- Okay. Welcome. Good evening. Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission
- for Monday April 13th 2026. I'll start by giving just a brief overview of our agenda this evening. We
- will have some internal housekeeping items first before we get to petitions. There is one petition that
- has been continued that is
- SUB 2025-12-0051 Petitioners Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein that is continued won't be heard tonight. We
- have one petition on a consent agenda Tonight and then we have six petitions that will be heard Hopefully
- I'll be heard in full tonight We have four of those are UDO amendments and then
- The other two one is a site plan approval at five oh three North Rogers and then finally final plan
- approval at 1320 South Rogers. So that is our agenda this evening. Let's start though by just calling
- the roll for attendance. Bishop here. Burrell Seaborg.
- Here co Rodke here Holmes here Kinsey here Stossburg here Whistler here All right seems we do have a
- quorum so we can continue the next thing on our agenda is approval of minutes we have mission minutes
- from the February 9th Planned Commission meeting for approval tonight. Are there any questions or corrections?
- those minutes Is there a motion to approve those minutes All right, we have a motion in a second Let's
- just do a voice vote on this tonight, we don't have any remote Participants tonight, do we?
- All right, so let's all in favor of approving the February 9th minutes say aye All opposed. All right,
- the minutes are approved Next up we have reports resolutions and communications. Are there any reports
- from commissioners? All right any reports from staff I
- Yes, several. First, we wanted to thank the Plain Commission for their patience as we work through the
- new format of the agenda and how documents are organized within that. Staff is still working through
- some of the learning curve with that, so we appreciate your patience as we put all the respective information
- in packets and try to get that out to you guys.
- Two things one of the additional petitions that will be heard tonight is being requested to be continued.
- That is the petition at 1320 South Roger Street for built all to LLC. They are still working through
- some issues with city of Bloomington utilities as of today and we're not able to work through those
- and so they're requesting continuance to the May meeting. So that will need to take a vote since that
- happened after the packet went out.
- And then second, in your agenda, we have updated rules and procedures for the plan commission. So this
- is kind of an upkeep of wording within there, removing old references to previous plans that have been
- replaced, the comprehensive plan or the master plan, as well as new language regarding just a lot of
- references to file naming,
- filing fees just a lot of housekeeping stuff. We haven't done any housekeeping and rules and procedures
- for playing commission a while. So that is one of the other items. You don't have to vote on that. We're
- just giving that to you for reference. I'm sorry. You do have to vote on that. I'm sorry. Say again Brad.
- Yes, so under reports and resolutions from staff, you should see a link to document titled updated rules
- and procedures. Okay, is everybody else? Okay, it is working for others.
- Yeah, again, thank you, we wanna thank you for the patience as we work through how documents are linked
- in this new arrangement. The arrangement here of the agenda is to meet certain accessibility requirements
- and so that is what is bringing forward a lot of these changes that you'll see in terms of how the packet
- is formally presented to you now. And so I'm assuming we'll need a vote to adopt these new rules. Yes.
- Recording in progress. Is this something that you want us to act on tonight or? You can if you want
- additional time to look at that. We can certainly continue that to the May hearing and you can vote
- on it at that time. There's nothing in there that's time sensitive that has to happen tonight. Okay.
- Well, I would feel more comfortable having a little more time to read it over. So if that unless someone
- else wants to move to
- Vote on that tonight. I would just just soon take the time and Deal with it at the next meeting. Yes,
- Commissioner Sasberg The notice the mailing notices was changed in a couple places from 21 days to 10
- days and I guess I'm just Concerned like because it looked like some of those I guess I'm just concerned
- about the speed of the mail. I
- And so that was actually that was done in the UDO I think last year or the year before that. So this
- is just syncing this data with what's in the UDO. Any other questions on the new rules. Yes.
- So that one it's like it looks like a substantive change But it was to make it comply with rule changes
- that had already existed elsewhere that controlled Yes are all of the changes like that because I look
- through and there were many of them that were clearly technical But there were many of them that like
- well that substantive so work Can you confirm that literally every one of the substantive changes was
- to conform with?
- Yes you know the rules and procedures aren't really laws. Those are just kind of best management practices
- and how meetings are run. So you know the actual law the meat of it is the UDO. These are just kind
- of the day to day housekeeping things that help run a lot of the basic things. So there's nothing substantial
- that I can. I just mean substantive as opposed to technical correction like some of them were removing
- commas and things like that. Yeah it's obviously not an issue but when you're changing dates and
- things like that periods for reply and those types of things if they were all made to comply with changes
- that have already been made Fine, but it sure were any of them. Yeah, we'll scan it quickly But I don't
- think anymore Jackie Scanlon assistant director like we changed for example the appeal period from five
- days to ten That was something we did in the UDO a couple of years ago so we are just trying to sink
- that in here because it's confusing for people also the
- The fee schedule stuff that's all already been approved by Planning Commission. It just doesn't live
- in here correctly yet So all of that that you can see in the fee schedule Is the same we are now processing
- class two permits differently so we Made some changes in here to note that And some of the other changes
- related to like who interested parties are again, that's already been done in the Plan Commission. I
- don't think I'm just
- Quickly, but I don't think there were any other substantive that we wanted to or thought you might want
- to address The 21 to 10 was done a number of years ago So that all of the boards and commissions could
- be the same Because some were 21 and some were 10 that we staff just a second Yeah, and then just changing
- some of the verbiage changing some of the
- again to match the UDO. We took out like the minutes that you see are summary and it used to describe
- them and say that they need to be described in more detail so we took that out because we've been doing
- summary now for a couple of years which is what legal you know said was good for us to do. So yeah I
- don't think there were any other substantive ones.
- Any other questions? Commissioner Kinsey, I think you may have answered this Jackie in the comment you
- just made but Regarding the sinking of the documents, but the one that stood out to me was the interested
- party 300 feet versus the contiguous and adjacent if that's is that one of those instances too? Okay,
- so now we're in sync with what is in the UDO. Okay. Thank you. I
- And that particular language actually kind of increases the public notification requirement because
- it's a broader circle. Thank you. All right. Any other questions. All right. Any other reports from
- staff. Nope. Like I mentioned you will need to vote on the other continuance for that petition at 1320
- South Rogers. OK. Yeah we can go ahead and do that now. It's a little.
- Out of order but I would entertain a motion to continue S. P. Twenty twenty six dash oh three dash triple
- oh five to the. May meeting. Motion to continue S. P. Twenty twenty six dash zero three dash zero zero
- five built out LLC at 1320 South Rogers to the main meeting. Is there a second.
- All right. Any discussion? Seems pretty straightforward. All right, let's call the roll on the motion
- to continue. Seymour. Yes. Call Rodkey. Yes. Holmes. Yes. Kenzie. Yes. Smith. I'm sorry. Sorry. Holmes. Yes. No.
- Their Stossberg, yes Whistler, yes, Burrell, yeah, Korodke Got you already I think we got it. Yes Okay
- Motion carries that petition is continued to the main meeting. We'll move on now to petitions. We're
- going to hear tonight beginning with our consent agenda. There is one item on the consent agenda that
- is zio twenty twenty six dash oh four dash triple oh five. This is a resolution related to the creation
- of a TIF allocation area for the summit PUD. Is there any commissioner who would like
- That to be removed from the consent agenda and receive a full hearing tonight Or are we okay Moving
- forward with the consent agenda So my understanding is we're supposed to approve a Declaratory resolution
- and then the plan make sure it complies with UDO Is that what we normally do because I did not see those
- items attached
- Okay, so you do not approve the declaratory resolution. The RDC does that. You are looking
- at that declaratory resolution, which is in the third party exhibits folder under this, what? I didn't
- see that earlier. You did not see it. It was not there when you emailed earlier. You could get to it
- through the other folders, but there wasn't a direct link. So that was added later this afternoon. I'm
- happy to talk about it.
- or Mr. Kirk can as well. But basically what you're doing as the plan commission is saying whether or
- not you think the declaratory resolution and the redevelopment plan, which we know is summit a TIF for
- the summit PUD or a number of tips for the summit PUD is in line with the
- Development of our unit. So basically what the main I think easiest way to think about that is Is the
- tip that they're proposing or a little group of tips in line with what the comprehensive plan wants
- in that area Which is residential and that's what the tip is for So that's why we recommended that you
- all Approve the proposed resolution and redevelopment plan But we do not have the is their language
- to the TIF or
- Yes, it's all in that third party exhibits folder and I can I'm happy to share some of that If you guys
- want to pull it off the agenda I Just started to do it, but then I typically consent agenda is our items
- that are you know housekeeping items or generally non-controversial items that staff doesn't feel
- deserve a full hearing. If you wanna have a full hearing and have questions and debate about it, then
- you would need to remove that from the consent agenda and have a full hearing. Go ahead, Commissioner
- Kinsey. I know we're all getting used to the new format and it is challenging to sort through a variety
- of different folders
- I did see everything this afternoon but given the fact that some people have not seen everything we
- could do this one as we could remove it from the consent agenda to treat it to make sure that we're
- really giving it light of day and I don't think it would take too much time to do that just to be sure
- in case there are any questions. So I would agree to that mostly because I think we're all getting
- Oriented to the new folder structures here more than anything. Yes. So if you pull it it will go in
- line Numerically, so it'll be the last item Which is fine. I'm just in case you thought we were gonna
- talk about now we are not All right Last call
- Mr. Stossberg, I was going to move to approve the consent agenda Second all right any final discussion
- on the consent agenda Is there any public comment on the consent agenda All right, let's call the roll
- on approval of the consent agenda co broad key yes Holmes yes Kinsey yes
- Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Bishop. Yes, Burrell Seaborg. Yes All right motion carries and the consent
- agenda is approved we're now on to Our full hearing petitions. We will start with zeo 2026-01-0019 These
- are technical amendments to the
- And I believe we've got Jamie Kreindler here, the case manager, to present. Take it away, Jamie.
- You'll have to bear with us a little bit. There appears to be a lag in Zoom between what we're doing
- and what's showing on the screen. So give us just a minute here as it syncs up.
- So real quick, I'll just kind of preface this and lead off the first section and then Jamie I'll take
- over for the next
- Chapter and kind of alternate. So what is coming for the Planning Commission tonight are the series
- of annual amendments that we do to the UDO you know these range from cleanup of various items such as
- punctuation and missing commas and capitalized words to Things that are that are a little bit
- more substantial in nature So we'll point out the things that are substantial in nature And then just
- kind of leave it open for what the Planning Commission might want to call out so the first petition that is
- Before you tonight are for the amendments that we call or classified kind of the technical So these
- are certainly the situations where you just have misspellings Commas that are missing a footnote that
- might be off and so in these technical amendments we have about 18 or so about
- amendments and I can just kind of go through those if you need to. As I mentioned, these are missing
- commas, missing citations. Also, one of the things that we're doing in the UDO is removing or trying
- to sync up
- References to city departments. So we'll be removing references to city when we're saying city planning
- department or city engineering and just saying planning department or engineering so you'll see that
- commonality as we move through some of the chapters and some of the Sections so the technical amendments
- as I mentioned there were just kind of cleaning up something removing some references to city and just
- referencing the transportation department correcting typos
- Yeah, that's that's pretty much a lot of what these technical amendments are to spelling a few spelling
- errors some citations again to city and departments And so with that, you know We're happy to answer
- any specific questions if you have about this particular section of the amendments All right. Are there
- any questions from commissioners?
- I have a question on the payments in lieu of sidewalks language So we will get to that that is in chapter
- four So that will that will be the the next section after that. So go ahead and save that question.
- Thanks Any other questions from commissioners about the technical corrections Commissioner Stossberg,
- I Just have kind of a general question. I think because in your memo it says
- It seems to imply the PDF version, which is not in sync with the Munich code version. And so some of
- these corrections are to basically correct and Munich code things that already may have been corrected
- in the PDF. Did I get that right?
- There are I don't think in this particular section there is that situation I think in the next one or
- two down the line There is one of those situations where we're fixing something or just sinking the
- two There was a separate sheet in that Google sheet that you had that were some municode references
- that we need to fix But that's not part of this. We're dealing with that separately with the clerk's
- office But in this particular section, there aren't any of those situations where we're fixing a municode error
- But in terms of like the PDF version that you're referencing, it's like what's linked from the planning
- and transportation page. Is that the PDF version that you're? Yeah, that's the PDF version. I believe
- this is the first year that we've done the redlining in Municode too. So that was a little bit different
- for us and maybe different for some of you. But as we were working through the Municode redline, we
- noticed there were some discrepancies that didn't quite match with the PDF version. So that's the goal
- of this is to try to
- Remedy those discrepancies and get that cleaned up Okay, are we still gonna be able to have the PDF
- version in terms of like accessibility stuff? Or are we just gonna have like the entire you do as part
- of me Munich code now and not have the separate PDF A version of the PDF the PDF itself does not meet
- accessibility requirements So we've we've done a lot of work in-house to create a different version
- of that That still looks that way. That's not the Munich code
- look. So we're working on creating an equivalent version of that. Okay, so that will update them. Yeah,
- we were able to convert the word doc of the PDF to a Google Doc, and we've been working through it.
- So it might look a little bit different in terms of like the page numbers might not align one for one,
- but we have success successfully made all the seven chapters accessible. There
- We're currently split up into seven different chapters, though, so we're going to see if we can somehow
- combine it into one. But it was a little bit of a struggle with such a large document trying to review
- it for accessibility. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm just going to put a plug-in for that PDF version,
- which is a lot easier to look up some of those subheading things than it is in Unicode, so I'm glad
- that we're still going to manage to have that.
- Yeah, we're certainly aware of that and that was one of the main benefits of the PDF is it's a lot more
- user-friendly Especially with all the hyperlinks that are in there that allows you to jump around and
- move through there So we certainly recognize that that is a high priority and so we're working on that
- Any other questions So if I may so when we're reconciling the muni code and the PDF version is it because
- one of them was changed and
- And we have to yet update the other one like so was an amendment made and if that amendment was put
- in Municode or whichever one and then the other one wasn't Or these discrepancies. Yes. So there are
- some situations where we're just syncing these up There were some things that we don't we're not quite
- sure where they got off the line in Municode So we're just kind of Is the one that's off
- and that the PDF is the source of truth, or is Unicode the source of truth? Yes, the PDF should be that
- way. However, there are some things that we've just found that we're not quite sure, like I said, how
- 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
- Word document, actually, that the consultants made for us, Clary & Associates, six years ago. And so
- every year we update it.
- And it has some glitches in it. So sometimes we've seen we've brought amendments to you where we're
- like taking out a Repeated part of the text that for some reason is just duplicating in the PDF, but
- 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
- you what should be in Unicode and whenever the Planning Commission approves a PDF that's what gets sent
- to the codifier that they use to make the changes but occasionally
- Sorry? Yes. So especially because of the accessibility discussion, we have determined that when we come
- here now, we'll use the Municode version because it's just cleaner. So what we did was actually go through
- and try to make sure they were all exactly the same. Some of the things that, most of the things were
- Sorry, some things were missing from Municode. We were able to track down those old ordinances and say
- to the clerk like, hey, can you check with the codifier because here is what should have been done and
- they didn't do it. And so those things are being updated and you're not seeing that. But some of the
- errors are in the PDF if they were like, if for some reason the PDF kind of like did some formatting
- on its own. So that's why after this year it should be clear that the Municode is the,
- legal version, yes. So are we voting on correcting the PDF? No. What are we voting on specifically?
- You're voting on correcting the Munichode. So again, because of our new system, we should not have sent
- you that whole Google sheet. We should have just sent you the sheets that say Munichode and PDF only,
- because the PDF only ones we made when we were trying to decide how we were gonna do it, but those aren't
- coming to you. It's just the Munichode fixes.
- You say fixes. Do you mean these were errors or are these amendments? We're making some are so in the
- technical in the technical version They're almost all they're either errors or like corrections of saying
- engineering department instead of planning But the other ones in the other three ordinances those will
- be amendments They're all amendments, but most of technical is fixes. Okay. Okay. I'm just trying to
- 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
- fix the PDF, just making sure we're not doing that. And then we will make an updated accessible version
- in Google Docs based on those changes. Thank you. Any other questions on the technical corrections?
- All right, is there any public comment on ZO 2026-01-0019?
- Are there any online participants who would like to comment? If so, just click on your reactions button
- and click to raise your virtual hand or send a message to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when
- it's your turn to speak. I'm not seeing anybody online. Okay. Last call for public comment.
- All right, we are back to the commission. Any final discussion or emotion on zero twenty twenty six
- dash one dash zero zero one nine. I'll motion to approve the technical corrections in zero twenty twenty
- six dash zero one dash zero zero one nine. Is there a second.
- Let's call the roll on the motion to approve. Yes. Stossburg. Yes. Whistler. Yes. Bishop. Yes. Burrell.
- Yes. Seaborg. Yes. Co. Rodkey. Yes. Holmes. Yes. And that.
- The petition is approved. We're on now to Zio 2026-02-002. Okay, I'll go ahead and present this one.
- So Jamie Kreindler senior zoning planner. So this is the proposed amendments for chapter four, which
- deals with the development standards and incentives. So this is a big one. I won't touch on every single
- one, but I'll try to highlight some of the more substantial changes that
- you might be interested in and you're welcome to ask questions about anything. So the first few are
- just adding some footnotes that we're missing. Footnote two has to do with the incentives, so just wanted
- to make sure that matches other language in the UDO. And the proposed additions to the table 04-6, which
- deals with types of exceptions that are allowed, we're proposing to add a new type of exception that would
- Allow structures doing additions to get closer to compliance for build two ranges There is a proposed
- change that deals with changing the small parcels from two acres to one acre and adding a preference
- for heritage trees and Some of these two are dealing with technical changes like deal deleting an unnecessary
- comma and removing the city label we're
- proposing to modify the slope language to align with state law. So that says that we can't regulate
- steep slopes or we can regulate if the maximum slope is 25%. And then there are some changes that deal
- with adding that items that are exempt from getting a flood plain development permit are also exempt
- from getting a conditional use permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
- One of the bigger changes is that we're proposing to add new language about a fee in lieu of path sidewalk
- or trail construction. So this would involve removing the determinant sidewalk variances. We would no
- longer do those. Instead, we would have a fund. So if someone was not building a sidewalk as required,
- they'd be contributing a payment and that would be a payment in lieu. So that's something different
- that we are proposing this year.
- There is an amendment that deals with adding that EV charging requirements for auto sales are based
- on customer employee parking just to more clearly define how we do that. We're proposing to add roofing
- materials within the mixed use and non-residential districts.
- There's a, we worked with the urban forester throughout this process and he represents the tree commission.
- So some of the changes we talked about with Haskell and one of them is for the street trees to allow
- one and a half inch caliper, which is a reduction, I think it's two inches now. So we would allow that
- if approved by the urban forester. We're adding back language.
- That was previously in the code then removed and now it's under our jurisdiction again. So that's about
- plastic netting per MS4. Some of the changes have to do with species for street trees. And again, that
- was working with the urban forester. And then another change I'll highlight is about the parking lot
- perimeter landscaping. So the change now has to do with
- we would only include it for the perimeter of the parking lot, and it would not be included in the interior
- like it is now. And Eric worked on that, so he can give you more of the specifics. I think those are
- the main changes I wanted to highlight at the end of this. There are a handful that have to do with
- removing ornamental from the code, referring to trees.
- Instead changing it to small medium in some cases are just not including it at all Eric did you have
- anything you wanted to add with this? Planned commissioners have question about specific elements or
- what we went over My question relates to the change
- Regarding sidewalks and in the inclusion of payment in lieu or fee in lieu and I wonder what informed
- that decision I'm gonna probably guess some of it but I would like to hear some explanation of the decision
- to move to a fee in lieu and then I wondered about the the fund that that goes to and at one point I
- remember there being a sidewalk fund and
- That the sidewalk commission had some authority over to determine where sidewalks went and now I see
- it indicates that this will go into the alternate Transportation fund and I wonder what else is in that
- so just a little more explanation about that dimension of the changes, please Yep, so so we have had
- an allowance within the udio for a determinant sidewalk variance for a long time So the determinant
- sidewalk variance
- Path allows for somebody to seek temporary relief from being required to install a sidewalk They have
- to record a zoning commitment that says at some point in the future The city can require a sidewalk
- to be constructed on a property And so we've done these in numerous situations and they're scattered
- all over the city You know, we we have never to my knowledge yet
- called one in. They can be somewhat difficult while they are required to be recorded on your deed and
- so we certainly have a record of tracking them. It can be hard sometimes to know or be able to do that
- research. Also, it could be very challenging
- 35 years down the line for a completely different property owner for them to get a notification that
- they've got to install a sidewalk on their property And mostly it just led to a lot of really challenging
- situations where we we weren't accomplishing sidewalks in the community we were deferring it and so
- One path that is prevalent in a lot of other communities is a payment in lieu option where somebody
- can Make a contribution based on a set amount So every year we would have a set amount of what concrete
- or asphalt would cost When a situation comes up and somebody's required to install a sidewalk they can
- either build the sidewalk or make that a
- So it would go to the sidewalk fund and I believe that that's something that the the City Council sidewalk
- Commission would then administer in terms of where that gets used In addition to the money that they
- also have as part of the yearly appropriations So this is just a better solution to the problem that
- Results in sidewalks actually getting constructed in a more recent time frame rather than just Determinant
- sidewalk variance that sits on a property and nothing ever really happens You know, it makes for sometimes
- a lot of really difficult discussions at the Board of Zoning Appeals When we have these and so this
- is a more pragmatic approach to situations where sidewalks are required If I may follow up that I guess I'm
- I'm a little concerned about seeming to give up sidewalk construction and I certainly don't want to
- create any policies that give up sidewalk construction or that somehow make it more
- Feasible or attractive to just pay the fee Yep, so this is something that the that the department looks
- at so this is not an allowance, you know There might be a situation where we say, you know based on
- that criteria that are in here that no you you are not eligible For this and you have to install the sidewalk
- Serious consideration. I mean, I mean I see the beginning of the statement. We support the installation
- of paths sidewalks and trails and just one more thing that what else is is in the Alt Transportation
- fund what else is that a lot of things or is it really exclusive to sidewalks paths? So this would be
- a fund for this specifically to my knowledge I you know, I'm not aware of anything else that would be
- contributing to this other than this and
- Sorry Ryan Robin kid probably address that better. Yeah, I I guess I'm I'm You know certainly pro sidewalk,
- so I want to make sure that we don't end up building other sorts of things Eric is partially right the
- alternative transportation fund already exist several things pay into it a big one is excess funding
- from parking revenue specifically neighborhood permits, but
- It is a fund that is in control of council as Eric mentioned specifically the now called pedestrian
- safety committee so that is formerly the sidewalk committee and is Made up of council members and then
- voted on by all of council to make pedestrian improvements It used to just be sidewalks, but now we
- are focusing on the high injury network So sidewalks and other pedestrian safety improvements along
- high injury corridors
- Any other questions? Yes Yeah, I wanted to do a follow-up on the payment in Lewis sidewalks as well
- it says in here that
- The payment in lieu would be determined by the Planning and Transportation Department when required
- path or sidewalk and trail is not feasible due to existing practical difficulties associated with the
- property. So it sounds like we're penalizing developers, property owners, when a sidewalk is not able
- to be put in. We're going to require them to pay money for that. And that seems to be counterproductive
- to the idea of
- Collecting a payment when sidewalks cannot be put in because the developer does not want to not that
- they cannot So could you clarify that please? Yep, so the criteria is set up so that you know There
- has to be something unique about here that doesn't allow them to so it's not a you know We don't want
- to you know, they they've got to show that they meet the criteria that are in there but if sidewalks
- can't be put in why would we charge them and
- Because they can't put sidewalks in so the alternative would be you know, they would seek determinate
- sidewalk variants But again, as I mentioned, you know that doesn't result in a real accomplishment,
- you know that just postpones something indefinitely Whereas this provides a mechanism that does result
- in improvements within a more rational and you know Ryan can maybe supplement that a little bit if he I
- Ryan rolling planning services manager again Eric's right, but I would also note that sidewalks are
- always required It's the options are a determinant sidewalk variance Which means eventually you'll have
- to pay for a sidewalk or you'll redesign your site so that a sidewalk does fit there are rules In place
- to require that so this would give an option to not have to kick the can down the road It would allow
- us to do something right now with that excess money and then later on the city can come in and redesign a
- Either the right of way or the site to have a compliant sidewalk, which is difficult for some developers
- right now Okay language just seems ambiguous. Is there a way to make it a little more clear because
- The way I read is that if you're unable to build those then we will charge you for them and put them
- into the alternative transportation fund Because it specifically says it's not feasible to do so I
- And I just I can't wrap my head around that I Mean we're certainly open to suggestions the language
- that we have in here now You know that talks about the constraints, you know the topography of the lot
- or adjacent lots are undeveloped And that uniformity, you know the language that you see there now is
- very identical to what the determinant sidewalk variance criteria
- Supplemental findings I should say you know variance has always had to be based on the three stated
- criteria and then there are additional review criteria that while not to be you know made as part of
- specific findings of fact can be taken into consideration such as you know that the topography a lot
- is is present some challenge or that you know adjacent properties aren't developed and there are developed
- and you know the
- Requirements or a sidewalk may not be met on adjacent lots at some point. I Mean, I think we're open
- if you've got suggestions, but these criteria were very similar to if not identical to How we are currently
- evaluating the determinant sidewalk variance requests Thank you Continuing on that so these are basically
- circumstances where they would have been able to get a waiver and
- Before if the conditions are present at the property that caused it to be not feasible to do it before
- the right now the way It is they could get a waiver. Yep So the same criteria is what would have been
- evaluated for the determinant sidewalk variance We know now we're like I said, we're utilizing that
- for the payment in lieu option That results in that contribution and then we can use that for the area
- or you know others Sorry just to add to that but it's not a permanent waiver the the
- Determinant sidewalk variance means that you record a zoning commitment that says if the city decides
- they want you to build it later You're on the hook for it financially. So In this way, it's more of
- like an upfront you deal with the issue and you're moving on with your life And it's not following the
- title of your property forever Which we think is also a benefit to the people living there, you know
- they can decide whether or not they want to buy that property where they know they're gonna have to
- you know pay this upfront because
- it's not a permanent, the variance is not definitive, it's determinate, and so we could always call
- back later and ask them to build it.
