WEBVTT 00:00:00.962 --> 00:00:08.649 - Good evening. Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington playing Commission for Monday, 00:00:08.649 --> 00:00:16.046 - June 8th 2026 Let me start by just giving a brief overview of our agenda for the evening We will have 00:00:16.046 --> 00:00:23.443 - a little bit of internal housekeeping approval of minutes and some internal communications We have no 00:00:23.443 --> 00:00:29.534 - petitions continued no consent agenda tonight, so we will get straight to our three 00:00:30.114 --> 00:00:40.691 - Petitions for the evening at that point we have Petitioner Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein for the property 00:00:40.691 --> 00:00:51.065 - at 2511 North Dunn Street we then have Sub 20 2603 triple 05 petitioner built alt LLC the property at 00:00:51.065 --> 00:00:59.710 - 1320 South Roger Street and then finally SP 20 2603 dash triple 05 built alt LLC and 00:01:01.442 --> 00:01:11.704 - also same property but for the final plan approval, so Three petitions this evening, but let's start 00:01:11.704 --> 00:01:22.271 - by calling the roll to make sure we've got quorum here Here Bishop here Seaborg here Holmes here Kinsey 00:01:22.271 --> 00:01:25.726 - here Stossburg here Whistler here 00:01:26.786 --> 00:01:34.768 - All right, we do have a quorum. Let's move on to approval of minutes I believe we've got minutes from 00:01:34.768 --> 00:01:42.829 - the April 13th meeting to approve tonight. Are there any questions or corrections about those minutes? 00:01:42.829 --> 00:01:50.733 - Sarah motion to approve those minutes motion to approve the April 13th minutes Second Sorry, who was 00:01:50.733 --> 00:01:56.446 - the second? All right All in favor approval of those minutes say aye aye 00:01:57.026 --> 00:02:05.473 - Any opposed? All right, those minutes are approved We are now on to reports resolutions and communications 00:02:05.473 --> 00:02:13.603 - are there any reports or communications from commissioners tonight Mr. Kinsey Yes, I wanted to comment 00:02:13.603 --> 00:02:21.734 - on our list of commission members and for those of you who noticed on the agenda that we actually have 00:02:21.734 --> 00:02:23.550 - a vacancy and there is 00:02:23.682 --> 00:02:34.038 - a slot missing from our commission membership and I wanted to use this opportunity to acknowledge the 00:02:34.038 --> 00:02:44.190 - service from the member who has left our commission and created that vacancy, and it's Tim Ballard. 00:02:45.026 --> 00:02:51.717 - Tim was a very good colleague and has moved on to do some other things in his life and work. It's not 00:02:51.717 --> 00:02:58.737 - a sad situation for him, but it is a sad situation for us because I think Tim brought tremendous expertise 00:02:58.737 --> 00:03:05.625 - to this commission. He had a good deep development background and also was really committed to community 00:03:05.625 --> 00:03:12.251 - input and community service. And I want to acknowledge Tim's contribution because I think one of the 00:03:12.251 --> 00:03:15.006 - things he also valued was civic dialogue. 00:03:15.138 --> 00:03:22.568 - and also really doing that in a way that respected people's input and conversation. And even when things 00:03:22.568 --> 00:03:29.502 - got contentious in meetings, Tim was always level-headed and offered a very informed perspective. 00:03:29.634 --> 00:03:34.801 - I think it's important to acknowledge that as we see a good public representation in here today 00:03:34.801 --> 00:03:40.290 - to acknowledge the service that Tim brought to our commission, the expertise that he brought, and the 00:03:40.290 --> 00:03:45.726 - way he conducted himself at meetings. So I just wanted to acknowledge Tim's service and thank him in 00:03:45.726 --> 00:03:51.162 - absentia for his contributions to the planned commission. Thanks. Thank you. Couldn't agree more. He 00:03:51.162 --> 00:03:56.759 - will be sorely missed. Commissioner Seaworth. I just wanted to note for the commission's sake and those 00:03:56.759 --> 00:03:57.566 - listening that 00:03:57.794 --> 00:04:04.857 - I will have to excuse myself around a little before seven o'clock today to attend another meeting. So 00:04:04.857 --> 00:04:11.919 - just depending on where we are just wanted to share that. Thank you. Any other. Oh Mr. Stossberg I'll 00:04:11.919 --> 00:04:16.766 - just tag on Commissioner Kinsey's comments and say that that vacancy. 