30.606 --> 02:03:37.646 - closest thing, you know where you you've got any fours or fives and thirty percent more thirty percent 02:03:37.646 --> 02:03:38.398 - threes and 02:03:38.914 --> 02:03:47.543 - You know that that usually captures most of those, you know, again, this was just a further clarification 02:03:47.543 --> 02:03:55.684 - that Captured I'd say probably 90 95 percent of the things that are within that area, but certainly 02:03:55.684 --> 02:04:03.907 - there could be some outliers Thank you And and the purpose of expanding this definition at all is to 02:04:03.907 --> 02:04:07.326 - provide clarity to developers who want to 02:04:07.426 --> 02:04:14.422 - to build what they can and cannot build? What exactly was the purpose again? So the purpose was to remove 02:04:14.422 --> 02:04:21.154 - some of the subjectivity. So the main thing was the previous line, one of the previous lines it said, 02:04:21.154 --> 02:04:28.414 - and you can kind of see it in the other, the left side where it says current language, says that for purposes 02:04:28.514 --> 02:04:34.313 - Determining whether a multifamily dwelling meets this definition the city may consider the degree to 02:04:34.313 --> 02:04:40.055 - which the facility is occupied by undergraduate or post graduates and the degree to which occupancy 02:04:40.055 --> 02:04:45.854 - is marketed to undergraduate or post graduates so that that leaves a lot of subjectivity of You know 02:04:45.854 --> 02:04:51.596 - whether or not the city believes that you're intending it or not. So we were trying to provide some 02:04:51.596 --> 02:04:53.950 - more objective standards more measurable 02:04:59.170 --> 02:05:08.048 - I mean, I'll just come in. I appreciate the definitional elements here. And I do think that it was really 02:05:08.048 --> 02:05:17.093 - problematic to have the marketed to language before. So I appreciate the definitions here, and particularly 02:05:17.093 --> 02:05:25.887 - because they're defining what it is versus what it isn't, that it's not a rooming house. So I appreciate 02:05:25.887 --> 02:05:27.646 - defining what it is. 02:05:27.874 --> 02:05:36.550 - I'm just not sure about this distance issue because I think it might be pulling in more than it intends 02:05:36.550 --> 02:05:45.059 - a quarter mile. You know I don't know. I just I'm just not sure about the specificity of the distance 02:05:45.059 --> 02:05:52.734 - given the number of lavender parcels we saw throughout the community. Any other discussion. 02:05:58.754 --> 02:06:10.059 - Any public comment on the proposed amendment here? This is not on the Petition as a whole but just on 02:06:10.059 --> 02:06:21.365 - the proposed amendment to remove this particular definition of student housing If so make your way to 02:06:21.365 --> 02:06:28.126 - the the podium state your name Specifically on the amendment 02:06:28.354 --> 02:06:38.828 - Was just offered here regarding number five in the proposed changes to the definition of student housing 02:06:38.828 --> 02:06:49.102 - Well, this is a comment specifically to the recommended conditions on number five Let's see individual 02:06:49.102 --> 02:06:53.790 - there's a statement that is missing a word and 02:06:54.978 --> 02:07:02.001 - I think you're looking at the petition for gray star not for the UDO amendment Forgive me, I thought 02:07:02.001 --> 02:07:09.371 - this was the This was the development that was happening and it Bloomington iron and metal. Sorry. That's 02:07:09.371 --> 02:07:16.463 - up next. Sorry So if there's anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the 02:07:16.463 --> 02:07:19.870 - raise hand function and we can recognize you and 02:07:27.778 --> 02:07:46.218 - Let's go ahead and call the roll on on the amendment to strike number five in the Student housing definition 02:07:46.218 --> 02:07:56.030 - No Holmes yes Kinsey yes Stossburg no Whistler yes Bishop 02:07:57.346 --> 02:08:10.824 - Yes Was that a no It was yes Burrell yes seaboard. Yes Believe that was that five yeses All right. So 02:08:10.824 --> 02:08:23.774 - the amendment carries then we are back to Any Additional questions on the petition as amended and 02:08:26.978 --> 02:08:36.083 - Let's go to public comment now on Mr. Sussberg Unrelated one about the very first one which is setbacks. 02:08:36.083 --> 02:08:44.929 - So it Says that if if a building is Against a platted alley then setbacks can be reduced. Is that for 02:08:44.929 --> 02:08:49.438 - primary structures or accessory structures or both? 02:08:51.522 --> 02:09:02.614 - Think there is a different section that talks about Accessory structures if there is a garage component 02:09:02.614 --> 02:09:13.492 - having a reduced setback from an alley Any other questions All right, let's go then to public comment 02:09:13.492 --> 02:09:19.678 - on the petition as amended is there any public comment on 02:09:20.962 --> 02:09:33.388 - Zio twenty twenty six dash zero two dash zero zero zero Four as amended All right seeing them we were 02:09:33.388 --> 02:09:46.302 - back to the Commission and he found a discussion before the call the roll All right, please call the roll 02:09:46.754 --> 02:09:58.478 - Oh wait we need a motion. Sorry. Is there is there a motion to approve zero twenty twenty six oh two 02:09:58.478 --> 02:10:10.551 - oh four as amended. Motion. Is there a second. Second. OK. Let's call the roll on the motion to approve 02:10:10.551 --> 02:10:14.846 - the petition as amended. Holmes. No. 02:10:17.058 --> 02:10:30.719 - Yes, Stossburg. Yes Whistler, yes Bishop yes, Burrell. Yes Seabour. Yes Korotky. Yes All right. The 02:10:30.719 --> 02:10:44.381 - motion carries the petition is approved We are now on to our final petition of the evening. It says 02:10:44.381 --> 02:10:46.430 - P 2026-03-0005 02:10:47.778 --> 02:10:56.395 - Final plan approval for construction of five buildings at 1320 South Roger Street. And I think we've 02:10:56.395 --> 02:11:05.269 - got Eric Drulik, are you gonna present this one? I'll be presenting. Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner. 02:11:05.269 --> 02:11:13.460 - All right, Gabriel, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking at the next one. Go ahead, Gabriel. 02:11:13.460 --> 02:11:15.934 - This is, I'm sorry, this is, 02:11:16.642 --> 02:11:27.290 - Let me restate this. This is SP 2026-03-0004, right? Major site plan approval at 503 North Rogers. Still 02:11:27.290 --> 02:11:37.533 - getting used to this new agenda format. Sorry about that. Okay, let's see if the screen shows there. 02:11:37.533 --> 02:11:45.342 - There it is, okay. You know this is the planning commission. So this is for, 02:11:46.306 --> 02:12:05.513 - proposed development at 503 North Rogers Street. Pardon me while I get my papers in order here. Okay, 02:12:05.513 --> 02:12:15.870 - the petitioner is requesting major site plan approval. 02:12:16.578 --> 02:12:25.152 - who allow construction of a dwelling common multi-family use in the mixed use downtown zoning district 02:12:25.152 --> 02:12:33.643 - within the showers technology downtown character overlay. We abbreviate that MD-ST. This is an aerial 02:12:33.643 --> 02:12:42.384 - image of the area with the site highlighted. Just to the right, to the east of the site is Rogers Street 02:12:42.384 --> 02:12:44.382 - running north to south. 02:12:44.962 --> 02:12:54.689 - And then along that curved edge is what's now the Beeline Trail. And to the left on the west side is 02:12:54.689 --> 02:13:04.320 - Fairview Street. And across it, the open area that you see there is Reverend Ernest D. Butler Park. 02:13:04.320 --> 02:13:13.470 - And then to the south, it also has frontage on 9th Street. This is currently a metal recycling 02:13:14.370 --> 02:13:22.351 - facility known as Bloomington Iron and Metal or BIM. It's also historically been known as Fell Iron 02:13:22.351 --> 02:13:30.333 - and Metal or Fell Iron. The site's about 5.2 acres. It's, as we said, zone mixed use downtown. It's 02:13:30.333 --> 02:13:38.474 - within the Showers Technology Downtown Character Overlay. That name, Showers Technology, might not be 02:13:38.474 --> 02:13:43.582 - so familiar because now we usually call it the trades district. 02:13:44.066 --> 02:13:50.578 - The trades district is also a state certified innovation district, which has slightly different boundaries 02:13:50.578 --> 02:13:56.664 - than the character overlay. But suffice to say, we're talking about zoning that's designed with the 02:13:56.664 --> 02:14:03.177 - trades district in mind. Uh, in the comprehensive plan, it's part of downtown it's existing usage, salvage 02:14:03.177 --> 02:14:09.385 - or scrap yard. And the proposed land use is a multifamily dwelling. And then there's a small portion, 02:14:09.385 --> 02:14:11.454 - which is non-residential as well. 02:14:13.154 --> 02:14:20.130 - This is a proposed site plan. I don't expect you to be able to read that at all up on the screen now. 02:14:20.130 --> 02:14:27.106 - It's more for illustrative purposes. As I tell you that the petitioner proposes to redevelop the site 02:14:27.106 --> 02:14:34.083 - as a mixed use multifamily development. The proposal comprises 360 dwelling units with a total of 760 02:14:34.083 --> 02:14:40.922 - bedrooms distributed in three buildings. The building closest to Roger Street, which is building B, 02:14:40.922 --> 02:14:42.974 - that's the one on sort of the 02:14:43.138 --> 02:14:50.416 - upper right of the screen. Building B contains leasing and amenity space for the residences, 02:14:50.416 --> 02:14:58.321 - as well as 3,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, and that's the portion closest to Roger 02:14:58.321 --> 02:15:06.147 - Street on the right side of the screen. A fourth building, which is the one in the lower left, is a 02:15:06.147 --> 02:15:10.686 - parking garage for the development. The proposal includes 02:15:10.818 --> 02:15:17.965 - 292 total parking spaces, which includes 17 surface spaces near the non-residential space and 275 spaces 02:15:17.965 --> 02:15:24.839 - in the garage. So there's a lot of information in the staff report. I hope you have a chance to look 02:15:24.839 --> 02:15:31.782 - at it. For this presentation, I'm actually going to sort of go backwards. I'm going to start with the 02:15:31.782 --> 02:15:38.860 - proposed conditions, because I think this is a good way of going over some of the things that are worth 02:15:38.860 --> 02:15:40.766 - considering with this site. 02:15:42.306 --> 02:15:49.178 - So the first recommended condition, so sorry, skip to the end. Staff's recommending approval, but with 02:15:49.178 --> 02:15:55.917 - conditions, with 10 of them, which is a lot. And I'd say that's reflective of the complicated nature 02:15:55.917 --> 02:16:03.256 - of the site and not a reflection of we have to like catch up because they did a bad job with the application. 02:16:03.256 --> 02:16:10.462 - That can happen too sometimes. But I'd say this is more a reflection of the complicated nature of the site. 02:16:11.106 --> 02:16:16.636 - So first one, a site development permit is required prior to any land disturbance. This is actually 02:16:16.636 --> 02:16:22.165 - a requirement of the UDO. It wouldn't have to be a condition, but it's in here for clarity. We like 02:16:22.165 --> 02:16:27.750 - to put these in there just to make sure everyone understands that you have to get a site development 02:16:27.750 --> 02:16:33.446 - permit. And then there's this extra thing, which is gonna be relevant for condition number three, soil 02:16:33.446 --> 02:16:35.326 - borings are not land disturbance. 02:16:35.490 --> 02:16:42.979 - Keep that in mind. That also would be true whether or not it was a condition, but we felt it was clear 02:16:42.979 --> 02:16:50.395 - to have it as a recommended condition. So the next condition, final acceptance and approval from City 02:16:50.395 --> 02:16:57.811 - of Bloomington Utilities is required prior to issuance of a site development permit. So ideally, when 02:16:57.811 --> 02:17:02.174 - it gets to you here at Planning Commission, we like to have 02:17:02.370 --> 02:17:09.315 - all the plans approved by the relevant city boards, or city departments. In this case, they haven't 02:17:09.315 --> 02:17:16.329 - quite got there with CBU. And the petitioner's been in communication with City Blumentine Utilities, 02:17:16.329 --> 02:17:23.274 - CBU, since last autumn and has submitted two rounds of formal submittals to CBU. CBU just sent back 02:17:23.274 --> 02:17:30.358 - second round comments today, so the petitioner's not had time to react to them and certainly it's not 02:17:30.358 --> 02:17:32.094 - reflected in the packet. 02:17:32.322 --> 02:17:38.971 - At this time, you'll see when we get to the findings, staff is recommending that all of the remaining 02:17:38.971 --> 02:17:45.750 - issues with CBU can be resolved without altering the site plan that you're looking at. So there's gonna 02:17:45.750 --> 02:17:52.399 - be some specific things that are probably have to change, but it's not gonna change the layout of the 02:17:52.399 --> 02:17:59.243 - buildings or the layout of the stormwater infrastructure. So two of the things that came in CBU comments 02:17:59.243 --> 02:18:02.046 - that is just to give you some information, 02:18:02.210 --> 02:18:08.798 - Was that there's there's an existing public storm sewer that runs from from the park on the west side 02:18:08.798 --> 02:18:15.256 - of the site through the site and then eventually to public infrastructure in downtown it eventually 02:18:15.256 --> 02:18:21.909 - gets to Clear Creek down by switch our park but so there's there's an existing private storm show that 02:18:21.909 --> 02:18:28.561 - goes across the site there they're proposing to relocate that because of the the development they want 02:18:28.561 --> 02:18:29.982 - to do in the site and 02:18:30.402 --> 02:18:36.996 - And currently, it's shown as tying into private infrastructure on the lot immediately to the southeast. 02:18:36.996 --> 02:18:43.780 - CBU has an extremely strong preference that it tied directly into public infrastructure and Rogers Street. 02:18:43.780 --> 02:18:49.550 - So that would have to be reoriented a little bit. However, even if that change is made, it 02:18:49.550 --> 02:18:54.686 - can be accommodated in the site plan without moving any of the buildings around. 02:18:56.386 --> 02:19:02.512 - CBU comments also indicated that outflow rates from the proposed underground stormwater detention exceed 02:19:02.512 --> 02:19:08.462 - allowed release rates. Without going into any of the technical stuff, which is not something that I'm 02:19:08.462 --> 02:19:14.471 - an expert in, our understanding, speaking with CBU and the petitioner, is that there are multiple ways 02:19:14.471 --> 02:19:20.830 - of resolving that discrepancy. They don't know which way they're gonna do yet or which way CBU would prefer. 02:19:21.250 --> 02:19:28.768 - And of those multiple ways of doing it some of them are definitely going to be feasible and some of 02:19:28.768 --> 02:19:36.587 - them and none of them involve any changes to the site plan So The third recommended condition I'll just 02:19:36.587 --> 02:19:44.481 - read it here and then explain what we're talking about here after removal of all existing material piles 02:19:44.481 --> 02:19:50.270 - on the site the petitioner shall conduct additional soil testing at least at 02:19:51.074 --> 02:19:56.652 - at least three additional boring locations, locations to be determined by the planning and transportation 02:19:56.652 --> 02:20:02.177 - department. The petitioner shall send the results of the additional soil testing as well as the previous 02:20:02.177 --> 02:20:07.439 - soil test results contained in the phase two environmental site assessment to Indiana Department of 02:20:07.439 --> 02:20:12.964 - Environmental Management, IDEM, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Confirmation 02:20:12.964 --> 02:20:16.542 - that soil test results were sent to IDEM and EPA shall be submitted 02:20:17.698 --> 02:20:26.126 - to the planning and transportation department prior to issuance of a site development permit. So what 02:20:26.126 --> 02:20:34.472 - this is about is there's a known history of soil contamination on the site, particularly PCBs. There 02:20:34.472 --> 02:20:43.231 - was an EPA order from 1988 that required a Superfund cleanup of PCB contamination related to Westinghouse 02:20:43.231 --> 02:20:45.214 - Electrical Corporation. 02:20:45.602 --> 02:20:52.697 - The EPA required cleanup was completed in 1996. There's some more information in the packet about that. 02:20:52.697 --> 02:21:00.200 - The petitioner did a phase one environmental site assessment, which sort of identifies some of the background 02:21:00.200 --> 02:21:07.500 - and identifies the things that you'd want to look more carefully at. And then in a phase two environmental 02:21:07.500 --> 02:21:14.526 - site assessment completed, I guess the report was completed in January, but they did a lot of the work 02:21:14.722 --> 02:21:21.869 - December The phase two assessment went and looked at the things identified in the phase one of what 02:21:21.869 --> 02:21:29.087 - do we need to look at again? And they did soil boring there in testing and Those test results showed 02:21:29.087 --> 02:21:36.234 - that all soil component concentrations were less than applicable state and federal screening levels 02:21:36.234 --> 02:21:44.382 - So it's it's showing that it's in compliance, which is good because we don't want Potentially hazardous materials 02:21:44.546 --> 02:21:52.871 - on this site where people are going to live and during the development. But given the history, it's 02:21:52.871 --> 02:22:01.196 - very likely that, or it's very possible that there could be PCBs or other hazardous materials still 02:22:01.196 --> 02:22:09.937 - in the soil, either from originally, you know, back 1980s or earlier, or from use as a scrap metal yard. 02:22:09.937 --> 02:22:11.102 - So the phased 02:22:11.394 --> 02:22:17.661 - One environmental assessment noted that they couldn't access under the materials piles that are there 02:22:17.661 --> 02:22:23.929 - now. And so this recommendation that once the petitioner fully acquires the site, currently I believe 02:22:23.929 --> 02:22:30.135 - they have a purchase option or something. The owner of record is still Fell Iron for that matter. So 02:22:30.135 --> 02:22:36.587 - once they have a full possession of the site or it's cleared by Fell Iron that they do more soil testing 02:22:36.587 --> 02:22:39.966 - at at least three locations under some of those piles. 02:22:40.834 --> 02:22:46.521 - And then the other part of that is to make sure that they're in contact with IDEM and EPA. So we in 02:22:46.521 --> 02:22:52.378 - the city of Bloomington do not want to be enforcing state or federal environmental regulations because 02:22:52.378 --> 02:22:58.179 - that's a huge task and there are already state and federal agencies dedicated to that. But we do want 02:22:58.179 --> 02:23:03.865 - to make sure that they're in communication with them to take all required steps and all recommended 02:23:03.865 --> 02:23:09.666 - steps as well to just make sure that it stays safe. So as a summary all the evidence right now points 02:23:09.666 --> 02:23:10.462 - to it's safe. 02:23:11.426 --> 02:23:18.264 - There's not a soil hazard there now. But given the history, we'd like to do work to make sure that that 02:23:18.264 --> 02:23:24.905 - stays true through the development and through people living there. So that's what this condition is 02:23:24.905 --> 02:23:25.694 - getting at. 02:23:28.002 --> 02:23:32.909 - Okay, fourth condition. The 3,000 square foot non-residential space may be used for any lawful 02:23:32.909 --> 02:23:38.385 - non-residential use or combination of lawful non-residential uses that are allowed in the zoning district 02:23:38.385 --> 02:23:43.550 - as currently allowed in the MDSD district or as the use table may be amended in the future. This is 02:23:43.550 --> 02:23:48.767 - really just adding for clarity because we're gonna see in the next condition we talk a lot about the 02:23:48.767 --> 02:23:54.088 - residential portion and what use that is. So for this one, just wanted to clarify that it really could 02:23:54.088 --> 02:23:57.342 - be anything that's allowed there. It can't be a dwelling unit. 02:23:58.306 --> 02:24:05.645 - Because that would change the multifamily side of it. But we're saying any non-residential use, 02:24:05.645 --> 02:24:13.518 - that's a lot, but the UDO is fine. So it could be a restaurant. It could be an office. It's the trades 02:24:13.518 --> 02:24:21.545 - district. So it could be some technology company. Any of these things are possible. So this one is about 02:24:21.545 --> 02:24:27.966 - the residential use. So it's defined as dwelling multifamily. That is the proposal. 02:24:32.290 --> 02:24:39.953 - But as you saw when you were looking at the proposed UDO amendments, it's often, there can be developments 02:24:39.953 --> 02:24:47.615 - where it's a little ambiguous whether it's properly classified as multifamily dwelling or student housing. 02:24:47.615 --> 02:24:55.135 - So they're coming in as multifamily dwelling. It's allowed in the MDST district. The use student housing 02:24:55.135 --> 02:25:01.150 - or dormitory is a conditional use in this district, so it's theoretically possible, 02:25:01.346 --> 02:25:08.598 - it's a conditional use who'd have to go to the BZA, and there's completely different use-specific standards 02:25:08.598 --> 02:25:15.314 - that will apply to it, that they're not, they wouldn't be meeting with the site plan because it was 02:25:15.314 --> 02:25:22.029 - designed to meet the multifamily housing standards. So it's coming in as multifamily, but you know, 02:25:22.029 --> 02:25:25.118 - it's a large development, it's downtown, the, 02:25:25.410 --> 02:25:34.331 - Petitioner wanted clarity from the city that we wouldn't change our mind later based on some of the 02:25:34.331 --> 02:25:43.876 - subjective criteria that's in the UDO now. The city wants clarity that it is gonna be multifamily housing. 02:25:43.876 --> 02:25:53.064 - So with that in mind, the petitioner proposed some statements of commitment to record and those, there 02:25:53.064 --> 02:25:55.294 - are nine items in there. 02:25:56.002 --> 02:26:03.571 - And the staff recommends that a, sorry, there are eight in what they proposed. Staff recommends that 02:26:03.571 --> 02:26:11.365 - an additional one be added for a total of nine. And the one is drawn from some of the language you were 02:26:11.365 --> 02:26:19.159 - just looking at. So this would be drawing from what will become, well, if it goes through city council, 02:26:19.159 --> 02:26:24.030 - what will become the requirement for developments in the future. 02:26:24.546 --> 02:26:30.040 - to read to ensure that the residential use is dwelling common multifamily that the property owners shall 02:26:30.040 --> 02:26:35.326 - record a statement of commitments including the eight items listed in the draft commitments document 02:26:35.326 --> 02:26:40.977 - provided with the submittal with the addition of the following item individual rooms will not be advertised 02:26:40.977 --> 02:26:46.315 - or leased by the room. The statement of commitment shall be recorded with them on our county recorder 02:26:46.315 --> 02:26:51.966 - prior to final occupancy. So this is something that they'd have to record really by the end of the process. 02:26:52.450 --> 02:26:58.923 - quite late in the process. And individual rooms not be advertised at least by room, that's taken directly 02:26:58.923 --> 02:27:05.030 - from the proposed language. And it's already, they already get to it in their proposed commitments. 02:27:05.030 --> 02:27:10.709 - They say there won't be roommate matching, which is basically it gets to the same thing. But 02:27:10.709 --> 02:27:16.510 - we're recommending to take that language from the proposed UDM so that it will be multifamily. 02:27:20.098 --> 02:27:30.482 - Okay, sixth recommended condition, offsite tree planting as required by adopted condition two of variance 02:27:30.482 --> 02:27:40.572 - approval V-24-25 slash ZR-2025-09-0097 shall be implemented in accordance with the executed memorandum 02:27:40.572 --> 02:27:47.038 - of understanding and shall be completed prior to final occupancy. 02:27:48.226 --> 02:27:56.814 - So this variance was the second package of variances that this development had at the BZA. It was granted 02:27:56.814 --> 02:28:05.079 - in December, this past December, 2025. And it allows removal of existing wooded areas on the site. It 02:28:05.079 --> 02:28:13.181 - also allows planting fewer trees on site than otherwise required in an exchange for a commitment to 02:28:13.181 --> 02:28:15.774 - plant mitigation trees offsite. 02:28:16.866 --> 02:28:24.495 - The petitioner, Graystar, well actually, yes, the proposed developer, Graystar, has executed a memorandum 02:28:24.495 --> 02:28:31.332 - of understanding with the City of Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning 02:28:31.332 --> 02:28:38.529 - and Transportation Department, executed last month to implement the off-site tree planting required 02:28:38.529 --> 02:28:46.590 - by the variance. The MOU only becomes effective if you approve this site plan petition. And generally just the, 02:28:46.754 --> 02:28:53.062 - Executed mo use in the packet, but the process generally is planning and transportation will say how 02:28:53.062 --> 02:28:59.557 - many trees they have to plant Parks and recreation will identify locations in parks and in right-of-way 02:28:59.557 --> 02:29:05.990 - to plant them and will also Provide specifications of how they should be planted the you know planning 02:29:05.990 --> 02:29:12.672 - procedures and what kind of materials to use the petitioner will then plant them then parks and recreation 02:29:12.672 --> 02:29:14.046 - will inspect them and 02:29:14.434 --> 02:29:20.744 - and then planning and transportation will confirm that it's all been checked out and that will have 02:29:20.744 --> 02:29:27.621 - to happen before final occupancy. Okay, seventh proposed condition is pedestrian easements for the multi-use 02:29:27.621 --> 02:29:34.120 - path and the portions of public sidewalks on private property shall be recorded with the Monroe County 02:29:34.120 --> 02:29:40.808 - recorder in a form acceptable to the City of Bloomington Engineering Department prior to final occupancy. 