- To make it because that probably doesn't happen that often, right? There's like how often does the city
- come back and say we want you to build it? We're just tracking them and people are seeing them in their
- title and it's not something that we're actually using Right. So like an example would be if we were
- if the city was going through to build a sidewalk Along you know an eight block stretch if there were
- determinant variances along there then we could ask those people for money to contribute to that project and
- That's just kind of messy and not ideal. And so we're trying to make it simpler more expensive up front
- for sure. I mean if this builder couldn't build it initially the city wouldn't be able to build it later.
- Sorry You said if the city comes in later, okay, maybe something like that. Okay, so maybe any rule
- changes other rules And yeah Okay
- So do we have any idea like how many this would be in a year like given the past year? Did you guys
- count? Did you make a survey or an estimate of like what's the actual effect of this gonna be? I would
- say maybe a handful of Determinant sidewalk variance requests that we hear Yes ballpark Turn into a
- fee now instead of just getting a waiver. Yes now they'll effectively get a waiver But it's now called
- payment in lieu and they'll have to pay for that waiver. Yes Okay
- Is is that if you say a handful is that primarily developers or individual Homebuyers, we have most
- of these situations are single-family homes situations You know, we don't we didn't
- Don't really encounter this with You know multifamily development or commercial development because
- they're developing a large piece of ground You know when you're talking about a 40 foot or 50 foot wide
- single-family lot You know then that's an isolated situation. And so the determinant sidewalk variance
- criteria might say hey, it's not not appropriate here because you're talking about an isolated situation
- one lot, you know, whereas multifamily or commercial you have a much larger frontage and
- So yeah, we don't really deal with this other than typically single-family lots or plexus So I may have
- missed it there's a lot in this so how much is the payment in the So, you know as I mentioned it would
- be based on you know what the the cost of concrete is You know just as a guess You know if you're talking
- about a 50-foot wide lot, you might be talking about three or four thousand Okay
- Thank you for that if I could maybe Ask other questions. So this kind of feels like a document dump
- like we've got a ton of Changes that were being asked to accept and this is only one of four this technical
- ones were easy, but these are full There are several substantive ones and you go through here many of
- them I have no idea what the effect will be and there's no statement in here of the intended policy
- purpose for the changes like there's no explanation of
- I mean it says literally what the changes modifies the scope of this or changes the wording to this.
- Certainly I've seen why why we're making the change and what we expect the outcome to be is that's for
- me and for the sheer number of them that we're being asked to look at here. Is there any plan to do
- some sort of further detail or add to this so that we have a little something to look at to understand.
- This is why we're making this change because the why is entirely absent.
- That's a great question and I would say, you know within the amendments that we've got on the table
- tonight You know this and probably the the other one that is in this chapter in regards to
- Landscaping changes for parking and then a later one that's dealing with the removal of the standardized
- business are probably the three biggest things So you're right, you know, probably a little bit more
- background could have been helpful on this one but that's where I guess a Presentation by staff in this
- question and answer helps serve that purpose of what it is You know the amendments themselves are just
- the black and white
- Changes and so this dialogue here helps to try to supplement that but we can certainly look at adding
- a little bit more language certainly this Moves to council because this is a big thing and we recognize
- that Just while we're on that topic could you point us to the language that defines how the payment
- is is calculated and
- So that'll that'll be in the administrative manual, you know as I mentioned we'll have a price at the
- beginning of every year that That that number is based on so it'll be a set amount based on you know
- in dot has certain estimation numbers that they use there's certainly Standards that are in the industry
- for what is utilized so that'll be published in the administrative manual for everyone. I See so it's
- just reference to the administration it's
- No calculation methodology included in the UDO. It'll just be a raw number, and it'll be a very basic
- number. Obviously, with installation of sidewalks, there can be a wide range of factors, such as grading
- and retaining walls, and so we're not factoring that in. We're just looking at a raw number of, this
- is how much concrete costs per square foot, this is how much this property is, and it'll just be a raw
- number of that, and a very basic amount. I got it, yeah, I see it's in,
- Page 165 the fee calculation for approved payments in lieu of paths sidewalks and trails shall be based
- on the adopted planning and transportation fee schedule That's that's what you're talking about. That's
- the reference to the that's in the administrative manual. Okay, so just for reference I mean some of
- you know this but some of you don't you used to have to build sidewalk no matter what if you built a
- new single-family house
- And so then people would call them sidewalks to nowhere. And then in 2018, we changed that rule. And
- you only have to build, if you're building just a one-off single-family house, you only have to build
- if you're on a classified road, so like one that is typically busier or might feel like it might need
- more safety for a pedestrian, or if you're adjacent to a sidewalk. So we made that change in 2018. So
- not every new single-family house we get requires a sidewalk. It's only if they meet the other
- conditions and I Would say most of them these days they put them in and the plexes So like you can see
- the new there are some new plexes along 10th Street like east of Lincoln like that's all new sidewalk
- Most people put them in if they can't then this would be like an alternative. I'll say that eight years
- ago engineering estimated So Andrew can tell me if this is wild Like 30 to 100
- per lineal foot for a regular five foot wide sidewalk. And then of course, if there are other outstanding
- situations for building an actual sidewalk, it could be more, but we'll just be basing ours on how much
- does concrete cost, not what does your land look like. So we are trying to prioritize pedestrian connections,
- and as Eric said, what has happened is that when we're doing these determinant sidewalk variances, we're
- never getting that connection,
- Or any other connection and so we're trying to find a way there has been a push Just like in the country
- to kind of update how that's done. And so we are Trying to do that here as well. Thanks Thank you Let's
- start all the way down at the end and and work our way back here sure just one question to the
- Transportation Commission weigh in on the sidewalk fee and Lou discussion And what did they share? Yes,
- the Transportation Commission this went in February to the Transportation Commission. They reviewed
- it they made a recommendation that the proposal Be changed to not require the review of the Transportation
- Commission. Otherwise they were supportive of
- The original proposal or the proposal is to have the transportation as a reviewing body currently determinate
- sidewalk variances are approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals or hearing officer and staff believes
- that that is appropriate that someone should review it other than staff to ensure that some sort of
- compliance or some sort of Criteria are being met rather than just a quick review. So Thank you
- up on that first because I thought that it said in here that the Transportation Commission was going
- to review all of those things and then I thought that what I just heard you say was that they don't
- Want to review all of those things and now I'm confused. Yeah Transportation Commission said that they
- would prefer to not review it staff still believes that the Transportation Commission is the best body
- to review it That is the current plan yes, okay great thanks um
- I have other questions about the payment and looting as well. I just want clarity So in terms of like
- what we're asking people to pay it's just the cost of the Kong of Concrete as a single material not
- the cost of any other Materials related to the sidewalk and not the cost of any labor or actual installation
- or anything like that. It's just the concrete The raw amount of that concrete, okay and so that
- Fee would not then actually be enough to cover potential construction of a sidewalk say somewhere else
- I'm so sorry Eric mentioned that I don't actually know that in dots math is that simple and I would
- actually defer to city engineer or see work I would expect that the cost would reflect the cost of the
- material and the labor to install it and
- That's just it would reflect just consistent unit fees that Contractors pay if the city is building
- a new sidewalk or in data is building a new sidewalk and it's it would include everything to build the
- sidewalk Number that was stated earlier three or four thousand still correct on say a fifty foot long
- sidewalk. That's six I'm not in a position to say with confidence what the value would be but just that
- it would be the
- aggregate average price For installing it so some some places are very easy and would be much easier
- to and some places much challenging more challenging more expensive So just be the average unit price
- in the area. I'm really generally interested in what that number actually is and so just like when you
- come to council that should be apparent because the Transportation Commission is the one that's actually
- going to approve that fee and
- Calculation each year. Is that also what I understood in here? So the fee schedule is fully within the
- control of planning commission And so now we may not have the answer right now We will have it for council,
- but also when we bring this up to change the fee schedule We'll tell you how the math works and we can
- discuss it more then so plan commission has to approve the fee It is your fee. So yes, okay
- OK, so I just want to make sure that we have alignment here between passing this and then also having
- the fee go in. And then the other thing about the payment in lieu that I wanted to ask goes back to
- what Mr. Bishop said earlier about that word feasible. And I was wondering,
- Whether or not you wanted to wordsmith that word feasible because when you brought that up it was kind
- of like Oh that that is kind of an interesting word there and wondering if we wanted to say So currently
- it says Trail is not feasible due to existing practical difficulties associated with the property whether
- We would be interested in changing that to it's not practical due to existing difficulties associated
- with the property and then
- Because in that one two three language below it mentions practice impracticality it mentions that kind
- of language and I was just wondering whether that would Make mr. Bishop feel better practical reasonable
- Either one yeah Does anybody else have a thought on changing feasible to practical and then getting
- rid of practical in front of difficulties because that would be
- I think that sounds great. Right. Which is basically what this is except they're going to the Transportation
- Commission to appeal that right. Isn't that basically what it is.
- that it's not field this the transportation. Yeah. All right. I maybe didn't understand the question.
- I'm so sorry. If you were to appeal. So the payment in lieu is determined. If the criteria are met that's
- determined by the Transportation Commission in the current language. If you were to appeal their decision
- I guess I would still go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
- So then if you were to appeal the decision in the Transportation Commission, it could go to the Board
- of Zoning Appeals Was the language Written in this form so it gives people an opportunity to appeal
- that's what I'm asked It was not written in this form so that it could give you an opportunity to appeal
- it was written in this form to keep language consistent Practical difficulty is a state
- Correct term and that is used for Board of Zoning Appeals decisions and that's why I thought it was
- used that language because It's something that can be used someplace else as well Sort of yes, it's
- just its language describing a specific set of difficulties that are practical to your property. Yes, I
- It seems like we would first off. Are we eliminating the waiver? potential for this because Determinant
- sidewalk variance path would be removed Somebody always has a path to or allowance to apply for a permanent
- variance Okay, so wouldn't we want I mean if we pass this we want the the waiver the the idea that you
- can get a waiver it's bad enough that we'll give a waiver don't we want that to match the payment in
- lieu if those two don't match and
- Then builders are gonna maybe end up in some situations having a choice of whether to build or make
- the payment You see what I mean if they don't match if you qualify for both Well, so that's where we're
- saying, you know, we we don't want we don't want the determinant sidewalk variance path You know, we
- want because it's the same criteria in essence You know, so this is the option for that or you can request
- a permanent variance, right? And so those language should match
- Right, the standards for getting the waiver should match the standards for the payment in lieu. Well,
- they can be different. You know, this is not a variance. You know, the variance has state mandated criteria
- that those have to be evaluated on, whereas the payment in lieu or the fee in lieu, you know, that can
- be different.
- Like said we're matching the the language that we use for the determinate sidewalk variance. It talked
- about You know uniformity of development within an area, you know feasibility of developer of installing
- the sidewalk on a particular property You know adjacent lots or tracks that are undeveloped that might
- to be developed at a future time You know So that's that's where we're keeping that consistency in terms
- of what the old requests were evaluated on and this is being evaluated on a very similar run
- Feasible to reasonable and then keeping practical difficulties with that I'm seeing I'm seeing some
- heads nodding You're welcome to to make a motion to amend the proposed amendment sure
- to amend the proposed language and 2004 050 D 11 C Evaluation criteria from feasible to reasonable Is
- there a second Second All right any discussion on the proposed amendment here I
- Let's call the roll on the amendment. Stossberg. Yes. Whistler. I'm sorry. I should probably go to public
- comment on that. Is there any public comment on the proposed amendment to change the word feasible to
- reasonable. All right. Seeing none.
- We are back to the roll call. Sorry about that. Yes. Whistler. Yes. Bishop. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seymour.
- Yes. Co Rodkey. Yes. Helms. Holmes. I'm sorry. Yes. Kinsey. Yes.
- That motion carries as we're back to questions on the Petition as amended now any other questions
- Commissioner Stasburg, please. I do have another question that is unrelated to payment in lieu for sidewalk
- fees under the 2004 06 o i7 D that
- It's okay. So it removes parking areas for vehicles on display I Think what that what that does is requires
- parking areas for vehicles on display to be striped Yes, okay. So does that include like like so does
- every car dealer? Once this is approved have to go back and like stripe all of their stuff now Or do
- they just like next time they pave they have to stripe like how is that?
- Situation that doesn't meet a standard obviously is grandfathered, you know If they are doing something
- in the future that requires compliance Then this would be an effect. So if they are repaving Then yes,
- we would want to see a striping plan for that What is the reasoning for that I guess in terms of like
- Vehicle well for one to delineate, you know where?
- Those cars are parked there is a parking setback requirement. So, you know the areas on the site where
- you are parking cars for sale versus drive aisles You know, it's important to delineate those two areas
- So we have to have them striped in order to know, you know What has to meet a setback and what doesn't
- have to meet a setback? I Guess I just feel like I often see car dealers like moving cars around and
- putting them in different orientations for you know first for sales, right and
- And I appreciate the need for the setback but I wonder if requiring the entire lot to be striped would
- then negatively impact their ability to like display and think about their stock. Did you like. I would
- say for the most part in general most car dealership lots are striped now.
- There obviously there might be a rarity where there's one that isn't but I would say most of them are.
- So we we actually to be honest, you know We thought that there already was a requirement in the unity
- that says that they all had to be striped And then we found this and said they didn't he's like, okay,
- you know, that's that's a problem because we do like said We do have to delineate where you are parking
- cars were vehicles for display For sailor are parked versus their drive aisles. So we do need to have
- that delineated You know can't just be you know, here's pavement put cars anywhere and everywhere, you
- know We do have to have some and to make sure that you meet aisle requirements
- You know so that there does have to be some order and delineation to the parking areas Okay, and that
- would only be on like paved parking lots though, right in terms of correct some of those are gravel.
- Okay Thanks Any other questions my question is also in the payment in lieu for past sidewalks and trails
- Is there a Time limit, I mean is there in a deadline that for them to pay this I mean so you you have
- a home under construction or a project under construction do you have a timeline to pay this payment
- or is it a payment that you pay for a determined amount of time or Then it changes ownership. Let's
- say they built and they sell now it changes ownership to the new owner gonna have to pay and
- Usually with the occupancy of the building while we don't specifically do inspections for occupancy
- for single-family residences That is something that we'd work with the building department to make sure
- that we were involved with Do you see what I'm saying? There's a potential problem for That whoever
- made the Whoever was the owner at the time and they had a contract and it was a
- Doing the payment in lieu if they sell it now, it's another person. Does it go with the deed? Do you
- see what I'm saying? Yeah, so it would certainly as I mentioned be required with the the person that
- got the permit and built the house and was occupying it So that's how we would tie it to that owner
- Okay, you know we can certainly look at establishing a more definitive timeline when we issue a permit
- but it would be tied to occupancy so would they have to pay for their sidewalk during the time
- of construction and
- No, just prior to them moving in and using the house. Okay. But do you see what do you see the potential
- issues? I mean, I just know some people plan to live in a house and then they sell it immediately as
- soon as it's constructed. So potential issues, I guess. That's what I'm trying to address here.
- Before I move on to a different topic So you said the majority of these go to one for one to four family
- homes is the expectation of the payment in lieu So if these are paid into the alternative fund There's
- no guarantee when a sidewalk would be put in for any of these homes or that one would be put it in at
- all Is that correct? So that the timing of when the funds would be utilized would be determined by the
- council if that's what you're asking
- 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
- not Practical or reasonable to put a sidewalk in because none exists and so I pay my three four thousand
- dollars into that Year or two down the road more houses are there and all of a sudden there's enough
- people to have a sidewalk But no sidewalk exists and I go on for a couple more years and still no sidewalk. So I
- Where is the guarantee that if I pay into that that I will eventually return a sidewalk to me at some
- point as the homeowner Sure. Yeah, so that there is no I guess guarantee That that money that you've
- contributed would at some time period be utilized for a sidewalk in front of your property You know,
- that would be something that the council would way of you know Here's the money here are the needs within
- the community and where should that money be used for? I
- So is the homeowner what's the direct benefit to me of paying into the in lieu fund. So the you know
- the benefit is that you know you don't have something that's hanging on your your your deed that you
- have this worry that at any point in the future or you sell it.
- You know really maybe more so for the person down the line of their acquiring this thing, you know And
- it might be looked at as a liability That is on their deed that at any point in the future we can reach
- out and say you owe us a sidewalk You know which can be an unexpected financial burden for somebody
- who was not expecting that Let me through you the inverse then so let's say instead of the the in lieu
- because I'm the only house in the the block and I put in a sidewalk to nowhere and
- Years down the road when a full sidewalk decides to be built in Are you going to come after a homeowner
- for whatever? sidewalk, you know Transgressions may have you know come together if they don't meet the
- right requirements of you know five or six or ten feet or anything like that or a certain setback or
- green space between I I don't foresee us coming over after an owner who put in a sidewalk that didn't
- meet a standard at the time and
- You know, there is there is language in the UDO that allows for some flexibility for you know a situation
- where there's a five foot sidewalk and a six foot might be what Is required or you know with a standard
- is six foot and now we change it to eight foot or seven foot or whatever might happen So there is some
- language there that allows for existing facilities to remain, you know, it's also very possible You
- know, depending on how much time period has elapsed there that if we come and do a corridor we might
- just do everything along there as a whole and
- And replace something that was non-compliant or was you know put in in some? Some other situation. Okay,
- super helpful. The other question I had is relating to trees and shrubs on the perimeter of parking
- lots page 88 part one letters B and C Used to be that there were
- three shrubs per parking spot. And it's now gone up to every 35 lineal feet of perimeter. And instead
- of what would have been, we'll call it 12 shrubs over three, let's see here, four, nine foot parking
- spots, we're now up to 20 trees or shrubs. And there's a lot of mention of shrubbery. Is someone a fan
- of Monty Python?
- Yep, so the math in general works out as you go along that linear distance that that 35 feet and the
- quantity of shrubs that is required there And just for reference, you know that the language that we're
- using here is is pretty much exactly the language that the county is using now And so the reason that
- we are making this particular change is that you know, we frequently encounter situations especially with
- very large parking lots that require hundreds amounts of shrubs within interior areas just based on
- the raw number of parking spaces that there's just Logistically isn't room to get all those in and so
- the county's development ordinance looks at it from a different perspective of Requiring a certain amount
- of interior area green space within an area within the parking area that has to be landscaped and that's
- kind of based on the size of that so you have
- two different landscaping requirements. One is a perimeter and then two is an interior. So what you
- might see if there's any reduction of shrubs along the perimeter of a very minute nature, that's made
- up for on an interior requirement to install green space within there that has shrubs and trees within
- the interior.
- How much of an anticipated cost increase do you have for businesses that are having to undergo this
- change from the you know three shrubs per parking spot to now 20 per 35 millennial feet because that's
- you know a significant increase Honestly, I think the cost would go down because you're as I mentioned your your
- Can be looking at hundreds of shrubs, you know, just based on the raw number Which doesn't really take
- a very pragmatic approach to how you're actually creating green space within the interior itself So
- honestly, I would say the amount of landscaping Cost anyway probably goes down a little bit. Okay. Thank
- you Any additional questions commissioners Mr. Stossberg
- I'm just wondering about the change from the ornamental trees to the small medium canopy trees Are we
- talking about the same subset of types of trees and we're just naming it something different Doesn't
- actually break down trees and ornamental it's large medium and small Ornamental was just kind of a word
- that had been used in previous versions of the UDO and realized, you know It really doesn't reference
- anything specifically Thank you
- Call for questions from commissioners But I would ask this a question for staff because I'm I would
- my preference is going to be to continue these and not vote on them because I think there's a lot here
- and I would like to see The why and the effect right? What is the policy? Why are we making these changes
- and we're talking about some of them and we're getting answers and that's great but we're having to
- go through and pick them out and
- And in the weekend that we've had access to this, that's not enough time, honestly, for us to go through
- this and make informed decisions on these things. I'd like to continue this. I would like for staff
- to tell us why they're making the change. It can be just a sentence. It can be very simple and what
- the effect is. Some of them, it won't be able to be a sentence, right? Some of these things are complicated
- and there are big reasons for it. If it's related to other statutory changes. But I want that information
- before I vote on this in order to pass this.
- Like this is one of our legislative functions, and these are supposed to originate with us. Patrick,
- could you make sure your mic's on? People online are saying they have a hard time hearing you. Sorry,
- my apologies. So not to repeat all that, but I'd like to see the why. Why are we doing this? What was
- the policy reason that we're asking for these changes? And then the effects that we expect. Like how
- many of these sidewalks are there per year, really? What are we talking about? How big is the payment?
- 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
- to increase the cost of the whole. Why are we doing this. Right. So I'd like to see that for most of
- these. Right. Any of them that are more than just a minor technical amendment. I'd like to see that.
- So not really a question but I didn't thought that was the appropriate time. Are you intending to make
- a motion to continue. Yes I make a motion to continue the UDO amendments to Chapter 4 that we're discussing.
- amended Thank you And I'd continue to the May meeting Sure, sir second for that motion I'll second All
- right any discussion on the motion to continue Commissioner Stossberg public comment first I'm sorry
- Should we have public comment?