00:04:16.930 --> 00:04:22.932 - Creates an opportunity for somebody else who might be interested in serving on the plan Commission There 00:04:22.932 --> 00:04:28.649 - are currently no applications for that spot So if you're out there thinking like oh that looks very 00:04:28.649 --> 00:04:34.365 - interesting that work that they do or I might be interested in doing that You can go ahead and fill 00:04:34.365 --> 00:04:40.425 - out an application for that not particular Vacancy is appointed by the mayor. Thank you Any other reports 00:04:40.425 --> 00:04:42.654 - or communications from commissioners I 00:04:44.098 --> 00:04:51.206 - All right, how about from the staff any reports or communications from the staff tonight? Nothing only 00:04:51.206 --> 00:04:58.313 - other than one remaining housekeeping, which was the approval of the revised Rules and procedures that 00:04:58.313 --> 00:05:05.214 - we introduced I think back in April So it was continued at that time. We didn't have a May meeting. 00:05:05.214 --> 00:05:12.115 - So that is still in the docket for review and approval And I'm assuming you would like us to act on 00:05:12.115 --> 00:05:13.150 - that tonight I 00:05:14.306 --> 00:05:21.347 - If the commission feels comfortable doing that, if they needed more time or have questions, we're certainly 00:05:21.347 --> 00:05:27.932 - happy to answer those questions. Or if he likes to need more time, you can continue that to the July 00:05:27.932 --> 00:05:34.713 - meeting. I recall there were a few commissioners that had outstanding questions or concerns about that. 00:05:34.713 --> 00:05:41.689 - I don't recall off the top of my head who it was, but are there any questions for staff about the proposed 00:05:41.689 --> 00:05:43.710 - updated administrative manual? 00:05:43.842 --> 00:05:50.698 - tonight. Commissioner Stossberg. Thank you. I did have a couple of questions. And now that you said, 00:05:50.698 --> 00:05:57.487 - oh, we talked about this in April, all of a sudden I'm going, oh my gosh, did I ask these questions 00:05:57.487 --> 00:06:04.886 - in April? And now I'm just trying to go back to my notes to see if they were answered. But the two questions 00:06:04.886 --> 00:06:11.742 - that I had, one had to do with the changing of notice from 21 days to 10 days and why that was done. 00:06:11.842 --> 00:06:18.869 - And the other thing that I noticed was in, I think, B8, it says that the petitioner no longer has to 00:06:18.869 --> 00:06:26.383 - pay for the expense of advertising fees in the paper. And I was wondering if that meant that the department 00:06:26.383 --> 00:06:30.558 - was paying for that expense or what was going on with that. 00:06:30.914 --> 00:06:37.635 - Yep, so I can answer both of those. So the 21 days to 10 days, that just syncs it with changes and languages 00:06:37.635 --> 00:06:43.862 - in the UDO. So a while ago, three, four years ago, we changed the public notification to 10 days for 00:06:43.862 --> 00:06:50.090 - everything except hearing officer. So we haven't updated the rules and procedures in a long time, so 00:06:50.090 --> 00:06:56.502 - this was syncing that with changes that were made in the UDO. In regards to the legal add in the paper, 00:06:56.502 --> 00:07:00.880 - this was something that the department had been discussing and looking 00:07:00.880 --> 00:07:08.022 - at for many years because we had encountered a lot of situations where there had been in communications 00:07:08.022 --> 00:07:15.095 - with the Herald Times and petitioners and