02:29:40.808 --> 02:29:43.774 - This is a normal thing for when we have public 02:29:44.514 --> 02:29:54.345 - sidewalks on private property. So because of... Let's see. So the proposed site plan includes a new 02:29:54.345 --> 02:30:04.471 - multi-use path approximately located along the south edge of the site. It'll be open to the public and 02:30:04.471 --> 02:30:12.926 - provide a direct pedestrian bicycle connection through the site from Rogers Street on 02:30:13.250 --> 02:30:22.442 - the east at the beeline trail, all the way through to Butler Park on the west. The multi-use path is 02:30:22.442 --> 02:30:31.452 - 10 feet wide. And, yes. And so also, some of the required public sidewalks due to limited existing 02:30:31.452 --> 02:30:40.736 - right-of-way width, particularly Fairview's very narrow existing right-of-way, portions of the public 02:30:40.736 --> 02:30:43.102 - sidewalks will be located 02:30:43.330 --> 02:30:50.268 - out of the public right of way and on private property. So in these cases, the UDO requires that public 02:30:50.268 --> 02:30:57.073 - infrastructure be placed in a pedestrian easement. For the sidewalks, they would also have the option 02:30:57.073 --> 02:31:04.078 - to dedicate right of way, but they're not taking that option. They'd prefer to just put it on pedestrian 02:31:04.078 --> 02:31:10.750 - easement. So the purpose of this condition is to make sure that that happens. Okay, the petitioner, 02:31:11.106 --> 02:31:17.535 - Recommended condition of rate the petitioner shall make a payment in lieu to the city of Bloomington 02:31:17.535 --> 02:31:24.091 - housing development fund prior to final occupancy The amount of the payment shall be 15 percent of the 02:31:24.091 --> 02:31:30.646 - total number of bedrooms With any fraction rounded up to the nearest whole number multiplied by twenty 02:31:30.646 --> 02:31:37.266 - thousand dollars So this is how they're they're gonna earn the affordable housing incentive which gives 02:31:37.266 --> 02:31:40.894 - them some extra building footprint and some extra height 02:31:41.922 --> 02:31:48.066 - The amount of the payment is calculated based on administrative procedures that are referenced in the 02:31:48.066 --> 02:31:54.452 - UDO. At the time of their first formal filing for petition, for their first variance package, that formal 02:31:54.452 --> 02:32:00.536 - filing was May 30th, 2025. Right at that point, the administrative procedures were in the process of 02:32:00.536 --> 02:32:06.921 - being changed. But staff finds it reasonable to use the calculation that had most recently been published 02:32:06.921 --> 02:32:10.174 - and publicly available during that process of change. 02:32:10.370 --> 02:32:21.387 - And that's what the petitioner had relied on in good faith, which is 15% of the bedrooms times $20,000. 02:32:21.387 --> 02:32:32.298 - That 15% number comes from if they had provided on-site affordable units. 15% of the total units would 02:32:32.298 --> 02:32:38.654 - have to be affordable. So that's where that 15% comes from. 02:32:38.786 --> 02:32:45.039 - And the ninth, this gets to their sustainable development incentive. The development shall achieve silver 02:32:45.039 --> 02:32:51.350 - certification by the Home Innovation National Green Building Standard, NGBS green certified rating system. 02:32:51.350 --> 02:32:57.367 - Confirmation from NGBS of silver certification or equivalent confirmation as deemed acceptable by the 02:32:57.367 --> 02:33:03.383 - Planning and Transportation Department shall be submitted to the department prior to final occupancy. 02:33:03.383 --> 02:33:05.566 - The sustainable, in order to achieve 02:33:05.890 --> 02:33:13.007 - earn sustainable development incentives, there's various options in the UDO. They have chosen this particular 02:33:13.007 --> 02:33:19.607 - one. And so we're simply saying, that's a, you know, sounds like a great choice. We just want to make 02:33:19.607 --> 02:33:26.077 - sure that you carry through. So this is just making sure that they do something by final occupancy. 02:33:26.077 --> 02:33:32.676 - Just to highlight here, it's discussed a little bit in the staff report. They're not going to get the 02:33:32.676 --> 02:33:35.070 - certification before people move in. 02:33:35.970 --> 02:33:43.259 - So we we expect that people will move in based on a temporary certificate of occupancy and then the 02:33:43.259 --> 02:33:51.132 - time between that and a final occupancy will be enough time. Staff believes will be enough time to actually 02:33:51.132 --> 02:33:58.494 - achieve the certification if they're to a point where they don't actually have the letter from NGBS. 02:33:59.106 --> 02:34:06.282 - and they really are ready for final occupancy. I think the language in there about equivalent confirmation 02:34:06.282 --> 02:34:13.324 - is they could provide what they submitted to NGBS, things like that. Okay, final, last thing. Petitioner 02:34:13.324 --> 02:34:20.500 - will continue to work with staff on revisions to the parking garage to be compliant with UDO requirements. 02:34:20.500 --> 02:34:27.475 - This was something that staff, so I didn't finish following up with them, but it seems like the garage, 02:34:27.475 --> 02:34:28.414 - so there are, 02:34:29.314 --> 02:34:35.943 - use specific standards that apply to parking garages, whether or not they're a primary use, and to the 02:34:35.943 --> 02:34:42.509 - facades of them, especially facades facing a street. It's just not buttoned up that the garage design 02:34:42.509 --> 02:34:49.395 - fully meets all of the requirements, but it's at least very close, and maybe it's just a matter of getting 02:34:49.395 --> 02:34:56.154 - confirmation that what they're proposing actually does meet. So this is just to make sure that we follow 02:34:56.154 --> 02:34:56.926 - up on that. 02:34:59.586 --> 02:35:05.779 - Okay, so the proposed finding, it has to address these four things, compliance with the UDO, compliance 02:35:05.779 --> 02:35:12.270 - with other applicable regulations, compliance with utility service and improvement standards, and compliance 02:35:12.270 --> 02:35:18.702 - with prior approvals regarding compliance with the UDO. The proposed finding, as proposed and with required 02:35:18.702 --> 02:35:24.478 - commitments, the residential component of the development is the dwelling comma multifamily use. 02:35:25.058 --> 02:35:30.901 - The proposed site plan complies with the standards of the UDO for the dwelling multifamily use and for 02:35:30.901 --> 02:35:36.688 - this location as modified by the variances, those numbers. Other applicable regulations, the provided 02:35:36.688 --> 02:35:42.815 - phase one and phase two environmental site assessment reports show that the site is currently in compliance 02:35:42.815 --> 02:35:48.488 - with applicable state and federal environmental standards. And the petitioner will continue working 02:35:48.488 --> 02:35:50.814 - with IDEM and EPA to maintain compliance 02:35:51.714 --> 02:35:58.420 - Demolition delay was released on December 14th, 2025, allowing demolition of the existing contributing 02:35:58.420 --> 02:36:05.060 - structures on the site. Compliance with utility service and improvement standards, proposed utilities 02:36:05.060 --> 02:36:12.027 - are in review by CBU, and final acceptance of the plans as satisfactory for utility and services standards 02:36:12.027 --> 02:36:15.998 - are required prior to issuance of a site development permit. 02:36:16.738 --> 02:36:23.092 - The proposed site plan complies with relevant fire code standards, including standards for fire apparatus 02:36:23.092 --> 02:36:29.146 - access roads. And finally, compliance with prior approvals, the proposed site plan complies with the 02:36:29.146 --> 02:36:35.559 - conditions of prior variance approvals, those numbers. The proposed site plan allows for the redevelopment 02:36:35.559 --> 02:36:41.554 - of the 5.2 acre site adjacent to downtown, providing a large number of new dwelling units that help 02:36:41.554 --> 02:36:45.150 - meet the need for more housing in the Bloomington community 02:36:45.570 --> 02:36:52.186 - and enhance the long-term viability of the trades district as an employment hub within downtown. 02:36:52.186 --> 02:36:59.212 - So with that, the Planning and Transportation Department recommends that the Planning Commission adopt 02:36:59.212 --> 02:37:06.033 - the proposed findings and approve SP2026-03-0004 with the 10 conditions listed in the staff report. 02:37:06.033 --> 02:37:14.014 - Thank you. Thank you. Is there a representative of the petitioner who would like to add to the presentation tonight? 02:38:06.434 --> 02:38:13.566 - Thank you. Good evening. My name is John Anast Do I need to spell that? Okay. All right. Great. Well, 02:38:13.566 --> 02:38:20.768 - thank you all Appreciate your time and really want to thank all the members of the Commission and city 02:38:20.768 --> 02:38:28.250 - staff that we've been working with for the past year Definitely appreciate your time and attention tonight 02:38:28.250 --> 02:38:35.102 - to this I'm a director of development for gray star and we are a developer owner and operator and 02:38:36.002 --> 02:38:44.787 - multifamily housing We build these communities we operate them We manage them and we remain invested 02:38:44.787 --> 02:38:53.833 - them remain invested in them for the long term Long after construction is complete if you go down Roger 02:38:53.833 --> 02:39:02.792 - Street today What you see at this corner is a chain link fence and a scrap metal operation that's been 02:39:02.792 --> 02:39:05.054 - there since the 1950s and 02:39:06.082 --> 02:39:15.275 - This site as mentioned earlier went through a Superfund cleanup in the 1990s and has since Run as a 02:39:15.275 --> 02:39:24.651 - salvage yard since our phase one and two testing did indicate that that cleanup was successful and we 02:39:24.651 --> 02:39:30.718 - also agree with the request of staff to do additional testing and 02:39:31.170 --> 02:39:39.082 - Our environmental consultant is very thorough and was happy to do that additional testing and work with 02:39:39.082 --> 02:39:46.994 - both state and federal regulators to confirm that That the cleanup was done And it'll also be monitored 02:39:46.994 --> 02:39:54.830 - and in full compliance throughout the construction and the operation of the property Currently there's 02:39:54.830 --> 02:39:59.166 - no sidewalk connecting The beeline trail to the park and 02:39:59.586 --> 02:40:08.665 - Walked it today and it's a long walk that you've got to go around and so What we're proposing Is something 02:40:08.665 --> 02:40:17.320 - that aligns with your zoning we see the five point two acres as the front door to the trades district 02:40:17.320 --> 02:40:25.805 - and a site that plays a pivotal role in What this district is achieving? Can really see that it's a 02:40:25.805 --> 02:40:28.350 - vibrant center for innovation 02:40:29.602 --> 02:40:37.867 - There's lots of entrepreneurship there and future economic growth opportunities. The mill and the forge 02:40:37.867 --> 02:40:46.211 - are open. There's a hotel that is coming, and the momentum is real, and there is a need for more housing 02:40:46.211 --> 02:40:54.157 - options near downtown and in the trades district. The trades district vision plan calls for exactly 02:40:54.157 --> 02:40:58.846 - this. Housing alongside of office, retail, and restaurants 02:40:59.074 --> 02:41:06.935 - complete a complete neighborhood That attracts and retains talent in Bloomington Right now where that 02:41:06.935 --> 02:41:14.795 - neighborhood should be there's a chain-link fence and a scrap yard and our project hopes to fill that 02:41:14.795 --> 02:41:22.656 - gap What we're proposing is a transformation on this site 360 apartments across a range of unit types 02:41:22.656 --> 02:41:27.742 - built to the national green building standards silver certificate 02:41:28.162 --> 02:41:36.570 - Silver certification and that's something that we've built to before we believe in it and can definitely 02:41:36.570 --> 02:41:44.658 - be achieved on this project as well We're also as mentioned where we are including some ground floor 02:41:44.658 --> 02:41:53.066 - retail along Roger Street and We definitely want to be a part of the trades district Continue the energy 02:41:53.066 --> 02:41:56.990 - into this area Also mentioned is the new 10-foot 02:41:57.442 --> 02:42:05.689 - Trail that connects the beeline through the site to Butler Park We're also proposing extensive landscaping 02:42:05.689 --> 02:42:13.627 - on site the zoning in this area generally has Smaller sites but given the overall size of this project 02:42:13.627 --> 02:42:21.566 - there's going to be extensive landscaping on site and also as mentioned earlier the off-site plantings 02:42:21.566 --> 02:42:27.038 - will include over a hundred and forty off-site trees to be planted and 02:42:27.618 --> 02:42:33.088 - With the Parks Department. We're also making a direct financial contribution to the city's 02:42:33.088 --> 02:42:39.158 - housing development fund Our architect Burt with ESG is here tonight and walk you through the design 02:42:39.158 --> 02:42:45.409 - in more detail When you see what he and his team have done with the massing the materials and how these 02:42:45.409 --> 02:42:51.540 - buildings meet the street I think you'll understand the level of care that's gone into this We didn't 02:42:51.540 --> 02:42:57.310 - design this project from a template. We designed it for this site and for this neighborhood and 02:42:58.722 --> 02:43:06.444 - I want to close with this. Bloomington needs more housing, and the most responsible place to add it 02:43:06.444 --> 02:43:14.244 - is where the city already has planned for it. That is this site. In downtown, where the zoning plans 02:43:14.244 --> 02:43:22.120 - for it. The trades district vision plans calls for a complete walkable neighborhood, and this project 02:43:22.120 --> 02:43:27.294 - helps deliver that. It also contributes approximately $2.3 million 02:43:27.394 --> 02:43:34.997 - To the city's housing development fund to support dedicated affordable housing our proximity to the 02:43:34.997 --> 02:43:42.753 - beeline trail bus stop adjacent to the site and it's close proximity downtown the jobs and where most 02:43:42.753 --> 02:43:50.660 - of our residents will be living working and enjoying life in Bloomington will be a short walk away bike 02:43:50.660 --> 02:43:54.462 - ride and This location is very favorable for that 02:43:55.906 --> 02:44:04.015 - We've worked with your staff for the past year and it's been a pleasure working with them. We received 02:44:04.015 --> 02:44:11.967 - two unanimous BZA approvals and staff is recommending approval with conditions tonight and we accept 02:44:11.967 --> 02:44:19.840 - every one of them. I respectfully ask for your approval and happy to answer questions and thank you 02:44:19.840 --> 02:44:22.910 - for your time. Here's Bert. Thank you. 02:44:33.026 --> 02:44:39.300 - Good evening, President Whistler, commissioners. It's a pleasure to be with you this evening. My name 02:44:39.300 --> 02:44:45.697 - is Bert Coffin. I'm an architect and principal with ESG Architects. What I'd like to do briefly tonight 02:44:45.697 --> 02:44:52.094 - is walk through the site plan with you, show you, kind of discuss a little bit how the site works. It's 02:44:52.094 --> 02:44:58.245 - been touched on quite a bit, so I'm going to go fairly quickly and then talk a little bit about the 02:44:58.245 --> 02:45:02.366 - architecture of the buildings. So if we could go to the next page. 02:45:02.978 --> 02:45:09.516 - As mentioned so the main access through the site is a private drive that will be spanning from Rogers 02:45:09.516 --> 02:45:16.310 - to Fairview Street as you can see the garage entrance is oriented towards Rogers Street and we anticipate 02:45:16.310 --> 02:45:21.950 - that most of the vehicular traffic that's coming into the site will come off of Rogers. 02:45:22.114 --> 02:45:28.916 - If there are drop-offs or deliveries, they could use the turnaround in front of the main front door 02:45:28.916 --> 02:45:35.854 - of Building B where the leasing office will be located and several of the amenities as well. And then 02:45:35.854 --> 02:45:43.132 - on the right there, that little piece that sticks out closest to Rogers is the retail space. The multi-use 02:45:43.132 --> 02:45:49.934 - path is shown fairly well on this exhibit. It's along the south side of the site, but just north of 02:45:49.934 --> 02:45:50.750 - Building C, 02:45:50.850 --> 02:45:58.747 - Where the site kind of hooks down a little bit? This plan also shows that each of these buildings Has 02:45:58.747 --> 02:46:06.566 - individual entries and two of the buildings building a the one closest on Fairview has its own small 02:46:06.566 --> 02:46:14.463 - lobby Facing Fairview which is appropriate for buildings on any public right-of-way and then building 02:46:14.463 --> 02:46:20.734 - C It's kind of hard to see on this plan But also has a small lobby on 9th Street 02:46:21.090 --> 02:46:28.177 - Although there is also a lobby internal to the site for that building which which we believe a lot of 02:46:28.177 --> 02:46:35.194 - residents will use as well Next slide, please These are typical upper floor plans just to give you a 02:46:35.194 --> 02:46:42.281 - sense of how the buildings are laid out how the units are working next slide, please and Then this is 02:46:42.281 --> 02:46:49.854 - the top floor as Gabriel said we went through BZA last June and one of the variances we received was for the 02:46:50.498 --> 02:46:58.798 - top floor step backs. So as you can see on Fairview there, we have a significant top floor step back 02:46:58.798 --> 02:47:07.180 - to soften the building height. The same goes with building C, even though it's not visible to me. And 02:47:07.180 --> 02:47:15.891 - then building B has it as well. Next slide, please. From Roger Street, the main entrance shows the retail 02:47:15.891 --> 02:47:18.110 - space as front and center. 02:47:18.210 --> 02:47:26.397 - And then in the near distance on the left is building C and building B. These buildings are building 02:47:26.397 --> 02:47:34.746 - B there on the right is four stories and steps up to five stories. Next slide please. Here you can get 02:47:34.746 --> 02:47:42.853 - a sense of the entrance to building B and the turnaround with the right there in front of the front 02:47:42.853 --> 02:47:46.014 - door of building B. Next slide please. 02:47:48.482 --> 02:47:55.429 - As you can see from this view along Fairview Street, these residential buildings speak the same architectural 02:47:55.429 --> 02:48:02.061 - language to create a consistent campus feel. The primary building materials are a mix of brick and glass 02:48:02.061 --> 02:48:08.630 - and board and batten detailing. These traditional materials are used in a more contemporary manner with 02:48:08.630 --> 02:48:15.324 - the lighter weight board and batten materials used primarily on the upper floors. The window fenestration 02:48:15.324 --> 02:48:17.598 - is regular and vertically oriented. 02:48:18.210 --> 02:48:25.515 - This architecture bridges the more domestic residential architecture of the near west side neighborhood 02:48:25.515 --> 02:48:33.031 - with the older industrial style buildings of the Showers Trades District where we are tonight. The parking 02:48:33.031 --> 02:48:40.265 - garage which is on the far right of this image will also be clad in brick as you see it from the right 02:48:40.265 --> 02:48:45.182 - of way and some of the board and batten materials. Next slide please. 02:48:46.562 --> 02:48:53.799 - Along the beeline trail, which is we all think is a fantastic amenity for the city of Bloomington. You 02:48:53.799 --> 02:49:00.895 - can see that the building step and so it's not one long massive facade, but it's a series of smaller 02:49:00.895 --> 02:49:08.202 - facades that breaks down the massing of the building. Next slide, please. And here you can see how they 02:49:08.202 --> 02:49:14.174 - create these small courtyards and small spaces that will be filled with landscaping. 02:49:16.546 --> 02:49:23.284 - Next slide. This is building C along 9th Street There's quite a bit of grade change on this site as 02:49:23.284 --> 02:49:30.291 - as many of you may know it drops almost 20 feet from the far southwest on Fairview to Roger Street What 02:49:30.291 --> 02:49:37.298 - we're really doing is taking advantage of this grade change and tucking the buildings into the hillside 02:49:37.298 --> 02:49:39.454 - on 9th Street for instance here 02:49:39.874 --> 02:49:47.055 - the building will appear to be three stories and then steps back to four, whereas when you're within 02:49:47.055 --> 02:49:54.308 - the site it's a five story building. And then next slide please. And then this is the intersection of 02:49:54.308 --> 02:50:01.489 - 9th and Fairview looking back to the south, what is that, to the northeast I guess. And it gives you 02:50:01.489 --> 02:50:09.310 - a little bit of a sense of scale of how these buildings, we're really hoping to nestle them into the hillside 02:50:09.570 --> 02:50:18.023 - And the site is really perfectly set up for that. So we're using the site to do that Overall we believe 02:50:18.023 --> 02:50:26.638 - that the high quality architecture and the site arrangement will meet city goals For bringing much-needed 02:50:26.638 --> 02:50:34.766 - housing and reposition the site That's all I have for now, but we're here for any questions you may 02:50:34.766 --> 02:50:36.798 - have thank you Thank you 02:50:37.538 --> 02:50:47.928 - Are there questions from commissioners for either staff or for the petitioner? Go ahead, Commissioner 02:50:47.928 --> 02:50:58.114 - Bishop. Well, thank you for your presentation. It was very informative. I do have several questions 02:50:58.114 --> 02:51:02.494 - for the petitioners. I guess starting off, 02:51:02.690 --> 02:51:09.930 - 360 units, 760 beds, can you help understand a little bit of what the mix is as far as the actual units 02:51:09.930 --> 02:51:14.942 - themselves? Are they mostly single, double, triple, so on and so forth? 