- Before any continuing happens just in case there's any member of the public who wanted to comments about
- these UDO changes We certainly could I don't know that we'd be required to but If we're not taking action
- on it tonight But I'm happy to do that Any other
- discussion before we do that before you know in our typical fashion we might ask you know what what
- the delay would mean for Action on this is are we on some sort of time constraint here with not making
- these amendments? I know we do this annually Is there a cost for waiting? Staff perspective, there's
- no urgency. No, I
- You know, certainly we do try to time things though to the so that they do get to council before their
- summer recess But you know, there's no immediate time urgency Thank you Comments All right Certainly
- the commissioners to us burden that actually does bring up a question is it
- Because the state made some changes around the timeline between UDO changes after it gets out of the
- Plan Commission to council How long council has to deal with those? Is it 60 days right now,
- or is it 90 days? It is still 90. Okay. Great. Thanks All right, is there any public comment on zio
- 2026-02-0002 I
- Seeing none we are back to the Commission any final comments before we call the roll on the motion to
- continue All right, let's call the roll Whistler Yes Bishop yes, Rell. Yes seaboard. No Co Rodke no
- Holmes yes Kinsey no Stossberg no Believe that failed okay, so We're back to the Commission we're gonna
- need another motion Either a motion to Approve or Something else
- We're not going to continue it. I would motion to approve zero to twenty twenty six dash zero to zero
- zero zero to the chapter four amendments with the amendment regarding the one word change regarding
- sidewalks. Yes. So approving this discussion.
- All right, let's call the roll on the motion to approve as the amendments as amended Bishop No,
- I'm sorry. What was that? No Burrell Yes Seabour Yes, Korotky. Yes Holmes. No Kinsey. Yes Stossberg. Yes
- Whistler. Yes. All right. Motion carries. That is approved. We are on now to the next set of amendments
- 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.
- Thank you. So again, these are adjustments to the administration section administration procedures section
- of the UDO chapter six So these as we mentioned or I guess maybe a little bit contrast with last version
- of what we were just hearing This particular section is just updating some references and removal of
- references to city in terms of
- As I mentioned, we are sinking references city departments. We're removing just city referencing the
- department as a whole Adding an exemption for nonprofits and government agencies from inspection fees.
- That's reflecting that there's not a filing fee for those petitions So we're exempting them from inspection
- fees We're removing a reference to require Site development permits in cases where site stormwater management
- permit is not necessary
- Removing a reference to grading permit, which is no longer in the UDO. It changes the inspection timeline
- for final occupancy. Removing a section that talks about final acceptance for public improvements to
- the engineering department. Amending the table of procedures that states that DRC is required for secondary
- plats where other sections says it does not.
- and fixes a numbering issue with one of the sections. And for the most part, these are relatively benign,
- as I mentioned, mostly just removing and altering references to city departments, removing calendar
- days, cleaning up references to Board of Public Works and
- bonding issuance and then Removing the determinant sidewalk variance criteria that we reference that
- were connected to the payment in lieu for the sidewalks so with that Happy to answer any questions.
- Thank you. Are there questions from commissioners? Let's start down here on my right How about to my
- left Commissioner Stossberg
- Wants to know at the very last last couple that talk about subdivision standards and the minimum width
- and allows lot With minor modifications up to ten percent. I just want to understand how that might
- actually affect subdivision proposals Yep, so there is a section of the UDO that deals with
- minor modifications that give some
- flexibility at a staff level to slightly adjust within very narrow percentage points. Some development
- standards within the UDO. One of those does allow for a reduction in lot area. However, there's nothing
- that allow for a reduction of lot width. So we were just building in a somewhat corresponding 10% allowance
- to allow for a 10% reduction in lot width for a subdivision or a lot line adjustment.
- Does that answer your question? I think so. I guess I'm just thinking about the Dunn Street proposal,
- which is still not, you know, which has continued at this point. And I think that their variance was
- denied to allow for the smaller widths, but I wasn't sure like, you know, how much 10% really does change
- it in terms of
- Lot widths specifically versus yeah, so, you know in that case there's you know lots required to be
- 60 feet wide So obviously 10% would allow them to go down to 54 feet wide Which is not what they were
- looking to go to they were going for much less than that But it gives a little bit of room. Okay, so
- it's actually probably pretty minimal. It's not like you could throw a whole extra lot in there No,
- you you'd obviously have to get it, you know 10 of them or so to get anything substantial out of that.
- Okay. Thanks. I
- Any other questions? All right, is there any public comments on 02026-02-0003?
- We are we are dealing with please state your name for the record and then you'll have five minutes to
- speak My name is Joe Davis. I'm a resident at 530 South Washington Street In the In the sort of nutshell
- version here that I'm looking at the memo regarding the chapter 6 administration and procedures
- It states that nonprofits and governmental agencies are exempt from inspection fees And I feel like
- Members of the public who are low-income also too should be able to Apply or for or submit a verified
- motion such that they could proceed in form of popper s in other words
- to obtain a fee waiver if they're going through processes like that. That seems like that would bring
- equity to lower income people as well. This is not dealing with the in lieu sidewalk. Is this the, okay,
- all right.
- Thank you. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much Thank you. Is there any other public comment?
- If you're joining us online and you'd like to make comment click the reactions button click the raise
- hand button Send a chat message to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when it's your turn to speak
- We have any online commenters
- No, we don't see anybody online as Commissioner Whistler said if there is anybody online that would
- like to speak, please use the raise hand function All right, we're back to the Commission then for any
- final discussion or emotion Mr. Sussberg Can you clarify what those inspection fee is I
- Like what are what are they inspecting in terms of the concern for low income folks. So these inspections
- would be for what our enforcement folks do when it comes time for building occupancy when you're constructing
- a new building. So.
- Nonprofits and other government entities don't have to pay permit fees and filing fees And so there
- is technically an inspection fee that is required so as the member of the public reference, you know
- certain housing projects That are affordable are usually nine times out of ten operated by a non-for-profit
- So this is just relieving them of a requirement to pay an inspection fee for that that organization
- So it's not like an inspection fee that an average resident would pay. It's a developer sort of fee
- when somebody is developing a new construction prior to getting an occupancy permit. Yeah. So this would
- be a one time inspection that you do after you're finished constructing your project. OK. Thanks. Any
- other questions.
- 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
- ud o amendments for chapter 6 is there a second second All right Let's call the roll on the motion to
- approve Beryl
- Yes, seaboard. Yes, Korodke. Yes Holmes No Kenzie. Yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Bishop. Yes All
- right motion carries and that petition is approved we are now to our final petition related to you do
- Amendments, this is zero twenty twenty six dash zero two dash zero zero four Okay, thank you. So this
- deals with chapters two which regulates zoning districts chapter three which deals with use regulations
- chapter five for subdivision standards and chapter seven which has all the definitions and There are
- 14 amendments from chapter two. These mostly involve clarifying some footnotes footnotes and adding
- the removing the ornamental tree language similar to one of the prior chapters. There are three amendments
- from chapter three that remove the standardized business language from the UDO and we're proposing to
- add new standards for drive throughs. And then in chapter five there are three amendments that clarify
- the regulations for major site plans and adjusting the situations when environmental easements are required
- to be recorded. So that would be for the major site plans and for new subdivisions. In chapter seven,
- there are eight proposed amendments that deal with a variety of topics, including refining the common
- area definition, adding a definition for decorative stone, which has come up at some Board of Zoning
- Appeals hearings
- modifying the restaurant definition, adding architectural features to the wall sign definition. This
- has also come up at some Board of Zoning Appeals hearings and making the student housing definition
- more objective. So I believe there are a total of 28 amendments in those four chapters and we're happy
- to go into any more of the specifics or answer any questions. Are there any questions from commissioners?
- my first series of questions is about the student housing definition, because both in number four and
- number six, it talks about, I mean, they're basically like, we're defining it using lease agreements.
- And I guess I'm kind of wondering how we would determine that prior to the occupancy, or whether we need to.
- And I guess the example that so number four says units intended to be leased as partially or fully furnished.
- And then number six says rooms are advertised and leased by the room. And we have definitely I will
- say had experiences with developments that don't say upfront that they are student housing development.
- And after they get built now they are renting furnished by the room.
- instead of any other rental agreements. So like I guess what is the purpose of putting this way. You
- know there's kind of.
- two ways of looking at this. One is developers know what the definition, whenever we have these conversations
- with prospective developers and we say, are you student housing? What is your use? And we give them
- the definition. These are the defining characteristics. So they can look at this very clearly and say,
- oh, hey, our business model was going to be fully furnished or a certain percentage of fully furnished
- and we know we can't do that.
- So that that helps identify it on the front end and then certainly down the line You know whether it's
- the building permit or afterwards, you know if it comes to our attention that you know They have incorporated
- some of these things then we have a mechanism for enforcement to go back and say, you know You can't
- rent per bedroom, you know, you can't have certain percentage that are fully furnished So that that
- allows us to deal with it in that capacity as well and is this retroactive at all? No or
- So I mean anybody who's come in Under whatever law was in place at the time, you know, they would meet
- that definition so I guess you know my answer would be You know if If they've changed, you know, like
- let's say they came in and they weren't fully furnished and
- And then they want to change to be that and it was multifamily before but now they would be student
- housing based on this new thing Then they would meet this current definition I guess what I'm wondering
- is if currently there's a multifamily Dwelling that is in a zoning district that does not allow Student
- housing but they are renting by the rooms and doing furnished
- And and furnished and so once we changed it to this like are they no longer allowed to do that anymore
- Like can we actually like enforce that in that location now? Like how do we grandfather somebody in
- to that or not because we don't necessarily know at this point What all the lease agreements are because
- like legally we can't get involved in lease agreements in the state of, Indiana
- Yeah, that's a that's a good question. Let me think about that for a minute You know, I guess my answer
- would be You know, like like I said initially, you know if they came in and we had some proposal
- Or they were on the ground and they were fully furnished and they've been doing that, you know, they
- would be a non-conforming use. It'd be student housing. So they'd be restricted. You know, we wouldn't
- say that this use would no longer be allowed, you know, if they're now meeting the student housing definition
- and they were already doing that. But certainly if they came time for expansion or to do something else
- and we say, hey, this use is not a conforming use. You're not allowed here. Then we would have to deal
- with, you know, what is required to bring it into compliance, whether it's a conditional use approval
- or they can't do the thing.
- They can't do the expansion. So basically any any multifamily housing that's currently Not defined as
- student housing but would with these two additions be defined as student housing is Grandfathered in
- yes, and how do we how are we gonna net like say two years from now that gets identified? How is there gonna be?
- Like how do we know that they were grandfathered in now? So, you know the burden of proof would be on
- them, you know They would have to give us evidence that they were this thing before, you know They were
- renting by the bedroom where they were fully furnished or you know some proof the burden of proof would
- be on them Okay, and and just for clarity I need to go back to that now
- It's not those aren't and statements right. Those are or statements in terms of like a housing development
- meeting. Any of those one through I guess there's seven now qualifications just meeting one of them
- would classify them as student. Yes. Okay thank you. Can you maybe explain.
- The rationale for number five. I mean as I read that that just means If you're if you're anywhere close
- to a mixed-use institutional, you're just automatically considered student housing if you have more
- than 50 dwelling units So, you know with so the mixed-use institutional
- District, you know for the most part is I you there are some situations where you have churches and
- schools that are zoned mixed-use institutional but if you have Dwelling units that are more than if
- you have a building with more than 50 dwelling units and you're within, you know a quarter mile of those
- districts 99 times out of 10, you know, you're adjacent to the IU district and you are advertising marketing
- towards students but why
- Why is the proximity necessary to define that I mean that basically means I if I what if I wanted to
- build? 50 unit Retirement home on 3rd Street, that's gonna be considered student housing If you if you were
- Apartments if you were multifamily dwelling, you know not a retirement home or you know a care facility
- like that Then yes, you would automatically if you're more than 50 units and within 1300 feet of an
- MI you would be student housing Why is that why is that necessary? Why are the other definitions not
- enough to? To catch those. Yeah, so, you know when we look at
- You know we're the mixed use institutional districts and we looked at you know what are the developments
- that are 50 units or more. You know like I said those are all oriented towards student housing. You
- know we haven't seen anything that's come in that isn't. So you know when we look at these defining
- things you know these are things that are almost always associated with student housing development.
- But that doesn't answer my question. Why are the other definitions not enough.
- When if they are oriented towards students wouldn't one of the other six definitions They certainly
- can certainly and if the Plain Commission feels that this particular Element this line of this definition
- isn't something that that they feel is appropriate to be included with this You know, obviously,
- you know, that would be your ability to take that out
- We were simply approaching it from you know, what are the defining characteristics that we see almost
- always? There doesn't have to be you know, certainly as you mentioned it could be something other than
- that But we were looking at it from a perspective of what are the almost always? Situation so as I said
- if you feel like that particular element is inappropriate or shouldn't be in there then It's within
- your purview to remove that I'm gonna think on it for a minute, but it I'm concerned that it'd be
- Red to be interpreted that that's you can only build student housing within that proximity to If you're
- gonna be classified that way by the zoning code anyway, it seems like that's the only thing that people
- would ever bring within within that Geographic and it's very possible, you know within this area as
- well You know that student housing may may or may not be in allowed use. So that's an important
- distinguishing point
- All right. Thanks other questions from commissioners Following up on that point is there a waiver or
- appeals process for the number five guilt by association No, you you know with the definition you cannot
- request a variance from that You can request an appeal, you know of our classification of a use so you
- can you can request that from the Board of Zoning Appeals
- Is that fairly straightforward or is that a kind of a long lengthy convoluted process? Well, so, you
- know the board of zoning appeals meets once a month so you you would petition for an administrative
- appeal of our
- Classification of this, you know the point the purpose of this was to make this more objective And not
- a subjective, you know, the current language uses language such as you know It says may be marketed
- to students. That's very subjective, you know So we were trying to make this more objective, which is
- why you see these hard numbers in here to reduce that subjectivity Okay. Thank you
- I have some questions about the restaurant the several of the restaurant Changes and I wonder you know,
- I appreciate what Commissioner Holmes was asking is kind of what what's behind This and help us understand
- what we're gonna achieve with this and this one's a little bit of a mystery tree What is it that we're
- trying to achieve with the proposed language? relating to
- Drive-through and and seating areas. Can you just go over those a little bit for me, please? Yep So
- there's there's a nuance of the definition of restaurant that requires a seating capacity to that And
- so we have encountered situations where somebody wants to do a walk-up type business And not have any
- indoor seating
- And so we you know, we certainly don't have a problem with that particular element You know the things
- that we don't want are the buildings that are simply a drive-through restaurant, you know You don't
- even have a place to seat. It's completely vehicle oriented. You know, that's the lane deuce that we
- don't want So we're adding an allowance here to allow for a use that doesn't have indoor seating but
- you're not allowed to have a drive-through as part of that so, you know, just imagine some of the
- You know the walk-up businesses. I think you see along 10th Street or maybe on Kirkwood where you know,
- it's just a walk-up type of facility Can you talk about to just the delivery only ghost kitchen That
- too, I mean just curious about that as well and
- Yeah, so again, you know, this is kind of what we were talking about where you have a business that
- doesn't have any indoor seating, but they don't have a drive-through, you know, it is just a delivery
- only business and we certainly see those and want to you know, the code is kind of.
- somewhat silent to whether or not you can even have that use at all. But we do recognize they do exist.
- And again you know that's that's not the problem we're trying to solve for you know a building with
- no indoor seating that's not a restaurant and it's completely a drive through you know. And so you know
- this does just give an allowance and a recognition that we do have these uses existing in the community.
- And you know that's that's something that we need to legitimize.
- Another provision somewhere in the code that allows for food trucks So that that is
- dealt with in two different scenarios. If they're on the right of way, then you need a permit from the
- controller's office or economic and sustainable development. If it's something that's occurring on private
- property, if it leaves every day, we're not regulating that. If it's something that establishes itself
- and doesn't leave, then it needs a temporary use permit. But if it's just something that is there and
- leaves, we're not regulating that. But in the right of way, that's dealt with through a different department.
- So would they still be allowed?
- I mean because it doesn't fit That's not a brick-and-mortar building, you know, that's a vehicle So
- we don't we don't regulate vehicles in that capacity. We regulate uses temporary uses, you know things
- that stay there You know your Christmas trees your fireworks your mattress sales, whatever, you know,
- they've established. They're not leaving every night So food trucks are okay Yes, okay other question I had
- Back to the student housing. So so one one comment some of the things in here studio apartments basically
- small spaces for people. It seems like there would be some overlap with low income and I realize generally
- Like the locations around campus are popular for students and things like that. But some things that
- would fit these definitions also look like they would possibly fit the definitions for low income housing
- units as well. And I'm just I'm not even sure that's a bad thing because what are the consequences of
- being designated student housing. Is it just the use table or are there other provisions in the code
- that will affect it. Well it does limit where that use can occur.
- And does have some spatial limitations for how close student housing can be particularly in the downtown
- There's spatial limitations for that So again, this was just trying to utilize a very objective Standard
- to say what is or isn't student housing and again, you know when we look at developments that have large
- number of dwelling units You know having
- high amount of studio units was something that was almost always characteristic of Housing directed
- towards students. Okay, so you did make a sort of a study you looked at existing and applied Okay, if
- these were the new rules then these buildings would change. Did you look at? No, I wouldn't say I wouldn't
- say we looked at if you know what buildings would change but buildings and developments all the developments
- that we have seen come in and
- And that certainly build themselves as student housing, which is which is great. You know, it's certainly
- a housing type that we need But we looked at you know, what are the bedroom counts? You know, how many
- things do they have in there of bedroom breakdowns through there? You know, and this was one of those
- characteristics again that we see time and time again So I can see matching it to the what we see as
- current student housing I guess my question is what's the what's the overshoot how if you now take that
- and try to match it to other places and
- That aren't student housing is there going to be a large overlap because this will bring them in right
- it can be some other use entirely But if it fits one of these criteria and now it's student housing,
- right? So did you look at what isn't student housing that would fall under this definition? Yeah, I
- would I would say within at least easily the past 10 years if not more I haven't seen anything with
- more than 50 dwelling units and 50 studios that is anything other than that and
- Most of all of these are in the downtown or you know student housing very specific oriented developments
- And they you know, they make no attempt to say that they're not student housing Thank you Other questions
- from commissioners mr. Brown On number five of 2007
- 0 1 10 Talking about the distance between you know the 13 20 feet Close to the MI zoned MI District
- zoning district Can you show us a map of the MI district current right now that we have in Bloomington?
- So my question is so if we have that MI zoning
- Anything that is 13 feet from that Will be student housing, but if that if the one that now is not on
- zoning, but now it's student housing can Something else be built touching that building as well, you
- know measured from that building. So it will be this ever-expanding Do you see what I'm saying is that
- the intent or not I
- So most of you know, just from a square footage standpoint And I'll say 80% of the land that's owned
- MI is land occupied by Indiana University You'll have various outliers, you know churches and schools
- that are owned MI But and those are you know, a lot of times just scattered all over the community Okay,
- so you're talking a perimeter around the MI zone not something that keeps growing and
- Yeah, so, you know, that's certainly a better way or a different way of looking at it You know as it
- does create, you know within that border there a guarantee that you're not going to have student-oriented
- developments You know adjacent to those or within a quarter mile of churches and schools that might
- be zoned MI But you know as you can as Jamie's shown on the map here you can see that large area blue
- that's owned MI that reflects land that is
- Predominantly owned by IU or the Parks Department But most of my churches and schools in IU most of
- land owned by parks is parks in open space so that area you see there's just the golf course and Hospital
- area. Yeah Thank you
- And again, you know keep my you know, these this is oriented to developments with more than 50 dwelling
- units Which is which is a large amount of units within buildings Thank you I Want to follow up on a
- few things that other people have said right now because all of a sudden I'm like, oh I
- My goodness, um, following up from commissioner Burrell then about that 1320 feet because when I looked
- at the zoning map all of a sudden I'm like, well, wait a minute. There's a whole lot of little pockets
- of MI around because of MCC SC and I could actually imagine that being problematic for non for housing
- that is not intended for, um,
- undergraduate students or university students or student housing in any way, but might have more than
- 50 units. And I'm suddenly trying to go, well, how far away is Fairview Elementary from our North Roger
- Street petition that we have this evening? And thinking about Try North and how far away is Try North
- from some of that housing that
- that may or may not go in there that may or may not be student housing. So I guess my question is, have
- you actually drawn a circle, a radius around all of the MI zones that this would impact in terms of,
- because there's like a lot of them scattered all over the place and they're very small because they're
- just like a single elementary school. No, to answer your question, we did not do
- detailed map of the entire city and what developments might be within that 1300 foot radius that have
- more than 50 dwelling units But like I said, you know a different way of looking that is is it does
- create a buffer You know around those uses that would prohibit, you know unit there are developments
- with more than 50 units from being within that area
- And there's not a lot of, again, just kind of speaking in generalities, there's not a lot of open ground
- around a lot of where the churches and schools are within the community that would probably accommodate
- that. But to answer your question, no, we did not do a detailed analysis of every single property zone
- MI, and are there buildings with more than 50 dwelling units within that 1,300-foot radius? OK, I guess
- that makes me a little bit nervous right now.
- And I had another follow-up on somebody, too, and I can't remember what it was now. I'll think of it
- in a minute. Sorry. Oh, I know what it was. It was about the ghost kitchen thing, because I realized
- when I read this earlier that maybe I incorrectly read it under 2003 030 D10.
- It says that delivery only, ghost kitchen or similar concepts are not permitted as the primary means
- of service and that would be in like a first floor retail. And I guess I'm wondering why that wouldn't
- be permitted and if something like a catering service would not count then as a restaurant. Because
- I guess I don't know why you wouldn't allow like a delivery only
- So some some of those, you know, like a catering use obviously has a dip. It's a specific use food production
- and processing So if that was their sole Activity there, you know that has a different land
- use Classification so that doesn't count as a restaurant then right? Okay, so
- Can I just follow up on that? Is there then, so you're saying ghost kitchens would be allowed, they're
- not prohibited entirely, they're just not considered restaurants anymore if we adopt this challenge.
- Correct, in a situation where it's a multi-tenant center. Are they specifically then included in the
- use description for food production and processing use?
- Yep, so that that's just a different use that would have its own if I don't know if top-of-the-head
- if there any use specific standards that apply to it But it just has its own separate classification
- So it wouldn't be a ghost kitchen because they're they're not running things out daily Or you know you
- take an order and then you deliver it or whatever, you know, that's a separate use Yeah, I guess my
- question is are they specifically allowed within another use or are we creating a
- Are you are you asking like is a ghost kitchen allowed within a food production and processing? Yeah,
- I don't know that we'd probably draw that line You know, it's hard within an interior floor plan of
- a building to say I mean, we haven't dealt with the situation I'll just be honest, but I don't know
- that we'd probably draw the line within that building of you know here's here's an element that is being
- delivered on an hourly basis and
- Because it's such a fine line, I guess, of how you differentiate those two things. I guess we'd have
- to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis and certainly understanding of flexibility in terms of what the
- intent of the business model is and what they're actually trying to do. So are there zones where food
- production processing is allowed? Or let's say the other way, where
- Restaurant is allowed but food production and processing would not be allowed Yes, I would say so because
- restaurants you can have those in Mixed-use neighborhood scale districts where food production and processing
- is not, you know food production and processing sometimes can be a lot heavier intensity in terms of
- scale and Odors and delivery trucks and the like. So yeah, you'll you'll certainly have districts where
- you can have a restaurant and not food production and processing
- So if someone came to planning department said hey, I want to open a ghost kitchen Your would
- your inclination be to steer them towards a zone where food production and processing is allowed or
- is there some other use that you think would would capture that So so they would be allowed within the
- multi-tenant center, you know based on the the language that we've introduced If I'm if I'm understanding
- Your question. I read it. OK, hold on. I read it the opposite way. Yeah. So if somebody is just doing
- a ghost kitchen and
- That is their only thing, and they are delivery only. Then that would not be allowed. Right, I guess
- that's my question, is where would they be allowed? Food production and processing. Okay, that was my
- question. Okay, sorry, I was thinking about it too deep, I think.