petitioners not being able to be heard because they couldn't 00:07:15.095 --> 00:07:17.086 - get the payment figured out. 00:07:17.154 --> 00:07:23.772 - And so to alleviate that and this was certainly something that other communities in Indiana also do 00:07:23.772 --> 00:07:30.655 - is the Department takes care of paying for that filing fee. It's a very I don't say nominal. It's maybe 00:07:30.655 --> 00:07:37.339 - $55 per petition so that's something that we added into the budget a year or so ago to Allow for the 00:07:37.339 --> 00:07:43.957 - department to absorb that cost it helps reduce errors that happen with those legal ads and makes it 00:07:43.957 --> 00:07:45.214 - cleaner and easier 00:07:45.506 --> 00:07:56.642 - when we have petitions coming forward that have that requirement, which is everything. Okay, thank you. 00:07:56.642 --> 00:08:07.886 - Eric, do you mind just giving a synopsis of the other, any other changes that are in this that we should 00:08:07.886 --> 00:08:09.278 - be aware of? 00:08:10.562 --> 00:08:16.582 - A lot some of them were in regards to the filing fees We had updated those a long time ago and then 00:08:16.582 --> 00:08:22.601 - again just didn't make changes There were a few grammatical errors in the rules and procedures that 00:08:22.601 --> 00:08:28.862 - we went through Mostly it was just kind of sinking everything with some practices that had changed over 00:08:28.862 --> 00:08:35.002 - the years and we just had not updated this Like I said, the public notification was certainly one big 00:08:35.002 --> 00:08:37.470 - one I think one thing that is in here is 00:08:37.570 --> 00:08:43.364 - Removal of the requirement for petitions that are requesting a waiver that they are required to have 00:08:43.364 --> 00:08:49.101 - two hearings Sometimes we see petitions come forward that Certainly one of the ones tonight that is 00:08:49.101 --> 00:08:54.838 - required to have two hearings as part of a waiver, you know having that basic requirement sometimes 00:08:54.838 --> 00:09:00.976 - Prolongs the conversation and just requires that waiver. That's unnecessarily there obviously the Planning 00:09:00.976 --> 00:09:05.566 - Commission always has the right to continue something as well as staff does and 00:09:05.698 --> 00:09:12.331 - So that was one aspect that was changed. You know, we talked about the public notification letter. We 00:09:12.331 --> 00:09:19.095 - removed the references to use variances, which are no longer in the UDL as well. Those are the big ones 00:09:19.095 --> 00:09:25.793 - that are jumping out. A lot of it was just, like I said, housekeeping because we haven't done anything 00:09:25.793 --> 00:09:31.646 - in several years. All right. Any other questions about the updated administrative manual? 00:09:35.778 --> 00:09:43.680 - Mr. Brill is one of the updates the Changing the time limit for public speaking we talked about that 00:09:43.680 --> 00:09:51.583 - before That stayed the same and that has not changed We changed that for the Board of Zoning Appeals 00:09:51.583 --> 00:09:59.798 - with the expedited agenda process But that has not changed for the Planning Commission and I don't think 00:09:59.798 --> 00:10:03.710 - that that's changed for the consent agenda either 00:10:06.082 --> 00:10:13.010 - So that that still stays at five minutes Certainly if that's something that the Plain Commission wants 00:10:13.010 --> 00:10:19.939 - staff to look into You know, we can propose or if the Plain Commission wants to amend that tonight You 00:10:19.939 --> 00:10:26.934 - know, you can you can certainly amend the rules and procedures if you feel like that should be adjusted 00:10:26.934 --> 00:10:33.930 - in some capacity We're doing three minutes instead of five minutes and it has been more people are more 00:10:33.930 --> 00:10:35.006 - to the point or 00:10:35.394 --> 00:10:44.314 - when they do their comments. I don't think anybody suffered from it. I would like to say that council 00:10:44.314 --> 00:10:53.147 - also has three minute comments and I do think that it adds to efficiency but I don't think that that 00:10:53.147 --> 00:11:02.942 - is something that should get changed the night of a meeting because some people prepare comments ahead of time. 00:11:05.602 --> 00:11:14.678 - Yeah, I would say if that's an amendment we could consider at any time, right? So maybe let's give that 00:11:14.678 --> 00:11:23.667 - some thought and have some discussion about it. Unless there are any other questions or, oh, go ahead. 