02:51:37.250 --> 02:51:46.444 - Bishop The the mix is as a widespread. It's less than one-third three bedrooms But there are a fair 02:51:46.444 --> 02:51:56.005 - number of three bedrooms and then I would say the smaller units the studios in the one bedrooms. That's 02:51:56.005 --> 02:52:05.566 - probably 15 to 15 percent let's say and then the rest of them would be two-bedroom units By the bedroom 02:52:08.770 --> 02:52:16.590 - All of our units will be rented out by the unit and there's no per bedroom leasing and that's one of 02:52:16.590 --> 02:52:24.564 - the commitments in the staff report and also Gabriel referenced eight additional commitments have been 02:52:24.564 --> 02:52:30.526 - made and that's in there as well. So This project will be leased by the unit 02:52:33.506 --> 02:52:39.447 - Is there a reason why these units are being leased instead of you know put together as like apartments 02:52:39.447 --> 02:52:45.330 - that could be sold for permanent housing because you keep referencing the city's goals of adding more 02:52:45.330 --> 02:52:51.098 - housing and this is not what they mean when they say they want to add more housing they want to add 02:52:51.098 --> 02:52:53.694 - houses that people can occupy permanently is 02:52:53.826 --> 02:53:01.608 - Owners, they don't want more apartments. We have lots of apartments. So could you help me understand 02:53:01.608 --> 02:53:09.468 - why? Adding another 760 rentable beds that no one can own would be a good idea Yeah, and if it's okay 02:53:09.468 --> 02:53:17.405 - to maybe go through some of the research and things that we looked at here in your community Currently 02:53:17.405 --> 02:53:23.646 - there's approximately 97 percent occupancy in the for rental housing space. So I 02:53:23.874 --> 02:53:32.149 - what that's led to over the past approximate 10 years is higher annual rent increases than what you 02:53:32.149 --> 02:53:40.506 - might see in other markets. And so the additional supply of four rent apartments helps alleviate the 02:53:40.506 --> 02:53:48.864 - supply and demand imbalance. And so by offering additional four rent apartments, it helps offset the 02:53:48.864 --> 02:53:52.670 - increases that some people are paying in rent 02:53:52.866 --> 02:54:00.528 - acknowledge that your question is specifically about the product being for sale and the project that 02:54:00.528 --> 02:54:08.113 - we're proposing and what our company builds across the country is generally apartments for rent and 02:54:08.113 --> 02:54:16.382 - that's just to help the residents that have that need at that point in time and provide a market competitive 02:54:16.382 --> 02:54:22.526 - product that Is on alignment with the broader goals of the community as well and 02:54:23.362 --> 02:54:29.853 - Sure, I understand. I did a little research on you guys, and you focus on senior housing, student housing, 02:54:29.853 --> 02:54:36.161 - warehousing, and modular homes. And that fourth one would be really appealing to our community in terms 02:54:36.161 --> 02:54:42.531 - of adding more housing and making more permanent housing in Bloomington. So is there a particular reason 02:54:42.531 --> 02:54:48.718 - why you decided to go for more of a for-profit? You want to continue to get rents and leases from the 02:54:48.718 --> 02:54:53.328 - community for a long-term play rather than providing more permanent housing 02:54:53.328 --> 02:55:03.473 - We desperately need here Yeah You mentioned some of the product types and our largest and The the team 02:55:03.473 --> 02:55:13.420 - working here today our major focus is Multi-use for rent apartments. We do have groups that do those 02:55:13.420 --> 02:55:22.974 - various other elements and the the reason that we've proposed apartments on this site is because 02:55:23.330 --> 02:55:32.972 - We believe that that's what the market would find to be most supported from a Demand perspective and 02:55:32.972 --> 02:55:42.709 - so the various product types that you mentioned could be applicable to Different sites but given this 02:55:42.709 --> 02:55:52.446 - site's proximity former use and some of the potential challenges that exists there we've proposed and 02:55:53.186 --> 02:56:01.416 - Suggested this is the best use Was a planned unit development for that space because it's like what 02:56:01.416 --> 02:56:10.057 - six acres I mean you could put a lot of modular homes on something like that Yeah, and that is something 02:56:10.057 --> 02:56:18.452 - that we do build the there's a few factors that go into play when when we do utilize modular like you 02:56:18.452 --> 02:56:22.814 - mentioned that's something that our company does and 02:56:23.330 --> 02:56:30.492 - for this site The product type and the construction that we're proposing is what we felt would meet 02:56:30.492 --> 02:56:37.870 - the the market demand the best And can you give me a bit of an idea in terms of what? These units will 02:56:37.870 --> 02:56:45.175 - cost on a monthly basis, you know, I can go from low end to high end just ballpark Yeah, I don't have 02:56:45.175 --> 02:56:53.054 - exact figures that I can provide right now by and large our goal would be to make them market competitive and 02:56:53.218 --> 02:57:00.890 - given the duration to start construction construction a few years from now the market could look a little 02:57:00.890 --> 02:57:08.200 - bit different than it does today, but our goal is to mark that market these as Market apartments for 02:57:08.200 --> 02:57:15.655 - rent at the current market rate And so in Bloomington the current market rates around eighteen hundred 02:57:15.655 --> 02:57:23.038 - dollars nineteen hundred dollars a month Are you proposing something in line with that? It in general 02:57:23.170 --> 02:57:28.463 - That's our general concept But again when we open it would be based off of where those rates are at 02:57:28.463 --> 02:57:33.967 - at that time to be competitive with the overall market Sure, I understand moves but you know decreasing 02:57:33.967 --> 02:57:39.524 - rents in general is not going to be bring them in at market rents I mean that doesn't help because we're 02:57:39.524 --> 02:57:44.869 - just perpetuating the problem, right? I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I understand that. Can you 02:57:44.869 --> 02:57:45.822 - ask that again? I 02:57:46.274 --> 02:57:53.477 - So if you bring in new units at the same rent as everyone else How is that alleviating or lowering rent 02:57:53.477 --> 02:58:00.818 - across the board? I think in a few ways Directly by increasing the supply As I'm sure you all are looking 02:58:00.818 --> 02:58:08.090 - to do you want to increase jobs? The trades district is innovating should be additional jobs if we don't 02:58:08.090 --> 02:58:14.046 - bring additional supply to the market you might see even further outpaced rent growth 02:58:14.178 --> 02:58:22.368 - So generally what we see is the more apartment supply that comes it helps alleviate the rate of growth 02:58:22.368 --> 02:58:30.400 - and then secondly we are also Working with the housing fund and making an affordable contribution as 02:58:30.400 --> 02:58:38.033 - part of the part of the project Could you tell me a little bit about your Bren Road development 02:58:38.033 --> 02:58:41.214 - in Minnetonka, Minnesota Say that again 02:58:41.858 --> 02:58:48.672 - You guys have a Bren Road development in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It doesn't look too different than what 02:58:48.672 --> 02:58:55.224 - you're trying to do here. That started in 2022 and as of like the August of 2024, you guys had just 02:58:55.224 --> 02:59:02.366 - broken ground and it was supposed to open in summer of 2026, but looking at pictures as of April this month. 02:59:02.626 --> 02:59:08.829 - It's not even under roof yet And so I mean we're looking at six years on a project like that where you 02:59:08.829 --> 02:59:14.972 - got a three point three million dollar TIF buy-in from the city and it's doggedly behind and you know 02:59:14.972 --> 02:59:21.054 - on something like this where we desperately need that housing especially affordable housing This has 02:59:21.054 --> 02:59:27.077 - a concern for me in terms of being able to actually get it across the finish line So could you help 02:59:27.077 --> 02:59:31.774 - me understand that a little bit? Who works on that project Sign in real quick 02:59:35.842 --> 02:59:44.582 - Bert works on that one, too. So you got the right group Haley Vergados senior director of Real estate 02:59:44.582 --> 02:59:53.323 - development at Grey Star sit in Minnesota. Actually that one's opening this year End of the month. So 02:59:53.323 --> 03:00:02.063 - we broke ground 23 for 24 You know with every development project obviously we're working really hard 03:00:02.063 --> 03:00:03.006 - to kind of 03:00:03.778 --> 03:00:10.810 - Get projects across the finish line. That was certainly no no small feat. That was a big project. I 03:00:10.810 --> 03:00:13.342 - think it's about 269 units of multi 03:00:13.538 --> 03:00:19.682 - Family conventional product done with ESG a really beautiful project that we're super proud of Unfortunately 03:00:19.682 --> 03:00:25.319 - right as you know interest rates and all the fun things kind of came on line that one certainly had 03:00:25.319 --> 03:00:31.350 - its its Challenges, but we were successful getting it across the finish line as well as getting it through 03:00:31.350 --> 03:00:37.212 - the entitlement process Which is a lengthy process in Minnesota, so You know worked really hand-in-hand 03:00:37.212 --> 03:00:41.214 - with the city. It's been a partnership Certainly and so we're actually 03:00:41.346 --> 03:00:46.432 - Really really proud of bringing that one online and bringing much needed supply to the market to John's 03:00:46.432 --> 03:00:49.758 - point every time you add more supply to the market it helps kind of 03:00:49.954 --> 03:00:55.980 - Normalize rank growth and that actually does make the communities we serve more affordable Inherently, 03:00:55.980 --> 03:01:02.123 - we're delivering market rate product It still costs us quite a bit to build these projects, but it helps 03:01:02.123 --> 03:01:08.032 - kind of bring the overall supply in the market Taper that rank growth and keep it within balance and 03:01:08.032 --> 03:01:12.478 - that's important I think for for the communities and the residents we serve 03:01:13.506 --> 03:01:19.292 - it with regards to your development in Minnesota today have any of the Environmental concerns that this 03:01:19.292 --> 03:01:23.742 - current site has like being a superfund site that project. I don't believe that 03:01:24.450 --> 03:01:30.860 - Any environmental issues we do tackle kind of environmental cleanups all around the country not unfamiliar 03:01:30.860 --> 03:01:36.910 - to us We kind of follow all kind of state and and federal regulations and and certainly something we 03:01:36.910 --> 03:01:43.200 - don't take lightly So safety is always of utmost concern for both residents as well as the folks working 03:01:43.200 --> 03:01:49.790 - out in the field. So No different here. Certainly it's more of a concern of just the timing and the amount of 03:01:49.890 --> 03:01:56.057 - Depth that may have to go into something that is former Superfund site with PCBs things like that surrounding 03:01:56.057 --> 03:02:02.055 - neighbor You know residential neighborhoods having dust in the air I mean that seems to be a significantly 03:02:02.055 --> 03:02:07.773 - bigger lift than just getting through, you know a TIF agreement with a city or something like that in 03:02:07.773 --> 03:02:13.379 - Minnesota because it's a little more challenging so could you kind of speak to how you would handle 03:02:13.379 --> 03:02:15.902 - a major environmental remediation effort and 03:02:16.386 --> 03:02:22.380 - Today we don't believe there's an environmental concern we've went and done significant testing and 03:02:22.380 --> 03:02:28.374 - done borings and our phase two Came back clean so consistent with the EPA is clean up in the 90s So 03:02:28.374 --> 03:02:32.510 - the three additional borings that we'll be doing is just to agree on 03:02:32.674 --> 03:02:37.770 - Confirm what we've what we've already kind of assessed out on the site in the event We found something 03:02:37.770 --> 03:02:42.866 - we will have to follow standard kind of rules and regulations Both state and federal and and so that's 03:02:42.866 --> 03:02:48.160 - kind of what that condition is alluding to not that They're necessarily is a belief that there's something 03:02:48.160 --> 03:02:53.157 - out there today It's just more there were stockpiles that we couldn't snag a sample from underneath. 03:02:53.157 --> 03:02:56.126 - So it's a more of a confirmation check Okay Appreciate that 03:02:56.258 --> 03:03:02.398 - Last question that I have here is regarding the retail space So Bloomington has a long history of making 03:03:02.398 --> 03:03:08.304 - sure we have a lot of retail space or commercial space available whenever we do housing projects and 03:03:08.304 --> 03:03:14.444 - things like that and just across the street spitting distance from where you want to put this the Trades 03:03:14.444 --> 03:03:20.525 - district has this gorgeous 4,000 square foot retail commercial space that has sat empty for four years. 03:03:20.525 --> 03:03:25.086 - Oh, sorry six years You would be in direct competition with the city for that 03:03:25.218 --> 03:03:33.423 - Meaning you'd need to find a tenant just as much as they would How is that going to be beneficial? I 03:03:33.423 --> 03:03:41.710 - just I don't see the purpose of having it there Thank You Haley for your feedback there and just want 03:03:41.710 --> 03:03:49.834 - to point out that part of the site requirement here and allow staff to confirm this that there is a 03:03:49.834 --> 03:03:53.246 - retail component on this project and so I 03:03:53.794 --> 03:04:00.841 - our goal on projects is to make sure that we can activate the space and Market it to perspective tenants 03:04:00.841 --> 03:04:07.820 - in a way that will be desirable as I'm sure you're doing with with your facility as well And so there's 03:04:07.820 --> 03:04:14.800 - a few different ways that we do that The goal is to make sure that we size the spaces properly to where 03:04:14.800 --> 03:04:21.645 - the most businesses find demand and so how we're proposing to do it is to make sure that You know, we 03:04:21.645 --> 03:04:23.390 - we give the tenants their 03:04:23.682 --> 03:04:30.424 - the right building infrastructure, the support to build out their business and that we size the units 03:04:30.424 --> 03:04:37.299 - appropriately so we don't overburden them with the large amount of space that might not be fully income 03:04:37.299 --> 03:04:44.042 - producing for them. So it's a requirement and we want to have a very strong plan so that space can be 03:04:44.042 --> 03:04:50.718 - activated and not sit there vacant. Okay, thank you, appreciate it. Any other questions on this end? 03:04:53.954 --> 03:05:01.535 - Thank you for your presentation just really just about the the parking about 300 parking spots 700 or 03:05:01.535 --> 03:05:09.635 - 800 Bedrooms is my understanding. Is that a typical balance? Do you guys expect that parking to be adequate? 03:05:09.635 --> 03:05:15.358 - How much spillover do you expect into the neighborhoods? Yeah, appreciate it 03:05:16.866 --> 03:05:24.043 - answer your question directly. Yeah, we do a lot of studying on parking demand. There's a lot of factors 03:05:24.043 --> 03:05:31.220 - that go into that. It's proximity to different services, the walkability of a site, transit, bike paths, 03:05:31.220 --> 03:05:38.192 - and given the things that are very favorable to this site, we've factored that into our analysis. And 03:05:38.192 --> 03:05:45.437 - from a general code perspective, I know that you all have a maximum parking limit and then also a minimum 03:05:45.437 --> 03:05:46.462 - parking limit. 03:05:46.562 --> 03:05:52.722 - We're in between those two to be in compliance and further than just compliance. We want to make sure 03:05:52.722 --> 03:05:58.761 - that it's the right amount so that way to your question we don't have spillover and so we We take a 03:05:58.761 --> 03:06:05.042 - look and we analyze like I said all the factors previously and believe that between the provided spaces 03:06:05.042 --> 03:06:11.504 - in the parking garage and the other on-site parking spaces that will meet the demand of what our residents 03:06:11.504 --> 03:06:12.350 - will need and 03:06:12.738 --> 03:06:18.929 - We also try to look at it forward-looking knowing how transits changing with different ride sharing 03:06:18.929 --> 03:06:25.182 - opportunities and different advancements and vehicles where people can share the we look at these on 03:06:25.182 --> 03:06:31.435 - this on every project and we really want to make sure we get this right because that number needs to 03:06:31.435 --> 03:06:37.627 - serve the residents of the building and the quantities that we came up with here were Analyzed very 03:06:37.627 --> 03:06:42.270 - deeply and we believe that we have that right amount and it is also within 03:06:42.370 --> 03:06:51.307 - Your all's code within the code maximum and above the code limit Thank you, you're welcome I just had 03:06:51.307 --> 03:07:00.331 - a couple questions. Thanks again also. Oh I guess and maybe this is my question for a staff or perhaps 03:07:00.331 --> 03:07:08.830 - Andrew would want to weigh in on the kind of the traffic flow so if you're exiting onto Fairview 03:07:09.058 --> 03:07:17.183 - You'd have to probably go all the way down to 8th Street to get back over to Rogers And so just curious 03:07:17.183 --> 03:07:24.995 - from like a Congestion standpoint in that neighborhood. Those streets are all pretty sure I know we 03:07:24.995 --> 03:07:32.495 - also only have a stop sign a four-way at 7th and Rogers So would we need to consider additional 03:07:32.495 --> 03:07:37.886 - infrastructure along there? So that may be a question more for staff 03:07:38.274 --> 03:07:48.256 - But obviously, welcome to chime in. One way to answer that is the way the UDO is set up. There are some, 03:07:48.256 --> 03:07:58.048 - the way the UDO is set up for by right developments like this. So this is not coming in as a plan unit 03:07:58.048 --> 03:08:04.798 - development or a rezone or things that require discretionary approval. 03:08:04.962 --> 03:08:13.961 - So in situations like this, the UDO is set up to require certain things immediately adjacent to the 03:08:13.961 --> 03:08:22.959 - site, but typically not things that are off-site. That said, it's very possible for developments in 03:08:22.959 --> 03:08:32.318 - general to create new needs or new challenges with traffic in the city. And that's, you know, that's on 03:08:32.674 --> 03:08:41.530 - the city to respond to those things. I will say that the Rogers Street is right now going through a 03:08:41.530 --> 03:08:50.829 - corridor study. It's the Rogers, Madison, Kinzer, Pike corridor study. I believe it goes from the bypass 03:08:50.829 --> 03:08:59.774 - on the north-south to second street or farther south? I forget. Country Club, yes, all the way down. 03:09:00.002 --> 03:09:05.239 - so you know so that so our long-range planning staff, you know to where that the Development services 03:09:05.239 --> 03:09:10.579 - staff are the other half of the department is working on looking at this corridor right now And they've 03:09:10.579 --> 03:09:16.022 - been meeting with these petitioners about things that they can do right, especially on their Roger Street 03:09:16.022 --> 03:09:21.516 - frontage But you know, we're thinking about how developments like this developments in the trades district 03:09:21.516 --> 03:09:26.702 - generally are going to impact traffic through their so I know your question was more about the other 03:09:26.702 --> 03:09:27.934 - side of it Fairview and 03:09:28.322 --> 03:09:34.565 - But I wanted to offer that as an example of the kind of things where the city, even if we're not in 03:09:34.565 --> 03:09:40.870 - a situation where we can compel the developer to do a particular thing, the city is paying attention 03:09:40.870 --> 03:09:47.487 - to these things and trying to respond to these things. As far as Fairview goes, there is a drive entrance 03:09:47.487 --> 03:09:54.042 - that they're proposing. That interior drive goes all the way from Rogers through to Fairview, so someone 03:09:54.042 --> 03:09:55.166 - can exit in a car 03:09:55.586 --> 03:10:04.621 - onto Fairview and go that way, that's allowed by the UDO. But you'll see that the way they have it oriented 03:10:04.621 --> 03:10:13.154 - and the entrance to the garage points you toward Rogers Street. And once someone gets in a car, where 03:10:13.154 --> 03:10:21.771 - they go is, it's their own, their steering. But the design is set up in a way that if someone is gonna 03:10:21.771 --> 03:10:24.030 - wanna go to Rogers Street, 03:10:24.162 --> 03:10:30.824 - they're gonna go out to Rogers Street. They're not gonna go to Fairview. If they were going immediately 03:10:30.824 --> 03:10:37.358 - to the near west side neighborhood for some reason, then that would be a good way to go. Potentially, 03:10:37.358 --> 03:10:43.829 - if they're going toward the northwest, they might go out on Fairview and go north to 11th Street and 03:10:43.829 --> 03:10:50.491 - so on. Fairview Street's very narrow. With this project, they are not fundamentally changing the nature 03:10:50.491 --> 03:10:53.758 - of the street, but they are widening it from being 03:10:54.210 --> 03:11:02.275 - not meeting our current standards to meeting our current standards for that narrow width of street and 03:11:02.275 --> 03:11:10.262 - providing a curb to give it a little more definition to it, which we believe will help with making it 03:11:10.262 --> 03:11:15.038 - clear where the road is will help with some of that traffic. 03:11:15.426 --> 03:11:21.934 - As far as what's happens farther south, you know, there's a four-way stop at 8th and Fairview That's 03:11:21.934 --> 03:11:28.506 - not really part of this petition. But as we notice these changes in the city, you know, I would throw 03:11:28.506 --> 03:11:35.142 - it to Commissioner seabor city engineer seabor For you know, these are the kind of things that we look 03:11:35.142 --> 03:11:41.843 - at and there might be changes that the city would would want to make I Think that's a fantastic answer. 03:11:41.843 --> 03:11:43.454 - But if you would like to 03:11:43.586 --> 03:11:53.479 - Any additional context to that question? I'd be happy to provide as well I also had some questions about 03:11:53.479 --> 03:12:02.900 - the vehicular traffic both on Rogers and Fairview and is it one road cut then onto Fairview is that 03:12:02.900 --> 03:12:10.814 - right Gabriel is that okay? There's also the multi-use path which will have its own 03:12:10.978 --> 03:12:17.682 - on to Fairview, but as far as motor vehicle, there's just that one on Fairview. Okay, one, and then, 03:12:17.682 --> 03:12:24.652 - and one onto Rogers. Not to complicate it further, but there is also a fire access lane, so like Gabriel 03:12:24.652 --> 03:12:31.290 - mentioned earlier, there's a lot going on here, so that would be a third, but the primary vehicular 03:12:31.290 --> 03:12:37.927 - traffic leaving the site would all be from one exit on Fairview. Okay, and how does that, you know, 03:12:37.927 --> 03:12:39.454 - the crossing where the 03:12:39.554 --> 03:12:49.111 - line crosses is always you know, I mean it's a significant safety Concern currently and the drive cut 03:12:49.111 --> 03:12:58.855 - looks like it'll just be to the south of that current Am I right about that? That's where the fire lane 03:12:58.855 --> 03:13:08.318 - comes out That would not be open to regular traffic so Not to say that there isn't any concern about 03:13:08.674 --> 03:13:14.750 - the how that how that's close to the beeline but it's going to be way less of a concern than an entrance 03:13:14.750 --> 03:13:20.653 - that had would have traffic all the time. So it's really only going to be fire trucks that would ever 03:13:20.653 --> 03:13:26.672 - go down there. OK then just tell me again where the the actual road is in relation to where the beeline 03:13:26.672 --> 03:13:32.633 - crosses over. What can you give me that. Or is there a image. I'm sorry. Yeah let me see if I can pull 03:13:32.633 --> 03:13:33.790 - up a helpful image. 03:13:38.466 --> 03:13:49.886 - I realize we're pretty limited on where we can cross here, but. So this is from the architectural plans. 03:13:49.886 --> 03:14:00.871 - So this doesn't have any of the aerial imagery for context, so it is limited to that, but Fairview's 03:14:00.871 --> 03:14:08.158 - on the left, and it's hard to make out, but the way up at the top, 03:14:08.290 --> 03:14:16.888 - left is where the fire lane comes in. And then we have going down from there, south from there, going 03:14:16.888 --> 03:14:25.318 - up the hill along Fairview. You see building A. And then there's that drive entrance, which will be 03:14:25.318 --> 03:14:34.337 - a little bit south of where 10th Street comes into, the little stub end of 10th Street comes into Fairview 03:14:34.337 --> 03:14:38.046 - from the west. And then there's the garage. 03:14:38.210 --> 03:14:46.304 - and then the multi-use path, proposed new multi-use path comes up there, and then the entrance to the 03:14:46.304 --> 03:14:54.398 - parking lot for Butler Park is a little bit south of that. Those are sort of the main things that are 03:14:54.398 --> 03:15:02.412 - happening along that segment of Fairview Street in terms of entrances. And then my other question is 03:15:02.412 --> 03:15:06.142 - about perhaps what might happen on 9th Street. 03:15:06.722 --> 03:15:16.218 - for either off-street parking or access that, you know, I realize this is not part of your development, 03:15:16.218 --> 03:15:25.531 - but I just wonder if you have thought about, given the building on that side, oh, I just lost my good 03:15:25.531 --> 03:15:35.027 - image here, if there is any potential to flow onto, yes, so where building C is, are there entry points 03:15:35.027 --> 03:15:36.670 - there off of 9th? 03:15:36.930 --> 03:15:45.651 - that could encourage people to park and access online Pull that image that you just had up if that's 03:15:45.651 --> 03:15:54.459 - possible Because the transcription kind of cuts off the bottom I wonder if there would be a different 03:15:54.459 --> 03:16:01.022 - one that would be more useful But to answer your question in short there is 03:16:01.186 --> 03:16:08.953 - The intention is that vehicles would be parking on the site. We have the provided parking for that, 03:16:08.953 --> 03:16:16.720 - and that there would not be vehicle parking on 9th Street for this project. Pedestrians, as part of 03:16:16.720 --> 03:16:24.720 - the code, there is a need to have access from the street, but our primary lobby occurs to the interior 03:16:24.720 --> 03:16:31.166 - of the project, not on 9th Street, and so that's intended to be the primary lobby. 