- Well for another question, I I do I would like to make a motion or Offer an amendment here. I would
- like to move that we strike number five from the proposed change to the student housing definition in
- chapter seven and renumber the remaining
- the remaining clauses there appropriately. Any other discussion on that? Just to clarify, I'm just proposing
- we strike the language that makes anything within 1,320 feet of MI be considered student housing. And
- I think it's just unnecessary and
- Anything that's truly student housing will be caught by one of these other definitions. Commissioner
- Stossberg. I guess I'm not in favor of fully striking that, but I am kind of interested in continuing
- this one to be able to think about that a little bit more and get a little bit more information and
- data around like where that 1320 feet actually is. Cause I do think to some degree it makes sense in
- terms of if it's
- Proximal to Indiana University, but it doesn't necessarily make sense if it's proximal to you know Clear
- Creek Elementary or Actually, I think they're creeks in the county. But anyway, you know what I mean.
- 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
- Any other questions comments
- could comment on whether the the belief I'm of the same opinion that I think the other five definitions
- cap would capture that I'm just trying to figure out what the unique contribution of that number the
- current number five is and if you think that that I mean obviously you put it in here so you thought
- it was important so I'm not questioning that but but do you think that it
- We were really dealing with something that would not be already captured in the other five I Mean it
- certainly does capture a Huge amount of things that are student housing that are within that square
- foot that that linear distance That have those thresholds You know as as Christian members Stossberg
- pointed out, you know, there are some
- Certainly capture other things that were not intending to be that that are on the outliers But this
- you know does capture a great amount that would not be captured by you know, the fully furnished, you
- know individual bed individual bedroom rental I Mean the unit count probably I guess would be the the
- closest thing, you know where you you've got any fours or fives and thirty percent more thirty percent
- threes and
- You know that that usually captures most of those, you know, again, this was just a further clarification
- that Captured I'd say probably 90 95 percent of the things that are within that area, but certainly
- there could be some outliers Thank you And and the purpose of expanding this definition at all is to
- provide clarity to developers who want to
- to build what they can and cannot build? What exactly was the purpose again? So the purpose was to remove
- some of the subjectivity. So the main thing was the previous line, one of the previous lines it said,
- and you can kind of see it in the other, the left side where it says current language, says that for purposes
- Determining whether a multifamily dwelling meets this definition the city may consider the degree to
- which the facility is occupied by undergraduate or post graduates and the degree to which occupancy
- is marketed to undergraduate or post graduates so that that leaves a lot of subjectivity of You know
- whether or not the city believes that you're intending it or not. So we were trying to provide some
- more objective standards more measurable
- I mean, I'll just come in. I appreciate the definitional elements here. And I do think that it was really
- problematic to have the marketed to language before. So I appreciate the definitions here, and particularly
- because they're defining what it is versus what it isn't, that it's not a rooming house. So I appreciate
- defining what it is.
- I'm just not sure about this distance issue because I think it might be pulling in more than it intends
- a quarter mile. You know I don't know. I just I'm just not sure about the specificity of the distance
- given the number of lavender parcels we saw throughout the community. Any other discussion.
- Any public comment on the proposed amendment here? This is not on the Petition as a whole but just on
- the proposed amendment to remove this particular definition of student housing If so make your way to
- the the podium state your name Specifically on the amendment
- Was just offered here regarding number five in the proposed changes to the definition of student housing
- Well, this is a comment specifically to the recommended conditions on number five Let's see individual
- there's a statement that is missing a word and
- I think you're looking at the petition for gray star not for the UDO amendment Forgive me, I thought
- this was the This was the development that was happening and it Bloomington iron and metal. Sorry. That's
- up next. Sorry So if there's anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the
- raise hand function and we can recognize you and
- Let's go ahead and call the roll on on the amendment to strike number five in the Student housing definition
- No Holmes yes Kinsey yes Stossburg no Whistler yes Bishop
- Yes Was that a no It was yes Burrell yes seaboard. Yes Believe that was that five yeses All right. So
- the amendment carries then we are back to Any Additional questions on the petition as amended and
- Let's go to public comment now on Mr. Sussberg Unrelated one about the very first one which is setbacks.
- So it Says that if if a building is Against a platted alley then setbacks can be reduced. Is that for
- primary structures or accessory structures or both?
- Think there is a different section that talks about Accessory structures if there is a garage component
- having a reduced setback from an alley Any other questions All right, let's go then to public comment
- on the petition as amended is there any public comment on
- Zio twenty twenty six dash zero two dash zero zero zero Four as amended All right seeing them we were
- back to the Commission and he found a discussion before the call the roll All right, please call the roll
- Oh wait we need a motion. Sorry. Is there is there a motion to approve zero twenty twenty six oh two
- oh four as amended. Motion. Is there a second. Second. OK. Let's call the roll on the motion to approve
- the petition as amended. Holmes. No.
- Yes, Stossburg. Yes Whistler, yes Bishop yes, Burrell. Yes Seabour. Yes Korotky. Yes All right. The
- motion carries the petition is approved We are now on to our final petition of the evening. It says
- P 2026-03-0005
- Final plan approval for construction of five buildings at 1320 South Roger Street. And I think we've
- got Eric Drulik, are you gonna present this one? I'll be presenting. Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner.
- All right, Gabriel, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking at the next one. Go ahead, Gabriel.
- This is, I'm sorry, this is,
- Let me restate this. This is SP 2026-03-0004, right? Major site plan approval at 503 North Rogers. Still
- getting used to this new agenda format. Sorry about that. Okay, let's see if the screen shows there.
- There it is, okay. You know this is the planning commission. So this is for,
- proposed development at 503 North Rogers Street. Pardon me while I get my papers in order here. Okay,
- the petitioner is requesting major site plan approval.
- who allow construction of a dwelling common multi-family use in the mixed use downtown zoning district
- within the showers technology downtown character overlay. We abbreviate that MD-ST. This is an aerial
- image of the area with the site highlighted. Just to the right, to the east of the site is Rogers Street
- running north to south.
- And then along that curved edge is what's now the Beeline Trail. And to the left on the west side is
- Fairview Street. And across it, the open area that you see there is Reverend Ernest D. Butler Park.
- And then to the south, it also has frontage on 9th Street. This is currently a metal recycling
- facility known as Bloomington Iron and Metal or BIM. It's also historically been known as Fell Iron
- and Metal or Fell Iron. The site's about 5.2 acres. It's, as we said, zone mixed use downtown. It's
- within the Showers Technology Downtown Character Overlay. That name, Showers Technology, might not be
- so familiar because now we usually call it the trades district.
- The trades district is also a state certified innovation district, which has slightly different boundaries
- than the character overlay. But suffice to say, we're talking about zoning that's designed with the
- trades district in mind. Uh, in the comprehensive plan, it's part of downtown it's existing usage, salvage
- or scrap yard. And the proposed land use is a multifamily dwelling. And then there's a small portion,
- which is non-residential as well.
- This is a proposed site plan. I don't expect you to be able to read that at all up on the screen now.
- It's more for illustrative purposes. As I tell you that the petitioner proposes to redevelop the site
- as a mixed use multifamily development. The proposal comprises 360 dwelling units with a total of 760
- bedrooms distributed in three buildings. The building closest to Roger Street, which is building B,
- that's the one on sort of the
- upper right of the screen. Building B contains leasing and amenity space for the residences,
- as well as 3,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, and that's the portion closest to Roger
- Street on the right side of the screen. A fourth building, which is the one in the lower left, is a
- parking garage for the development. The proposal includes
- 292 total parking spaces, which includes 17 surface spaces near the non-residential space and 275 spaces
- in the garage. So there's a lot of information in the staff report. I hope you have a chance to look
- at it. For this presentation, I'm actually going to sort of go backwards. I'm going to start with the
- proposed conditions, because I think this is a good way of going over some of the things that are worth
- considering with this site.
- So the first recommended condition, so sorry, skip to the end. Staff's recommending approval, but with
- conditions, with 10 of them, which is a lot. And I'd say that's reflective of the complicated nature
- of the site and not a reflection of we have to like catch up because they did a bad job with the application.
- That can happen too sometimes. But I'd say this is more a reflection of the complicated nature of the site.
- So first one, a site development permit is required prior to any land disturbance. This is actually
- a requirement of the UDO. It wouldn't have to be a condition, but it's in here for clarity. We like
- to put these in there just to make sure everyone understands that you have to get a site development
- permit. And then there's this extra thing, which is gonna be relevant for condition number three, soil
- borings are not land disturbance.
- Keep that in mind. That also would be true whether or not it was a condition, but we felt it was clear
- to have it as a recommended condition. So the next condition, final acceptance and approval from City
- of Bloomington Utilities is required prior to issuance of a site development permit. So ideally, when
- it gets to you here at Planning Commission, we like to have
- all the plans approved by the relevant city boards, or city departments. In this case, they haven't
- quite got there with CBU. And the petitioner's been in communication with City Blumentine Utilities,
- CBU, since last autumn and has submitted two rounds of formal submittals to CBU. CBU just sent back
- second round comments today, so the petitioner's not had time to react to them and certainly it's not
- reflected in the packet.
- At this time, you'll see when we get to the findings, staff is recommending that all of the remaining
- issues with CBU can be resolved without altering the site plan that you're looking at. So there's gonna
- be some specific things that are probably have to change, but it's not gonna change the layout of the
- buildings or the layout of the stormwater infrastructure. So two of the things that came in CBU comments
- that is just to give you some information,
- Was that there's there's an existing public storm sewer that runs from from the park on the west side
- of the site through the site and then eventually to public infrastructure in downtown it eventually
- gets to Clear Creek down by switch our park but so there's there's an existing private storm show that
- goes across the site there they're proposing to relocate that because of the the development they want
- to do in the site and
- And currently, it's shown as tying into private infrastructure on the lot immediately to the southeast.
- CBU has an extremely strong preference that it tied directly into public infrastructure and Rogers Street.
- So that would have to be reoriented a little bit. However, even if that change is made, it
- can be accommodated in the site plan without moving any of the buildings around.
- CBU comments also indicated that outflow rates from the proposed underground stormwater detention exceed
- allowed release rates. Without going into any of the technical stuff, which is not something that I'm
- an expert in, our understanding, speaking with CBU and the petitioner, is that there are multiple ways
- of resolving that discrepancy. They don't know which way they're gonna do yet or which way CBU would prefer.
- And of those multiple ways of doing it some of them are definitely going to be feasible and some of
- them and none of them involve any changes to the site plan So The third recommended condition I'll just
- read it here and then explain what we're talking about here after removal of all existing material piles
- on the site the petitioner shall conduct additional soil testing at least at
- at least three additional boring locations, locations to be determined by the planning and transportation
- department. The petitioner shall send the results of the additional soil testing as well as the previous
- soil test results contained in the phase two environmental site assessment to Indiana Department of
- Environmental Management, IDEM, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Confirmation
- that soil test results were sent to IDEM and EPA shall be submitted
- to the planning and transportation department prior to issuance of a site development permit. So what
- this is about is there's a known history of soil contamination on the site, particularly PCBs. There
- was an EPA order from 1988 that required a Superfund cleanup of PCB contamination related to Westinghouse
- Electrical Corporation.
- The EPA required cleanup was completed in 1996. There's some more information in the packet about that.
- The petitioner did a phase one environmental site assessment, which sort of identifies some of the background
- and identifies the things that you'd want to look more carefully at. And then in a phase two environmental
- site assessment completed, I guess the report was completed in January, but they did a lot of the work
- December The phase two assessment went and looked at the things identified in the phase one of what
- do we need to look at again? And they did soil boring there in testing and Those test results showed
- that all soil component concentrations were less than applicable state and federal screening levels
- So it's it's showing that it's in compliance, which is good because we don't want Potentially hazardous materials
- on this site where people are going to live and during the development. But given the history, it's
- very likely that, or it's very possible that there could be PCBs or other hazardous materials still
- in the soil, either from originally, you know, back 1980s or earlier, or from use as a scrap metal yard.
- So the phased
- One environmental assessment noted that they couldn't access under the materials piles that are there
- now. And so this recommendation that once the petitioner fully acquires the site, currently I believe
- they have a purchase option or something. The owner of record is still Fell Iron for that matter. So
- once they have a full possession of the site or it's cleared by Fell Iron that they do more soil testing
- at at least three locations under some of those piles.
- And then the other part of that is to make sure that they're in contact with IDEM and EPA. So we in
- the city of Bloomington do not want to be enforcing state or federal environmental regulations because
- that's a huge task and there are already state and federal agencies dedicated to that. But we do want
- to make sure that they're in communication with them to take all required steps and all recommended
- steps as well to just make sure that it stays safe. So as a summary all the evidence right now points
- to it's safe.
- There's not a soil hazard there now. But given the history, we'd like to do work to make sure that that
- stays true through the development and through people living there. So that's what this condition is
- getting at.
- Okay, fourth condition. The 3,000 square foot non-residential space may be used for any lawful
- non-residential use or combination of lawful non-residential uses that are allowed in the zoning district
- as currently allowed in the MDSD district or as the use table may be amended in the future. This is
- really just adding for clarity because we're gonna see in the next condition we talk a lot about the
- residential portion and what use that is. So for this one, just wanted to clarify that it really could
- be anything that's allowed there. It can't be a dwelling unit.
- Because that would change the multifamily side of it. But we're saying any non-residential use,
- that's a lot, but the UDO is fine. So it could be a restaurant. It could be an office. It's the trades
- district. So it could be some technology company. Any of these things are possible. So this one is about
- the residential use. So it's defined as dwelling multifamily. That is the proposal.
- But as you saw when you were looking at the proposed UDO amendments, it's often, there can be developments
- where it's a little ambiguous whether it's properly classified as multifamily dwelling or student housing.
- So they're coming in as multifamily dwelling. It's allowed in the MDST district. The use student housing
- or dormitory is a conditional use in this district, so it's theoretically possible,
- it's a conditional use who'd have to go to the BZA, and there's completely different use-specific standards
- that will apply to it, that they're not, they wouldn't be meeting with the site plan because it was
- designed to meet the multifamily housing standards. So it's coming in as multifamily, but you know,
- it's a large development, it's downtown, the,
- Petitioner wanted clarity from the city that we wouldn't change our mind later based on some of the
- subjective criteria that's in the UDO now. The city wants clarity that it is gonna be multifamily housing.
- So with that in mind, the petitioner proposed some statements of commitment to record and those, there
- are nine items in there.
- And the staff recommends that a, sorry, there are eight in what they proposed. Staff recommends that
- an additional one be added for a total of nine. And the one is drawn from some of the language you were
- just looking at. So this would be drawing from what will become, well, if it goes through city council,
- what will become the requirement for developments in the future.
- to read to ensure that the residential use is dwelling common multifamily that the property owners shall
- record a statement of commitments including the eight items listed in the draft commitments document
- provided with the submittal with the addition of the following item individual rooms will not be advertised
- or leased by the room. The statement of commitment shall be recorded with them on our county recorder
- prior to final occupancy. So this is something that they'd have to record really by the end of the process.
- quite late in the process. And individual rooms not be advertised at least by room, that's taken directly
- from the proposed language. And it's already, they already get to it in their proposed commitments.
- They say there won't be roommate matching, which is basically it gets to the same thing. But
- we're recommending to take that language from the proposed UDM so that it will be multifamily.
- Okay, sixth recommended condition, offsite tree planting as required by adopted condition two of variance
- approval V-24-25 slash ZR-2025-09-0097 shall be implemented in accordance with the executed memorandum
- of understanding and shall be completed prior to final occupancy.
- So this variance was the second package of variances that this development had at the BZA. It was granted
- in December, this past December, 2025. And it allows removal of existing wooded areas on the site. It
- also allows planting fewer trees on site than otherwise required in an exchange for a commitment to
- plant mitigation trees offsite.
- The petitioner, Graystar, well actually, yes, the proposed developer, Graystar, has executed a memorandum
- of understanding with the City of Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning
- and Transportation Department, executed last month to implement the off-site tree planting required
- by the variance. The MOU only becomes effective if you approve this site plan petition. And generally just the,
- Executed mo use in the packet, but the process generally is planning and transportation will say how
- many trees they have to plant Parks and recreation will identify locations in parks and in right-of-way
- to plant them and will also Provide specifications of how they should be planted the you know planning
- procedures and what kind of materials to use the petitioner will then plant them then parks and recreation
- will inspect them and
- and then planning and transportation will confirm that it's all been checked out and that will have
- to happen before final occupancy. Okay, seventh proposed condition is pedestrian easements for the multi-use
- path and the portions of public sidewalks on private property shall be recorded with the Monroe County
- recorder in a form acceptable to the City of Bloomington Engineering Department prior to final occupancy.
- This is a normal thing for when we have public
- sidewalks on private property. So because of... Let's see. So the proposed site plan includes a new
- multi-use path approximately located along the south edge of the site. It'll be open to the public and
- provide a direct pedestrian bicycle connection through the site from Rogers Street on
- the east at the beeline trail, all the way through to Butler Park on the west. The multi-use path is
- 10 feet wide. And, yes. And so also, some of the required public sidewalks due to limited existing
- right-of-way width, particularly Fairview's very narrow existing right-of-way, portions of the public
- sidewalks will be located
- out of the public right of way and on private property. So in these cases, the UDO requires that public
- infrastructure be placed in a pedestrian easement. For the sidewalks, they would also have the option
- to dedicate right of way, but they're not taking that option. They'd prefer to just put it on pedestrian
- easement. So the purpose of this condition is to make sure that that happens. Okay, the petitioner,
- Recommended condition of rate the petitioner shall make a payment in lieu to the city of Bloomington
- housing development fund prior to final occupancy The amount of the payment shall be 15 percent of the
- total number of bedrooms With any fraction rounded up to the nearest whole number multiplied by twenty
- thousand dollars So this is how they're they're gonna earn the affordable housing incentive which gives
- them some extra building footprint and some extra height
- The amount of the payment is calculated based on administrative procedures that are referenced in the
- UDO. At the time of their first formal filing for petition, for their first variance package, that formal
- filing was May 30th, 2025. Right at that point, the administrative procedures were in the process of
- being changed. But staff finds it reasonable to use the calculation that had most recently been published
- and publicly available during that process of change.
- And that's what the petitioner had relied on in good faith, which is 15% of the bedrooms times $20,000.
- That 15% number comes from if they had provided on-site affordable units. 15% of the total units would
- have to be affordable. So that's where that 15% comes from.
- And the ninth, this gets to their sustainable development incentive. The development shall achieve silver
- certification by the Home Innovation National Green Building Standard, NGBS green certified rating system.
- Confirmation from NGBS of silver certification or equivalent confirmation as deemed acceptable by the
- Planning and Transportation Department shall be submitted to the department prior to final occupancy.
- The sustainable, in order to achieve
- earn sustainable development incentives, there's various options in the UDO. They have chosen this particular
- one. And so we're simply saying, that's a, you know, sounds like a great choice. We just want to make
- sure that you carry through. So this is just making sure that they do something by final occupancy.
- Just to highlight here, it's discussed a little bit in the staff report. They're not going to get the
- certification before people move in.
- So we we expect that people will move in based on a temporary certificate of occupancy and then the
- time between that and a final occupancy will be enough time. Staff believes will be enough time to actually
- achieve the certification if they're to a point where they don't actually have the letter from NGBS.
- and they really are ready for final occupancy. I think the language in there about equivalent confirmation
- is they could provide what they submitted to NGBS, things like that. Okay, final, last thing. Petitioner
- will continue to work with staff on revisions to the parking garage to be compliant with UDO requirements.
- This was something that staff, so I didn't finish following up with them, but it seems like the garage,
- so there are,
- use specific standards that apply to parking garages, whether or not they're a primary use, and to the
- facades of them, especially facades facing a street. It's just not buttoned up that the garage design
- fully meets all of the requirements, but it's at least very close, and maybe it's just a matter of getting
- confirmation that what they're proposing actually does meet. So this is just to make sure that we follow
- up on that.
- Okay, so the proposed finding, it has to address these four things, compliance with the UDO, compliance
- with other applicable regulations, compliance with utility service and improvement standards, and compliance
- with prior approvals regarding compliance with the UDO. The proposed finding, as proposed and with required
- commitments, the residential component of the development is the dwelling comma multifamily use.
- The proposed site plan complies with the standards of the UDO for the dwelling multifamily use and for
- this location as modified by the variances, those numbers. Other applicable regulations, the provided
- phase one and phase two environmental site assessment reports show that the site is currently in compliance
- with applicable state and federal environmental standards. And the petitioner will continue working
- with IDEM and EPA to maintain compliance
- Demolition delay was released on December 14th, 2025, allowing demolition of the existing contributing
- structures on the site. Compliance with utility service and improvement standards, proposed utilities
- are in review by CBU, and final acceptance of the plans as satisfactory for utility and services standards
- are required prior to issuance of a site development permit.
- The proposed site plan complies with relevant fire code standards, including standards for fire apparatus
- access roads. And finally, compliance with prior approvals, the proposed site plan complies with the
- conditions of prior variance approvals, those numbers. The proposed site plan allows for the redevelopment
- of the 5.2 acre site adjacent to downtown, providing a large number of new dwelling units that help
- meet the need for more housing in the Bloomington community
- and enhance the long-term viability of the trades district as an employment hub within downtown.
- So with that, the Planning and Transportation Department recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
- the proposed findings and approve SP2026-03-0004 with the 10 conditions listed in the staff report.
- Thank you. Thank you. Is there a representative of the petitioner who would like to add to the presentation tonight?
- Thank you. Good evening. My name is John Anast Do I need to spell that? Okay. All right. Great. Well,
- thank you all Appreciate your time and really want to thank all the members of the Commission and city
- staff that we've been working with for the past year Definitely appreciate your time and attention tonight
- to this I'm a director of development for gray star and we are a developer owner and operator and
- multifamily housing We build these communities we operate them We manage them and we remain invested
- them remain invested in them for the long term Long after construction is complete if you go down Roger
- Street today What you see at this corner is a chain link fence and a scrap metal operation that's been
- there since the 1950s and
- This site as mentioned earlier went through a Superfund cleanup in the 1990s and has since Run as a
- salvage yard since our phase one and two testing did indicate that that cleanup was successful and we
- also agree with the request of staff to do additional testing and
- Our environmental consultant is very thorough and was happy to do that additional testing and work with
- both state and federal regulators to confirm that That the cleanup was done And it'll also be monitored
- and in full compliance throughout the construction and the operation of the property Currently there's
- no sidewalk connecting The beeline trail to the park and
- Walked it today and it's a long walk that you've got to go around and so What we're proposing Is something
- that aligns with your zoning we see the five point two acres as the front door to the trades district
- and a site that plays a pivotal role in What this district is achieving? Can really see that it's a
- vibrant center for innovation
- There's lots of entrepreneurship there and future economic growth opportunities. The mill and the forge
- are open. There's a hotel that is coming, and the momentum is real, and there is a need for more housing
- options near downtown and in the trades district. The trades district vision plan calls for exactly
- this. Housing alongside of office, retail, and restaurants
- complete a complete neighborhood That attracts and retains talent in Bloomington Right now where that
- neighborhood should be there's a chain-link fence and a scrap yard and our project hopes to fill that
- gap What we're proposing is a transformation on this site 360 apartments across a range of unit types
- built to the national green building standards silver certificate
- Silver certification and that's something that we've built to before we believe in it and can definitely
- be achieved on this project as well We're also as mentioned where we are including some ground floor
- retail along Roger Street and We definitely want to be a part of the trades district Continue the energy
- into this area Also mentioned is the new 10-foot
- Trail that connects the beeline through the site to Butler Park We're also proposing extensive landscaping
- on site the zoning in this area generally has Smaller sites but given the overall size of this project
- there's going to be extensive landscaping on site and also as mentioned earlier the off-site plantings
- will include over a hundred and forty off-site trees to be planted and
- With the Parks Department. We're also making a direct financial contribution to the city's
- housing development fund Our architect Burt with ESG is here tonight and walk you through the design
- in more detail When you see what he and his team have done with the massing the materials and how these
- buildings meet the street I think you'll understand the level of care that's gone into this We didn't
- design this project from a template. We designed it for this site and for this neighborhood and
- I want to close with this. Bloomington needs more housing, and the most responsible place to add it
- is where the city already has planned for it. That is this site. In downtown, where the zoning plans
- for it. The trades district vision plans calls for a complete walkable neighborhood, and this project
- helps deliver that. It also contributes approximately $2.3 million
- To the city's housing development fund to support dedicated affordable housing our proximity to the
- beeline trail bus stop adjacent to the site and it's close proximity downtown the jobs and where most
- of our residents will be living working and enjoying life in Bloomington will be a short walk away bike
- ride and This location is very favorable for that
- We've worked with your staff for the past year and it's been a pleasure working with them. We received
- two unanimous BZA approvals and staff is recommending approval with conditions tonight and we accept
- every one of them. I respectfully ask for your approval and happy to answer questions and thank you
- for your time. Here's Bert. Thank you.
