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.