03:16:31.394 --> 03:16:37.826 - closest path to residents being able to get their bikes and the other things that they need on the property 03:16:37.826 --> 03:16:44.079 - and If it's okay for me to just explain briefly where we envision most of the traffic flow going similar 03:16:44.079 --> 03:16:50.153 - to what Gabriel described earlier like I said, we really look closely at the parking on every project 03:16:50.153 --> 03:16:55.870 - and like Gabriel mentioned the way that we Positioned the parking garage was to be in line with 03:16:56.066 --> 03:17:02.416 - To Roger Street so you can drive in from Roger Street and as you're leaving the parking garage, you'll 03:17:02.416 --> 03:17:08.828 - go out to Roger Street and this also matches some of the other things that we looked into of where it's 03:17:08.828 --> 03:17:15.178 - most likely that the residents are going to be going from both an employment perspective and then also 03:17:15.178 --> 03:17:21.466 - a services perspective and the majority of the employment base is either a walkable distance bikeable 03:17:21.466 --> 03:17:22.206 - distance or 03:17:22.306 --> 03:17:29.512 - Or if they are driving in a car the most likely route would be out Rogers and then heading north south 03:17:29.512 --> 03:17:36.718 - on Rogers and then connecting to their desired location we do have the connectivity for safety reasons 03:17:36.718 --> 03:17:40.286 - and fire access on our main street to Fairview and 03:17:40.450 --> 03:17:47.281 - But the the majority of the traffic flow that we envision out of this site will be Through Roger Street 03:17:47.281 --> 03:17:54.440 - and like we talked earlier the this site and the parking that we're proposing here We look at as I mentioned 03:17:54.440 --> 03:18:01.665 - earlier all the things and we anticipate that there will be less vehicular traffic because of its walkability 03:18:01.665 --> 03:18:05.278 - bike ability and proximity to employers in the area so 03:18:05.762 --> 03:18:13.970 - We would view that if this project were 15 miles outside of the city a 360 unit apartment project will 03:18:13.970 --> 03:18:21.939 - have a different traffic impact than a project in a downtown and So we've completed a traffic study 03:18:21.939 --> 03:18:29.908 - and we have that I believe shared those results with staff and I don't want to try to summarize the 03:18:29.908 --> 03:18:35.646 - overall results, but I think The general takeaway was that this project 03:18:35.746 --> 03:18:42.525 - Has a minimal impact to the surrounding areas. I know that it'll be a point of discussion tonight and 03:18:42.525 --> 03:18:49.637 - We've like Gabriel mentioned earlier. We've done a lot of things to position this site to Minimize impacts 03:18:49.637 --> 03:18:56.815 - and one of those things like we talked about was the position of the parking garage to be easily accessible 03:18:56.815 --> 03:18:59.806 - from Rogers for a pull-through condition and 03:19:01.666 --> 03:19:08.180 - I'd just like to add that there are existing parking restrictions on many of these streets the north 03:19:08.180 --> 03:19:14.630 - side of 9th Street Which is the immediately adjacent to where this property comes out of 9th Street 03:19:14.630 --> 03:19:21.208 - and building C does not allow parking There is parking on the south side of 9th Street Parking on the 03:19:21.208 --> 03:19:27.787 - south side of 9th Street there is allowed So you you would not it would not be legal to park directly 03:19:27.787 --> 03:19:30.302 - in front of the building on 9th Street 03:19:31.778 --> 03:19:42.627 - Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. I do have some questions. And again, some of the other questions have 03:19:42.627 --> 03:19:53.477 - brought up more questions for me. So going to the fire lane, which is going to run kind of parallel 03:19:53.477 --> 03:19:58.142 - to the B line, how or is there going to be 03:19:58.242 --> 03:20:04.971 - Any kind of way to prevent other traffic from using the fire lane like is it going to be like like blocked 03:20:04.971 --> 03:20:11.323 - off in some way that the fire department has a key but like normal people can't ride on it like tell 03:20:11.323 --> 03:20:17.674 - me about that. Yeah, so we've we've looked at this overall site with the Bloomington Fire Department 03:20:17.674 --> 03:20:24.278 - and things that both Bloomington Fire Department and ourselves have implemented successfully is creating 03:20:24.278 --> 03:20:27.422 - like a landscape system and bollards that prevent 03:20:27.522 --> 03:20:34.913 - vehicular traffic from going there but allow the larger emergency response vehicles to go through those 03:20:34.913 --> 03:20:42.090 - landscape areas and It's a deterrent from Pedestria or vehicular traffic, but they're able to safely 03:20:42.090 --> 03:20:49.339 - navigate that and that's one approach that we've discussed with your fire department and we Currently 03:20:49.339 --> 03:20:55.166 - believe that that's the most successful way to achieve keeping people off of that 03:20:55.490 --> 03:21:02.463 - But maintaining safe access While you're up there I my questions are on like, you know I don't love 03:21:02.463 --> 03:21:09.575 - this new system that we have to do for accessibility because then I have so many different files with 03:21:09.575 --> 03:21:16.618 - so many different questions attached to them, so You mentioned that you were gonna make a payment in 03:21:16.618 --> 03:21:21.150 - lieu to the Housing Development Fund and you also mentioned that 03:21:21.378 --> 03:21:29.267 - You guys actually manage your own properties after you build them So do you guys accept vouchers on 03:21:29.267 --> 03:21:37.392 - your properties either section eight or any kind of? payment assistance Yeah, it's it would be project 03:21:37.392 --> 03:21:45.281 - specific And so if you're asking specifically do we accept them elsewhere? It's project specific if 03:21:45.281 --> 03:21:51.198 - they if that's something that that project has they do on this project I'm 03:21:51.618 --> 03:22:00.805 - Like we said earlier with the way that we're going to be charging rents. That'll be something that's 03:22:00.805 --> 03:22:09.993 - determined at the time of Opening and so today I don't have an exact answer on that question Okay, I 03:22:09.993 --> 03:22:14.814 - guess I'm gonna encourage you to accept vouchers and 03:22:18.850 --> 03:22:26.797 - You brought up that it's going to be Silver certified in terms of environmental stuff, but also in one 03:22:26.797 --> 03:22:34.513 - of the paperwork and one of the documents it shows the gas line I'm just wondering if this is going 03:22:34.513 --> 03:22:42.383 - to be an all-electric build or not There will be like you mentioned there will be gas service to this 03:22:42.383 --> 03:22:48.478 - property the predominant use on this project for building heat is electric and 03:22:48.610 --> 03:22:55.843 - That's one of the major uses of potentially natural gas And so this will be an electric cooling and 03:22:55.843 --> 03:23:03.148 - an electric heating system in all of the units So yes, there is gas to the property But the majority 03:23:03.148 --> 03:23:10.598 - of the consumption on the project for heating the units will be from electricity What is the gas going 03:23:10.598 --> 03:23:14.142 - to be connected to them? it's used sometimes for 03:23:17.698 --> 03:23:25.138 - Maybe I'll let my architect answer that. Thanks. No, that's a great question. Mostly for the boilers 03:23:25.138 --> 03:23:32.579 - that will supply the hot water. So it's a smaller amount. And then I think we'll have some grills in 03:23:32.579 --> 03:23:40.388 - the courtyard. People like to grill, so some amenity grills. So it's smaller things like that. But that's 03:23:40.388 --> 03:23:44.734 - the current plan. It's all kind of in the works still. OK. 03:23:49.698 --> 03:23:57.069 - this might be a question for staff on the On the Following conditions on condition number seven where 03:23:57.069 --> 03:24:04.296 - it says pedestrian easements for that multi-use path, etc. Does that include like? Bicycle easement 03:24:04.296 --> 03:24:12.606 - to because I mean it specifically says pedestrians, but it's a multi-use path and bicycles use multi-use paths. So 03:24:12.738 --> 03:24:20.256 - is there any kind of specific terminology that needs to be put in there to make sure to include that 03:24:20.256 --> 03:24:27.849 - and Similarly like our electric bicycles categorized somehow differently than anything else right now 03:24:27.849 --> 03:24:35.441 - I Wonder if our city engineer would would know better I think as a general as a general principle the 03:24:35.441 --> 03:24:38.270 - purpose of the pedestrian easement is 03:24:38.434 --> 03:24:44.771 - is to allow the public to do anything there that they would do on a sidewalk. How that's exactly implemented 03:24:44.771 --> 03:24:50.933 - in the language of the easement, I'm actually not sure. Those are reviewed by the engineering department. 03:24:50.933 --> 03:24:57.212 - The planning department's role in it is just making sure that they do go through the engineering department 03:24:57.212 --> 03:25:03.025 - and record those. So I don't know about the specifics, but the purpose would be anything you can do 03:25:03.025 --> 03:25:05.118 - for the sidewalks, anything you do. 03:25:05.282 --> 03:25:12.387 - Sidewalk you can do in the pedestrian easement and for the multi-use path anything you can do in a multi-use 03:25:12.387 --> 03:25:18.904 - path You you should be able to do in there as well Okay, does our city engineer want to weigh in on 03:25:18.904 --> 03:25:25.879 - that phrasing? But I almost wonder if in the udio there's definitions of pedestrian easements or something 03:25:25.879 --> 03:25:32.527 - where it actually talks about bicyclists being apart or allowed on those I But that is something that 03:25:32.527 --> 03:25:35.134 - we've want to make sure is incorporated 03:25:36.386 --> 03:25:43.003 - We're happy to do either we like bicycles. We like peds So we're happy to have that language written 03:25:43.003 --> 03:25:50.012 - in any manner that you know, you all want I just want to make sure that that's okay. So there is something 03:25:50.012 --> 03:25:57.022 - in the video about pedestrian easements they must grant the Public right to access the pedestrian easement 03:25:57.022 --> 03:26:03.704 - for purposes of walking running bicycling skating or using small motorized and non motorized vehicles 03:26:03.704 --> 03:26:05.342 - approved by the city and 03:26:05.666 --> 03:26:13.104 - grants the city the right to construct, alter, repair, maintain, or remove improvements within the easement 03:26:13.104 --> 03:26:20.059 - area and prohibits placement of any obstruction. So that gets to it. So in order to comply with city 03:26:20.059 --> 03:26:27.360 - standards, including in the UDO, the pedestrian easement must allow walking, running, bicycling, skating, 03:26:27.360 --> 03:26:34.522 - and small motorized and non-motorized vehicles. Perfect. Thank you. And then I also had questions about 03:26:34.522 --> 03:26:35.486 - accessibility 03:26:35.810 --> 03:26:42.668 - The units in terms of the universal design and we've had a few I don't see any any of our CCA members 03:26:42.668 --> 03:26:49.594 - here with us tonight specifically maybe thinking about Accessibility issues but one of the things that 03:26:49.594 --> 03:26:56.721 - they've brought up is things like bathroom turnarounds and like wide doorways and switches at appropriate 03:26:56.721 --> 03:27:03.646 - levels for wheelchairs and I guess I'm wondering whether those things are not just going to be in that 03:27:03.778 --> 03:27:11.129 - you know minimum of I guess 20 percent units or the 2 percent that will be fully accessible but that 03:27:11.129 --> 03:27:18.481 - if you're going to incorporate some of those basic design features that are pretty cheap and easy to 03:27:18.481 --> 03:27:25.832 - put in in the beginning but ends up being a very difficult retrofit in the end and what your general 03:27:25.832 --> 03:27:31.582 - approach to that is. It's a great question commissioner. Every unit will be on 03:27:32.002 --> 03:27:39.571 - On the flat so there's no steps or anything. So every unit is accessible in that manner on every single 03:27:39.571 --> 03:27:46.994 - floor and every upper floor is served by an elevator Will be required to meet fair housing clearances 03:27:46.994 --> 03:27:54.489 - in all the dwelling units Required to have 2% ADA and accessible units, which we will be providing But 03:27:54.489 --> 03:28:01.694 - that's very standard for what we do in projects. So That's that's what we're planning at this time 03:28:02.242 --> 03:28:09.233 - Okay, so in terms of those other units that aren't those 2% like well are there do they have say narrower 03:28:09.233 --> 03:28:15.959 - doorways or like or are they generally They have wide doorways as well We're required to have 36 inch 03:28:15.959 --> 03:28:22.950 - doors on all the door openings to have 32 inch clearance free clearance so that you know in case somebody 03:28:22.950 --> 03:28:28.094 - is in a chair at some point in time they can have the access but the specific 03:28:28.226 --> 03:28:43.032 - You know accessible units which have the bathrooms with the turnarounds in them. That's a that's typically 03:28:43.032 --> 03:28:55.070 - a smaller percentage of the units Let me let me make sure that I don't have Any others 03:28:55.298 --> 03:29:01.697 - I also wanted to ask about traffic and the traffic study. I'm glad to hear that you did a traffic study. 03:29:01.697 --> 03:29:08.035 - And I do have one more. I'm glad that you're going to do that written commitment about basically making 03:29:08.035 --> 03:29:14.190 - sure that it doesn't turn into a student housing development. But I was also looking at kind of like 03:29:14.190 --> 03:29:20.894 - your plans and kind of feeling like, well, most of these still have the same number of bathrooms as bedrooms. 03:29:21.026 --> 03:29:28.591 - So there are a lot of three-bed, three-bath, two-bed, two-bath. And especially thinking about the three-bed, 03:29:28.591 --> 03:29:35.878 - three-bath, is that something that, I mean, as somebody with kids, even as teenagers, it's like, I don't 03:29:35.878 --> 03:29:43.026 - want to clean that many bathrooms. So if we're thinking about trying to rent those three-bedroom units 03:29:43.026 --> 03:29:49.758 - to a single-family unit, that's not necessarily going to be three adults. So can you talk about, 03:29:50.178 --> 03:29:56.732 - Why you decided to because there's definitely like I did see some three-bedroom two baths But I feel 03:29:56.732 --> 03:30:03.416 - like I didn't count them all up, but I feel like there's more three and three You're very astute. It's 03:30:03.416 --> 03:30:09.906 - a great question In much of our market rate multifamily now, we're getting calls for three beds and 03:30:09.906 --> 03:30:15.422 - three baths that serve families And so yes, somebody is cleaning those bathrooms and 03:30:16.066 --> 03:30:23.883 - But we've been seeing that in the market both in in all levels of market rate and kind of apartments 03:30:23.883 --> 03:30:31.622 - so that's kind of what The market study has been seeing for this project. It's very typical for two 03:30:31.622 --> 03:30:39.362 - beds to have two bathrooms Three bet we have three beds with two bathrooms and some three beds with 03:30:39.362 --> 03:30:44.702 - three bad bass. That's true Make sure there's not one more somewhere 03:30:49.442 --> 03:30:57.868 - That's it. Thank you Just picking up on some of the other questions parking Managing it. I guess just 03:30:57.868 --> 03:31:06.211 - knowing the number will parking have a Will residents have to pay an extra fee to park or would they 03:31:06.211 --> 03:31:14.637 - or they could maybe not pay an extra fee to park on adjacent streets or just how are you gonna manage 03:31:14.637 --> 03:31:16.702 - where residents park and 03:31:21.986 --> 03:31:31.389 - Generally To park in Bloomington from my experience here. You do have to pay to park And this project 03:31:31.389 --> 03:31:40.884 - would be similar to that The rate we generally try to make sure is at or below the alternative Parking 03:31:40.884 --> 03:31:49.918 - prices to make that a convenient option for our tenants so generally we do charge for parking and 03:31:50.018 --> 03:31:57.276 - We also include open spaces And on this project specifically with having the retail element there will 03:31:57.276 --> 03:32:04.746 - want to make sure that there is parking available for the customers of those business as well as visitors 03:32:04.746 --> 03:32:11.582 - and guests so there will be a portion of the parking garage that is paid for but there also be a 03:32:11.682 --> 03:32:19.268 - portion that is allocated to short-term use and So those exact figures have not been determined yet 03:32:19.268 --> 03:32:27.082 - that I'm aware of but generally there's a Process that we go through to identify make sure we have the 03:32:27.082 --> 03:32:35.426 - right amount that will be open for the retail users So that way their business can be successful I appreciate 03:32:35.426 --> 03:32:39.902 - the intentionality have short-term use on site thinking of 03:32:40.322 --> 03:32:47.238 - DoorDash deliveries and all the Amazon orders, how will that parking be managed or just over like enforced 03:32:47.238 --> 03:32:53.831 - to make sure that's being used appropriately? Yeah, definitely. It's a big part of our operations and 03:32:53.831 --> 03:33:00.424 - management on every project because As you're referencing our residents more and more wanting to have 03:33:00.424 --> 03:33:05.854 - those services brought to them and so specifically on this project we've designed a 03:33:06.178 --> 03:33:13.710 - Pull-through area in front of our building that you may have seen on one of the drawings and that's 03:33:13.710 --> 03:33:21.618 - specifically to allow that temporary short-term use Delivery to not obstruct the the major Private drive 03:33:21.618 --> 03:33:29.150 - that goes through the site and so that short-term Parking is available in front of the building and 03:33:29.150 --> 03:33:35.326 - it also coincides with entries that are monitored so that way those folks can get 03:33:35.650 --> 03:33:43.880 - Into the building make the delivery and then get on their way quickly and leaving the site There's also 03:33:43.880 --> 03:33:51.872 - a turnaround there. So that way they don't are not forced to go out onto Fairview They'll be able to 03:33:51.872 --> 03:33:59.865 - exit onto Rogers Great and then Transitioning back to another mention was the fire access route road 03:33:59.865 --> 03:34:03.742 - The landscape drawing makes it look like a green 03:34:04.450 --> 03:34:10.186 - Facility and the civil engineering drawing makes it look like a road and you mentioned bollards. I'm 03:34:10.186 --> 03:34:15.922 - just trying to visualize What will this look like? I've heard vehicles will be prohibited from using 03:34:15.922 --> 03:34:21.657 - it, but what's gonna keep me from driving through there? Yeah that the thing that will keep you from 03:34:21.657 --> 03:34:27.166 - driving through it would be the at the entry and exit point there will be large landscaping like 03:34:27.298 --> 03:34:33.773 - tall grasses and different planter curbs that would prevent a normal vehicle from being able to drive 03:34:33.773 --> 03:34:40.375 - over it, but it's sized in a way that the different emergency response vehicles can approach that drive 03:34:40.375 --> 03:34:46.786 - over it safely and do the things that they need to do and so City of Bloomington Fire Department has 03:34:46.786 --> 03:34:51.230 - provided us some initial guidance on how they'd like that to look and 03:34:51.650 --> 03:34:59.886 - The roadway itself will need to be something and based on code in there and the fire departments need 03:34:59.886 --> 03:35:08.123 - something that can support their heaviest Response vehicle and so the eventual design of that will be 03:35:08.123 --> 03:35:16.198 - something that the fire department allows for that fire access drive I Think I'm still trying to if 03:35:16.198 --> 03:35:18.782 - a fire engine can drive through 03:35:19.074 --> 03:35:25.544 - the tall grass I could probably drive my car around the tall grass, but is it maybe more like a Some 03:35:25.544 --> 03:35:32.207 - kind of curbing that still it's not like a full driveway. I'm just trying to yeah, you're exactly right 03:35:32.207 --> 03:35:39.062 - It would be you'd have your normal street curb You'd have your sidewalk and then you'd have like a planter 03:35:39.062 --> 03:35:45.532 - curb an elevated planter curb with tall Vegetation in there to further discourage the use of it, but 03:35:45.532 --> 03:35:47.198 - it's something that would 03:35:47.746 --> 03:35:54.229 - either damage or discourage a vehicle from attempting that and Rather something that's still 03:35:54.229 --> 03:35:57.854 - sized appropriately for a fire engine to go over it 03:35:58.914 --> 03:36:04.756 - Maybe just to add to what John said is this is still a it's a great question and we still want to work 03:36:04.756 --> 03:36:10.655 - it out with staff a little bit And with engineering because you know, there may be some kind of humping 03:36:10.655 --> 03:36:16.440 - going on bollards We definitely don't want vehicles normal vehicles driving on that space If anything 03:36:16.440 --> 03:36:22.112 - we want pedestrians, you know or residents using that but so that's a piece that definitely will be 03:36:22.112 --> 03:36:23.870 - working on with with staff and 03:36:24.130 --> 03:36:31.638 - Know that that sounds great. I saw a lot of connections to the beeline through that area too. So wanting 03:36:31.638 --> 03:36:38.932 - to minimize it My last round is on like the the multi-use path or trail that's going east-west on the 03:36:38.932 --> 03:36:46.297 - southern edge generally And I've heard it called as a like a public path I think I'm just I think it's 03:36:46.297 --> 03:36:53.662 - intended to be dedicated as an easement But just trying to understand is that? required who's going to 03:36:53.826 --> 03:37:00.098 - own, maintain it? Yeah, that's kind of my line of questioning. So I'll start by answering, and then 03:37:00.098 --> 03:37:06.496 - maybe the petitioner can also answer some. It is not required. There's no UDO requirement for it. The 03:37:06.496 --> 03:37:13.019 - easiest way to explain it is because the petitioner thinks that it would be a good thing for this site. 03:37:13.019 --> 03:37:19.793 - The city generally agrees. Some of the past history is there was a previous developer, completely different 03:37:19.793 --> 03:37:22.302 - company, that was looking at this site. 03:37:22.434 --> 03:37:29.319 - And at the time they had a discussion with the previous administration and they were really keen on 03:37:29.319 --> 03:37:36.479 - that. And so it kind of came out of those discussions. That's sort of the origin of it. But since then, 03:37:36.479 --> 03:37:43.363 - you know, it's a completely new developer in this case. And they also looked at that and they said, 03:37:43.363 --> 03:37:50.454 - this seems like a good thing to have for this site. So it's voluntary, but with this proposal and with 03:37:50.454 --> 03:37:52.382 - the recommended conditions, 03:37:52.866 --> 03:38:01.944 - It becomes part of the part of what's approved And so if it were taken out later, they would have to 03:38:01.944 --> 03:38:11.650 - come back to you for a revised Approval so so approving it proving this petition tonight Makes it required. 03:38:11.650 --> 03:38:20.638 - Yeah, and then So appreciating it and then but recognizing it would be on the developments property 03:38:20.866 --> 03:38:28.274 - an easement dedicated to the public I guess and usually a sidewalk Dedicated in a easement. We treats 03:38:28.274 --> 03:38:35.536 - like public right-of-way in the city in some way owns and maintains it Where their trails typically 03:38:35.536 --> 03:38:43.016 - the city? Maintenance is a different thing I'm just trying to understand is our Parks Department going 03:38:43.016 --> 03:38:50.206 - to be expected to plow this like how who's gonna 20 years from it being built gonna be repaving it 03:38:50.370 --> 03:38:57.601 - That kind of long-term maintenance expectation. So as of tonight, there is nothing Requiring and a particular 03:38:57.601 --> 03:39:04.504 - answer to that It's a good point. It could be out as a condition However, I will say that the city staff 03:39:04.504 --> 03:39:11.604 - from all the related departments including planning and engineering have been very clear from the beginning 03:39:11.604 --> 03:39:18.178 - that the expectation will be that maintenance of that path will be on the on the property owner not 03:39:18.178 --> 03:39:19.230 - on the city and 03:39:19.490 --> 03:39:26.893 - So far the petitioner all the interactions we've had they've seemed to be fine with that and that would 03:39:26.893 --> 03:39:34.012 - have to be specified in The format of the pedestrian easement. That's that's for that section Okay, 03:39:34.012 --> 03:39:41.629 - can the petitioner comment on the willingness if there was a clarifying condition on long-term maintenance 03:39:41.629 --> 03:39:49.246 - of that facility Appreciate the question and like I mentioned earlier we operate these and manage them and 03:39:49.762 --> 03:39:57.651 - Our intent is to have a very nice project and so if a particular portion of our project becomes in disrepair 03:39:57.651 --> 03:40:05.034 - We want to fix that and if this trail because it is on our site the community will use it will use it 03:40:05.034 --> 03:40:12.706 - We intend on maintaining it like Gabriel said we want it in good condition So that way it can be utilized 03:40:12.706 --> 03:40:19.582 - and it's an important part of our project so we we definitely are on board with taking care of 03:40:19.714 --> 03:40:32.037 - Overall site and this trail that is on the site. All right. Thank you. You're welcome Question for and 03:40:32.037 --> 03:40:45.078 - this might be for staff my question is In relation to the silver lead certification when you were presenting 03:40:45.078 --> 03:40:47.710 - Gabriel you said that 03:40:47.938 --> 03:40:57.491 - You won't know if they have complied completely because they will get a temporary certificate of occupancy, 03:40:57.491 --> 03:41:06.336 - and then they will finish the lead certification later? Did I hear that correctly? I believe so, if 03:41:06.336 --> 03:41:15.181 - I'm understanding your question correctly. The information that the developer has to provide to get 03:41:15.181 --> 03:41:16.862 - the certification, 03:41:17.410 --> 03:41:25.328 - Some of that just takes time Although it theoretically could be done before people move in and other 03:41:25.328 --> 03:41:33.324 - parts of it My understanding is other parts of it really can't be done until people move in Okay, and 03:41:33.324 --> 03:41:41.790 - how how is the city gonna do and to make sure that that was that happened that I Mean, yes, what's proposed 03:41:41.790 --> 03:41:44.926 - here in? proposed condition number Nine 03:41:45.186 --> 03:41:51.407 - Is that city would not release final? Occupancy or technically actually the county is the one that that 03:41:51.407 --> 03:41:57.867 - issues the final occupancy, but that based on a recommendation for the city So the city would not recommend 03:41:57.867 --> 03:42:03.849 - issuance of final occupancy until we get some sort of confirmation that it has been earned