- Good evening, President Whistler, commissioners. It's a pleasure to be with you this evening. My name
- is Bert Coffin. I'm an architect and principal with ESG Architects. What I'd like to do briefly tonight
- is walk through the site plan with you, show you, kind of discuss a little bit how the site works. It's
- been touched on quite a bit, so I'm going to go fairly quickly and then talk a little bit about the
- architecture of the buildings. So if we could go to the next page.
- As mentioned so the main access through the site is a private drive that will be spanning from Rogers
- to Fairview Street as you can see the garage entrance is oriented towards Rogers Street and we anticipate
- that most of the vehicular traffic that's coming into the site will come off of Rogers.
- If there are drop-offs or deliveries, they could use the turnaround in front of the main front door
- of Building B where the leasing office will be located and several of the amenities as well. And then
- on the right there, that little piece that sticks out closest to Rogers is the retail space. The multi-use
- path is shown fairly well on this exhibit. It's along the south side of the site, but just north of
- Building C,
- Where the site kind of hooks down a little bit? This plan also shows that each of these buildings Has
- individual entries and two of the buildings building a the one closest on Fairview has its own small
- lobby Facing Fairview which is appropriate for buildings on any public right-of-way and then building
- C It's kind of hard to see on this plan But also has a small lobby on 9th Street
- Although there is also a lobby internal to the site for that building which which we believe a lot of
- residents will use as well Next slide, please These are typical upper floor plans just to give you a
- sense of how the buildings are laid out how the units are working next slide, please and Then this is
- the top floor as Gabriel said we went through BZA last June and one of the variances we received was for the
- top floor step backs. So as you can see on Fairview there, we have a significant top floor step back
- to soften the building height. The same goes with building C, even though it's not visible to me. And
- then building B has it as well. Next slide, please. From Roger Street, the main entrance shows the retail
- space as front and center.
- And then in the near distance on the left is building C and building B. These buildings are building
- B there on the right is four stories and steps up to five stories. Next slide please. Here you can get
- a sense of the entrance to building B and the turnaround with the right there in front of the front
- door of building B. Next slide please.
- As you can see from this view along Fairview Street, these residential buildings speak the same architectural
- language to create a consistent campus feel. The primary building materials are a mix of brick and glass
- and board and batten detailing. These traditional materials are used in a more contemporary manner with
- the lighter weight board and batten materials used primarily on the upper floors. The window fenestration
- is regular and vertically oriented.
- This architecture bridges the more domestic residential architecture of the near west side neighborhood
- with the older industrial style buildings of the Showers Trades District where we are tonight. The parking
- garage which is on the far right of this image will also be clad in brick as you see it from the right
- of way and some of the board and batten materials. Next slide please.
- Along the beeline trail, which is we all think is a fantastic amenity for the city of Bloomington. You
- can see that the building step and so it's not one long massive facade, but it's a series of smaller
- facades that breaks down the massing of the building. Next slide, please. And here you can see how they
- create these small courtyards and small spaces that will be filled with landscaping.
- Next slide. This is building C along 9th Street There's quite a bit of grade change on this site as
- as many of you may know it drops almost 20 feet from the far southwest on Fairview to Roger Street What
- we're really doing is taking advantage of this grade change and tucking the buildings into the hillside
- on 9th Street for instance here
- the building will appear to be three stories and then steps back to four, whereas when you're within
- the site it's a five story building. And then next slide please. And then this is the intersection of
- 9th and Fairview looking back to the south, what is that, to the northeast I guess. And it gives you
- a little bit of a sense of scale of how these buildings, we're really hoping to nestle them into the hillside
- And the site is really perfectly set up for that. So we're using the site to do that Overall we believe
- that the high quality architecture and the site arrangement will meet city goals For bringing much-needed
- housing and reposition the site That's all I have for now, but we're here for any questions you may
- have thank you Thank you
- Are there questions from commissioners for either staff or for the petitioner? Go ahead, Commissioner
- Bishop. Well, thank you for your presentation. It was very informative. I do have several questions
- for the petitioners. I guess starting off,
- 360 units, 760 beds, can you help understand a little bit of what the mix is as far as the actual units
- themselves? Are they mostly single, double, triple, so on and so forth?
- Bishop The the mix is as a widespread. It's less than one-third three bedrooms But there are a fair
- number of three bedrooms and then I would say the smaller units the studios in the one bedrooms. That's
- probably 15 to 15 percent let's say and then the rest of them would be two-bedroom units By the bedroom
- All of our units will be rented out by the unit and there's no per bedroom leasing and that's one of
- the commitments in the staff report and also Gabriel referenced eight additional commitments have been
- made and that's in there as well. So This project will be leased by the unit
- Is there a reason why these units are being leased instead of you know put together as like apartments
- that could be sold for permanent housing because you keep referencing the city's goals of adding more
- housing and this is not what they mean when they say they want to add more housing they want to add
- houses that people can occupy permanently is
- Owners, they don't want more apartments. We have lots of apartments. So could you help me understand
- why? Adding another 760 rentable beds that no one can own would be a good idea Yeah, and if it's okay
- to maybe go through some of the research and things that we looked at here in your community Currently
- there's approximately 97 percent occupancy in the for rental housing space. So I
- what that's led to over the past approximate 10 years is higher annual rent increases than what you
- might see in other markets. And so the additional supply of four rent apartments helps alleviate the
- supply and demand imbalance. And so by offering additional four rent apartments, it helps offset the
- increases that some people are paying in rent
- acknowledge that your question is specifically about the product being for sale and the project that
- we're proposing and what our company builds across the country is generally apartments for rent and
- that's just to help the residents that have that need at that point in time and provide a market competitive
- product that Is on alignment with the broader goals of the community as well and
- Sure, I understand. I did a little research on you guys, and you focus on senior housing, student housing,
- warehousing, and modular homes. And that fourth one would be really appealing to our community in terms
- of adding more housing and making more permanent housing in Bloomington. So is there a particular reason
- why you decided to go for more of a for-profit? You want to continue to get rents and leases from the
- community for a long-term play rather than providing more permanent housing
- We desperately need here Yeah You mentioned some of the product types and our largest and The the team
- working here today our major focus is Multi-use for rent apartments. We do have groups that do those
- various other elements and the the reason that we've proposed apartments on this site is because
- We believe that that's what the market would find to be most supported from a Demand perspective and
- so the various product types that you mentioned could be applicable to Different sites but given this
- site's proximity former use and some of the potential challenges that exists there we've proposed and
- Suggested this is the best use Was a planned unit development for that space because it's like what
- six acres I mean you could put a lot of modular homes on something like that Yeah, and that is something
- that we do build the there's a few factors that go into play when when we do utilize modular like you
- mentioned that's something that our company does and
- for this site The product type and the construction that we're proposing is what we felt would meet
- the the market demand the best And can you give me a bit of an idea in terms of what? These units will
- cost on a monthly basis, you know, I can go from low end to high end just ballpark Yeah, I don't have
- exact figures that I can provide right now by and large our goal would be to make them market competitive and
- given the duration to start construction construction a few years from now the market could look a little
- bit different than it does today, but our goal is to mark that market these as Market apartments for
- rent at the current market rate And so in Bloomington the current market rates around eighteen hundred
- dollars nineteen hundred dollars a month Are you proposing something in line with that? It in general
- That's our general concept But again when we open it would be based off of where those rates are at
- at that time to be competitive with the overall market Sure, I understand moves but you know decreasing
- rents in general is not going to be bring them in at market rents I mean that doesn't help because we're
- just perpetuating the problem, right? I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I understand that. Can you
- ask that again? I
- So if you bring in new units at the same rent as everyone else How is that alleviating or lowering rent
- across the board? I think in a few ways Directly by increasing the supply As I'm sure you all are looking
- to do you want to increase jobs? The trades district is innovating should be additional jobs if we don't
- bring additional supply to the market you might see even further outpaced rent growth
- So generally what we see is the more apartment supply that comes it helps alleviate the rate of growth
- and then secondly we are also Working with the housing fund and making an affordable contribution as
- part of the part of the project Could you tell me a little bit about your Bren Road development
- in Minnetonka, Minnesota Say that again
- You guys have a Bren Road development in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It doesn't look too different than what
- you're trying to do here. That started in 2022 and as of like the August of 2024, you guys had just
- broken ground and it was supposed to open in summer of 2026, but looking at pictures as of April this month.
- It's not even under roof yet And so I mean we're looking at six years on a project like that where you
- got a three point three million dollar TIF buy-in from the city and it's doggedly behind and you know
- on something like this where we desperately need that housing especially affordable housing This has
- a concern for me in terms of being able to actually get it across the finish line So could you help
- me understand that a little bit? Who works on that project Sign in real quick
- Bert works on that one, too. So you got the right group Haley Vergados senior director of Real estate
- development at Grey Star sit in Minnesota. Actually that one's opening this year End of the month. So
- we broke ground 23 for 24 You know with every development project obviously we're working really hard
- to kind of
- Get projects across the finish line. That was certainly no no small feat. That was a big project. I
- think it's about 269 units of multi
- Family conventional product done with ESG a really beautiful project that we're super proud of Unfortunately
- right as you know interest rates and all the fun things kind of came on line that one certainly had
- its its Challenges, but we were successful getting it across the finish line as well as getting it through
- the entitlement process Which is a lengthy process in Minnesota, so You know worked really hand-in-hand
- with the city. It's been a partnership Certainly and so we're actually
- Really really proud of bringing that one online and bringing much needed supply to the market to John's
- point every time you add more supply to the market it helps kind of
- Normalize rank growth and that actually does make the communities we serve more affordable Inherently,
- we're delivering market rate product It still costs us quite a bit to build these projects, but it helps
- kind of bring the overall supply in the market Taper that rank growth and keep it within balance and
- that's important I think for for the communities and the residents we serve
- it with regards to your development in Minnesota today have any of the Environmental concerns that this
- current site has like being a superfund site that project. I don't believe that
- Any environmental issues we do tackle kind of environmental cleanups all around the country not unfamiliar
- to us We kind of follow all kind of state and and federal regulations and and certainly something we
- don't take lightly So safety is always of utmost concern for both residents as well as the folks working
- out in the field. So No different here. Certainly it's more of a concern of just the timing and the amount of
- Depth that may have to go into something that is former Superfund site with PCBs things like that surrounding
- neighbor You know residential neighborhoods having dust in the air I mean that seems to be a significantly
- bigger lift than just getting through, you know a TIF agreement with a city or something like that in
- Minnesota because it's a little more challenging so could you kind of speak to how you would handle
- a major environmental remediation effort and
- Today we don't believe there's an environmental concern we've went and done significant testing and
- done borings and our phase two Came back clean so consistent with the EPA is clean up in the 90s So
- the three additional borings that we'll be doing is just to agree on
- Confirm what we've what we've already kind of assessed out on the site in the event We found something
- we will have to follow standard kind of rules and regulations Both state and federal and and so that's
- kind of what that condition is alluding to not that They're necessarily is a belief that there's something
- out there today It's just more there were stockpiles that we couldn't snag a sample from underneath.
- So it's a more of a confirmation check Okay Appreciate that
- Last question that I have here is regarding the retail space So Bloomington has a long history of making
- sure we have a lot of retail space or commercial space available whenever we do housing projects and
- things like that and just across the street spitting distance from where you want to put this the Trades
- district has this gorgeous 4,000 square foot retail commercial space that has sat empty for four years.
- Oh, sorry six years You would be in direct competition with the city for that
- Meaning you'd need to find a tenant just as much as they would How is that going to be beneficial? I
- just I don't see the purpose of having it there Thank You Haley for your feedback there and just want
- to point out that part of the site requirement here and allow staff to confirm this that there is a
- retail component on this project and so I
- our goal on projects is to make sure that we can activate the space and Market it to perspective tenants
- in a way that will be desirable as I'm sure you're doing with with your facility as well And so there's
- a few different ways that we do that The goal is to make sure that we size the spaces properly to where
- the most businesses find demand and so how we're proposing to do it is to make sure that You know, we
- we give the tenants their
- the right building infrastructure, the support to build out their business and that we size the units
- appropriately so we don't overburden them with the large amount of space that might not be fully income
- producing for them. So it's a requirement and we want to have a very strong plan so that space can be
- activated and not sit there vacant. Okay, thank you, appreciate it. Any other questions on this end?
- Thank you for your presentation just really just about the the parking about 300 parking spots 700 or
- 800 Bedrooms is my understanding. Is that a typical balance? Do you guys expect that parking to be adequate?
- How much spillover do you expect into the neighborhoods? Yeah, appreciate it
- answer your question directly. Yeah, we do a lot of studying on parking demand. There's a lot of factors
- that go into that. It's proximity to different services, the walkability of a site, transit, bike paths,
- and given the things that are very favorable to this site, we've factored that into our analysis. And
- from a general code perspective, I know that you all have a maximum parking limit and then also a minimum
- parking limit.
- We're in between those two to be in compliance and further than just compliance. We want to make sure
- that it's the right amount so that way to your question we don't have spillover and so we We take a
- look and we analyze like I said all the factors previously and believe that between the provided spaces
- in the parking garage and the other on-site parking spaces that will meet the demand of what our residents
- will need and
- We also try to look at it forward-looking knowing how transits changing with different ride sharing
- opportunities and different advancements and vehicles where people can share the we look at these on
- this on every project and we really want to make sure we get this right because that number needs to
- serve the residents of the building and the quantities that we came up with here were Analyzed very
- deeply and we believe that we have that right amount and it is also within
- Your all's code within the code maximum and above the code limit Thank you, you're welcome I just had
- a couple questions. Thanks again also. Oh I guess and maybe this is my question for a staff or perhaps
- Andrew would want to weigh in on the kind of the traffic flow so if you're exiting onto Fairview
- You'd have to probably go all the way down to 8th Street to get back over to Rogers And so just curious
- from like a Congestion standpoint in that neighborhood. Those streets are all pretty sure I know we
- also only have a stop sign a four-way at 7th and Rogers So would we need to consider additional
- infrastructure along there? So that may be a question more for staff
- But obviously, welcome to chime in. One way to answer that is the way the UDO is set up. There are some,
- the way the UDO is set up for by right developments like this. So this is not coming in as a plan unit
- development or a rezone or things that require discretionary approval.
- So in situations like this, the UDO is set up to require certain things immediately adjacent to the
- site, but typically not things that are off-site. That said, it's very possible for developments in
- general to create new needs or new challenges with traffic in the city. And that's, you know, that's on
- the city to respond to those things. I will say that the Rogers Street is right now going through a
- corridor study. It's the Rogers, Madison, Kinzer, Pike corridor study. I believe it goes from the bypass
- on the north-south to second street or farther south? I forget. Country Club, yes, all the way down.
- so you know so that so our long-range planning staff, you know to where that the Development services
- staff are the other half of the department is working on looking at this corridor right now And they've
- been meeting with these petitioners about things that they can do right, especially on their Roger Street
- frontage But you know, we're thinking about how developments like this developments in the trades district
- generally are going to impact traffic through their so I know your question was more about the other
- side of it Fairview and
- But I wanted to offer that as an example of the kind of things where the city, even if we're not in
- a situation where we can compel the developer to do a particular thing, the city is paying attention
- to these things and trying to respond to these things. As far as Fairview goes, there is a drive entrance
- that they're proposing. That interior drive goes all the way from Rogers through to Fairview, so someone
- can exit in a car
- onto Fairview and go that way, that's allowed by the UDO. But you'll see that the way they have it oriented
- and the entrance to the garage points you toward Rogers Street. And once someone gets in a car, where
- they go is, it's their own, their steering. But the design is set up in a way that if someone is gonna
- wanna go to Rogers Street,
- they're gonna go out to Rogers Street. They're not gonna go to Fairview. If they were going immediately
- to the near west side neighborhood for some reason, then that would be a good way to go. Potentially,
- if they're going toward the northwest, they might go out on Fairview and go north to 11th Street and
- so on. Fairview Street's very narrow. With this project, they are not fundamentally changing the nature
- of the street, but they are widening it from being
- not meeting our current standards to meeting our current standards for that narrow width of street and
- providing a curb to give it a little more definition to it, which we believe will help with making it
- clear where the road is will help with some of that traffic.
- As far as what's happens farther south, you know, there's a four-way stop at 8th and Fairview That's
- not really part of this petition. But as we notice these changes in the city, you know, I would throw
- it to Commissioner seabor city engineer seabor For you know, these are the kind of things that we look
- at and there might be changes that the city would would want to make I Think that's a fantastic answer.
- But if you would like to
- Any additional context to that question? I'd be happy to provide as well I also had some questions about
- the vehicular traffic both on Rogers and Fairview and is it one road cut then onto Fairview is that
- right Gabriel is that okay? There's also the multi-use path which will have its own
- on to Fairview, but as far as motor vehicle, there's just that one on Fairview. Okay, one, and then,
- and one onto Rogers. Not to complicate it further, but there is also a fire access lane, so like Gabriel
- mentioned earlier, there's a lot going on here, so that would be a third, but the primary vehicular
- traffic leaving the site would all be from one exit on Fairview. Okay, and how does that, you know,
- the crossing where the
- line crosses is always you know, I mean it's a significant safety Concern currently and the drive cut
- looks like it'll just be to the south of that current Am I right about that? That's where the fire lane
- comes out That would not be open to regular traffic so Not to say that there isn't any concern about
- the how that how that's close to the beeline but it's going to be way less of a concern than an entrance
- that had would have traffic all the time. So it's really only going to be fire trucks that would ever
- go down there. OK then just tell me again where the the actual road is in relation to where the beeline
- crosses over. What can you give me that. Or is there a image. I'm sorry. Yeah let me see if I can pull
- up a helpful image.
- I realize we're pretty limited on where we can cross here, but. So this is from the architectural plans.
- So this doesn't have any of the aerial imagery for context, so it is limited to that, but Fairview's
- on the left, and it's hard to make out, but the way up at the top,
- left is where the fire lane comes in. And then we have going down from there, south from there, going
- up the hill along Fairview. You see building A. And then there's that drive entrance, which will be
- a little bit south of where 10th Street comes into, the little stub end of 10th Street comes into Fairview
- from the west. And then there's the garage.
- and then the multi-use path, proposed new multi-use path comes up there, and then the entrance to the
- parking lot for Butler Park is a little bit south of that. Those are sort of the main things that are
- happening along that segment of Fairview Street in terms of entrances. And then my other question is
- about perhaps what might happen on 9th Street.
- for either off-street parking or access that, you know, I realize this is not part of your development,
- but I just wonder if you have thought about, given the building on that side, oh, I just lost my good
- image here, if there is any potential to flow onto, yes, so where building C is, are there entry points
- there off of 9th?
- that could encourage people to park and access online Pull that image that you just had up if that's
- possible Because the transcription kind of cuts off the bottom I wonder if there would be a different
- one that would be more useful But to answer your question in short there is
- The intention is that vehicles would be parking on the site. We have the provided parking for that,
- and that there would not be vehicle parking on 9th Street for this project. Pedestrians, as part of
- the code, there is a need to have access from the street, but our primary lobby occurs to the interior
- of the project, not on 9th Street, and so that's intended to be the primary lobby.
- closest path to residents being able to get their bikes and the other things that they need on the property
- and If it's okay for me to just explain briefly where we envision most of the traffic flow going similar
- to what Gabriel described earlier like I said, we really look closely at the parking on every project
- and like Gabriel mentioned the way that we Positioned the parking garage was to be in line with
- To Roger Street so you can drive in from Roger Street and as you're leaving the parking garage, you'll
- go out to Roger Street and this also matches some of the other things that we looked into of where it's
- most likely that the residents are going to be going from both an employment perspective and then also
- a services perspective and the majority of the employment base is either a walkable distance bikeable
- distance or
- Or if they are driving in a car the most likely route would be out Rogers and then heading north south
- on Rogers and then connecting to their desired location we do have the connectivity for safety reasons
- and fire access on our main street to Fairview and
- But the the majority of the traffic flow that we envision out of this site will be Through Roger Street
- and like we talked earlier the this site and the parking that we're proposing here We look at as I mentioned
- earlier all the things and we anticipate that there will be less vehicular traffic because of its walkability
- bike ability and proximity to employers in the area so
- We would view that if this project were 15 miles outside of the city a 360 unit apartment project will
- have a different traffic impact than a project in a downtown and So we've completed a traffic study
- and we have that I believe shared those results with staff and I don't want to try to summarize the
- overall results, but I think The general takeaway was that this project
- Has a minimal impact to the surrounding areas. I know that it'll be a point of discussion tonight and
- We've like Gabriel mentioned earlier. We've done a lot of things to position this site to Minimize impacts
- and one of those things like we talked about was the position of the parking garage to be easily accessible
- from Rogers for a pull-through condition and
- I'd just like to add that there are existing parking restrictions on many of these streets the north
- side of 9th Street Which is the immediately adjacent to where this property comes out of 9th Street
- and building C does not allow parking There is parking on the south side of 9th Street Parking on the
- south side of 9th Street there is allowed So you you would not it would not be legal to park directly
- in front of the building on 9th Street
- Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. I do have some questions. And again, some of the other questions have
- brought up more questions for me. So going to the fire lane, which is going to run kind of parallel
- to the B line, how or is there going to be
- Any kind of way to prevent other traffic from using the fire lane like is it going to be like like blocked
- off in some way that the fire department has a key but like normal people can't ride on it like tell
- me about that. Yeah, so we've we've looked at this overall site with the Bloomington Fire Department
- and things that both Bloomington Fire Department and ourselves have implemented successfully is creating
- like a landscape system and bollards that prevent
- vehicular traffic from going there but allow the larger emergency response vehicles to go through those
- landscape areas and It's a deterrent from Pedestria or vehicular traffic, but they're able to safely
- navigate that and that's one approach that we've discussed with your fire department and we Currently
- believe that that's the most successful way to achieve keeping people off of that
- But maintaining safe access While you're up there I my questions are on like, you know I don't love
- this new system that we have to do for accessibility because then I have so many different files with
- so many different questions attached to them, so You mentioned that you were gonna make a payment in
- lieu to the Housing Development Fund and you also mentioned that
- You guys actually manage your own properties after you build them So do you guys accept vouchers on
- your properties either section eight or any kind of? payment assistance Yeah, it's it would be project
- specific And so if you're asking specifically do we accept them elsewhere? It's project specific if
- they if that's something that that project has they do on this project I'm
- Like we said earlier with the way that we're going to be charging rents. That'll be something that's
- determined at the time of Opening and so today I don't have an exact answer on that question Okay, I
- guess I'm gonna encourage you to accept vouchers and
- You brought up that it's going to be Silver certified in terms of environmental stuff, but also in one
- of the paperwork and one of the documents it shows the gas line I'm just wondering if this is going
- to be an all-electric build or not There will be like you mentioned there will be gas service to this
- property the predominant use on this project for building heat is electric and
- That's one of the major uses of potentially natural gas And so this will be an electric cooling and
- an electric heating system in all of the units So yes, there is gas to the property But the majority
- of the consumption on the project for heating the units will be from electricity What is the gas going
- to be connected to them? it's used sometimes for
- Maybe I'll let my architect answer that. Thanks. No, that's a great question. Mostly for the boilers
- that will supply the hot water. So it's a smaller amount. And then I think we'll have some grills in
- the courtyard. People like to grill, so some amenity grills. So it's smaller things like that. But that's
- the current plan. It's all kind of in the works still. OK.
- this might be a question for staff on the On the Following conditions on condition number seven where
- it says pedestrian easements for that multi-use path, etc. Does that include like? Bicycle easement
- to because I mean it specifically says pedestrians, but it's a multi-use path and bicycles use multi-use paths. So
- is there any kind of specific terminology that needs to be put in there to make sure to include that
- and Similarly like our electric bicycles categorized somehow differently than anything else right now
- I Wonder if our city engineer would would know better I think as a general as a general principle the
- purpose of the pedestrian easement is
- is to allow the public to do anything there that they would do on a sidewalk. How that's exactly implemented
- in the language of the easement, I'm actually not sure. Those are reviewed by the engineering department.
- The planning department's role in it is just making sure that they do go through the engineering department
- and record those. So I don't know about the specifics, but the purpose would be anything you can do
- for the sidewalks, anything you do.
- Sidewalk you can do in the pedestrian easement and for the multi-use path anything you can do in a multi-use
- path You you should be able to do in there as well Okay, does our city engineer want to weigh in on
- that phrasing? But I almost wonder if in the udio there's definitions of pedestrian easements or something
- where it actually talks about bicyclists being apart or allowed on those I But that is something that
- we've want to make sure is incorporated
- We're happy to do either we like bicycles. We like peds So we're happy to have that language written
- in any manner that you know, you all want I just want to make sure that that's okay. So there is something
- in the video about pedestrian easements they must grant the Public right to access the pedestrian easement
- for purposes of walking running bicycling skating or using small motorized and non motorized vehicles
- approved by the city and
- grants the city the right to construct, alter, repair, maintain, or remove improvements within the easement
- area and prohibits placement of any obstruction. So that gets to it. So in order to comply with city
- standards, including in the UDO, the pedestrian easement must allow walking, running, bicycling, skating,
- and small motorized and non-motorized vehicles. Perfect. Thank you. And then I also had questions about
- accessibility
- The units in terms of the universal design and we've had a few I don't see any any of our CCA members
- here with us tonight specifically maybe thinking about Accessibility issues but one of the things that
- they've brought up is things like bathroom turnarounds and like wide doorways and switches at appropriate
- levels for wheelchairs and I guess I'm wondering whether those things are not just going to be in that
- you know minimum of I guess 20 percent units or the 2 percent that will be fully accessible but that
- if you're going to incorporate some of those basic design features that are pretty cheap and easy to
- put in in the beginning but ends up being a very difficult retrofit in the end and what your general
- approach to that is. It's a great question commissioner. Every unit will be on
- On the flat so there's no steps or anything. So every unit is accessible in that manner on every single
- floor and every upper floor is served by an elevator Will be required to meet fair housing clearances
- in all the dwelling units Required to have 2% ADA and accessible units, which we will be providing But
- that's very standard for what we do in projects. So That's that's what we're planning at this time
- Okay, so in terms of those other units that aren't those 2% like well are there do they have say narrower
- doorways or like or are they generally They have wide doorways as well We're required to have 36 inch
- doors on all the door openings to have 32 inch clearance free clearance so that you know in case somebody
- is in a chair at some point in time they can have the access but the specific
- You know accessible units which have the bathrooms with the turnarounds in them. That's a that's typically
- a smaller percentage of the units Let me let me make sure that I don't have Any others
- I also wanted to ask about traffic and the traffic study. I'm glad to hear that you did a traffic study.
- And I do have one more. I'm glad that you're going to do that written commitment about basically making
- sure that it doesn't turn into a student housing development. But I was also looking at kind of like
- your plans and kind of feeling like, well, most of these still have the same number of bathrooms as bedrooms.
- So there are a lot of three-bed, three-bath, two-bed, two-bath. And especially thinking about the three-bed,
- three-bath, is that something that, I mean, as somebody with kids, even as teenagers, it's like, I don't
- want to clean that many bathrooms. So if we're thinking about trying to rent those three-bedroom units
- to a single-family unit, that's not necessarily going to be three adults. So can you talk about,
- Why you decided to because there's definitely like I did see some three-bedroom two baths But I feel
- like I didn't count them all up, but I feel like there's more three and three You're very astute. It's
- a great question In much of our market rate multifamily now, we're getting calls for three beds and
- three baths that serve families And so yes, somebody is cleaning those bathrooms and
- But we've been seeing that in the market both in in all levels of market rate and kind of apartments
- so that's kind of what The market study has been seeing for this project. It's very typical for two
- beds to have two bathrooms Three bet we have three beds with two bathrooms and some three beds with
- three bad bass. That's true Make sure there's not one more somewhere
- That's it. Thank you Just picking up on some of the other questions parking Managing it. I guess just
- knowing the number will parking have a Will residents have to pay an extra fee to park or would they
- or they could maybe not pay an extra fee to park on adjacent streets or just how are you gonna manage
- where residents park and
- Generally To park in Bloomington from my experience here. You do have to pay to park And this project
- would be similar to that The rate we generally try to make sure is at or below the alternative Parking
- prices to make that a convenient option for our tenants so generally we do charge for parking and
- We also include open spaces And on this project specifically with having the retail element there will
- want to make sure that there is parking available for the customers of those business as well as visitors
- and guests so there will be a portion of the parking garage that is paid for but there also be a
- portion that is allocated to short-term use and So those exact figures have not been determined yet
- that I'm aware of but generally there's a Process that we go through to identify make sure we have the
- right amount that will be open for the retail users So that way their business can be successful I appreciate
- the intentionality have short-term use on site thinking of
- DoorDash deliveries and all the Amazon orders, how will that parking be managed or just over like enforced
- to make sure that's being used appropriately? Yeah, definitely. It's a big part of our operations and
- management on every project because As you're referencing our residents more and more wanting to have
- those services brought to them and so specifically on this project we've designed a
- Pull-through area in front of our building that you may have seen on one of the drawings and that's
- specifically to allow that temporary short-term use Delivery to not obstruct the the major Private drive
- that goes through the site and so that short-term Parking is available in front of the building and
- it also coincides with entries that are monitored so that way those folks can get
- Into the building make the delivery and then get on their way quickly and leaving the site There's also
- a turnaround there. So that way they don't are not forced to go out onto Fairview They'll be able to
- exit onto Rogers Great and then Transitioning back to another mention was the fire access route road
- The landscape drawing makes it look like a green
- Facility and the civil engineering drawing makes it look like a road and you mentioned bollards. I'm
- just trying to visualize What will this look like? I've heard vehicles will be prohibited from using
- it, but what's gonna keep me from driving through there? Yeah that the thing that will keep you from
- driving through it would be the at the entry and exit point there will be large landscaping like
- tall grasses and different planter curbs that would prevent a normal vehicle from being able to drive
- over it, but it's sized in a way that the different emergency response vehicles can approach that drive
- over it safely and do the things that they need to do and so City of Bloomington Fire Department has
- provided us some initial guidance on how they'd like that to look and
- The roadway itself will need to be something and based on code in there and the fire departments need
- something that can support their heaviest Response vehicle and so the eventual design of that will be
- something that the fire department allows for that fire access drive I Think I'm still trying to if
- a fire engine can drive through
- the tall grass I could probably drive my car around the tall grass, but is it maybe more like a Some
- kind of curbing that still it's not like a full driveway. I'm just trying to yeah, you're exactly right
- It would be you'd have your normal street curb You'd have your sidewalk and then you'd have like a planter
- curb an elevated planter curb with tall Vegetation in there to further discourage the use of it, but
- it's something that would
- either damage or discourage a vehicle from attempting that and Rather something that's still
- sized appropriately for a fire engine to go over it
- Maybe just to add to what John said is this is still a it's a great question and we still want to work
- it out with staff a little bit And with engineering because you know, there may be some kind of humping
- going on bollards We definitely don't want vehicles normal vehicles driving on that space If anything
- we want pedestrians, you know or residents using that but so that's a piece that definitely will be
- working on with with staff and
- Know that that sounds great. I saw a lot of connections to the beeline through that area too. So wanting
- to minimize it My last round is on like the the multi-use path or trail that's going east-west on the
- southern edge generally And I've heard it called as a like a public path I think I'm just I think it's
- intended to be dedicated as an easement But just trying to understand is that? required who's going to
- own, maintain it? Yeah, that's kind of my line of questioning. So I'll start by answering, and then
- maybe the petitioner can also answer some. It is not required. There's no UDO requirement for it. The
- easiest way to explain it is because the petitioner thinks that it would be a good thing for this site.
- The city generally agrees. Some of the past history is there was a previous developer, completely different
- company, that was looking at this site.
- And at the time they had a discussion with the previous administration and they were really keen on
- that. And so it kind of came out of those discussions. That's sort of the origin of it. But since then,
- you know, it's a completely new developer in this case. And they also looked at that and they said,
- this seems like a good thing to have for this site. So it's voluntary, but with this proposal and with
- the recommended conditions,
- It becomes part of the part of what's approved And so if it were taken out later, they would have to
- come back to you for a revised Approval so so approving it proving this petition tonight Makes it required.
- Yeah, and then So appreciating it and then but recognizing it would be on the developments property
- an easement dedicated to the public I guess and usually a sidewalk Dedicated in a easement. We treats
- like public right-of-way in the city in some way owns and maintains it Where their trails typically
- the city? Maintenance is a different thing I'm just trying to understand is our Parks Department going
- to be expected to plow this like how who's gonna 20 years from it being built gonna be repaving it
- That kind of long-term maintenance expectation. So as of tonight, there is nothing Requiring and a particular
- answer to that It's a good point. It could be out as a condition However, I will say that the city staff
- from all the related departments including planning and engineering have been very clear from the beginning
- that the expectation will be that maintenance of that path will be on the on the property owner not
- on the city and
- So far the petitioner all the interactions we've had they've seemed to be fine with that and that would
- have to be specified in The format of the pedestrian easement. That's that's for that section Okay,
- can the petitioner comment on the willingness if there was a clarifying condition on long-term maintenance
- of that facility Appreciate the question and like I mentioned earlier we operate these and manage them and
- Our intent is to have a very nice project and so if a particular portion of our project becomes in disrepair
- We want to fix that and if this trail because it is on our site the community will use it will use it
- We intend on maintaining it like Gabriel said we want it in good condition So that way it can be utilized
- and it's an important part of our project so we we definitely are on board with taking care of
- Overall site and this trail that is on the site. All right. Thank you. You're welcome Question for and
- this might be for staff my question is In relation to the silver lead certification when you were presenting
- Gabriel you said that
- You won't know if they have complied completely because they will get a temporary certificate of occupancy,
- and then they will finish the lead certification later? Did I hear that correctly? I believe so, if
- I'm understanding your question correctly. The information that the developer has to provide to get
- the certification,
- Some of that just takes time Although it theoretically could be done before people move in and other
- parts of it My understanding is other parts of it really can't be done until people move in Okay, and
- how how is the city gonna do and to make sure that that was that happened that I Mean, yes, what's proposed
- here in? proposed condition number Nine
- Is that city would not release final? Occupancy or technically actually the county is the one that that
- issues the final occupancy, but that based on a recommendation for the city So the city would not recommend
- issuance of final occupancy until we get some sort of confirmation that it has been earned But just
- wanted to highlight that people could move in before that because there is the temporary. Yeah, I understand
- the temporary Yeah, I was just trying to think of the process
- How do you go back and make sure that that was done? You know, right that we want to have something
- before We want to have it before final occupancy because once final occupancy is issued. It's out the
- door Yeah, then it's it's it's we were done and I guess my question for the petitioner is what has been
- your experience with that Commissioner great question We have to hire a consultant a special consultant
- which we've done and they will be
- coming on site at different stages during construction to make sure and verify that the Required elements
- are being installed like insulation correctly at the very end of the project They do a series of tests
- that then have to be written up in a report and typically that's the piece that takes a little while
- so the building can be done, but they're working on their report and typically it's you know,
- It can be three or four months before that report is completed. But Grey Star is committed to doing
- this, especially since it's a condition of approval. We have to do this. So we know there's a checklist
- for NGBS silver certification, and we're starting to go through that with our MEP consultant and the
- architecture. So we're taking it very seriously. And it's very clear in the ordinance in the UDO
- These are the ones you can choose from and we chose from one of the options so staff has done a really
- nice job and adding that into the ordinance and I don't know does that help Thank you so much
- That I had which I think might be for staff It is about an email that came in from the public earlier
- concerned about the the air quality in the PCP PCB is and I'm looking at it right now and Recalling
- what you guys said about cleanup of that site in the 90s So, can you just maybe talk about that a little
- bit? So, I mean what it says is, you know 36 years ago. There was a lot of air
- quality issue related to that site. So was that kind of related to clean up on that site and that now
- this the current environmental assessments as the petitioner said kind of show that like okay that cleanup
- worked so there's not this stuff there. And so I guess what I'm asking is you know can the community
- expect that the air quality as well is going to be
- kind of evaluated as we go along to make sure that that doesn't happen again. Yeah, and the staff certainly
- shares the concern of the resident and you bringing up air quality as well. That's well outside what
- we in the planning department have a lot of training in or have enforcement or any standards for. That's
- one of the reasons why we really want to encourage the petitioner and in fact,
- through one of the conditions we want to require the petitioner to be in contact with EPA and IDEM,
- not only to ensure compliance with requirements or laws that are out there, but also to use their expertise.
- Say there might be, I'm speaking well outside my area of knowledge, but there might be construction
- practices that they could do that are not required by any state or federal regulation, but are good
- best practices for keeping down stuff that could be stirred up out of the soil. I believe that IDEM
- and EPA would be able to help them, lead them to our resources or advise them on things like that. I
- don't really know because I don't have that knowledge and that's why we want them to be in contact with
- IDEM and EPA.
- Okay. But right now based on our assessments and the cleanup, we don't expect there to be air quality
- problems because whatever happened in the nineties successfully kind of cleared that site of the worst
- stuff. That's our understanding of the situation. And speaking, speaking with people from item, um,
- they, they,
- They agreed that that it's it's currently in compliance and you know, there's no restrictions on the
- use of the property But given this history, they really hope that the the developers will be in touch
- with them to discuss Ongoing management of it. Okay. Thank you The pricing details on the units and things
- I did a little more research on your company, and last year in 2025, the Federal Trade Commission and
- the state of Colorado brought a suit against you for deceptive pricing practices for $24 million, which
- your company agreed to settle.
- And then again, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division came after you for colluding with
- other real estate landlords and real page to price fix based on market rents. And I hear you guys talking
- about you're going to go in line with market rents here in Bloomington. And that concerns me when a
- developer with 950,000 rental units across the United States and multiple, you know, you have holdings
- all over the world. You're one of the largest developers, so how can you
- Come up with some sort of basic pricing details for a one unit a two unit a three unit Just to give
- us a ballpark idea of what we're looking for because the lack of pricing is very concerning but it also
- seems to be kind of status quo Thank you for the question Like any big company gray star has been involved
- in litigation from time to time, but we cannot
- Publicly comment on litigation matters Greystar is committed to always doing things the right way and
- that direction comes straight from the top of our company With the focus on the residents and the communities
- that we serve So nothing on pricing for units whatsoever I mean to tell me that you have no idea what
- these units would run is
- something I can't even fathom as someone who deals with developers on a regular basis and understands
- what your project timelines, your project pricing, your return on investment expectations are. I mean,
- you have investors in this company that want a return on investment. So if you were ever to tell them,
- hey, guys, we're going to dump $10 million into this project, but I can't tell you what that return
- would be, do you think they would give you the money? And I think the answer is no. So for you to ask
- us to invest in you,
- Trying to be a good neighbor in Bloomington without any sort of transparency on a ballpark idea of what
- we would look to expect for You know what we would consider of housing that anyone can get into that's
- hard for me to accept So if you could please provide us with any sort of pricing details, that would
- be delightful. Yeah I don't want to repeat my answer from earlier and I'll try to be as direct as I
- can if this project opened today
- Our goal would be to rent it in line with market pricing today because it's going to be rented in the
- future where Three years from now or when that time comes We would look to market it at that time to
- be fair to the residents and to be market competitive So that way we can add the supply and that people
- will actually want to live there So our goal is to rent it at the market rate at that time of opening
- Can you clarify what your understanding as of today that market rents are then?
- Yeah, and it varies. Like was mentioned earlier, we have different unit types, and so it gets pretty
- granular based on the unit type, and there's different factors that go into each unit. But broadly speaking,
- the simplest way to describe it, and I think you're maybe looking for a specific number, but the simplest
- way I can describe it is that based on a comparable unit type at other multifamily projects
- in the surrounding area,
- Our goal would be based off of our offering the size of our units to be priced competitively with them
- Not necessarily higher not necessarily lower just making sure that there's going to be a market demand
- for those units So you can't tell me what a one-bedroom in Bloomington averages or a two-bedroom? I
- Because those aren't your prices. Those are ours and you're saying that you'd want to go into the standard
- of whatever the offering is in the market So can you tell me what that is right now? If you can give
- me a minute I can do my best to get you a specific figure on a one bedroom if that's the specific unit
- type that you're most interested in It's or any unit that you're interested in happy to provide that
- I'll work on a one bedroom one bath if that's okay I would be happy with any figure at this point. Okay,
- you got it. Thanks Okay
- Six minutes away from 9 30 p.m. Which by our rules All meetings adjourned at 9 30 p.m. And so While
- I don't really want to stay here longer than we have to I would also hate for this hearing to end abruptly
- before we've even taken any action so
- I think it would be appropriate at this point to entertain a motion to suspend the rules to allow this
- hearing to continue beyond the nine thirty p.m. adjournment. So moved. Is there a second. We need a
- roll call vote on this and I believe it needs to be unanimous. Yes. Kinsey. Yes. Stossberg. Yes.
- Whistler. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seaborg. Yes. Co Rodkey. Yes. All right. Thank you. The rules have been
- suspended. Are there any final questions before we go to public comment. Mr. Kinsey. I have I'm sorry.
- I didn't call Bishop. Sorry. I thought I got a free pass. We can go. Thank you.
- Alright, so my questions are a little bit more about some of the environmental concerns and while the
- staff have outlined a number of What I think are reasonable contingency plans for testing along the
- way. I wonder If there are more worth considering and if any were additionally considered you know,
- it seems like I can understand the cadence of
- the checks required after land disturbance, the final acceptance is, or after removal of existing material
- piles on the site. I mean, I think those are understandable points to make these additional inquiries
- and to do soil tests. And, you know, just, boy, this is a big one. And, you know, I don't want anything
- or anyone to be
- Have air quality affected or anything related to this and I just wonder if there were other considerations
- Made and if you thought about adding some other opportunities to do these kinds of tests So Short answer
- is no what we put in here is what? staff meeting planning and transportation Department of City Bloomington
- staff thought of but we recognize that
- there's a lot more expertise in some of these other agencies, IDEM and EPA. And so that's why we really
- want them to get in touch with it. The other thing I would add is that the anchor here of how this is
- related to the UDO is that you have to make a finding that it complies with other applicable regulations.
- And so that's what we're using to say
- to be able to address any of this environmental stuff, right? Because there's nothing about
- soil contamination or PCBs by name in the UDO. But we're saying, well, this is how we ensure that it
- complies with other regulations. So when you get down to it, what regulations about soil contamination
- or those kind of environmental issues, pollution issues, what kind of regulations are they subject to?
- Well, it's not city regulations, actually. It's federal and state. So that's why we see that the most
- Impactful going forward aspect of it is to make sure that they're in touch with those agencies that
- do have those Regulations and do you have the expertise and the knowledge that they can help advise
- these people? So yeah, so we think Making sure EPA and item are involved is really the key going forward.
- Okay, so that's what the staff has recommended I wonder if the petitioner could comment on some of their
- no, that's great. Thank you for clarifying all that I mean that's
- Petitioner good evening. You haven't heard from me yet. My name is Tim Oaks. I'm an attorney representing
- gray star So I'll answer this one. There's a couple different levels of answers to this First and foremost
- is without question Gray stars a company Will follow all applicable rules? optical laws so the state
- of Indiana our federal rules say do this it will be done and
- That's most important but in terms of We testing the testing that's already occurred was done according
- to ASTM standards and the requirements that exist for that kind of testing It included not only actually
- drilling and taking soil borings, but there were temporary water wells that were put in place and We
- use those temporary wells to extract water
- test the groundwater So we've actually gone above and beyond already You know, we're looking to invest
- millions and millions of dollars here our investors demand The same information that you're asking the
- lenders demand the same information you're asking Because they don't want to put money into something
- that's going to cause trouble
- Because in the long run, that will cost them more money. And so my point there is our interests are
- actually aligned. And so all the standards will be met, and we look forward to future discussions with
- the appropriate folks at IDEM on these issues. Thank you. All right, any additional questions before
- we go to public comment?
- All right, we are now on to public comment. If you would like to make comment here in the chambers,
- make your way up to the podium, state your name for the record, and you will have five minutes to make
- comment. If you're joining us online, click on that reactions button, click the raise hand button, or
- send a chat message to the meeting hosts, and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak. While
- people are getting up here, I want to alert you there were three
- public comment letters that came in by email today. I forward it to all of you. I have paper copies
- here. I guess if you do want a paper copy, can you just raise your hand right now? I take that as a
- no. So people in the audience, if you want a paper copy of the comments that came in today, I have them
- right here.
- Go ahead, sir, please state your name and make your comment. I'm Bill Bouse. I'm the treasurer of the
- Near West Side Neighborhood Association, which is the neighborhood that directly joins the proposed
- development. The developer hired a traffic study.
- And they said, oh, there's not going to be a problem. Well, of course they did. That's what they were
- hard to say. Our neighborhood is very concerned about that. The size of this development, population
- and unit-wise, is about the same as our neighborhood. Our neighborhood has 10 to 12, depending on how
- you count, exits from the neighborhood onto other streets.
- One of those exits is on the Fairview. The rest are on the major streets. This development has two exits.
- One on the major street, the other on the Fairview. The Fairview, as has been said, is a narrow street.
- Their exit will be about a block and a half from Fairview School.
- There is already a problem with traffic at school changing times on the corners of 8th and Fairview
- and 7th and Fairview. There also can be backups on 8th Street at 8th and Rogers at certain times. Rogers
- is a very busy street. They say, well, people won't want to go out on Fairview because the garage faces
- the other way.
- There's going to be frequent backup traffic at certain times at Roger Street, where people are trying
- to get out onto the busy street. The people are not gonna just sit there and wait. They're gonna go
- out on Fairview. This is a problem that is just not really being properly addressed. Our neighborhood
- Association board has discussed this. We've also put the word out to On our email list to the neighborhood.