But just 03:42:03.849 --> 03:42:10.369 - wanted to highlight that people could move in before that because there is the temporary. Yeah, I understand 03:42:10.369 --> 03:42:14.078 - the temporary Yeah, I was just trying to think of the process 03:42:14.370 --> 03:42:20.913 - How do you go back and make sure that that was done? You know, right that we want to have something 03:42:20.913 --> 03:42:27.587 - before We want to have it before final occupancy because once final occupancy is issued. It's out the 03:42:27.587 --> 03:42:34.392 - door Yeah, then it's it's it's we were done and I guess my question for the petitioner is what has been 03:42:34.392 --> 03:42:41.197 - your experience with that Commissioner great question We have to hire a consultant a special consultant 03:42:41.197 --> 03:42:43.422 - which we've done and they will be 03:42:43.618 --> 03:42:50.149 - coming on site at different stages during construction to make sure and verify that the Required elements 03:42:50.149 --> 03:42:56.495 - are being installed like insulation correctly at the very end of the project They do a series of tests 03:42:56.495 --> 03:43:02.718 - that then have to be written up in a report and typically that's the piece that takes a little while 03:43:02.718 --> 03:43:08.510 - so the building can be done, but they're working on their report and typically it's you know, 03:43:09.730 --> 03:43:16.607 - It can be three or four months before that report is completed. But Grey Star is committed to doing 03:43:16.607 --> 03:43:23.758 - this, especially since it's a condition of approval. We have to do this. So we know there's a checklist 03:43:23.758 --> 03:43:30.704 - for NGBS silver certification, and we're starting to go through that with our MEP consultant and the 03:43:30.704 --> 03:43:37.374 - architecture. So we're taking it very seriously. And it's very clear in the ordinance in the UDO 03:43:37.506 --> 03:43:43.929 - These are the ones you can choose from and we chose from one of the options so staff has done a really 03:43:43.929 --> 03:43:49.790 - nice job and adding that into the ordinance and I don't know does that help Thank you so much 03:43:54.594 --> 03:44:01.611 - That I had which I think might be for staff It is about an email that came in from the public earlier 03:44:01.611 --> 03:44:08.491 - concerned about the the air quality in the PCP PCB is and I'm looking at it right now and Recalling 03:44:08.491 --> 03:44:15.715 - what you guys said about cleanup of that site in the 90s So, can you just maybe talk about that a little 03:44:15.715 --> 03:44:21.150 - bit? So, I mean what it says is, you know 36 years ago. There was a lot of air 03:44:21.250 --> 03:44:28.988 - quality issue related to that site. So was that kind of related to clean up on that site and that now 03:44:28.988 --> 03:44:37.106 - this the current environmental assessments as the petitioner said kind of show that like okay that cleanup 03:44:37.106 --> 03:44:44.769 - worked so there's not this stuff there. And so I guess what I'm asking is you know can the community 03:44:44.769 --> 03:44:48.638 - expect that the air quality as well is going to be 03:44:49.154 --> 03:44:56.935 - kind of evaluated as we go along to make sure that that doesn't happen again. Yeah, and the staff certainly 03:44:56.935 --> 03:45:04.213 - shares the concern of the resident and you bringing up air quality as well. That's well outside what 03:45:04.213 --> 03:45:11.778 - we in the planning department have a lot of training in or have enforcement or any standards for. That's 03:45:11.778 --> 03:45:17.470 - one of the reasons why we really want to encourage the petitioner and in fact, 03:45:17.602 --> 03:45:26.414 - through one of the conditions we want to require the petitioner to be in contact with EPA and IDEM, 03:45:26.414 --> 03:45:36.018 - not only to ensure compliance with requirements or laws that are out there, but also to use their expertise. 03:45:36.018 --> 03:45:44.830 - Say there might be, I'm speaking well outside my area of knowledge, but there might be construction 03:45:45.154 --> 03:45:51.836 - practices that they could do that are not required by any state or federal regulation, but are good 03:45:51.836 --> 03:45:58.517 - best practices for keeping down stuff that could be stirred up out of the soil. I believe that IDEM 03:45:58.517 --> 03:46:05.266 - and EPA would be able to help them, lead them to our resources or advise them on things like that. I 03:46:05.266 --> 03:46:12.215 - don't really know because I don't have that knowledge and that's why we want them to be in contact with 03:46:12.215 --> 03:46:13.150 - IDEM and EPA. 03:46:13.602 --> 03:46:21.560 - Okay. But right now based on our assessments and the cleanup, we don't expect there to be air quality 03:46:21.560 --> 03:46:29.596 - problems because whatever happened in the nineties successfully kind of cleared that site of the worst 03:46:29.596 --> 03:46:37.398 - stuff. That's our understanding of the situation. And speaking, speaking with people from item, um, 03:46:37.398 --> 03:46:38.334 - they, they, 03:46:39.426 --> 03:46:48.506 - They agreed that that it's it's currently in compliance and you know, there's no restrictions on the 03:46:48.506 --> 03:46:57.675 - use of the property But given this history, they really hope that the the developers will be in touch 03:46:57.675 --> 03:47:07.294 - with them to discuss Ongoing management of it. Okay. Thank you The pricing details on the units and things 03:47:07.586 --> 03:47:13.286 - I did a little more research on your company, and last year in 2025, the Federal Trade Commission and 03:47:13.286 --> 03:47:19.098 - the state of Colorado brought a suit against you for deceptive pricing practices for $24 million, which 03:47:19.098 --> 03:47:20.830 - your company agreed to settle. 03:47:20.994 --> 03:47:27.211 - And then again, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division came after you for colluding with 03:47:27.211 --> 03:47:33.801 - other real estate landlords and real page to price fix based on market rents. And I hear you guys talking 03:47:33.801 --> 03:47:40.018 - about you're going to go in line with market rents here in Bloomington. And that concerns me when a 03:47:40.018 --> 03:47:46.422 - developer with 950,000 rental units across the United States and multiple, you know, you have holdings 03:47:46.422 --> 03:47:50.960 - all over the world. You're one of the largest developers, so how can you 03:47:50.960 --> 03:47:59.071 - Come up with some sort of basic pricing details for a one unit a two unit a three unit Just to give 03:47:59.071 --> 03:48:07.507 - us a ballpark idea of what we're looking for because the lack of pricing is very concerning but it also 03:48:07.507 --> 03:48:16.186 - seems to be kind of status quo Thank you for the question Like any big company gray star has been involved 03:48:16.186 --> 03:48:19.998 - in litigation from time to time, but we cannot 03:48:20.226 --> 03:48:28.621 - Publicly comment on litigation matters Greystar is committed to always doing things the right way and 03:48:28.621 --> 03:48:37.674 - that direction comes straight from the top of our company With the focus on the residents and the communities 03:48:37.674 --> 03:48:46.068 - that we serve So nothing on pricing for units whatsoever I mean to tell me that you have no idea what 03:48:46.068 --> 03:48:48.126 - these units would run is 03:48:48.610 --> 03:48:54.074 - something I can't even fathom as someone who deals with developers on a regular basis and understands 03:48:54.074 --> 03:48:59.591 - what your project timelines, your project pricing, your return on investment expectations are. I mean, 03:48:59.591 --> 03:49:05.109 - you have investors in this company that want a return on investment. So if you were ever to tell them, 03:49:05.109 --> 03:49:10.465 - hey, guys, we're going to dump $10 million into this project, but I can't tell you what that return 03:49:10.465 --> 03:49:15.929 - would be, do you think they would give you the money? And I think the answer is no. So for you to ask 03:49:15.929 --> 03:49:17.054 - us to invest in you, 03:49:17.218 --> 03:49:24.250 - Trying to be a good neighbor in Bloomington without any sort of transparency on a ballpark idea of what 03:49:24.250 --> 03:49:31.215 - we would look to expect for You know what we would consider of housing that anyone can get into that's 03:49:31.215 --> 03:49:38.045 - hard for me to accept So if you could please provide us with any sort of pricing details, that would 03:49:38.045 --> 03:49:44.807 - be delightful. Yeah I don't want to repeat my answer from earlier and I'll try to be as direct as I 03:49:44.807 --> 03:49:47.038 - can if this project opened today 03:49:47.490 --> 03:49:53.690 - Our goal would be to rent it in line with market pricing today because it's going to be rented in the 03:49:53.690 --> 03:49:59.829 - future where Three years from now or when that time comes We would look to market it at that time to 03:49:59.829 --> 03:50:06.151 - be fair to the residents and to be market competitive So that way we can add the supply and that people 03:50:06.151 --> 03:50:12.351 - will actually want to live there So our goal is to rent it at the market rate at that time of opening 03:50:12.351 --> 03:50:17.214 - Can you clarify what your understanding as of today that market rents are then? 03:50:17.730 --> 03:50:24.342 - Yeah, and it varies. Like was mentioned earlier, we have different unit types, and so it gets pretty 03:50:24.342 --> 03:50:31.478 - granular based on the unit type, and there's different factors that go into each unit. But broadly speaking, 03:50:31.478 --> 03:50:38.418 - the simplest way to describe it, and I think you're maybe looking for a specific number, but the simplest 03:50:38.418 --> 03:50:44.441 - way I can describe it is that based on a comparable unit type at other multifamily projects 03:50:44.441 --> 03:50:46.078 - in the surrounding area, 03:50:46.306 --> 03:50:53.414 - Our goal would be based off of our offering the size of our units to be priced competitively with them 03:50:53.414 --> 03:51:00.521 - Not necessarily higher not necessarily lower just making sure that there's going to be a market demand 03:51:00.521 --> 03:51:07.422 - for those units So you can't tell me what a one-bedroom in Bloomington averages or a two-bedroom? I 03:51:07.810 --> 03:51:13.664 - Because those aren't your prices. Those are ours and you're saying that you'd want to go into the standard 03:51:13.664 --> 03:51:19.189 - of whatever the offering is in the market So can you tell me what that is right now? If you can give 03:51:19.189 --> 03:51:24.824 - me a minute I can do my best to get you a specific figure on a one bedroom if that's the specific unit 03:51:24.824 --> 03:51:30.349 - type that you're most interested in It's or any unit that you're interested in happy to provide that 03:51:30.349 --> 03:51:36.093 - I'll work on a one bedroom one bath if that's okay I would be happy with any figure at this point. Okay, 03:51:36.093 --> 03:51:37.406 - you got it. Thanks Okay 03:51:37.698 --> 03:51:48.132 - Six minutes away from 9 30 p.m. Which by our rules All meetings adjourned at 9 30 p.m. And so While 03:51:48.132 --> 03:51:59.297 - I don't really want to stay here longer than we have to I would also hate for this hearing to end abruptly 03:51:59.297 --> 03:52:03.262 - before we've even taken any action so 03:52:03.650 --> 03:52:13.943 - I think it would be appropriate at this point to entertain a motion to suspend the rules to allow this 03:52:13.943 --> 03:52:23.936 - hearing to continue beyond the nine thirty p.m. adjournment. So moved. Is there a second. We need a 03:52:23.936 --> 03:52:33.630 - roll call vote on this and I believe it needs to be unanimous. Yes. Kinsey. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. 03:52:34.050 --> 03:52:43.437 - Whistler. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seaborg. Yes. Co Rodkey. Yes. All right. Thank you. The rules have been 03:52:43.437 --> 03:52:53.011 - suspended. Are there any final questions before we go to public comment. Mr. Kinsey. I have I'm sorry. 03:52:53.011 --> 03:53:00.446 - I didn't call Bishop. Sorry. I thought I got a free pass. We can go. Thank you. 03:53:01.890 --> 03:53:10.236 - Alright, so my questions are a little bit more about some of the environmental concerns and while the 03:53:10.236 --> 03:53:18.419 - staff have outlined a number of What I think are reasonable contingency plans for testing along the 03:53:18.419 --> 03:53:26.602 - way. I wonder If there are more worth considering and if any were additionally considered you know, 03:53:26.602 --> 03:53:30.366 - it seems like I can understand the cadence of 03:53:30.498 --> 03:53:39.218 - the checks required after land disturbance, the final acceptance is, or after removal of existing material 03:53:39.218 --> 03:53:47.531 - piles on the site. I mean, I think those are understandable points to make these additional inquiries 03:53:47.531 --> 03:53:56.006 - and to do soil tests. And, you know, just, boy, this is a big one. And, you know, I don't want anything 03:53:56.006 --> 03:53:57.310 - or anyone to be 03:53:57.474 --> 03:54:06.152 - Have air quality affected or anything related to this and I just wonder if there were other considerations 03:54:06.152 --> 03:54:14.668 - Made and if you thought about adding some other opportunities to do these kinds of tests So Short answer 03:54:14.668 --> 03:54:23.427 - is no what we put in here is what? staff meeting planning and transportation Department of City Bloomington 03:54:23.427 --> 03:54:26.590 - staff thought of but we recognize that 03:54:26.722 --> 03:54:33.957 - there's a lot more expertise in some of these other agencies, IDEM and EPA. And so that's why we really 03:54:33.957 --> 03:54:41.053 - want them to get in touch with it. The other thing I would add is that the anchor here of how this is 03:54:41.053 --> 03:54:48.427 - related to the UDO is that you have to make a finding that it complies with other applicable regulations. 03:54:48.427 --> 03:54:51.070 - And so that's what we're using to say 03:54:51.362 --> 03:54:56.274 - to be able to address any of this environmental stuff, right? Because there's nothing about 03:54:56.274 --> 03:55:01.666 - soil contamination or PCBs by name in the UDO. But we're saying, well, this is how we ensure that it 03:55:01.666 --> 03:55:07.165 - complies with other regulations. So when you get down to it, what regulations about soil contamination 03:55:07.165 --> 03:55:12.664 - or those kind of environmental issues, pollution issues, what kind of regulations are they subject to? 03:55:12.664 --> 03:55:18.110 - Well, it's not city regulations, actually. It's federal and state. So that's why we see that the most 03:55:18.434 --> 03:55:24.498 - Impactful going forward aspect of it is to make sure that they're in touch with those agencies that 03:55:24.498 --> 03:55:30.561 - do have those Regulations and do you have the expertise and the knowledge that they can help advise 03:55:30.561 --> 03:55:36.989 - these people? So yeah, so we think Making sure EPA and item are involved is really the key going forward. 03:55:36.989 --> 03:55:43.356 - Okay, so that's what the staff has recommended I wonder if the petitioner could comment on some of their 03:55:43.356 --> 03:55:47.358 - no, that's great. Thank you for clarifying all that I mean that's 03:55:48.674 --> 03:55:56.759 - Petitioner good evening. You haven't heard from me yet. My name is Tim Oaks. I'm an attorney representing 03:55:56.759 --> 03:56:04.921 - gray star So I'll answer this one. There's a couple different levels of answers to this First and foremost 03:56:04.921 --> 03:56:12.625 - is without question Gray stars a company Will follow all applicable rules? optical laws so the state 03:56:12.625 --> 03:56:17.278 - of Indiana our federal rules say do this it will be done and 03:56:17.922 --> 03:56:26.613 - That's most important but in terms of We testing the testing that's already occurred was done according 03:56:26.613 --> 03:56:35.388 - to ASTM standards and the requirements that exist for that kind of testing It included not only actually 03:56:35.388 --> 03:56:43.829 - drilling and taking soil borings, but there were temporary water wells that were put in place and We 03:56:43.829 --> 03:56:47.422 - use those temporary wells to extract water 03:56:47.522 --> 03:56:56.648 - test the groundwater So we've actually gone above and beyond already You know, we're looking to invest 03:56:56.648 --> 03:57:05.774 - millions and millions of dollars here our investors demand The same information that you're asking the 03:57:05.774 --> 03:57:14.812 - lenders demand the same information you're asking Because they don't want to put money into something 03:57:14.812 --> 03:57:17.470 - that's going to cause trouble 03:57:17.666 --> 03:57:25.981 - Because in the long run, that will cost them more money. And so my point there is our interests are 03:57:25.981 --> 03:57:34.545 - actually aligned. And so all the standards will be met, and we look forward to future discussions with 03:57:34.545 --> 03:57:42.943 - the appropriate folks at IDEM on these issues. Thank you. All right, any additional questions before 03:57:42.943 --> 03:57:45.022 - we go to public comment? 03:57:47.874 --> 03:57:53.788 - All right, we are now on to public comment. If you would like to make comment here in the chambers, 03:57:53.788 --> 03:57:59.880 - make your way up to the podium, state your name for the record, and you will have five minutes to make 03:57:59.880 --> 03:58:05.912 - comment. If you're joining us online, click on that reactions button, click the raise hand button, or 03:58:05.912 --> 03:58:12.122 - send a chat message to the meeting hosts, and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak. While 03:58:12.122 --> 03:58:15.966 - people are getting up here, I want to alert you there were three 03:58:16.802 --> 03:58:24.031 - public comment letters that came in by email today. I forward it to all of you. I have paper copies 03:58:24.031 --> 03:58:31.260 - here. I guess if you do want a paper copy, can you just raise your hand right now? I take that as a 03:58:31.260 --> 03:58:38.779 - no. So people in the audience, if you want a paper copy of the comments that came in today, I have them 03:58:38.779 --> 03:58:39.646 - right here. 03:58:55.170 --> 03:59:05.427 - Go ahead, sir, please state your name and make your comment. I'm Bill Bouse. I'm the treasurer of the 03:59:05.427 --> 03:59:15.482 - Near West Side Neighborhood Association, which is the neighborhood that directly joins the proposed 03:59:15.482 --> 03:59:20.510 - development. The developer hired a traffic study. 03:59:21.922 --> 03:59:29.704 - And they said, oh, there's not going to be a problem. Well, of course they did. That's what they were 03:59:29.704 --> 03:59:37.410 - hard to say. Our neighborhood is very concerned about that. The size of this development, population 03:59:37.410 --> 03:59:45.192 - and unit-wise, is about the same as our neighborhood. Our neighborhood has 10 to 12, depending on how 03:59:45.192 --> 03:59:49.694 - you count, exits from the neighborhood onto other streets. 03:59:50.562 --> 04:00:01.277 - One of those exits is on the Fairview. The rest are on the major streets. This development has two exits. 04:00:01.277 --> 04:00:11.790 - One on the major street, the other on the Fairview. The Fairview, as has been said, is a narrow street. 04:00:11.790 --> 04:00:18.462 - Their exit will be about a block and a half from Fairview School. 04:00:19.906 --> 04:00:28.754 - There is already a problem with traffic at school changing times on the corners of 8th and Fairview 04:00:28.754 --> 04:00:38.045 - and 7th and Fairview. There also can be backups on 8th Street at 8th and Rogers at certain times. Rogers 04:00:38.045 --> 04:00:47.247 - is a very busy street. They say, well, people won't want to go out on Fairview because the garage faces 04:00:47.247 --> 04:00:48.574 - the other way. 04:00:51.042 --> 04:01:00.854 - There's going to be frequent backup traffic at certain times at Roger Street, where people are trying 04:01:00.854 --> 04:01:10.474 - to get out onto the busy street. The people are not gonna just sit there and wait. They're gonna go 04:01:10.474 --> 04:01:20.286 - out on Fairview. This is a problem that is just not really being properly addressed. Our neighborhood 04:01:21.186 --> 04:01:32.131 - Association board has discussed this. We've also put the word out to On our email list to the neighborhood. 04:01:32.131 --> 04:01:42.872 - We did have one Neighborhood Association member disagree with this to summarize it it seemed a neighborly 04:01:42.872 --> 04:01:49.662 - that we are objecting to it, but We believe that the Fairview exit 04:01:49.922 --> 04:02:01.561 - should be either eliminated for vehicles or set up as an emergency-only exit. Fairview Street is not 04:02:01.561 --> 04:02:13.200 - really adequate to handle the kind of traffic that this large development is going to create. People 04:02:13.200 --> 04:02:17.694 - have said, oh, well, it's close to the 04:02:18.722 --> 04:02:30.190 - I keep forgetting the term, the Mill District or whatever. That is true. Some people will probably work 04:02:30.190 --> 04:02:41.218 - there. Most will not. I get around town on my bicycle mostly. I'm well known for that. I still have 04:02:41.218 --> 04:02:48.606 - a vehicle. I do drive it sometimes. It has to be parked somewhere. 04:02:48.866 --> 04:02:57.115 - houses in our neighborhood do not have off-street parking. So off-street parking is already limited. 04:02:57.115 --> 04:03:06.018 - We are fortunate that we're far enough away from the university that we don't have a lot of our neighborhood 04:03:06.018 --> 04:03:14.349 - on neighborhood parking permit. But if this development is allowed to be built the way it's currently 04:03:14.349 --> 04:03:18.270 - proposed, we're probably gonna have to add that 04:03:18.850 --> 04:03:29.547 - Extra cost to our neighbors many of the low-income. We're one of the lower-income neighborhoods in town 04:03:29.547 --> 04:03:40.245 - To get those permits Be just so that they we don't have permanent parking on our streets. I'll let more 04:03:40.245 --> 04:03:45.182 - of our members talk more Hello, I'm Thomas pain 04:03:45.474 --> 04:03:51.119 - I'm the president of the Near West Side Neighborhood Association. I want to take a minute to thank the 04:03:51.119 --> 04:03:56.600 - commissioners for the line of questions that you've already put out there. It was gratifying to see 04:03:56.600 --> 04:04:02.465 - the number of questions that have already focused on traffic and on parking. And those really are probably 04:04:02.465 --> 04:04:07.946 - our largest concerns with this, something that did not come up in the conversation. We already know 04:04:07.946 --> 04:04:11.454 - you can't park along the front of the apartments on 9th Street. 04:04:11.586 --> 04:04:18.838 - I'm assuming that will also be true on Fairview, as narrow as it is. I don't think Gabriel's allowed 04:04:18.838 --> 04:04:26.304 - to answer my questions during this, but if he jumps out of his shoes, maybe we'll get an answer anyway. 04:04:26.304 --> 04:04:33.700 - I wanted to point out something, and it's really more for this group as opposed to the petitioner, and 04:04:33.700 --> 04:04:41.310 - if I am misinterpreting what I got from the staff report from this, I'm hoping somebody will let me know. 04:04:43.362 --> 04:04:51.924 - There are a couple of parking reduction Incentives as I understand it in the UDO and gate and Gabriel's 04:04:51.924 --> 04:05:00.403 - report speaks to this if you're near a Transit line. There's a 15% reduction in the number of required 04:05:00.403 --> 04:05:08.801 - parking spaces If you make a payment to the affordability fund, there's a 35% Reduction in the number 04:05:08.801 --> 04:05:12.670 - of required parking spaces. So between the two 04:05:12.994 --> 04:05:20.725 - if there were no incentives at all and they weren't on a transit line, this development would require 04:05:20.725 --> 04:05:28.910 - 528 parking spaces. Gabriel's not nodding or not shaking his head, I'm just gonna run with it. I'm thinking 04:05:28.910 --> 04:05:36.565 - I'm right on this. Well, maybe. So if I just look at the affordability payment, I was thinking, what 04:05:36.565 --> 04:05:42.174 - does it cost to build a parking garage? And I looked on the internet and, 04:05:42.466 --> 04:05:51.906 - $20,000, $25,000, $30,000 a space to put a space in a parking garage and then I looked at our own recently 04:05:51.906 --> 04:06:01.258 - built 10th Street parking garage and it has 400 spaces and it cost $11 million. That's $27,500 per space. 