- We did have one Neighborhood Association member disagree with this to summarize it it seemed a neighborly
- that we are objecting to it, but We believe that the Fairview exit
- should be either eliminated for vehicles or set up as an emergency-only exit. Fairview Street is not
- really adequate to handle the kind of traffic that this large development is going to create. People
- have said, oh, well, it's close to the
- I keep forgetting the term, the Mill District or whatever. That is true. Some people will probably work
- there. Most will not. I get around town on my bicycle mostly. I'm well known for that. I still have
- a vehicle. I do drive it sometimes. It has to be parked somewhere.
- houses in our neighborhood do not have off-street parking. So off-street parking is already limited.
- We are fortunate that we're far enough away from the university that we don't have a lot of our neighborhood
- on neighborhood parking permit. But if this development is allowed to be built the way it's currently
- proposed, we're probably gonna have to add that
- Extra cost to our neighbors many of the low-income. We're one of the lower-income neighborhoods in town
- To get those permits Be just so that they we don't have permanent parking on our streets. I'll let more
- of our members talk more Hello, I'm Thomas pain
- I'm the president of the Near West Side Neighborhood Association. I want to take a minute to thank the
- commissioners for the line of questions that you've already put out there. It was gratifying to see
- the number of questions that have already focused on traffic and on parking. And those really are probably
- our largest concerns with this, something that did not come up in the conversation. We already know
- you can't park along the front of the apartments on 9th Street.
- I'm assuming that will also be true on Fairview, as narrow as it is. I don't think Gabriel's allowed
- to answer my questions during this, but if he jumps out of his shoes, maybe we'll get an answer anyway.
- I wanted to point out something, and it's really more for this group as opposed to the petitioner, and
- if I am misinterpreting what I got from the staff report from this, I'm hoping somebody will let me know.
- There are a couple of parking reduction Incentives as I understand it in the UDO and gate and Gabriel's
- report speaks to this if you're near a Transit line. There's a 15% reduction in the number of required
- parking spaces If you make a payment to the affordability fund, there's a 35% Reduction in the number
- of required parking spaces. So between the two
- if there were no incentives at all and they weren't on a transit line, this development would require
- 528 parking spaces. Gabriel's not nodding or not shaking his head, I'm just gonna run with it. I'm thinking
- I'm right on this. Well, maybe. So if I just look at the affordability payment, I was thinking, what
- does it cost to build a parking garage? And I looked on the internet and,
- $20,000, $25,000, $30,000 a space to put a space in a parking garage and then I looked at our own recently
- built 10th Street parking garage and it has 400 spaces and it cost $11 million. That's $27,500 per space.
- So by the petitioner making a, and I concur with their number, a $2.3 million payment into the affordability
- fund, they get,
- a $5,082,000 reduction in their parking cost because they don't have to supply as much space in their
- parking garage. This strikes me as perhaps an unintended consequence of the UDO, which maybe was thinking
- about surface parking, but this is a significant boon to the developer more than offsetting the cost
- of paying into the affordability fund. Thank you.
- My name is Amy Fender. I'm on the HOA board of Trailview neighborhood, which is a small habitat community
- If you imagine Reverend Butler Park as a triangle With the development at the bottom of the triangle
- my neighborhood would be on this side of the triangle So I'm very very close to the new development and
- One of the things our neighborhood was very contentious when it went in went in about ten years ago
- and one of the things or a lot of requirements for parking very restricted parking in our neighborhood
- and it's been It's caused a lot of problems in our neighborhood We definitely do not have enough parking
- There's a lot there have been fights that have broken out in our neighborhood. We've had to call the cops and
- our neighbors because of parking issues The apartments it sounds like the apartments are going to rent
- for quite a bit of money and that You know, they're paying the city to Make sure that they don't have
- to offer any affordable apartments It sounds like the apartments are probably going to average approximately about
- Five times my mortgage payments. So if I for some reason lose my house Because of you know, like right
- before I came down here. I got my tax assessment For the year and my tax assessment on my property reliably
- goes up a thousand dollars every year and You know, I'm I live in a habitat home so I
- My income certainly doesn't go up that much every year. So if my taxes continue to go up and I can no
- longer afford my home, I will not be able to afford to live in these apartments at all. So I just want
- the commission to consider
- how this is going to affect the people that live next to these apartments. It's like, yeah, they're
- going to be great for the people that can afford them. It's going to be great for the trades district
- and all of the professional people that are coming in and the people that they're trying to attract
- into the city. But the rest of us that live there, we already,
- My parents are elderly, and they can't come visit me in my house because we don't have any parking.
- They can't walk. When they come to visit me in my house, there's nowhere for them to park in my neighborhood
- already because the parking is so scarce. So my parents just can't come visit me at certain times of
- the day. So parking is, you know,
- Definitely my biggest concern about this project Traffic is also a big concern Anyway, thank you for
- your time Good evening, my name is Joe Davis and I would like to speak on some of the recommended conditions
- provided by the planning and transportation I'll start off with Condition number three After removal
- of all existing material piles on the site the petitioner shall conduct additional soil testing at least
- in at least three additional boring locations locations to be determined by planning and transportation
- so I guess I would like to address planning and transportation and say that I've been visiting this
- site as a as a shopper a seller of my scrap metal ever since I moved to Bloomington in 1993 and Planner
- Hall, bro spoke to the fact that when there was an EPA cleanup No cleanup took place
- under the piles, under the existing piles, at what at that time was Fells, now it's Bloomington Iron
- and Metal. In the west end of that property, there is a frame for former limestone cutting operation.
- And commonly, the roofs of these structures have corrugated
- asbestos roofing. Now, if you go down to the Eustorite Mini Warehouse, which is an old limestone cutting
- mill kind of behind, near the McDonald's on South Walnut, there's a big red liquor down there. Okay,
- down below, that roof is asbestos, corrugated asbestos, and that
- asbestos has dusted the entire underneath and the area around that building. I actually rented some
- space back there, and when I moved things around, it was all dusty, so I did the best I could not to
- breathe in that dust. So I don't know if that's asbestos roofing on the existing structure there on site,
- 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
- to keep the dust down when that structure is raised and then it's going to have to be dealt
- with appropriately. The lot itself, the grade is such that the low spot is toward the east end
- of that property where you currently enter. It's regularly found that water stands after big rains,
- so it's going to be necessary to not only test that area where the existing asbestos roof structure
- is from the previous limestone cutting mill,
- but also to those low areas. And so I suggest that many more than just three locations are done because
- it's already been spoken about that underneath the piles, and there are piles all over the place, there
- was no testing. Back to the other conditions. Okay, condition number five. There is a typo
- When it comes to as stated in here this would I guess be one of the ninth additional condition that
- the or under under the The paragraph number five the ninth Condition that was asked for was individual
- rooms will not Be be advertised B was not in there and leased by the room
- And then condition number six, off-site tree planting. Why is there not on-site tree planting? That
- is what I would like to know. It's not really appropriate to pass the buck when it comes to sequestering
- carbon. And then when it comes to
- The payment condition number eight when it comes to the payment in lieu I find that really faulty when
- there's a payment in lieu and it goes into the affordable housing fund There is a lack of transparency.
- We really don't know what happens with that money So I strongly encourage you to continue to work on
- these conditions and improve them such that they truly benefit the public Thank you very much. Thank you
- I just want to highlight we have two people online with their hands raised Hi, my name is Kay. I also
- live in the trailview neighborhood We actually walked here today. So I know quite a bit about the walkability
- and about that path and
- It's a huge part of why I love my neighborhood. And so one thing is, you know, the trees. I'm concerned,
- like right now, that is such a beautiful walk. It is just a really great way to go through there. And
- so I'm like, if you're gonna get rid of all those trees and then plant them somewhere else, how does
- that help us? Two, and this was like at the very beginning, and I'm just curious why we're voting on
- this now, like we don't actually have an answer to what they're gonna do with the infrastructure with
- the water because
- I've lived in Bloomington my entire life basically and we've had some major problems with water. We
- had Kirkwood flooded. And so now we have this giant hotel coming in and then right across the street
- this giant other infrastructure with how many people, how are we gonna take care of that water? And
- then kind of related to that,
- Are we going to make sure that there's nothing in the soil that is now seeping into our groundwater,
- since they did say that there was a major corridor already going under there? So that's my short questions.
- Thank you. Thank you.
- My name's David Ferrand, and I live on the corner of 6th and Fairview. First, I'd like to say that I
- really appreciate them building a nice new apartment complex there. It's better than what's there now.
- They should charge whatever they want to charge, whatever the market will bear. The entry into Fairview is
- really going to increase the speeding traffic through our neighborhood. I walk that neighborhood almost
- every day, and every day there's someone with traffic speeding cutting through through our neighborhood.
- I live adjacent to the Fairview Alley between 6th Street and 7th Street, and that is 10 feet, 6 inches wide.
- And I get traffic, people speeding through there every day. But also, pedestrian traffic through there
- every day. And it's only going to increase when you have 700 more bedrooms. That means 700 more cars.
- It's naive to think that
- The cut-through traffic won't increase in our near West Side neighborhood Thank you, thank you Take
- one more comment here in the chambers and then we'll take some online commenters after this Thank you for
- Hearing us all tonight. My name is Kay Thorbeck. I have lived on Fairview and West 8th and Fairview
- for 45 years and the last 10 years I've been pretty alarmed by the amount of More traffic coming into
- our little neighborhood small streets. There's not very many garages. So people are street parking and
- I know West 9th, 8th, and 7th has parking only on one side of the street. So we've got semi-trucks coming
- through, Amazon trucks, and now with Fairview School being a very coveted accelerated learning school,
- we have parents, hundreds and hundreds of parents from
- the east side and the south side and the north side, driving their kids to school 45 minutes before
- school starts. They come in the afternoon 45 minutes before school gets out. It is a cluster F. You
- cannot come to my house in the morning or the afternoon. There was so much parked cars all along Fairview
- where this so-called walking path in
- Street is going to come out on and It's a congestion you've got it school buses trying to get by cars
- getting scraped it's just it's a nightmare and And then cars trying to speed by and get around cars
- that are parked for 45 minutes, so I'm all for walking paths and bike paths and emergency vehicles, but
- Little old Fairview Street just can't take any more cars coming onto it. Thank you. Thank you. We're
- going to go now to some online comments before we come back and take additional comment here in the
- chambers. But we will make sure everybody gets a chance to speak. Do we have some online comments waiting?
- I've unmuted Joan Mittendorf. Hi.
- I'm Joan Middendorf. I live on West 7th Street in the Near West Side neighborhood. And I'm
- on the Environmental Committee for the Near West Side Neighborhood Association. And we're concerned
- most about the climate crisis and housing affordability and infrastructure. And I do feel bad for Kay
- because it is true that she has that traffic, I don't know what's it called, the traffic,
- the lines of cars before and after school. But I don't think if people in the new development come out,
- they just have to go by there one time and they'll never drive there again, mornings and afternoons.
- So that's not really a concern for me. But when I asked people around the neighborhood, what was their
- environmental concern about the new development, people told me, and I asked about 10 people, they said
- they were really concerned about
- getting more low income housing. And they would prefer that instead of just giving 15% times 20 times
- 370 apartments or whatever that formula that you gave was, they would just really prefer that there
- be affordable housing in this unit. And I hope, and now I'm speaking to the
- plan commission next time a group comes before you with a big plan like this, which is going to be about
- the same size as our neighborhood. So you're putting in a new neighborhood as big as ours. Can you just
- tell them it has to be a like, I don't know what you call it, something that's for sale so people can
- not have to pay rent for the rest of their lives. Would that be possible?
- And also another question is because people seem so concerned about traffic. I ride my bike when I'm
- well. I ride my bike most of the time, so I'm not so concerned about car traffic, but would it be possible
- to who's going to pay for the traffic signal that will eventually have to happen on Roger Street or
- you know 300 units of people trying to drive out onto Rogers. They they'll have to spill over onto Fairview
- because they can't get onto Roger.
- can there be a traffic signal? And I looked up and it said in India, in Bloomington, it costs between
- 200,000 to half a million dollars to put in a traffic signal. So who's gonna pay for that? And now that's
- really, I just wanna say that not everybody in the neighborhood is against this development because
- we need more housing. We need more housing and it needs to be downtown so we don't keep spreading out
- in the suburbs.
- but a few things would make the neighborhood happy. Thank you so much. Thank you. My name is Robert
- Harmon. I live with K 8th and Fairview, two blocks from here and two blocks from that nine street street
- the guys are planning on building, which is one of the stupidest ideas I can think of.
- I feel like I've been through this movie before. 25 years ago, I would come here and I would talk and
- they were building the tall building behind us that, what's it called again? Small wood, okay? And I
- would say, you guys need to have more parking. And they would say, no, we just need, there are about
- 30 parking spaces and there's about eight floors and hundreds of people living there.
- And they said, it's not in our interest to build more parking. But the thing was, it became in my interest,
- our interest on the West Side, because as soon as they built it and there wasn't enough parking, what
- happened was that the students, and I don't blame them, they started parking in our neighborhood. I
- come down to the city and I said, I can't park when I come home from work, outside my house. The solution?
- parking stickers, so the developers get away with putting no parking in the building, and I have to
- pay to park outside my house. Here we are, now we're here, you know? They don't even call it housing.
- They call it product. It is all about making money. You know, we are paying them money so they don't
- have to buy
- that so they don't have to buy extra parking. I think there should be a parking spot for every damn
- building, every house thing unit there is there. I mean, they'll say, well, it doesn't work for us,
- you know? And I go, well, you mean, what doesn't work for you is like, you'll start making a profit
- on your development maybe two years later,
- and you're gonna be making millions for the rest of your damn life, you know? We need housing in the
- West Side. We don't need this. This is a nightmare. The parking, not just the parking, the Fairview
- Street, there's gonna be too much damn traffic, too much traffic.
- Unless I hit it wrong, they're saying when the ambulance or the fire truck comes in, it's gonna have
- to reverse over the garden plot. I think that's what they said because there isn't a place for it to
- drive. We don't need more, we don't need this kind of housing. We need housing that people can buy
- Build equity, you know? The problem in Bloomington, and these guys will be part of the problem. The
- money comes into Bloomington. They build it, and then the money leaves. It never stays in Bloomington.
- You've got these outside developers that have been going on for 25, 30 years, and they're bleeding this
- damn town dry. It's nice if you're,
- If you've got a father who's a millionaire and lives in New York or Philadelphia or can send your kid
- here, you know, and it doesn't matter what the hell you're paying in rent, you know? Like you're paying,
- they're paying about 1,200 bucks for like a 500 square foot apartment on 15th Street. It's, God,
- 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
- just a damn mess.
- I wouldn't, don't let these guys steamroll you, okay? That's what's happening. Thank you. Do we have
- any additional online comments? Yes, we do. Jane Goodman is online. Jane, you should be able to speak.
- Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. So I want to return to the topic of air quality.
- I really appreciate the attention from the city to the air quality and I appreciate the additional conditions
- that are required but that doesn't satisfy me yet. Those of us who live as I do on the south side of
- the Maple Heights neighborhood and the northeast side of the near west side are directly in breathing
- distance of this site all day every day and this includes the Fairview school. And I'm no expert in
- this field but I would
- this would be possible, I'd like to ask for an air quality monitor that would be operating 24-7 throughout
- the entire construction period, so that construction could stop, so that mitigation could be taken if
- there was something that was troubling. I understand that three additional borings will be made, but
- I have to object, and I apologize, I didn't get the name, but the women who spoke on behalf of the petitioner
- about this
- gave me the impression that you're doing additional borrowings to confirm what you think you already
- know. I would instead like to ask you to do these as if you lived within breathing distance of this
- site, as if you had children at the Fairview School. I really feel like the environmental testing needs
- to be rigorous and continuous. Now, I also understand Gabriel's point about going to IDEM and the EPA.
- But perhaps others may share my concern that I, in the last two years, I don't quite trust the EPA anymore.
- I'm not sure they have the personnel to do this or to care. I know less about IDEM, but I just would
- like the city to be directly involved and not just, and I understand that the city doesn't necessarily
- have the people and the staff that IDEM and EPA have. We could be directly involved in,
- making sure that proper monitoring is continuously done throughout construction. So I'm hoping that
- we can get some follow-up on these questions of air monitoring, air quality monitoring. And by the way,
- I am not the person who sent the email, that was someone else. So more than one of us are concerned
- about this. I also wanted to ask a question about the trees.
- I do agree that some of the trees, well, the previous commentary that some of the trees surely could
- be replanted on the site. But my specific question is about the current trees on, let's see, the south
- side of the beeline. Those were planted when the beeline was built and they're new trees. They're coming
- into kind of fullness now. Are those trees also going to be torn down? It's not clear to me from the
- site plan that those trees, are those trees going to stay or are those trees going to go?
- They're on the beeline side of what's currently a chain link fence. So that's just a question. But my
- overall comment again about air quality, this is potentially really, really serious and we can't mess
- around with this. So I'm just asking for some additional conditions and guarantees about the continuous
- monitoring of the air quality. Thank you. That's all the time I need. Thank you.
- Uh, we do have one more person online. Um, CG, you should be able to unmute and speak. Hi, can you hear
- me? Yes. Okay. Fantastic. This is, uh, Katie green. I also live in the near west side and I mostly just
- want to say that this is an excellent example of student housing masquerading as multifamily. It is literally
- presented as campus style housing with fenced amenities and it has a party sky deck, which seemed to
- get glossed over in the presentation today. I'd also just say that on a personal note at the neighborhood
- meeting, it felt really dismissive and condescending at best. I feel like they represented that they've
- done a traffic study and maybe they did.
- but they couldn't or wouldn't provide meaningful details to the neighbors. And we did ask, but I have
- not seen that. They said they provided it to the city and I believe that they did, but we have not seen
- it. But we were repeated. Who doesn't love traditional foundation. That's why I create. Sorry. Okay.
- Um, but we were repeatedly assured that traffic would not flow through neighborhoods, but would go up
- Rogers instead. And I would just like to point out that Rogers draws a red line straight. I'm sorry.
- Hold on one second. Oh my God. My dog's being so loud. Uh, a red line straight through our neighborhood.
- Like that goes straight through Maple Heights. We exist.
- We're right here, we've been talking about the entire time, like we're just a pass through yet again.
- That avenue is also the primary access of the B line to the 17th street, east-west multi-use path. And
- coming up over the rainbow bridge is already really extremely hazardous for cyclists. That hasn't been
- addressed. There is a corridor study
- or ongoing. But interestingly, the walk-in talks for that area were excluded. There are walk-in talks
- in every area, even though we've been requesting relief from traffic since at least 2023. So that's
- a concern for me. I would also say that this proposal does not seem to take into account any concerns
- about sound or traffic.
- from the neighborhood meeting. I live on the east side of Maple Heights and we have serious sound issues
- coming across the railroad from the student housing on the east side. Imagine that coming across on
- the west side too would be a serious problem. And I worry about the impacts of partying students on
- the neighboring elementary school. I do agree we need housing, but this should be affordable housing.
- Uh, representing it as this like oversimplistic model of supply and demand is disingenuous at best.
- This is going to be a luxury apartments across the street from a boutique hotel. The current complexes
- in Bloomington already prevent people from like doing sublets, which artificially inflates the occupancy
- numbers. And you know, tenants have no relief from this.
- They prefer to leave units open rather than lower rents or having someone undesirable move in. So the
- payment in lieu is frankly not sufficient to justify the cost to existing neighbors. Green space is
- also a problem. I don't see how planting trees offsite and moving affordable housing offsite can be
- represented as a benefit to our neighborhood at all.
- Me as a property owner, I'm going to incur some serious financial costs. You know, we already can't
- cross North Rogers. It's already difficult to bike south over that bridge.
- That's going to be impacted by both the hotel and this apartment complex. There's going to be no relief
- at all. The developer isn't going to shoulder any of this cost. It's going to be me personally. It's
- going to be property owners personally and the city maybe. Um, so I just, I realized that there might
- not be much you could do if this is a by right situation that you have to approve by the code. But I
- just wish we could skip the whole dog and pony show acting like it benefits the neighbors.
- And I guess that's all I really have to say. Thank you. Are there any more online comments? If there's
- anybody else online, please use the raise hand function. Sandy Clothier wants to speak. Sandy, you should
- be able to speak. Okay, thank you so much.
- I want to say first, I really appreciate all of the comments that have been made so far. I wanted to
- just address a couple of things that I don't think have been discussed so far. And the first thing that
- I wanted to do is to read what it says this zoning status is.
- It's MD-ST Showers Technology Downtown Character Overlay. The mixed use downtown showers technology
- character area is intended to draw upon architectural detailing and thoughtful site planning to complement
- the mass and scale of existing historic structures, draw upon neo-traditional design concepts,
- to extend street grid and to create publicly accessible open space, integrate development that
- is strategically planned to promote mixed use development focused on light industrial manufacturing
- and office uses where live work, young professional, single family, empty nester and retiree housing
- markets are targeted. As you can see,
- The proposed site for this new apartment complex sits between two historic districts, the Near West
- Side and Maple Heights, and across from several historic Shower Brothers individual buildings.
- According to the overlay definition, zoning requires that any built modification should draw upon the
- architectural detailing and thoughtful site planning to complement the mass and scale of existing historic
- structures. In looking at this site plan, I see little, if anything, that relates to either the scale
- or the mass of adjacent historic properties. The building is brick, and that may relate to Showers Brothers
- buildings, but not
- adjacent neighborhoods. Certainly two neighborhoods with historic designation closely adjacent to this
- property count as important sites to consider in regards to mass and scale. Neither the scale nor the
- mass relates to anything I see in the neighborhoods or in the showers buildings. The development is
- so far from fitting in to the historic neighborhood it abuts that I cannot imagine how it fits that criteria.
- The zoning is designated to further be designed to promote mixed-use development, where live, work,
- young professionals, single-family, empty-nester, and retirees might choose to live. But this proposal
- is to be managed by a company that works primarily with student housing. They mentioned nothing else
- on the website that I saw. Obviously, I stand corrected because others have seen other information,
- but I did not see that.
- It seems to me that more and more guidelines are given a bailout if the developer has the money. To
- remove trees and not replace them in a super dense development that is unlike anything nearby is just
- a terrible idea. There will be no relief from the massive look of this five-story series of structures.
- The same thing happened when looking at affordability. The developer paid
- to not have to have these units affordable. So again, wealthy developers are given a way out. And again,
- the same thing has come up for parking spaces. This is an extremely dense development. It will potentially
- have as many residents as the entire near west side neighborhood. That means noise, traffic, cars, people
- will likely impact the neighborhood negatively. Has anyone thought of where all those
- cars with no parking space will be parking their vehicles. There is no room on Fairview, but cars will
- no doubt be parking on that small narrow street anyway. And they will be filling up the parking lot
- of the Reverend Butler Park as well. To many of us living nearby, it seems that there has simply been
- no real concern
- for the placement of this monster housing project. Instead, the city has been very willing to allow
- the developer to do many things that will cause harm to the adjoining neighborhoods. So I ask you, what
- in this development relates to any of the information that we see in the zoning plan? And I urge you
- to seriously consider downsizing this project, changing its focus, and really listening to the residents
- who are going to be impacted. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment, either online or here
- in the chambers? Last call for public comment.