04:06:01.258 --> 04:06:10.874 - So by the petitioner making a, and I concur with their number, a $2.3 million payment into the affordability 04:06:10.874 --> 04:06:12.286 - fund, they get, 04:06:13.026 --> 04:06:20.444 - a $5,082,000 reduction in their parking cost because they don't have to supply as much space in their 04:06:20.444 --> 04:06:28.153 - parking garage. This strikes me as perhaps an unintended consequence of the UDO, which maybe was thinking 04:06:28.153 --> 04:06:35.498 - about surface parking, but this is a significant boon to the developer more than offsetting the cost 04:06:35.498 --> 04:06:39.134 - of paying into the affordability fund. Thank you. 04:06:57.410 --> 04:07:06.745 - My name is Amy Fender. I'm on the HOA board of Trailview neighborhood, which is a small habitat community 04:07:06.745 --> 04:07:15.639 - If you imagine Reverend Butler Park as a triangle With the development at the bottom of the triangle 04:07:15.639 --> 04:07:24.798 - my neighborhood would be on this side of the triangle So I'm very very close to the new development and 04:07:25.634 --> 04:07:32.577 - One of the things our neighborhood was very contentious when it went in went in about ten years ago 04:07:32.577 --> 04:07:39.727 - and one of the things or a lot of requirements for parking very restricted parking in our neighborhood 04:07:39.727 --> 04:07:47.017 - and it's been It's caused a lot of problems in our neighborhood We definitely do not have enough parking 04:07:47.017 --> 04:07:54.654 - There's a lot there have been fights that have broken out in our neighborhood. We've had to call the cops and 04:07:55.010 --> 04:08:04.258 - our neighbors because of parking issues The apartments it sounds like the apartments are going to rent 04:08:04.258 --> 04:08:13.416 - for quite a bit of money and that You know, they're paying the city to Make sure that they don't have 04:08:13.416 --> 04:08:23.742 - to offer any affordable apartments It sounds like the apartments are probably going to average approximately about 04:08:24.130 --> 04:08:33.539 - Five times my mortgage payments. So if I for some reason lose my house Because of you know, like right 04:08:33.539 --> 04:08:43.406 - before I came down here. I got my tax assessment For the year and my tax assessment on my property reliably 04:08:43.406 --> 04:08:51.262 - goes up a thousand dollars every year and You know, I'm I live in a habitat home so I 04:08:51.714 --> 04:09:03.826 - My income certainly doesn't go up that much every year. So if my taxes continue to go up and I can no 04:09:03.826 --> 04:09:16.056 - longer afford my home, I will not be able to afford to live in these apartments at all. So I just want 04:09:16.056 --> 04:09:19.262 - the commission to consider 04:09:20.834 --> 04:09:28.925 - how this is going to affect the people that live next to these apartments. It's like, yeah, they're 04:09:28.925 --> 04:09:37.178 - going to be great for the people that can afford them. It's going to be great for the trades district 04:09:37.178 --> 04:09:45.269 - and all of the professional people that are coming in and the people that they're trying to attract 04:09:45.269 --> 04:09:50.366 - into the city. But the rest of us that live there, we already, 04:09:50.530 --> 04:09:59.124 - My parents are elderly, and they can't come visit me in my house because we don't have any parking. 04:09:59.124 --> 04:10:08.492 - They can't walk. When they come to visit me in my house, there's nowhere for them to park in my neighborhood 04:10:08.492 --> 04:10:17.172 - already because the parking is so scarce. So my parents just can't come visit me at certain times of 04:10:17.172 --> 04:10:20.094 - the day. So parking is, you know, 04:10:20.290 --> 04:10:34.678 - Definitely my biggest concern about this project Traffic is also a big concern Anyway, thank you for 04:10:34.678 --> 04:10:50.206 - your time Good evening, my name is Joe Davis and I would like to speak on some of the recommended conditions 04:10:50.306 --> 04:10:59.688 - provided by the planning and transportation I'll start off with Condition number three After removal 04:10:59.688 --> 04:11:09.441 - of all existing material piles on the site the petitioner shall conduct additional soil testing at least 04:11:09.441 --> 04:11:19.102 - in at least three additional boring locations locations to be determined by planning and transportation 04:11:19.458 --> 04:11:29.234 - so I guess I would like to address planning and transportation and say that I've been visiting this 04:11:29.234 --> 04:11:39.401 - site as a as a shopper a seller of my scrap metal ever since I moved to Bloomington in 1993 and Planner 04:11:39.401 --> 04:11:47.710 - Hall, bro spoke to the fact that when there was an EPA cleanup No cleanup took place 04:11:48.034 --> 04:11:59.375 - under the piles, under the existing piles, at what at that time was Fells, now it's Bloomington Iron 04:11:59.375 --> 04:12:10.829 - and Metal. In the west end of that property, there is a frame for former limestone cutting operation. 04:12:10.829 --> 04:12:17.566 - And commonly, the roofs of these structures have corrugated 04:12:17.666 --> 04:12:28.600 - asbestos roofing. Now, if you go down to the Eustorite Mini Warehouse, which is an old limestone cutting 04:12:28.600 --> 04:12:39.117 - mill kind of behind, near the McDonald's on South Walnut, there's a big red liquor down there. Okay, 04:12:39.117 --> 04:12:45.886 - down below, that roof is asbestos, corrugated asbestos, and that 04:12:46.050 --> 04:12:54.148 - asbestos has dusted the entire underneath and the area around that building. I actually rented some 04:12:54.148 --> 04:13:02.326 - space back there, and when I moved things around, it was all dusty, so I did the best I could not to 04:13:02.326 --> 04:13:10.910 - breathe in that dust. So I don't know if that's asbestos roofing on the existing structure there on site, 04:13:11.074 --> 04:13:21.548 - that is gonna be a problem. If so, there is going to be a need for some sort of a mist or a water spray 04:13:21.548 --> 04:13:30.814 - to keep the dust down when that structure is raised and then it's going to have to be dealt 04:13:30.814 --> 04:13:40.382 - with appropriately. The lot itself, the grade is such that the low spot is toward the east end 04:13:40.930 --> 04:13:51.769 - of that property where you currently enter. It's regularly found that water stands after big rains, 04:13:51.769 --> 04:14:02.608 - so it's going to be necessary to not only test that area where the existing asbestos roof structure 04:14:02.608 --> 04:14:07.486 - is from the previous limestone cutting mill, 04:14:07.618 --> 04:14:17.879 - but also to those low areas. And so I suggest that many more than just three locations are done because 04:14:17.879 --> 04:14:28.140 - it's already been spoken about that underneath the piles, and there are piles all over the place, there 04:14:28.140 --> 04:14:37.118 - was no testing. Back to the other conditions. Okay, condition number five. There is a typo 04:14:37.410 --> 04:14:48.118 - When it comes to as stated in here this would I guess be one of the ninth additional condition that 04:14:48.118 --> 04:14:59.146 - the or under under the The paragraph number five the ninth Condition that was asked for was individual 04:14:59.146 --> 04:15:07.070 - rooms will not Be be advertised B was not in there and leased by the room 04:15:07.298 --> 04:15:17.686 - And then condition number six, off-site tree planting. Why is there not on-site tree planting? That 04:15:17.686 --> 04:15:28.594 - is what I would like to know. It's not really appropriate to pass the buck when it comes to sequestering 04:15:28.594 --> 04:15:32.126 - carbon. And then when it comes to 04:15:33.122 --> 04:15:40.304 - The payment condition number eight when it comes to the payment in lieu I find that really faulty when 04:15:40.304 --> 04:15:47.555 - there's a payment in lieu and it goes into the affordable housing fund There is a lack of transparency. 04:15:47.555 --> 04:15:54.597 - We really don't know what happens with that money So I strongly encourage you to continue to work on 04:15:54.597 --> 04:16:01.918 - these conditions and improve them such that they truly benefit the public Thank you very much. Thank you 04:16:02.370 --> 04:16:14.304 - I just want to highlight we have two people online with their hands raised Hi, my name is Kay. I also 04:16:14.304 --> 04:16:27.174 - live in the trailview neighborhood We actually walked here today. So I know quite a bit about the walkability 04:16:27.174 --> 04:16:29.982 - and about that path and 04:16:30.210 --> 04:16:35.811 - It's a huge part of why I love my neighborhood. And so one thing is, you know, the trees. I'm concerned, 04:16:35.811 --> 04:16:41.253 - like right now, that is such a beautiful walk. It is just a really great way to go through there. And 04:16:41.253 --> 04:16:46.641 - so I'm like, if you're gonna get rid of all those trees and then plant them somewhere else, how does 04:16:46.641 --> 04:16:52.028 - that help us? Two, and this was like at the very beginning, and I'm just curious why we're voting on 04:16:52.028 --> 04:16:57.470 - this now, like we don't actually have an answer to what they're gonna do with the infrastructure with 04:16:57.470 --> 04:16:58.430 - the water because 04:16:58.594 --> 04:17:05.409 - I've lived in Bloomington my entire life basically and we've had some major problems with water. We 04:17:05.409 --> 04:17:12.291 - had Kirkwood flooded. And so now we have this giant hotel coming in and then right across the street 04:17:12.291 --> 04:17:19.106 - this giant other infrastructure with how many people, how are we gonna take care of that water? And 04:17:19.106 --> 04:17:21.150 - then kind of related to that, 04:17:21.346 --> 04:17:27.906 - Are we going to make sure that there's nothing in the soil that is now seeping into our groundwater, 04:17:27.906 --> 04:17:34.921 - since they did say that there was a major corridor already going under there? So that's my short questions. 04:17:34.921 --> 04:17:36.350 - Thank you. Thank you. 04:17:57.378 --> 04:18:07.021 - My name's David Ferrand, and I live on the corner of 6th and Fairview. First, I'd like to say that I 04:18:07.021 --> 04:18:16.854 - really appreciate them building a nice new apartment complex there. It's better than what's there now. 04:18:16.854 --> 04:18:27.070 - They should charge whatever they want to charge, whatever the market will bear. The entry into Fairview is 04:18:28.002 --> 04:18:37.325 - really going to increase the speeding traffic through our neighborhood. I walk that neighborhood almost 04:18:37.325 --> 04:18:46.738 - every day, and every day there's someone with traffic speeding cutting through through our neighborhood. 04:18:46.738 --> 04:18:56.510 - I live adjacent to the Fairview Alley between 6th Street and 7th Street, and that is 10 feet, 6 inches wide. 04:18:57.058 --> 04:19:09.997 - And I get traffic, people speeding through there every day. But also, pedestrian traffic through there 04:19:09.997 --> 04:19:22.810 - every day. And it's only going to increase when you have 700 more bedrooms. That means 700 more cars. 04:19:22.810 --> 04:19:25.950 - It's naive to think that 04:19:26.466 --> 04:19:40.010 - The cut-through traffic won't increase in our near West Side neighborhood Thank you, thank you Take 04:19:40.010 --> 04:19:54.366 - one more comment here in the chambers and then we'll take some online commenters after this Thank you for 04:19:54.562 --> 04:20:03.426 - Hearing us all tonight. My name is Kay Thorbeck. I have lived on Fairview and West 8th and Fairview 04:20:03.426 --> 04:20:12.468 - for 45 years and the last 10 years I've been pretty alarmed by the amount of More traffic coming into 04:20:12.468 --> 04:20:21.598 - our little neighborhood small streets. There's not very many garages. So people are street parking and 04:20:22.338 --> 04:20:31.125 - I know West 9th, 8th, and 7th has parking only on one side of the street. So we've got semi-trucks coming 04:20:31.125 --> 04:20:39.663 - through, Amazon trucks, and now with Fairview School being a very coveted accelerated learning school, 04:20:39.663 --> 04:20:44.222 - we have parents, hundreds and hundreds of parents from 04:20:44.450 --> 04:20:52.780 - the east side and the south side and the north side, driving their kids to school 45 minutes before 04:20:52.780 --> 04:21:01.110 - school starts. They come in the afternoon 45 minutes before school gets out. It is a cluster F. You 04:21:01.110 --> 04:21:09.940 - cannot come to my house in the morning or the afternoon. There was so much parked cars all along Fairview 04:21:09.940 --> 04:21:13.022 - where this so-called walking path in 04:21:13.442 --> 04:21:22.443 - Street is going to come out on and It's a congestion you've got it school buses trying to get by cars 04:21:22.443 --> 04:21:31.268 - getting scraped it's just it's a nightmare and And then cars trying to speed by and get around cars 04:21:31.268 --> 04:21:40.446 - that are parked for 45 minutes, so I'm all for walking paths and bike paths and emergency vehicles, but 04:21:40.898 --> 04:21:49.468 - Little old Fairview Street just can't take any more cars coming onto it. Thank you. Thank you. We're 04:21:49.468 --> 04:21:57.954 - going to go now to some online comments before we come back and take additional comment here in the 04:21:57.954 --> 04:22:07.033 - chambers. But we will make sure everybody gets a chance to speak. Do we have some online comments waiting? 04:22:07.033 --> 04:22:09.918 - I've unmuted Joan Mittendorf. Hi. 04:22:10.050 --> 04:22:16.998 - I'm Joan Middendorf. I live on West 7th Street in the Near West Side neighborhood. And I'm 04:22:16.998 --> 04:22:24.634 - on the Environmental Committee for the Near West Side Neighborhood Association. And we're concerned 04:22:24.634 --> 04:22:32.422 - most about the climate crisis and housing affordability and infrastructure. And I do feel bad for Kay 04:22:32.422 --> 04:22:39.294 - because it is true that she has that traffic, I don't know what's it called, the traffic, 04:22:39.522 --> 04:22:46.065 - the lines of cars before and after school. But I don't think if people in the new development come out, 04:22:46.065 --> 04:22:52.419 - they just have to go by there one time and they'll never drive there again, mornings and afternoons. 04:22:52.419 --> 04:22:58.899 - So that's not really a concern for me. But when I asked people around the neighborhood, what was their 04:22:58.899 --> 04:23:05.442 - environmental concern about the new development, people told me, and I asked about 10 people, they said 04:23:05.442 --> 04:23:07.518 - they were really concerned about 04:23:07.650 --> 04:23:16.137 - getting more low income housing. And they would prefer that instead of just giving 15% times 20 times 04:23:16.137 --> 04:23:24.458 - 370 apartments or whatever that formula that you gave was, they would just really prefer that there 04:23:24.458 --> 04:23:30.782 - be affordable housing in this unit. And I hope, and now I'm speaking to the 04:23:31.170 --> 04:23:37.557 - plan commission next time a group comes before you with a big plan like this, which is going to be about 04:23:37.557 --> 04:23:43.884 - the same size as our neighborhood. So you're putting in a new neighborhood as big as ours. Can you just 04:23:43.884 --> 04:23:50.088 - tell them it has to be a like, I don't know what you call it, something that's for sale so people can 04:23:50.088 --> 04:23:54.590 - not have to pay rent for the rest of their lives. Would that be possible? 04:23:54.722 --> 04:24:00.719 - And also another question is because people seem so concerned about traffic. I ride my bike when I'm 04:24:00.719 --> 04:24:07.073 - well. I ride my bike most of the time, so I'm not so concerned about car traffic, but would it be possible 04:24:07.073 --> 04:24:13.011 - to who's going to pay for the traffic signal that will eventually have to happen on Roger Street or 04:24:13.011 --> 04:24:19.424 - you know 300 units of people trying to drive out onto Rogers. They they'll have to spill over onto Fairview 04:24:19.424 --> 04:24:21.502 - because they can't get onto Roger. 04:24:21.762 --> 04:24:28.887 - can there be a traffic signal? And I looked up and it said in India, in Bloomington, it costs between 04:24:28.887 --> 04:24:36.291 - 200,000 to half a million dollars to put in a traffic signal. So who's gonna pay for that? And now that's 04:24:36.291 --> 04:24:43.276 - really, I just wanna say that not everybody in the neighborhood is against this development because 04:24:43.276 --> 04:24:50.400 - we need more housing. We need more housing and it needs to be downtown so we don't keep spreading out 04:24:50.400 --> 04:24:51.518 - in the suburbs. 04:24:51.682 --> 04:25:01.204 - but a few things would make the neighborhood happy. Thank you so much. Thank you. My name is Robert 04:25:01.204 --> 04:25:11.202 - Harmon. I live with K 8th and Fairview, two blocks from here and two blocks from that nine street street 04:25:11.202 --> 04:25:19.486 - the guys are planning on building, which is one of the stupidest ideas I can think of. 04:25:21.122 --> 04:25:28.620 - I feel like I've been through this movie before. 25 years ago, I would come here and I would talk and 04:25:28.620 --> 04:25:36.044 - they were building the tall building behind us that, what's it called again? Small wood, okay? And I 04:25:36.044 --> 04:25:43.468 - would say, you guys need to have more parking. And they would say, no, we just need, there are about 04:25:43.468 --> 04:25:49.790 - 30 parking spaces and there's about eight floors and hundreds of people living there. 04:25:49.986 --> 04:25:57.527 - And they said, it's not in our interest to build more parking. But the thing was, it became in my interest, 04:25:57.527 --> 04:26:04.649 - our interest on the West Side, because as soon as they built it and there wasn't enough parking, what 04:26:04.649 --> 04:26:11.631 - happened was that the students, and I don't blame them, they started parking in our neighborhood. I 04:26:11.631 --> 04:26:19.102 - come down to the city and I said, I can't park when I come home from work, outside my house. The solution? 04:26:19.778 --> 04:26:28.909 - parking stickers, so the developers get away with putting no parking in the building, and I have to 04:26:28.909 --> 04:26:38.223 - pay to park outside my house. Here we are, now we're here, you know? They don't even call it housing. 04:26:38.223 --> 04:26:47.446 - They call it product. It is all about making money. You know, we are paying them money so they don't 04:26:47.446 --> 04:26:48.542 - have to buy 04:26:49.218 --> 04:26:57.026 - that so they don't have to buy extra parking. I think there should be a parking spot for every damn 04:26:57.026 --> 04:27:04.833 - building, every house thing unit there is there. I mean, they'll say, well, it doesn't work for us, 04:27:04.833 --> 04:27:12.641 - you know? And I go, well, you mean, what doesn't work for you is like, you'll start making a profit 04:27:12.641 --> 04:27:15.998 - on your development maybe two years later, 04:27:16.770 --> 04:27:28.002 - and you're gonna be making millions for the rest of your damn life, you know? We need housing in the 04:27:28.002 --> 04:27:39.122 - West Side. We don't need this. This is a nightmare. The parking, not just the parking, the Fairview 04:27:39.122 --> 04:27:46.462 - Street, there's gonna be too much damn traffic, too much traffic. 04:27:46.882 --> 04:27:56.373 - Unless I hit it wrong, they're saying when the ambulance or the fire truck comes in, it's gonna have 04:27:56.373 --> 04:28:05.863 - to reverse over the garden plot. I think that's what they said because there isn't a place for it to 04:28:05.863 --> 04:28:15.166 - drive. We don't need more, we don't need this kind of housing. We need housing that people can buy 04:28:16.610 --> 04:28:24.231 - Build equity, you know? The problem in Bloomington, and these guys will be part of the problem. The 04:28:24.231 --> 04:28:32.081 - money comes into Bloomington. They build it, and then the money leaves. It never stays in Bloomington. 04:28:32.081 --> 04:28:40.006 - You've got these outside developers that have been going on for 25, 30 years, and they're bleeding this 04:28:40.006 --> 04:28:42.750 - damn town dry. It's nice if you're, 04:28:43.170 --> 04:28:50.374 - If you've got a father who's a millionaire and lives in New York or Philadelphia or can send your kid 04:28:50.374 --> 04:28:57.791 - here, you know, and it doesn't matter what the hell you're paying in rent, you know? Like you're paying, 04:28:57.791 --> 04:29:04.642 - they're paying about 1,200 bucks for like a 500 square foot apartment on 15th Street. It's, God, 04:29:04.642 --> 04:29:11.847 - it's a, I'm almost 80 years old. This is not the world I thought I would be living in, you know? It's 04:29:11.847 --> 04:29:13.118 - just a damn mess. 04:29:13.986 --> 04:29:23.892 - I wouldn't, don't let these guys steamroll you, okay? That's what's happening. Thank you. Do we have 04:29:23.892 --> 04:29:33.995 - any additional online comments? Yes, we do. Jane Goodman is online. Jane, you should be able to speak. 04:29:33.995 --> 04:29:42.430 - Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. So I want to return to the topic of air quality. 04:29:42.946 --> 04:29:49.517 - I really appreciate the attention from the city to the air quality and I appreciate the additional conditions 04:29:49.517 --> 04:29:55.550 - that are required but that doesn't satisfy me yet. Those of us who live as I do on the south side of 04:29:55.550 --> 04:30:01.643 - the Maple Heights neighborhood and the northeast side of the near west side are directly in breathing 04:30:01.643 --> 04:30:07.616 - distance of this site all day every day and this includes the Fairview school. And I'm no expert in 04:30:07.616 --> 04:30:08.990 - this field but I would 04:30:09.538 --> 04:30:16.655 - this would be possible, I'd like to ask for an air quality monitor that would be operating 24-7 throughout 04:30:16.655 --> 04:30:23.440 - the entire construction period, so that construction could stop, so that mitigation could be taken if 04:30:23.440 --> 04:30:30.158 - there was something that was troubling. I understand that three additional borings will be made, but 04:30:30.158 --> 04:30:37.474 - I have to object, and I apologize, I didn't get the name, but the women who spoke on behalf of the petitioner 04:30:37.474 --> 04:30:38.206 - about this 04:30:38.434 --> 04:30:45.301 - gave me the impression that you're doing additional borrowings to confirm what you think you already 04:30:45.301 --> 04:30:52.100 - know. I would instead like to ask you to do these as if you lived within breathing distance of this 04:30:52.100 --> 04:30:59.171 - site, as if you had children at the Fairview School. I really feel like the environmental testing needs 04:30:59.171 --> 04:31:06.174 - to be rigorous and continuous. Now, I also understand Gabriel's point about going to IDEM and the EPA. 04:31:06.402 --> 04:31:13.486 - But perhaps others may share my concern that I, in the last two years, I don't quite trust the EPA anymore. 04:31:13.486 --> 04:31:20.110 - I'm not sure they have the personnel to do this or to care. I know less about IDEM, but I just would 04:31:20.110 --> 04:31:26.866 - like the city to be directly involved and not just, and I understand that the city doesn't necessarily 04:31:26.866 --> 04:31:32.638 - have the people and the staff that IDEM and EPA have. We could be directly involved in, 04:31:32.834 --> 04:31:40.267 - making sure that proper monitoring is continuously done throughout construction. So I'm hoping that 04:31:40.267 --> 04:31:47.998 - we can get some follow-up on these questions of air monitoring, air quality monitoring. And by the way, 04:31:47.998 --> 04:31:55.432 - I am not the person who sent the email, that was someone else. So more than one of us are concerned 04:31:55.432 --> 04:31:59.966 - about this. I also wanted to ask a question about the trees. 04:32:00.386 --> 04:32:06.287 - I do agree that some of the trees, well, the previous commentary that some of the trees surely could 04:32:06.287 --> 04:32:12.304 - be replanted on the site. But my specific question is about the current trees on, let's see, the south 04:32:12.304 --> 04:32:18.439 - side of the beeline. Those were planted when the beeline was built and they're new trees. They're coming 04:32:18.439 --> 04:32:24.340 - into kind of fullness now. Are those trees also going to be torn down? It's not clear to me from the 04:32:24.340 --> 04:32:29.598 - site plan that those trees, are those trees going to stay or are those trees going to go? 04:32:29.794 --> 04:32:37.076 - They're on the beeline side of what's currently a chain link fence. So that's just a question. But my 04:32:37.076 --> 04:32:44.358 - overall comment again about air quality, this is potentially really, really serious and we can't mess 04:32:44.358 --> 04:32:51.783 - around with this. So I'm just asking for some additional conditions and guarantees about the continuous 04:32:51.783 --> 04:32:57.566 - monitoring of the air quality. Thank you. That's all the time I need. Thank you. 04:33:01.442 --> 04:33:11.184 - Uh, we do have one more person online. Um, CG, you should be able to unmute and speak. Hi, can you hear 04:33:11.184 --> 04:33:20.926 - me? Yes. Okay. Fantastic. This is, uh, Katie green. I also live in the near west side and I mostly just 04:33:20.926 --> 04:33:31.230 - want to say that this is an excellent example of student housing masquerading as multifamily. It is literally 04:33:31.394 --> 04:33:38.830 - presented as campus style housing with fenced amenities and it has a party sky deck, which seemed to 04:33:38.830 --> 04:33:46.634 - get glossed over in the presentation today. I'd also just say that on a personal note at the neighborhood 04:33:46.634 --> 04:33:54.291 - meeting, it felt really dismissive and condescending at best. I feel like they represented that they've 04:33:54.291 --> 04:33:57.310 - done a traffic study and maybe they did. 04:33:57.506 --> 04:34:04.681 - but they couldn't or wouldn't provide meaningful details to the neighbors. And we did ask, but I have 04:34:04.681 --> 04:34:11.997 - not seen that. They said they provided it to the city and I believe that they did, but we have not seen 04:34:11.997 --> 04:34:19.102 - it. But we were repeated. Who doesn't love traditional foundation. That's why I create. Sorry. Okay. 04:34:19.490 --> 04:34:26.974 - Um, but we were repeatedly assured that traffic would not flow through neighborhoods, but would go up 04:34:26.974 --> 04:34:34.384 - Rogers instead. And I would just like to point out that Rogers draws a red line straight. I'm sorry. 04:34:34.384 --> 04:34:42.088 - Hold on one second. Oh my God. My dog's being so loud. Uh, a red line straight through our neighborhood. 04:34:42.088 --> 04:34:46.270 - Like that goes straight through Maple Heights. We exist. 04:34:46.626 --> 04:34:55.007 - We're right here, we've been talking about the entire time, like we're just a pass through yet again. 04:34:55.007 --> 04:35:03.470 - That avenue is also the primary access of the B line to the 17th street, east-west multi-use path. And 04:35:03.470 --> 04:35:11.934 - coming up over the rainbow bridge is already really extremely hazardous for cyclists. That hasn't been 04:35:11.934 --> 04:35:14.974 - addressed. There is a corridor study 04:35:15.170 --> 04:35:23.289 - or ongoing. But interestingly, the walk-in talks for that area were excluded. There are walk-in talks 04:35:23.289 --> 04:35:31.249 - in every area, even though we've been requesting relief from traffic since at least 2023. So that's 04:35:31.249 --> 04:35:39.368 - a concern for me. I would also say that this proposal does not seem to take into account any concerns 04:35:39.368 --> 04:35:41.278 - about sound or traffic. 04:35:42.338 --> 04:35:50.056 - from the neighborhood meeting. I live on the east side of Maple Heights and we have serious sound issues 04:35:50.056 --> 04:35:57.406 - coming across the railroad from the student housing on the east side. Imagine that coming across on 04:35:57.406 --> 04:36:04.757 - the west side too would be a serious problem. And I worry about the impacts of partying students on 04:36:04.757 --> 04:36:12.254 - the neighboring elementary school. I do agree we need housing, but this should be affordable housing. 04:36:13.058 --> 04:36:20.737 - Uh, representing it as this like oversimplistic model of supply and demand is disingenuous at best. 04:36:20.737 --> 04:36:28.646 - This is going to be a luxury apartments across the street from a boutique hotel. The current complexes 04:36:28.646 --> 04:36:36.709 - in Bloomington already prevent people from like doing sublets, which artificially inflates the occupancy 04:36:36.709 --> 04:36:41.086 - numbers. And you know, tenants have no relief from this. 04:36:41.474 --> 04:36:49.260 - They prefer to leave units open rather than lower rents or having someone undesirable move in. So the 04:36:49.260 --> 04:36:56.894 - payment in lieu is frankly not sufficient to justify the cost to existing neighbors. Green space is 04:36:56.894 --> 04:37:04.528 - also a problem. I don't see how planting trees offsite and moving affordable housing offsite can be 04:37:04.528 --> 04:37:08.574 - represented as a benefit to our neighborhood at all. 04:37:09.538 --> 04:37:18.185 - Me as a property owner, I'm going to incur some serious financial costs. You know, we already can't 04:37:18.185 --> 04:37:24.670 - cross North Rogers. It's already difficult to bike south over that bridge. 04:37:24.834 --> 04:37:30.969 - That's going to be impacted by both the hotel and this apartment complex. There's going to be no relief 04:37:30.969 --> 04:37:36.927 - at all. The developer isn't going to shoulder any of this cost. It's going to be me personally. It's 04:37:36.927 --> 04:37:42.944 - going to be property owners personally and the city maybe. Um, so I just, I realized that there might 04:37:42.944 --> 04:37:48.902 - not be much you could do if this is a by right situation that you have to approve by the code. But I 04:37:48.902 --> 04:37:54.270 - just wish we could skip the whole dog and pony show acting like it benefits the neighbors. 04:37:55.426 --> 04:38:06.607 - And I guess that's all I really have to say. Thank you. Are there any more online comments? If there's 04:38:06.607 --> 04:38:18.114 - anybody else online, please use the raise hand function. Sandy Clothier wants to speak. Sandy, you should 04:38:18.114 --> 04:38:22.782 - be able to speak. Okay, thank you so much. 04:38:22.882 --> 04:38:32.915 - I want to say first, I really appreciate all of the comments that have been made so far. I wanted to 04:38:32.915 --> 04:38:43.247 - just address a couple of things that I don't think have been discussed so far. And the first thing that 04:38:43.247 --> 04:38:49.406 - I wanted to do is to read what it says this zoning status is. 04:38:49.858 --> 04:38:59.245 - It's MD-ST Showers Technology Downtown Character Overlay. The mixed use downtown showers technology 04:38:59.245 --> 04:39:09.289 - character area is intended to draw upon architectural detailing and thoughtful site planning to complement 04:39:09.289 --> 04:39:18.206 - the mass and scale of existing historic structures, draw upon neo-traditional design concepts, 04:39:19.074 --> 04:39:27.264 - to extend street grid and to create publicly accessible open space, integrate development that 04:39:27.264 --> 04:39:35.886 - is strategically planned to promote mixed use development focused on light industrial manufacturing 04:39:35.886 --> 04:39:44.594 - and office uses where live work, young professional, single family, empty nester and retiree housing 04:39:44.594 --> 04:39:47.870 - markets are targeted. As you can see, 04:39:48.418 --> 04:39:55.407 - The proposed site for this new apartment complex sits between two historic districts, the Near West 04:39:55.407 --> 04:40:02.046 - Side and Maple Heights, and across from several historic Shower Brothers individual buildings. 04:40:04.002 --> 04:40:10.946 - According to the overlay definition, zoning requires that any built modification should draw upon the 04:40:10.946 --> 04:40:18.231 - architectural detailing and thoughtful site planning to complement the mass and scale of existing historic 04:40:18.231 --> 04:40:25.176 - structures. In looking at this site plan, I see little, if anything, that relates to either the scale 04:40:25.176 --> 04:40:32.528 - or the mass of adjacent historic properties. The building is brick, and that may relate to Showers Brothers 04:40:32.528 --> 04:40:33.822 - buildings, but not 04:40:33.954 --> 04:40:41.363 - adjacent neighborhoods. Certainly two neighborhoods with historic designation closely adjacent to this 04:40:41.363 --> 04:40:48.700 - property count as important sites to consider in regards to mass and scale. Neither the scale nor the 04:40:48.700 --> 04:40:55.893 - mass relates to anything I see in the neighborhoods or in the showers buildings. The development is 04:40:55.893 --> 04:41:03.806 - so far from fitting in to the historic neighborhood it abuts that I cannot imagine how it fits that criteria. 04:41:05.378 --> 04:41:12.128 - The zoning is designated to further be designed to promote mixed-use development, where live, work, 04:41:12.128 --> 04:41:19.081 - young professionals, single-family, empty-nester, and retirees might choose to live. But this proposal 04:41:19.081 --> 04:41:25.899 - is to be managed by a company that works primarily with student housing. They mentioned nothing else 04:41:25.899 --> 04:41:32.650 - on the website that I saw. Obviously, I stand corrected because others have seen other information, 04:41:32.650 --> 04:41:34.270 - but I did not see that. 04:41:34.498 --> 04:41:41.444 - It seems to me that more and more guidelines are given a bailout if the developer has the money. To 04:41:41.444 --> 04:41:48.530 - remove trees and not replace them in a super dense development that is unlike anything nearby is just 04:41:48.530 --> 04:41:55.754 - a terrible idea. There will be no relief from the massive look of this five-story series of structures. 04:41:55.754 --> 04:42:00.894 - The same thing happened when looking at affordability. The developer paid 04:42:00.994 --> 04:42:08.461 - to not have to have these units affordable. So again, wealthy developers are given a way out. And again, 04:42:08.461 --> 04:42:16.071 - the same thing has come up for parking spaces. This is an extremely dense development. It will potentially 04:42:16.071 --> 04:42:23.610 - have as many residents as the entire near west side neighborhood. That means noise, traffic, cars, people 04:42:23.610 --> 04:42:29.726 - will likely impact the neighborhood negatively. Has anyone thought of where all those 04:42:30.146 --> 04:42:37.230 - cars with no parking space will be parking their vehicles. There is no room on Fairview, but cars will 04:42:37.230 --> 04:42:44.107 - no doubt be parking on that small narrow street anyway. And they will be filling up the parking lot 04:42:44.107 --> 04:42:51.122 - of the Reverend Butler Park as well. To many of us living nearby, it seems that there has simply been 04:42:51.122 --> 04:42:52.222 - no real concern 04:42:52.322 --> 04:43:02.068 - for the placement of this monster housing project. Instead, the city has been very willing to allow 04:43:02.068 --> 04:43:12.203 - the developer to do many things that will cause harm to the adjoining neighborhoods. So I ask you, what 04:43:12.203 --> 04:43:22.046 - in this development relates to any of the information that we see in the zoning plan? And I urge you 04:43:22.466 --> 04:43:32.795 - to seriously consider downsizing this project, changing its focus, and really listening to the residents 04:43:32.795 --> 04:43:42.927 - who are going to be impacted. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment, either online or here 04:43:42.927 --> 04:43:47.550 - in the chambers? Last call for public comment. 04:43:47.938 --> 04:43:56.415 - If there's anybody online, please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat and we can 04:43:56.415 --> 04:44:04.978 - recognize you All right, we are back to the Commission then for any final discussion or for a motion 04:44:04.978 --> 04:44:14.133 - just as a reminder the staff recommendation is that we adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition 04:44:14.133 --> 04:44:17.694 - with ten conditions that are included and 04:44:17.826 --> 04:44:32.051 - in the packet Any final discussion Good Commissioner Bishop I'm still waiting for some sort of Brent 04:44:32.051 --> 04:44:45.854 - price figure from the petitioner It's been a few minutes a few if you've got that's details Sorry 04:44:48.290 --> 04:44:57.103 - We took a look at a broad number of local projects That are currently on the market and just to make 04:44:57.103 --> 04:45:06.091 - sure I get the figures correct. We looked at a few different ones But we talked about one bed one bass 04:45:06.091 --> 04:45:14.905 - and there's a variety of those you could Maybe look at a studio. I think of a one-bedroom as more so 04:45:14.905 --> 04:45:18.046 - has a door has a clear bathroom and 04:45:18.434 --> 04:45:28.482 - And so we found a range and it depends again on when it was built the location the different services 04:45:28.482 --> 04:45:38.825 - that are within the building and For one bedroom specifically we found a range between $1,300 and $1,600 04:45:38.825 --> 04:45:47.198 - and so when we're pricing our units we look at a variety of factors and how well the 04:45:47.490 --> 04:45:54.464 - the specific unit types are doing. Sometimes you have unique unit types and sometimes you have what 04:45:54.464 --> 04:46:01.577 - we call loss leaders. It's a unit that is priced at a certain price point because maybe it has a unit 04:46:01.577 --> 04:46:08.900 - challenge or not the best view and so you could expect based on current pricing that we would have units 04:46:08.900 --> 04:46:16.014 - in that wide range of current pricing. So I hope that the $1,300 to $1,600 gives you a rough range of 04:46:16.014 --> 04:46:16.990 - a one bedroom 04:46:17.218 --> 04:46:25.184 - apartment unit I Appreciate the research. Thank you. You're welcome Mr. Kohraki I just had a question. 04:46:25.184 --> 04:46:32.919 - I guess it wasn't clear to me either And there are some kind of questions about this with the trees 04:46:32.919 --> 04:46:40.731 - Are we are the trees being removed on the beeline in order to build and then they'll be replanted is 04:46:40.731 --> 04:46:46.686 - that they are proposing to remove I believe it's all trees on their property 04:46:47.426 --> 04:46:57.607 - The there are trees lining the beeline south of south of the beeline that are on the beeline property 04:46:57.607 --> 04:47:07.789 - and I wish I could confirm half the time Maybe maybe we can Once it gets to trees off their property, 04:47:07.789 --> 04:47:15.774 - they need the property owners permission so in this case, it would be parks the 04:47:16.194 --> 04:47:22.785 - City Bloomington Parks and Recreation permission to remove those trees So I can see if it's clear from 04:47:22.785 --> 04:47:29.312 - the plans whether any of those are proposed to be removed but if they are they need to get permission 04:47:29.312 --> 04:47:35.839 - from parks and I would expect that a Condition from parks would be that they plant Back anything that 04:47:35.839 --> 04:47:42.238 - they have to remove. So the reason there might potentially be trees removed in that area is because 04:47:42.238 --> 04:47:43.710 - they are committing to 04:47:44.994 --> 04:47:52.647 - reconstructing and relocating a sanitary sewer line that runs generally in that area and is partially 04:47:52.647 --> 04:48:00.301 - on the B-line property and partially on their property. So they will be doing some ground disturbance 04:48:00.301 --> 04:48:07.879 - on that park's property. So in the plans that I currently have, it's not clear whether or not any of 04:48:07.879 --> 04:48:12.606 - those would be removed. I think the intention would be to keep 04:48:12.834 --> 04:48:20.245 - as many of them as possible. And certainly that would be enforced through parks as the manager of that 04:48:20.245 --> 04:48:27.512 - property. Um, some may need to be removed for that sewer line, but it would be on parks to make sure 04:48:27.512 --> 04:48:34.850 - that they're planted back. The variances are all about, um, and the offsite plantings in the proposed 04:48:34.850 --> 04:48:41.182 - condition are all about trees on their own site. Okay. That's all right now. Mackenzie. 04:48:42.210 --> 04:48:48.582 - I wonder if we could address a few of the questions that were raised about Parking, you know one was 04:48:48.582 --> 04:48:54.953 - the very straightforward question about parking permitted on Fairview and I think we already I Think 04:48:54.953 --> 04:49:01.325 - we determined that there is no parking on Fairview, but I want to confirm that Just make sure that's 04:49:01.325 --> 04:49:07.633 - what do you want me to jump in now or do you want to finish sure? currently on Fairview adjacent to 04:49:07.633 --> 04:49:11.166 - this project parking is prohibited on the west side and 04:49:11.586 --> 04:49:19.025 - near the park, and it is permitted on the east side next to this. Those of you who are familiar with 04:49:19.025 --> 04:49:26.685 - the neighborhood will probably be able to confirm that no one in living memory has ever seen a car park 04:49:26.685 --> 04:49:34.271 - on the east side of Fairview in this block. It's not prohibited. What they're proposing, we're waiting 04:49:34.271 --> 04:49:41.342 - out on the screen here, what the petitioners are proposing for Fairview Street would be 20 feet 04:49:41.634 --> 04:49:50.759 - of asphalt curb to curb on that stretch of Fairview, which combined with two-way traffic doesn't really 04:49:50.759 --> 04:49:59.796 - work to have parking on one side. So we have discussed with the petitioner the idea of the city taking 04:49:59.796 --> 04:50:08.745 - forward a recommended change to Title 15 of the code to prohibit parking on both sides of Fairview to 04:50:08.745 --> 04:50:09.886 - just reflect 04:50:10.434 --> 04:50:19.336 - the situation there and what the road is. But the current status is that parking is permitted on the 04:50:19.336 --> 04:50:28.414 - east side of Fairview adjacent to this project. Okay. All right. So the there is something potentially 04:50:28.414 --> 04:50:37.492 - in the works to change parking and when that would happen after. I mean there's no particular deadline 04:50:37.492 --> 04:50:38.814 - set on him but 04:50:39.234 --> 04:50:47.037 - I think what staff was thinking is that we'd get that in motion later this month, and it would be part 04:50:47.037 --> 04:50:54.840 - of code by the fall, so well before this gets built. Sorry, I don't want to commit to those timelines, 04:50:54.840 --> 04:51:02.719 - but there's no reason to wait for this project to start construction or finish construction to do that. 04:51:02.719 --> 04:51:07.870 - OK. Was there any thought of making that a condition or adding that 04:51:08.450 --> 04:51:17.475 - more explicitly? No, but not because there was a conscious thought not to just that's a very good point. 04:51:17.475 --> 04:51:26.328 - It could be, you know, the challenge is we can't compel another board for action. Okay. Okay. I wonder 04:51:26.328 --> 04:51:35.181 - if we could talk a little bit more about some of the, you know, there were lots of views about parking 04:51:35.181 --> 04:51:36.126 - expressed. 04:51:36.322 --> 04:51:44.074 - during the public comment and I know that it's a it is a hotly debated issue whether parking is necessary 04:51:44.074 --> 04:51:51.972 - for every bedroom and if that's an easy way to do it but that others think that that's completely overbuilt 04:51:51.972 --> 04:51:59.285 - I wonder if there could be a little more conversation about the parking and one explicit question I 04:51:59.285 --> 04:52:02.430 - would love to know if the calculation that 04:52:02.658 --> 04:52:09.902 - our speaker from the near West Side neighborhood made about what the Petitioners were getting in terms 04:52:09.902 --> 04:52:17.498 - of reduction and cost was at all Near any calculations that were done. I thought that was quite interesting 04:52:17.498 --> 04:52:24.672 - I just I'm trying to look up the numbers I don't actually remember what the number the gentleman said 04:52:24.672 --> 04:52:26.430 - it was more than 500 and 04:52:26.530 --> 04:52:33.807 - and I'm trying to find where the calculation was, but if there were no reductions, right, they're getting 04:52:33.807 --> 04:52:40.671 - reductions for proximity to transit and also because they're getting affordable housing incentives. 04:52:40.671 --> 04:52:48.085 - If there were no reductions, it would be in the range of 500 parking spaces minimum that would be required. 04:52:48.085 --> 04:52:55.018 - 527 is what the minimum, I think that's a little lower than what the commenter said, but 527 is what 04:52:55.018 --> 04:52:56.254 - would be required 04:52:56.674 --> 04:53:08.443 - If if there were no none of these reductions, but that's not what's required in this case Okay Okay. 04:53:08.443 --> 04:53:20.562 - Thank you. Thanks Commissioner bro So just run that by me again Gabriel so the incentive for affordable 04:53:20.562 --> 04:53:24.990 - housing helps with parking Spaces yes 04:53:25.442 --> 04:53:35.657 - So the way the code's written, if you earn affordable housing incentives, or if it's a senior housing 04:53:35.657 --> 04:53:46.373 - development, age-restricted senior housing, in either case you can get this 35% reduction. I would venture 04:53:46.373 --> 04:53:54.686 - a guess that that language dates from when there was not a payment in lieu option. 04:53:56.226 --> 04:54:04.563 - So it's just conflicting unintended consequences from two different sides of the UDO that work or not. 04:54:04.563 --> 04:54:12.900 - Well so the reason behind that was when you look at those two projects affordable housing projects and 04:54:12.900 --> 04:54:20.670 - senior housing oftentimes those have a lower parking need. So sometimes when we encounter those 04:54:21.186 --> 04:54:26.698 - Developments and like hey, we we don't wonder have to provide as many parking parking spaces cost money 04:54:26.698 --> 04:54:31.999 - We don't have a need for it. There should be a reduction You know if we're trying to make a project 04:54:31.999 --> 04:54:37.458 - more affordable You know putting in parking that we don't feel like we have a need for just raises the 04:54:37.458 --> 04:54:43.183 - cost of that development So that's why that language was included in incentives to allow for that reduction 04:54:43.183 --> 04:54:44.190 - for those two uses 04:54:44.706 --> 04:54:51.061 - So whether they're units on site or utilizing the payment in lieu the udl allows either one of those 04:54:51.061 --> 04:54:57.415 - So that's where that that history is Thank you. Another question is I know that they're gonna remove 04:54:57.415 --> 04:55:03.707 - trees, but I know that they are also required to plant many trees Do we have a number of trees that 04:55:03.707 --> 04:55:09.118 - they will plant on site? Yes, it will take me a moment to define the exact number and 04:55:15.746 --> 04:55:29.667 - trees and shrubs, please. 61 large canopy trees, 20 small trees, and 791 shrubs are what's proposed. 04:55:29.667 --> 04:55:44.414 - And that's in a little table on the landscape plan, which is part of the civil set that was in the packet. 04:55:44.962 --> 04:55:52.136 - It's not gonna be a I Mean they have to replant, correct? I Mean, it's not gonna be empty. They're gonna 04:55:52.136 --> 04:55:59.037 - have to replant and landscape their open areas Yeah as you're familiar since you sit on the Board of 04:55:59.037 --> 04:56:06.005 - Zoning Appeals when this came for that variance part of the justification for the variance and the in 04:56:06.005 --> 04:56:12.974 - the findings that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopted is that these the landscape plan is going to be 04:56:12.974 --> 04:56:13.726 - planted in 04:56:13.890 --> 04:56:20.079 - There will be trees and shrubs in nearly, practically speaking, in every possible location to put one, 04:56:20.079 --> 04:56:26.327 - but it's just they're maxing out where they can put trees and shrubs, and that was the reason that they 04:56:26.327 --> 04:56:32.516 - were requesting the variance to do offsite plantings. And the offsite planting, who's gonna coordinate 04:56:32.516 --> 04:56:38.764 - that? Is that Parks and Rec? Yeah, so there's a memorandum of understanding between Grey Star, Planning 04:56:38.764 --> 04:56:42.910 - and Transportation, and Parks and Recreation. We all have our roles. 04:56:43.586 --> 04:56:50.537 - Actual, you know who's going to be out there planting stuff on the ground Well, it's probably not actually 04:56:50.537 --> 04:56:57.033 - going to be these people here, but it's going to be people that they hire To go out and and put the 04:56:57.033 --> 04:57:03.659 - trees in the ground and then parks will verify that it was done correctly So it's it's it's on the on 04:57:03.659 --> 04:57:10.155 - the petitioner to to make sure the planting actually happens And my last question is with condition 04:57:10.155 --> 04:57:11.454 - Number and a second 04:57:14.050 --> 04:57:23.638 - Number three that they're going to be at least three additional boring locations Why just three is there 04:57:23.638 --> 04:57:32.952 - a specific Can that number be can we Say more or different location or specific locations for example 04:57:32.952 --> 04:57:42.814 - under the piles It hasn't been tested Yeah, so the there's there's not there was not a rigorous analysis of 04:57:43.074 --> 04:57:52.869 - to produce the number three, there was a sort of informal looking at it with staff of what we think 04:57:52.869 --> 04:58:02.665 - would be sort of a reasonable minimum amount to really get the kind of information we need, came up 04:58:02.665 --> 04:58:03.742 - with three 04:58:03.906 --> 04:58:10.431 - I'm not really prepared to defend that exactly. There's a map that was in the packet, I believe, that 04:58:10.431 --> 04:58:14.206 - Pistner submitted of where previous borings had been done. 04:58:14.338 --> 04:58:19.937 - Okay, and so there were some gaps of where those had been occurred based on where the stockpiles had 04:58:19.937 --> 04:58:25.592 - been So when we came up with the number three and we deferred to staff of where those locations would 04:58:25.592 --> 04:58:31.302 - be it was based on where those gaps were From the previous borings and based on where those stockpiles 04:58:31.302 --> 04:58:36.902 - had been identified Certainly if you feel like additional quantity of numbers is warranted, you know 04:58:36.902 --> 04:58:42.778 - You can modify that condition of approval to include more. Yeah, I appreciate you telling me that because 04:58:42.778 --> 04:58:43.998 - it so there were some 04:58:44.482 --> 04:58:54.732 - Process on how and where they're gonna go. Okay. Thank you so much for sharing For bringing up the Reasonable 04:58:54.732 --> 04:59:04.329 - condition number three because I also wanted to bring that up and just to kind of clarify that Because 04:59:04.329 --> 04:59:14.206 - multiple people also mentioned this That it the requirement is at least three additional which means that 04:59:14.466 --> 04:59:21.866 - Maybe you might move all the piles and do one and realize well we actually need five or six or seven. 04:59:21.866 --> 04:59:29.339 - So is that mean am I reading that correctly. First of all that we're using three as a minimum and that 04:59:29.339 --> 04:59:36.957 - there is a full understanding expectation both among planning and transportation and also the petitioner 04:59:36.957 --> 04:59:42.398 - that maybe there would be more depending on what happens with those three. 