- If there's anybody online, please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat and we can
- recognize you All right, we are back to the Commission then for any final discussion or for a motion
- just as a reminder the staff recommendation is that we adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition
- with ten conditions that are included and
- in the packet Any final discussion Good Commissioner Bishop I'm still waiting for some sort of Brent
- price figure from the petitioner It's been a few minutes a few if you've got that's details Sorry
- We took a look at a broad number of local projects That are currently on the market and just to make
- sure I get the figures correct. We looked at a few different ones But we talked about one bed one bass
- and there's a variety of those you could Maybe look at a studio. I think of a one-bedroom as more so
- has a door has a clear bathroom and
- And so we found a range and it depends again on when it was built the location the different services
- that are within the building and For one bedroom specifically we found a range between $1,300 and $1,600
- and so when we're pricing our units we look at a variety of factors and how well the
- the specific unit types are doing. Sometimes you have unique unit types and sometimes you have what
- we call loss leaders. It's a unit that is priced at a certain price point because maybe it has a unit
- challenge or not the best view and so you could expect based on current pricing that we would have units
- in that wide range of current pricing. So I hope that the $1,300 to $1,600 gives you a rough range of
- a one bedroom
- apartment unit I Appreciate the research. Thank you. You're welcome Mr. Kohraki I just had a question.
- I guess it wasn't clear to me either And there are some kind of questions about this with the trees
- Are we are the trees being removed on the beeline in order to build and then they'll be replanted is
- that they are proposing to remove I believe it's all trees on their property
- The there are trees lining the beeline south of south of the beeline that are on the beeline property
- and I wish I could confirm half the time Maybe maybe we can Once it gets to trees off their property,
- they need the property owners permission so in this case, it would be parks the
- City Bloomington Parks and Recreation permission to remove those trees So I can see if it's clear from
- the plans whether any of those are proposed to be removed but if they are they need to get permission
- from parks and I would expect that a Condition from parks would be that they plant Back anything that
- they have to remove. So the reason there might potentially be trees removed in that area is because
- they are committing to
- reconstructing and relocating a sanitary sewer line that runs generally in that area and is partially
- on the B-line property and partially on their property. So they will be doing some ground disturbance
- on that park's property. So in the plans that I currently have, it's not clear whether or not any of
- those would be removed. I think the intention would be to keep
- as many of them as possible. And certainly that would be enforced through parks as the manager of that
- property. Um, some may need to be removed for that sewer line, but it would be on parks to make sure
- that they're planted back. The variances are all about, um, and the offsite plantings in the proposed
- condition are all about trees on their own site. Okay. That's all right now. Mackenzie.
- I wonder if we could address a few of the questions that were raised about Parking, you know one was
- the very straightforward question about parking permitted on Fairview and I think we already I Think
- we determined that there is no parking on Fairview, but I want to confirm that Just make sure that's
- what do you want me to jump in now or do you want to finish sure? currently on Fairview adjacent to
- this project parking is prohibited on the west side and
- near the park, and it is permitted on the east side next to this. Those of you who are familiar with
- the neighborhood will probably be able to confirm that no one in living memory has ever seen a car park
- on the east side of Fairview in this block. It's not prohibited. What they're proposing, we're waiting
- out on the screen here, what the petitioners are proposing for Fairview Street would be 20 feet
- of asphalt curb to curb on that stretch of Fairview, which combined with two-way traffic doesn't really
- work to have parking on one side. So we have discussed with the petitioner the idea of the city taking
- forward a recommended change to Title 15 of the code to prohibit parking on both sides of Fairview to
- just reflect
- the situation there and what the road is. But the current status is that parking is permitted on the
- east side of Fairview adjacent to this project. Okay. All right. So the there is something potentially
- in the works to change parking and when that would happen after. I mean there's no particular deadline
- set on him but
- I think what staff was thinking is that we'd get that in motion later this month, and it would be part
- of code by the fall, so well before this gets built. Sorry, I don't want to commit to those timelines,
- but there's no reason to wait for this project to start construction or finish construction to do that.
- OK. Was there any thought of making that a condition or adding that
- more explicitly? No, but not because there was a conscious thought not to just that's a very good point.
- It could be, you know, the challenge is we can't compel another board for action. Okay. Okay. I wonder
- if we could talk a little bit more about some of the, you know, there were lots of views about parking
- expressed.
- during the public comment and I know that it's a it is a hotly debated issue whether parking is necessary
- for every bedroom and if that's an easy way to do it but that others think that that's completely overbuilt
- I wonder if there could be a little more conversation about the parking and one explicit question I
- would love to know if the calculation that
- our speaker from the near West Side neighborhood made about what the Petitioners were getting in terms
- of reduction and cost was at all Near any calculations that were done. I thought that was quite interesting
- I just I'm trying to look up the numbers I don't actually remember what the number the gentleman said
- it was more than 500 and
- and I'm trying to find where the calculation was, but if there were no reductions, right, they're getting
- reductions for proximity to transit and also because they're getting affordable housing incentives.
- If there were no reductions, it would be in the range of 500 parking spaces minimum that would be required.
- 527 is what the minimum, I think that's a little lower than what the commenter said, but 527 is what
- would be required
- If if there were no none of these reductions, but that's not what's required in this case Okay Okay.
- Thank you. Thanks Commissioner bro So just run that by me again Gabriel so the incentive for affordable
- housing helps with parking Spaces yes
- So the way the code's written, if you earn affordable housing incentives, or if it's a senior housing
- development, age-restricted senior housing, in either case you can get this 35% reduction. I would venture
- a guess that that language dates from when there was not a payment in lieu option.
- So it's just conflicting unintended consequences from two different sides of the UDO that work or not.
- Well so the reason behind that was when you look at those two projects affordable housing projects and
- senior housing oftentimes those have a lower parking need. So sometimes when we encounter those
- Developments and like hey, we we don't wonder have to provide as many parking parking spaces cost money
- We don't have a need for it. There should be a reduction You know if we're trying to make a project
- more affordable You know putting in parking that we don't feel like we have a need for just raises the
- cost of that development So that's why that language was included in incentives to allow for that reduction
- for those two uses
- So whether they're units on site or utilizing the payment in lieu the udl allows either one of those
- So that's where that that history is Thank you. Another question is I know that they're gonna remove
- trees, but I know that they are also required to plant many trees Do we have a number of trees that
- they will plant on site? Yes, it will take me a moment to define the exact number and
- trees and shrubs, please. 61 large canopy trees, 20 small trees, and 791 shrubs are what's proposed.
- And that's in a little table on the landscape plan, which is part of the civil set that was in the packet.
- It's not gonna be a I Mean they have to replant, correct? I Mean, it's not gonna be empty. They're gonna
- have to replant and landscape their open areas Yeah as you're familiar since you sit on the Board of
- Zoning Appeals when this came for that variance part of the justification for the variance and the in
- the findings that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopted is that these the landscape plan is going to be
- planted in
- There will be trees and shrubs in nearly, practically speaking, in every possible location to put one,
- but it's just they're maxing out where they can put trees and shrubs, and that was the reason that they
- were requesting the variance to do offsite plantings. And the offsite planting, who's gonna coordinate
- that? Is that Parks and Rec? Yeah, so there's a memorandum of understanding between Grey Star, Planning
- and Transportation, and Parks and Recreation. We all have our roles.
- Actual, you know who's going to be out there planting stuff on the ground Well, it's probably not actually
- going to be these people here, but it's going to be people that they hire To go out and and put the
- trees in the ground and then parks will verify that it was done correctly So it's it's it's on the on
- the petitioner to to make sure the planting actually happens And my last question is with condition
- Number and a second
- Number three that they're going to be at least three additional boring locations Why just three is there
- a specific Can that number be can we Say more or different location or specific locations for example
- under the piles It hasn't been tested Yeah, so the there's there's not there was not a rigorous analysis of
- to produce the number three, there was a sort of informal looking at it with staff of what we think
- would be sort of a reasonable minimum amount to really get the kind of information we need, came up
- with three
- I'm not really prepared to defend that exactly. There's a map that was in the packet, I believe, that
- Pistner submitted of where previous borings had been done.
- Okay, and so there were some gaps of where those had been occurred based on where the stockpiles had
- been So when we came up with the number three and we deferred to staff of where those locations would
- be it was based on where those gaps were From the previous borings and based on where those stockpiles
- had been identified Certainly if you feel like additional quantity of numbers is warranted, you know
- You can modify that condition of approval to include more. Yeah, I appreciate you telling me that because
- it so there were some
- Process on how and where they're gonna go. Okay. Thank you so much for sharing For bringing up the Reasonable
- condition number three because I also wanted to bring that up and just to kind of clarify that Because
- multiple people also mentioned this That it the requirement is at least three additional which means that
- Maybe you might move all the piles and do one and realize well we actually need five or six or seven.
- So is that mean am I reading that correctly. First of all that we're using three as a minimum and that
- there is a full understanding expectation both among planning and transportation and also the petitioner
- that maybe there would be more depending on what happens with those three.
- Yeah, I absolutely do not envision a case where we are in conflicts with the petitioner, where we say
- five and they say no. I do not envision that happening. So we do intend to work with the petitioner
- to get to a number and location of boardings that work well. The way that it's currently written, though,
- it does say at least three. So if three are done, that meets the condition. I'm sorry. What did you say last?
- If the way it's written right now, um, it says at least three, meaning if three more soil boring sites
- are done, that meets the condition. Right. So if there's, um, I mean, I think we certainly have an interest
- in, in, uh, making sure that there's, uh, a sufficient number, right. And that, that sufficient number
- could be more than three, but as it's currently written, it's, it says at least three. And so three
- would meet that.
- I don't know if I have too many questions more just being sharing where my thoughts are Hearing a lot
- of comments and concerns. We're learning a lot about the UDO Largely this project appears to meet most
- of the UDO Conditions a lot of the conditions were being presented are shared in the spirit of just
- being extra
- Cautious and transparent but are things that would largely already be required or things that are outside
- generally the purview of the city So just sharing that with context And trusting that there are still
- conditions because some things haven't yet fully been flushed out like things reviewing stormwater with
- CBU But expecting that they will be workable within the current site plan and
- So just just noting that noting concerns about traffic and parking there is a transportation commission
- that evaluates things that are existing and As issues could come up that there there is a resource they're
- available just to monitor and track and continuously Potentially explore changes like to parking on
- city streets I also did just want for the public's and Commission's awareness to to be aware that there's
- been reference to a traffic study
- I've not seen a traffic study. So just throwing that out there. That's all I have to offer right now
- All right, is there Any additional comments or emotion This one's for staff the payment in lieu option
- in the UDO says that the city may authorize the acceptance of a payment in lieu can the city also reject
- that because
- Hear a lot about the parking possibly turning into a safety concern with neighboring residents people
- who live here a hundred percent of the time So could we firmly reject a payment in lieu to get more
- parking? Interesting question that As far as you know the authority to do that. I'm not sure I wonder if
- There's never been a situation yet where we have rejected that yes, you're correct the the UDO does
- say petitioner may utilize that It's also one of many things, you know, they may provide units on site.
- It's an allowance You know, there's not a mechanism or review criteria their view criteria to say yes or no so
- Could you look into that? Because they've done a great job of using every gray area and loophole possible
- to do what they do. And that's what corporations do like that. And so I applaud them on that effort.
- And so I'm curious on the same token, can we just say no?
- Okay I have comment. So multifamily is allowed in this district. I think that Bloomington needs single
- family housing. I think we need houses that people can own. I wish that this were that type of development
- but multifamily is allowed in this district. And so we don't get to reject this based on that. They
- can build multifamily there if that's what they want to build there.
- Now I do think that we can reject this based on the failure to mitigate adverse impacts on the surrounding
- neighborhood. I think the parking and the traffic those are real issues and it's in the U.D.O. and I'm
- comfortable voting to reject this based on that the payment in lieu issue. That's a great solution to
- it. If we can deny that and get 500 or more parking spaces in here I think that would make a big difference
- in the outcome here. I think that would be much better for the surrounding neighborhood and it wouldn't
- be hopefully that
- burdensome. I think the project probably they would still want to go forward with it. So I would like
- I think I would make a motion to continue this to get an answer to the payment in lieu question and
- what the city's options are on that and give the petitioner a chance to come back and voluntarily accept
- more parking or decide whether without the payment in lieu it's not worth it. I understand. I think
- the packet said that they were getting getting an additional floor for the payment in lieu. Maybe we
- can partially
- Reject it or withdraw some of those Offering some of the incentives. Maybe petitioner will voluntarily
- relinquish some of them So I make a motion to continue this to get in order to we have time to get answer
- to those questions Is there a second for the motion to continue? second All right any discussion on
- the motion to continue your motion is to continue this to the May 1st
- Yes the next meeting Any discussion question sort of it relates to the motion to continue Commissioner
- Seabor mentioned that he has not seen a traffic study and I wonder if that's another thing to add on
- to this Interest is there is you know, I've been searching for a traffic study and here it's been mentioned,
- but I don't find it either that does seem to be a
- significant concern by commenters and I think it deserves to be looked into Mr. Stossberg I'm inclined
- to continue right now partly because it's just a really late and I'm I'm not inclined to deny this simply
- because of parking issues I know that that's a huge concern and
- Generally speaking, but it's also statistically relevant that That we we are really in this particular
- location Potentially attracting the type of people who will not need a car and that Seems really foreign
- in a lot of ways But there are lots and lots of people that exist without cars and
- of all ages who exist without cars, and especially because of the proximal location to the bus line,
- I think that that can work.
- I also am interested in seeing the traffic study, and especially whether the traffic study was done
- when Fairview School was in session. Because it is, we talked about that last year, year before, about
- North High School when there was that development up there, that subdivision, to make sure that the
- traffic study was done when school was in session to be able to account for that additional traffic.
- And I'm also curious in terms of Fairview Street, in terms of just what it sounds like. There's some
- traffic problems over there already that maybe are going unaddressed. And I would be curious to hear
- a little bit more from maybe planning and transportation, maybe engineering, about whether
- Something else needs to needs to happen over there and I know you know the Rogers Madison Kinzer court
- or study Is certainly relevant in this case but it's also potentially relevant, you know in terms of
- the the question that Was brought up by one of the commenters like who's gonna pay for that traffic
- light like who is gonna pay for that traffic light and how exactly is that going to happen and
- In terms of thinking about that larger corridor study and this project going in there So anyway, those
- are all good reasons to to continue at this point. Thanks And I have one more I want to add to this
- list of if we're gonna continue this I think the suggestion to do air quality monitoring during construction
- is a reasonable suggestion and I would like to know if that's feasible and
- to put in place as a condition, and if the petitioner would want to impose that on their own air quality.
- Any other questions or comments on the motion to continue? We do have Anadina Kasamanian with the legal
- department on Zoom. We can, if we want an answer to that question brought up earlier,
- call in her, I believe. Let's see, Enidina, I believe you're unmuted. I can see your microphone icon
- moving up and down, but we're not hearing anything in the room.
- Oh Interesting it's closing coming in the closed captioning but I Think this is a problem with our audio
- in the room here. Yeah. Yeah, I
- People are saying in the chat that they can hear her on Zoom. So we've got something going on with the
- room right now. Is there a way that legal can provide comment in written form that you can read to the...
- Well, Enidina wrote in the chat, coming. So I don't know how far away she's coming from, maybe from
- upstairs. Ah, OK. OK. We're going to do it live. Sorry, I'm looking down here. I'm sorry. Enidina Casamanian
- for the city of Bloomington.
- Department So what's the question? So the question from the Commission is under kind of what grounds
- they could base a Denial for the use of the payment in lieu aspect of the incentives The UDO says that
- petitioner may utilize the provisions of the UDO and come to an agreement but doesn't
- You know, historically we have had this question come up once or twice in the past and legal has never
- said, you know, here are the criteria. Yes, the UDO does say it's a may, but there's no criteria to
- base that on in terms of whether or not that's appropriate or not appropriate to allow that. So I didn't
- know if you had anything that you wanted to lend to that. Yes, thank you, Eric.
- So my understanding is even though it's allowed via the UDO, it doesn't mean that the planning commission
- cannot reject it. I do think that the planning commission can reject the payment in lieu option. And
- I'd be happy to give you more information on that, the legal basis, but my basic understanding is that
- even though the UDO allows it, it doesn't mean that the planning commission has to accept it.
- Any other questions? Thank you. I would just clarify that based on the staff report and the packet,
- staff's recommendation is to accept it. But that's different from the question of what action you take.
- Commissioner Sussberg. Kind of on that vein, but so
- So if the legal interpretation here in terms of what the UDO says is that we don't have to accept the
- payment in lieu, but it's not just about the payment in lieu, it's about them taking advantage of the
- affordability incentive. So is that really optional in terms of if they want to use the affordability
- incentive? Because the question was about the parking reduction.
- It's like, oh, if we reject the payment in lieu, then we can make them build more parking. But if we
- reject the payment in lieu, then they could just say, well, we're going to do the affordability incentive,
- and we're just going to offer 15% of our units at an affordable rate. And it would be an interesting
- question, what affordable
- what the affordability mark they would have to stay under is because we changed that in January of this
- year, but they are paying in lieu based on last year's. And so I assume that then they would have to
- provide 15% of under 120% of AMI to meet that. But then they would still be able to get that parking
- reduction. So I'm not sure that there's much point.
- Refusing the payment in lieu because they could still take advantage of the affordability incentive
- unless we could totally reject them taking advantage of the affordability incentive, which I'm not sure
- I mean, I certainly don't want to do that but Sorry, that's something great a great comment was that
- a question or was there a question a question I guess like I mean if we're allowed to reject the the
- payment in lieu but are we allowed to reject the affordability of
- Incentive use if they if they if the petitioner modified the proposal to come back with on-site affordable
- units Then they earn it and there's not discretion in that Right. So the only discretion is whether
- or not we accept the payment in lieu But either way the parking amounts could stay the same Correct,
- I mean if we're talking about if we're doing hypotheticals on how the petition could be modified and
- They could go up to 658 parking spaces and still be under the minimum. Well, no, I mean. Sorry, under
- the maximum. I said that wrong word. Yeah, I know. It's because it's too late. Well, but that's not,
- I mean, the concern I think that I was hearing from the other end was that there's not enough parking.
- But they're like above the minimum with what they're offering right now combined with the incentives.
- And so we can't really like reject the incentives. So that's not really a viable way to force increased
- parking All right, is that is that all your questions Mr. Burrell, yes, my question is for the petitioner
- I mean, would you be willing to just increase the amount of parking without?
- Just because we would like more parking We can't answer that tonight we sure we'd have to go back so
- You know, there is a motion and I think a second on the continuance so that probably makes the most
- sense to investigate
- I mean you can investigate what what would it be? You know for the overall project if you can increase
- one floor of parking You know, I don't know how many parking spots that would do That would you know
- would be per floor? So anyway, it's just an idea that yes tonight Understandable. Yes or no. Yes. Thank
- you Mr. Stusbury
- While you're standing there, does the petitioner have an opinion on continuing versus voting tonight?
- I think a continuance would be best. I think there's some things that you all would like us to look
- at. We'll definitely look at them. I just can't give you an answer. All right. Anything else? Any other
- comments? Questions?
- Would just be if we're going to continue it do we need to sort of outline what our expectation is for
- the next Discussion that we have Appropriate I Mean I feel like we've laid out quite a few points already
- and I'll just say this It will give everyone a chance to put anything else on the record that we want
- to see if this were to be continued, but I
- I don't think that while the parking concerns are valid, we can't deny a request on the grounds that
- there's insufficient parking when the petitioner followed our guidance on the parking. If there's a
- problem here, then we need to fix the UDO. It's not grounds to deny a petition when they've complied
- with the outline we set forth in the UDO.
- It's very frustrating to me when we do this. We take it out on petitioners when all they've done is
- follow the rules we set forth for them. So if we want to see things change, we need to change our rules,
- not continue to bend the rules when petitioners have done everything that we've asked of them.
- So in my mind, it's not perfect. There are definitely concerns here.
- But this is basically a by right petition. They've done literally everything the code calls for. So
- I don't see reason to continue this. I mean, I'm sure it'll be helpful to have some more comment, but
- in terms of the outcome, I don't think continuing this is going to change the outcome. With that, anybody
- have anything else they want to
- Any guidance they want to give any final comments before we call the roll on the motion? I don't know
- if anything that she wanted to add I just wanted to make one more comment that I I Do think that this
- would call for more time
- I know I answered that question pretty quickly, but I would like to take some time to research a little
- more I think there can be a recommendation of the rejection, but I'm not exactly 100% sure on the rejection
- So I'd like to take some time to be able to get you a full complete answer on that. Thank you You know,
- I think I was probably pretty clear in terms of guidance the
- me there's I think this relates to Commissioner Holmes concern about the failure to mitigate adverse
- impact and to me the adverse impact is a combination of traffic study traffic light making sure that
- the Traffic is not the community is not adversely impacted from a what's revealed in that traffic study
- that we haven't seen and I think specific discussion of the traffic light and
- You know if there's any concern and when the traffic study was conducted if that was during school time
- Also, I think the air quality is another adverse potential adverse impact. So those are my main concerns
- I guess I wasn't going to say more but just to talk about the traffic study if it finds anything those
- would be off-site improvements and not something that we could require so
- So it's additional information that's interesting, but kind of like what President Whistler was talking
- about, I don't see how it could really influence our decision. And I think he gave a really good summary.
- So just wanted to share that part. Traffic safety would be really interesting, but doesn't really apply
- to how we can weigh in on the petition before us.
- I also wanted to point out the applicability for incentives. You know it says that these affordable
- housing and sustainable development incentives are available to all development you know except for
- student housing and dormitory in the downtown. So in the applicability does say that these are available
- to all developments. All right. Let's call the roll on the motion to continue.
- Kenzie, yes Stossburg no Whistler no Bishop yes, Burrell no seabor no Co Rodke. Yes homes. Yes Those
- four yeses it's four four
- Alright, so the motion fails That means we need another motion As a reminder the Staff recommendation
- Was that we adopt the proposed findings and approve the petition with ten conditions in the
- packet Commissioner Stossburg
- Move that we adopt the proposed findings and approve SP 260 3004 with the 10 conditions as stated in
- the packet Is there a second Second All right any final discussion I guess one one
- I don't know the way to do this but if it could be added to one of the conditions about the easements
- just that the multi use path would be maintained by the property owner just so that is very clear. I'll
- modify my motion to say to add a note in condition number seven to clarify that the easement will be
- maintained by the property owner Is that good with the person who seconded is your second Just to clarify
- you stated the conditions with this amendment that are stated in the packet and the findings Would be
- as stated in the staff report or Different findings. I said we adopted the proposed findings. I
- Apologies. I miss her. I think It's really late. Perfect. Good confirmation Yeah, I do want to say that
- one of the reasons why I switched on that first of all we had and Adina come in to give us the legal
- interpretation of the question on the floor of whether we could really reject that and I was and we
- can't really the most we could do is Force the affordable units to be built as opposed to the payment in lieu
- and I have my own thoughts about payment in lieu, but either way, the 15% of units under 120% AMI would
- not necessarily be fantastic either, which is why I worked to change that part of the UDO. And I'm with
- Commissioner Seaborg that traffic study stuff would be interesting, but would require offsite improvement
- that we couldn't force. But I do think that there is,
- maybe some issues going on over there with traffic and would encourage folks in that neighborhood to
- reach out to planning and transportation and engineering with different possibilities in terms of traffic
- calming, in terms of signaling, in terms of working with MCCSE to figure out the best pickups and drop-offs
- and things like that. But that does seem like it's a little bit out of the scope of this project. Thanks.
- Any other comments? If I may, just one before we have great respect for the comments that you've made
- here this evening. I personally, I do believe that we are within our bounds if we choose to reject this.
- It's not bare compliance with the UDO. It has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and it has
- to have mitigation of adverse impacts. I think those are justifiable reasons. It's in the code. It's
- 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.
- Thank you. Any other comments before we call the roll. Please call the roll on the motion to approve
- Stossford. Yes. Whistler. Yes. Bishop. No. Burrell. Yes. Seabourn. Yes. Korodke. No. Holmes.
- No. Can see. Yes. I believe that's five yeses. All right. Motion carries petition is approved. Thank
- you all for your patience this evening. That is our final petition for the evening and we are adjourned.