04:59:44.162 --> 04:59:51.431 - Yeah, I absolutely do not envision a case where we are in conflicts with the petitioner, where we say 04:59:51.431 --> 04:59:58.557 - five and they say no. I do not envision that happening. So we do intend to work with the petitioner 04:59:58.557 --> 05:00:06.111 - to get to a number and location of boardings that work well. The way that it's currently written, though, 05:00:06.111 --> 05:00:13.950 - it does say at least three. So if three are done, that meets the condition. I'm sorry. What did you say last? 05:00:15.106 --> 05:00:21.491 - If the way it's written right now, um, it says at least three, meaning if three more soil boring sites 05:00:21.491 --> 05:00:28.185 - are done, that meets the condition. Right. So if there's, um, I mean, I think we certainly have an interest 05:00:28.185 --> 05:00:34.570 - in, in, uh, making sure that there's, uh, a sufficient number, right. And that, that sufficient number 05:00:34.570 --> 05:00:40.768 - could be more than three, but as it's currently written, it's, it says at least three. And so three 05:00:40.768 --> 05:00:41.822 - would meet that. 05:00:47.330 --> 05:00:56.740 - I don't know if I have too many questions more just being sharing where my thoughts are Hearing a lot 05:00:56.740 --> 05:01:06.242 - of comments and concerns. We're learning a lot about the UDO Largely this project appears to meet most 05:01:06.242 --> 05:01:15.467 - of the UDO Conditions a lot of the conditions were being presented are shared in the spirit of just 05:01:15.467 --> 05:01:16.574 - being extra 05:01:16.706 --> 05:01:23.898 - Cautious and transparent but are things that would largely already be required or things that are outside 05:01:23.898 --> 05:01:30.818 - generally the purview of the city So just sharing that with context And trusting that there are still 05:01:30.818 --> 05:01:37.874 - conditions because some things haven't yet fully been flushed out like things reviewing stormwater with 05:01:37.874 --> 05:01:43.166 - CBU But expecting that they will be workable within the current site plan and 05:01:44.034 --> 05:01:50.910 - So just just noting that noting concerns about traffic and parking there is a transportation commission 05:01:50.910 --> 05:01:57.985 - that evaluates things that are existing and As issues could come up that there there is a resource they're 05:01:57.985 --> 05:02:04.597 - available just to monitor and track and continuously Potentially explore changes like to parking on 05:02:04.597 --> 05:02:11.606 - city streets I also did just want for the public's and Commission's awareness to to be aware that there's 05:02:11.606 --> 05:02:13.854 - been reference to a traffic study 05:02:14.114 --> 05:02:23.377 - I've not seen a traffic study. So just throwing that out there. That's all I have to offer right now 05:02:23.377 --> 05:02:32.824 - All right, is there Any additional comments or emotion This one's for staff the payment in lieu option 05:02:32.824 --> 05:02:42.454 - in the UDO says that the city may authorize the acceptance of a payment in lieu can the city also reject 05:02:42.454 --> 05:02:43.646 - that because 05:02:43.842 --> 05:02:52.240 - Hear a lot about the parking possibly turning into a safety concern with neighboring residents people 05:02:52.240 --> 05:03:00.473 - who live here a hundred percent of the time So could we firmly reject a payment in lieu to get more 05:03:00.473 --> 05:03:09.118 - parking? Interesting question that As far as you know the authority to do that. I'm not sure I wonder if 05:03:09.218 --> 05:03:16.937 - There's never been a situation yet where we have rejected that yes, you're correct the the UDO does 05:03:16.937 --> 05:03:24.966 - say petitioner may utilize that It's also one of many things, you know, they may provide units on site. 05:03:24.966 --> 05:03:33.534 - It's an allowance You know, there's not a mechanism or review criteria their view criteria to say yes or no so 05:03:34.722 --> 05:03:41.402 - Could you look into that? Because they've done a great job of using every gray area and loophole possible 05:03:41.402 --> 05:03:47.767 - to do what they do. And that's what corporations do like that. And so I applaud them on that effort. 05:03:47.767 --> 05:03:51.422 - And so I'm curious on the same token, can we just say no? 05:04:06.818 --> 05:04:14.713 - Okay I have comment. So multifamily is allowed in this district. I think that Bloomington needs single 05:04:14.713 --> 05:04:22.915 - family housing. I think we need houses that people can own. I wish that this were that type of development 05:04:22.915 --> 05:04:30.581 - but multifamily is allowed in this district. And so we don't get to reject this based on that. They 05:04:30.581 --> 05:04:35.870 - can build multifamily there if that's what they want to build there. 05:04:36.194 --> 05:04:42.030 - Now I do think that we can reject this based on the failure to mitigate adverse impacts on the surrounding 05:04:42.030 --> 05:04:47.649 - neighborhood. I think the parking and the traffic those are real issues and it's in the U.D.O. and I'm 05:04:47.649 --> 05:04:53.212 - comfortable voting to reject this based on that the payment in lieu issue. That's a great solution to 05:04:53.212 --> 05:04:59.103 - it. If we can deny that and get 500 or more parking spaces in here I think that would make a big difference 05:04:59.103 --> 05:05:04.776 - in the outcome here. I think that would be much better for the surrounding neighborhood and it wouldn't 05:05:04.776 --> 05:05:05.758 - be hopefully that 05:05:05.954 --> 05:05:11.681 - burdensome. I think the project probably they would still want to go forward with it. So I would like 05:05:11.681 --> 05:05:17.295 - I think I would make a motion to continue this to get an answer to the payment in lieu question and 05:05:17.295 --> 05:05:23.191 - what the city's options are on that and give the petitioner a chance to come back and voluntarily accept 05:05:23.191 --> 05:05:28.805 - more parking or decide whether without the payment in lieu it's not worth it. I understand. I think 05:05:28.805 --> 05:05:34.476 - the packet said that they were getting getting an additional floor for the payment in lieu. Maybe we 05:05:34.476 --> 05:05:35.262 - can partially 05:05:35.362 --> 05:05:43.075 - Reject it or withdraw some of those Offering some of the incentives. Maybe petitioner will voluntarily 05:05:43.075 --> 05:05:51.012 - relinquish some of them So I make a motion to continue this to get in order to we have time to get answer 05:05:51.012 --> 05:05:58.500 - to those questions Is there a second for the motion to continue? second All right any discussion on 05:05:58.500 --> 05:06:03.742 - the motion to continue your motion is to continue this to the May 1st 05:06:04.706 --> 05:06:12.305 - Yes the next meeting Any discussion question sort of it relates to the motion to continue Commissioner 05:06:12.305 --> 05:06:19.756 - Seabor mentioned that he has not seen a traffic study and I wonder if that's another thing to add on 05:06:19.756 --> 05:06:27.797 - to this Interest is there is you know, I've been searching for a traffic study and here it's been mentioned, 05:06:27.797 --> 05:06:31.486 - but I don't find it either that does seem to be a 05:06:32.450 --> 05:06:43.170 - significant concern by commenters and I think it deserves to be looked into Mr. Stossberg I'm inclined 05:06:43.170 --> 05:06:54.201 - to continue right now partly because it's just a really late and I'm I'm not inclined to deny this simply 05:06:54.201 --> 05:07:00.862 - because of parking issues I know that that's a huge concern and 05:07:00.962 --> 05:07:10.463 - Generally speaking, but it's also statistically relevant that That we we are really in this particular 05:07:10.463 --> 05:07:20.149 - location Potentially attracting the type of people who will not need a car and that Seems really foreign 05:07:20.149 --> 05:07:27.806 - in a lot of ways But there are lots and lots of people that exist without cars and 05:07:28.258 --> 05:07:37.775 - of all ages who exist without cars, and especially because of the proximal location to the bus line, 05:07:37.775 --> 05:07:40.414 - I think that that can work. 05:07:40.578 --> 05:07:47.706 - I also am interested in seeing the traffic study, and especially whether the traffic study was done 05:07:47.706 --> 05:07:55.047 - when Fairview School was in session. Because it is, we talked about that last year, year before, about 05:07:55.047 --> 05:08:02.175 - North High School when there was that development up there, that subdivision, to make sure that the 05:08:02.175 --> 05:08:09.374 - traffic study was done when school was in session to be able to account for that additional traffic. 05:08:09.570 --> 05:08:17.257 - And I'm also curious in terms of Fairview Street, in terms of just what it sounds like. There's some 05:08:17.257 --> 05:08:24.944 - traffic problems over there already that maybe are going unaddressed. And I would be curious to hear 05:08:24.944 --> 05:08:31.870 - a little bit more from maybe planning and transportation, maybe engineering, about whether 05:08:32.418 --> 05:08:39.405 - Something else needs to needs to happen over there and I know you know the Rogers Madison Kinzer court 05:08:39.405 --> 05:08:46.257 - or study Is certainly relevant in this case but it's also potentially relevant, you know in terms of 05:08:46.257 --> 05:08:53.041 - the the question that Was brought up by one of the commenters like who's gonna pay for that traffic 05:08:53.041 --> 05:08:59.486 - light like who is gonna pay for that traffic light and how exactly is that going to happen and 05:08:59.778 --> 05:09:07.723 - In terms of thinking about that larger corridor study and this project going in there So anyway, those 05:09:07.723 --> 05:09:15.437 - are all good reasons to to continue at this point. Thanks And I have one more I want to add to this 05:09:15.437 --> 05:09:23.845 - list of if we're gonna continue this I think the suggestion to do air quality monitoring during construction 05:09:23.845 --> 05:09:29.630 - is a reasonable suggestion and I would like to know if that's feasible and 05:09:30.146 --> 05:09:40.848 - to put in place as a condition, and if the petitioner would want to impose that on their own air quality. 05:09:40.848 --> 05:09:51.347 - Any other questions or comments on the motion to continue? We do have Anadina Kasamanian with the legal 05:09:51.347 --> 05:10:00.030 - department on Zoom. We can, if we want an answer to that question brought up earlier, 05:10:00.674 --> 05:10:16.166 - call in her, I believe. Let's see, Enidina, I believe you're unmuted. I can see your microphone icon 05:10:16.166 --> 05:10:25.982 - moving up and down, but we're not hearing anything in the room. 05:10:31.234 --> 05:10:52.372 - Oh Interesting it's closing coming in the closed captioning but I Think this is a problem with our audio 05:10:52.372 --> 05:10:58.814 - in the room here. Yeah. Yeah, I 05:11:16.994 --> 05:11:30.696 - People are saying in the chat that they can hear her on Zoom. So we've got something going on with the 05:11:30.696 --> 05:11:44.798 - room right now. Is there a way that legal can provide comment in written form that you can read to the... 05:11:45.090 --> 05:11:57.377 - Well, Enidina wrote in the chat, coming. So I don't know how far away she's coming from, maybe from 05:11:57.377 --> 05:12:10.771 - upstairs. Ah, OK. OK. We're going to do it live. Sorry, I'm looking down here. I'm sorry. Enidina Casamanian 05:12:10.771 --> 05:12:14.334 - for the city of Bloomington. 05:12:15.010 --> 05:12:25.095 - Department So what's the question? So the question from the Commission is under kind of what grounds 05:12:25.095 --> 05:12:35.379 - they could base a Denial for the use of the payment in lieu aspect of the incentives The UDO says that 05:12:35.379 --> 05:12:43.966 - petitioner may utilize the provisions of the UDO and come to an agreement but doesn't 05:12:44.098 --> 05:12:50.375 - You know, historically we have had this question come up once or twice in the past and legal has never 05:12:50.375 --> 05:12:56.468 - said, you know, here are the criteria. Yes, the UDO does say it's a may, but there's no criteria to 05:12:56.468 --> 05:13:02.867 - base that on in terms of whether or not that's appropriate or not appropriate to allow that. So I didn't 05:13:02.867 --> 05:13:07.742 - know if you had anything that you wanted to lend to that. Yes, thank you, Eric. 05:13:08.866 --> 05:13:15.489 - So my understanding is even though it's allowed via the UDO, it doesn't mean that the planning commission 05:13:15.489 --> 05:13:21.800 - cannot reject it. I do think that the planning commission can reject the payment in lieu option. And 05:13:21.800 --> 05:13:28.236 - I'd be happy to give you more information on that, the legal basis, but my basic understanding is that 05:13:28.236 --> 05:13:34.110 - even though the UDO allows it, it doesn't mean that the planning commission has to accept it. 05:13:38.498 --> 05:13:48.884 - Any other questions? Thank you. I would just clarify that based on the staff report and the packet, 05:13:48.884 --> 05:13:59.685 - staff's recommendation is to accept it. But that's different from the question of what action you take. 05:13:59.685 --> 05:14:05.086 - Commissioner Sussberg. Kind of on that vein, but so 05:14:05.570 --> 05:14:12.748 - So if the legal interpretation here in terms of what the UDO says is that we don't have to accept the 05:14:12.748 --> 05:14:19.926 - payment in lieu, but it's not just about the payment in lieu, it's about them taking advantage of the 05:14:19.926 --> 05:14:27.104 - affordability incentive. So is that really optional in terms of if they want to use the affordability 05:14:27.104 --> 05:14:31.678 - incentive? Because the question was about the parking reduction. 05:14:31.778 --> 05:14:39.196 - It's like, oh, if we reject the payment in lieu, then we can make them build more parking. But if we 05:14:39.196 --> 05:14:47.055 - reject the payment in lieu, then they could just say, well, we're going to do the affordability incentive, 05:14:47.055 --> 05:14:54.472 - and we're just going to offer 15% of our units at an affordable rate. And it would be an interesting 05:14:54.472 --> 05:14:56.382 - question, what affordable 05:14:56.514 --> 05:15:03.587 - what the affordability mark they would have to stay under is because we changed that in January of this 05:15:03.587 --> 05:15:10.456 - year, but they are paying in lieu based on last year's. And so I assume that then they would have to 05:15:10.456 --> 05:15:17.325 - provide 15% of under 120% of AMI to meet that. But then they would still be able to get that parking 05:15:17.325 --> 05:15:20.862 - reduction. So I'm not sure that there's much point. 05:15:21.346 --> 05:15:26.843 - Refusing the payment in lieu because they could still take advantage of the affordability incentive 05:15:26.843 --> 05:15:32.561 - unless we could totally reject them taking advantage of the affordability incentive, which I'm not sure 05:15:32.561 --> 05:15:38.113 - I mean, I certainly don't want to do that but Sorry, that's something great a great comment was that 05:15:38.113 --> 05:15:43.666 - a question or was there a question a question I guess like I mean if we're allowed to reject the the 05:15:43.666 --> 05:15:47.294 - payment in lieu but are we allowed to reject the affordability of 05:15:47.682 --> 05:15:55.182 - Incentive use if they if they if the petitioner modified the proposal to come back with on-site affordable 05:15:55.182 --> 05:16:02.191 - units Then they earn it and there's not discretion in that Right. So the only discretion is whether 05:16:02.191 --> 05:16:09.271 - or not we accept the payment in lieu But either way the parking amounts could stay the same Correct, 05:16:09.271 --> 05:16:16.350 - I mean if we're talking about if we're doing hypotheticals on how the petition could be modified and 05:16:16.610 --> 05:16:24.041 - They could go up to 658 parking spaces and still be under the minimum. Well, no, I mean. Sorry, under 05:16:24.041 --> 05:16:31.399 - the maximum. I said that wrong word. Yeah, I know. It's because it's too late. Well, but that's not, 05:16:31.399 --> 05:16:38.903 - I mean, the concern I think that I was hearing from the other end was that there's not enough parking. 05:16:38.903 --> 05:16:46.334 - But they're like above the minimum with what they're offering right now combined with the incentives. 05:16:46.434 --> 05:16:56.277 - And so we can't really like reject the incentives. So that's not really a viable way to force increased 05:16:56.277 --> 05:17:06.310 - parking All right, is that is that all your questions Mr. Burrell, yes, my question is for the petitioner 05:17:06.310 --> 05:17:13.598 - I mean, would you be willing to just increase the amount of parking without? 05:17:15.426 --> 05:17:28.862 - Just because we would like more parking We can't answer that tonight we sure we'd have to go back so 05:17:28.862 --> 05:17:42.164 - You know, there is a motion and I think a second on the continuance so that probably makes the most 05:17:42.164 --> 05:17:44.958 - sense to investigate 05:17:45.122 --> 05:17:53.934 - I mean you can investigate what what would it be? You know for the overall project if you can increase 05:17:53.934 --> 05:18:02.574 - one floor of parking You know, I don't know how many parking spots that would do That would you know 05:18:02.574 --> 05:18:11.472 - would be per floor? So anyway, it's just an idea that yes tonight Understandable. Yes or no. Yes. Thank 05:18:11.472 --> 05:18:12.926 - you Mr. Stusbury 05:18:13.986 --> 05:18:22.938 - While you're standing there, does the petitioner have an opinion on continuing versus voting tonight? 05:18:22.938 --> 05:18:31.715 - I think a continuance would be best. I think there's some things that you all would like us to look 05:18:31.715 --> 05:18:40.843 - at. We'll definitely look at them. I just can't give you an answer. All right. Anything else? Any other 05:18:40.843 --> 05:18:42.686 - comments? Questions? 05:18:42.882 --> 05:18:51.378 - Would just be if we're going to continue it do we need to sort of outline what our expectation is for 05:18:51.378 --> 05:19:00.208 - the next Discussion that we have Appropriate I Mean I feel like we've laid out quite a few points already 05:19:00.208 --> 05:19:08.704 - and I'll just say this It will give everyone a chance to put anything else on the record that we want 05:19:08.704 --> 05:19:12.286 - to see if this were to be continued, but I 05:19:14.178 --> 05:19:22.811 - I don't think that while the parking concerns are valid, we can't deny a request on the grounds that 05:19:22.811 --> 05:19:31.359 - there's insufficient parking when the petitioner followed our guidance on the parking. If there's a 05:19:31.359 --> 05:19:39.992 - problem here, then we need to fix the UDO. It's not grounds to deny a petition when they've complied 05:19:39.992 --> 05:19:43.582 - with the outline we set forth in the UDO. 05:19:45.026 --> 05:19:53.116 - It's very frustrating to me when we do this. We take it out on petitioners when all they've done is 05:19:53.116 --> 05:20:01.610 - follow the rules we set forth for them. So if we want to see things change, we need to change our rules, 05:20:01.610 --> 05:20:09.296 - not continue to bend the rules when petitioners have done everything that we've asked of them. 05:20:09.296 --> 05:20:14.878 - So in my mind, it's not perfect. There are definitely concerns here. 05:20:15.362 --> 05:20:23.671 - But this is basically a by right petition. They've done literally everything the code calls for. So 05:20:23.671 --> 05:20:32.147 - I don't see reason to continue this. I mean, I'm sure it'll be helpful to have some more comment, but 05:20:32.147 --> 05:20:40.955 - in terms of the outcome, I don't think continuing this is going to change the outcome. With that, anybody 05:20:40.955 --> 05:20:43.614 - have anything else they want to 05:20:44.834 --> 05:20:54.097 - Any guidance they want to give any final comments before we call the roll on the motion? I don't know 05:20:54.097 --> 05:21:03.360 - if anything that she wanted to add I just wanted to make one more comment that I I Do think that this 05:21:03.360 --> 05:21:05.630 - would call for more time 05:21:05.730 --> 05:21:12.976 - I know I answered that question pretty quickly, but I would like to take some time to research a little 05:21:12.976 --> 05:21:20.501 - more I think there can be a recommendation of the rejection, but I'm not exactly 100% sure on the rejection 05:21:20.501 --> 05:21:27.748 - So I'd like to take some time to be able to get you a full complete answer on that. Thank you You know, 05:21:27.748 --> 05:21:31.998 - I think I was probably pretty clear in terms of guidance the 05:21:32.226 --> 05:21:39.042 - me there's I think this relates to Commissioner Holmes concern about the failure to mitigate adverse 05:21:39.042 --> 05:21:45.859 - impact and to me the adverse impact is a combination of traffic study traffic light making sure that 05:21:45.859 --> 05:21:52.878 - the Traffic is not the community is not adversely impacted from a what's revealed in that traffic study 05:21:52.878 --> 05:21:58.142 - that we haven't seen and I think specific discussion of the traffic light and 05:21:58.626 --> 05:22:06.238 - You know if there's any concern and when the traffic study was conducted if that was during school time 05:22:06.238 --> 05:22:13.923 - Also, I think the air quality is another adverse potential adverse impact. So those are my main concerns 05:22:13.923 --> 05:22:21.462 - I guess I wasn't going to say more but just to talk about the traffic study if it finds anything those 05:22:21.462 --> 05:22:26.878 - would be off-site improvements and not something that we could require so 05:22:27.170 --> 05:22:33.432 - So it's additional information that's interesting, but kind of like what President Whistler was talking 05:22:33.432 --> 05:22:39.814 - about, I don't see how it could really influence our decision. And I think he gave a really good summary. 05:22:39.814 --> 05:22:46.076 - So just wanted to share that part. Traffic safety would be really interesting, but doesn't really apply 05:22:46.076 --> 05:22:49.086 - to how we can weigh in on the petition before us. 05:22:50.626 --> 05:22:58.133 - I also wanted to point out the applicability for incentives. You know it says that these affordable 05:22:58.133 --> 05:23:05.641 - housing and sustainable development incentives are available to all development you know except for 05:23:05.641 --> 05:23:13.523 - student housing and dormitory in the downtown. So in the applicability does say that these are available 05:23:13.523 --> 05:23:19.454 - to all developments. All right. Let's call the roll on the motion to continue. 05:23:25.410 --> 05:23:48.082 - Kenzie, yes Stossburg no Whistler no Bishop yes, Burrell no seabor no Co Rodke. Yes homes. Yes Those 05:23:48.082 --> 05:23:53.918 - four yeses it's four four 05:23:54.562 --> 05:24:07.849 - Alright, so the motion fails That means we need another motion As a reminder the Staff recommendation 05:24:07.849 --> 05:24:19.834 - Was that we adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with ten conditions in the 05:24:19.834 --> 05:24:23.742 - packet Commissioner Stossburg 05:24:24.642 --> 05:24:39.096 - Move that we adopt the proposed findings and approve SP 260 3004 with the 10 conditions as stated in 05:24:39.096 --> 05:24:50.974 - the packet Is there a second Second All right any final discussion I guess one one 05:24:51.618 --> 05:25:01.430 - I don't know the way to do this but if it could be added to one of the conditions about the easements 05:25:01.430 --> 05:25:11.434 - just that the multi use path would be maintained by the property owner just so that is very clear. I'll 05:25:11.434 --> 05:25:21.150 - modify my motion to say to add a note in condition number seven to clarify that the easement will be 05:25:21.282 --> 05:25:31.524 - maintained by the property owner Is that good with the person who seconded is your second Just to clarify 05:25:31.524 --> 05:25:41.379 - you stated the conditions with this amendment that are stated in the packet and the findings Would be 05:25:41.379 --> 05:25:50.654 - as stated in the staff report or Different findings. I said we adopted the proposed findings. I 05:25:51.970 --> 05:25:59.395 - Apologies. I miss her. I think It's really late. Perfect. Good confirmation Yeah, I do want to say that 05:25:59.395 --> 05:26:06.606 - one of the reasons why I switched on that first of all we had and Adina come in to give us the legal 05:26:06.606 --> 05:26:13.745 - interpretation of the question on the floor of whether we could really reject that and I was and we 05:26:13.745 --> 05:26:21.598 - can't really the most we could do is Force the affordable units to be built as opposed to the payment in lieu 05:26:22.370 --> 05:26:30.029 - and I have my own thoughts about payment in lieu, but either way, the 15% of units under 120% AMI would 05:26:30.029 --> 05:26:37.687 - not necessarily be fantastic either, which is why I worked to change that part of the UDO. And I'm with 05:26:37.687 --> 05:26:45.493 - Commissioner Seaborg that traffic study stuff would be interesting, but would require offsite improvement 05:26:45.493 --> 05:26:49.470 - that we couldn't force. But I do think that there is, 05:26:49.826 --> 05:26:56.872 - maybe some issues going on over there with traffic and would encourage folks in that neighborhood to 05:26:56.872 --> 05:27:04.268 - reach out to planning and transportation and engineering with different possibilities in terms of traffic 05:27:04.268 --> 05:27:11.803 - calming, in terms of signaling, in terms of working with MCCSE to figure out the best pickups and drop-offs 05:27:11.803 --> 05:27:19.198 - and things like that. But that does seem like it's a little bit out of the scope of this project. Thanks. 05:27:22.146 --> 05:27:27.944 - Any other comments? If I may, just one before we have great respect for the comments that you've made 05:27:27.944 --> 05:27:33.913 - here this evening. I personally, I do believe that we are within our bounds if we choose to reject this. 05:27:33.913 --> 05:27:39.712 - It's not bare compliance with the UDO. It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and it has 05:27:39.712 --> 05:27:45.453 - to have mitigation of adverse impacts. I think those are justifiable reasons. It's in the code. It's 05:27:45.453 --> 05:27:51.422 - not just bare did it fit in the box of the UDO or not. That's not what we're limited to on our decision. 05:27:51.778 --> 05:28:07.253 - Thank you. Any other comments before we call the roll. Please call the roll on the motion to approve 05:28:07.253 --> 05:28:21.502 - Stossford. Yes. Whistler. Yes. Bishop. No. Burrell. Yes. Seabourn. Yes. Korodke. No. Holmes. 05:28:21.826 --> 05:28:30.626 - No. Can see. Yes. I believe that's five yeses. All right. Motion carries petition is approved. Thank 05:28:30.626 --> 05:28:39.774 - you all for your patience this evening. That is our final petition for the evening and we are adjourned.