00:11:23.667 --> 00:11:29.950 - I had one question, Eric. Were there any changes to the continuing case 00:11:30.978 --> 00:11:37.799 - At all in any of this know that that still stands that the petitioner is allowed three You know after 00:11:37.799 --> 00:11:45.021 - that the Plain Commission has to vote to approve continuances beyond that Again, you know, that's something 00:11:45.021 --> 00:11:52.510 - that can be amended if the Plain Commission feels there's a need to adjust that I just wanted to make sure it's 00:11:52.866 --> 00:11:59.939 - You know, I appreciate the new revised rules, but it's hard to know without a red line version what 00:11:59.939 --> 00:12:07.154 - has changed. So thank you for offering some synopsis. One comment, and I think this is not a red line 00:12:07.154 --> 00:12:14.368 - version. On page 10, there is number four is still in strike through form. And I don't know if that's 00:12:14.368 --> 00:12:22.078 - an edit that needs to be made. Yeah, that was just a cleanup. I noticed that just a few minutes ago as well. 00:12:22.658 --> 00:12:27.505 - But that's yeah, so that just needs or without for like that was it's part of the deletion. 00:12:27.505 --> 00:12:33.036 - I assume Yes, that would be deleted. That's right there. Okay, and I would second the idea in the future 00:12:33.036 --> 00:12:38.410 - I believe the first time you brought this to us we did have more View of what the changes were but we 00:12:38.410 --> 00:12:43.678 - have to see a redline version, right? You have to be able to see what the original document was and 00:12:44.034 --> 00:12:49.346 - What the new changes are side-by-side in order to be able to make an informed decision So for future 00:12:49.346 --> 00:12:54.974 - amendments, I would request that we get that and not just a clean document with changes already understood 00:12:54.974 --> 00:13:00.603 - Like I said, if the Plain Commission feels like they'd like to see that we can certainly make that redline 00:13:00.603 --> 00:13:05.968 - version available It was at the April hearing there were some Edit I don't say editorial comments for 00:13:05.968 --> 00:13:11.806 - staff that were in that but that's what how it was presented at the April hearing was that redline version and 00:13:12.130 --> 00:13:19.223 - So we can certainly do that and make that available if that's easier for Plain Commission. We can revisit 00:13:19.223 --> 00:13:25.981 - this in July You know, there's nothing that is immediately impending that has to be resolved tonight 00:13:25.981 --> 00:13:32.739 - with this Well, that's the case and I would just I'd suggest we Pick this up at the July meeting and 00:13:32.739 --> 00:13:39.698 - see if we can't see the red line before that if there's nothing that's particularly urgent Yeah, that's 00:13:39.698 --> 00:13:40.702 - certainly fine 00:13:41.410 --> 00:13:50.318 - Anyone object to that approach. All right. Great. I don't think we need to take any action then since 00:13:50.318 --> 00:13:59.313 - this is not an agenda item or do we need to actually continue this to the. I don't think it would hurt 00:13:59.313 --> 00:14:08.657 - to just continue this move that we continue this to the July meeting. I'll motion to continue the revision 00:14:08.657 --> 00:14:10.142 - of the rules and 00:14:10.434 --> 00:14:19.813 - Copy of the administrative manual to the next meeting second All in favor say aye any opposed Okay, 00:14:19.813 --> 00:14:29.287 - thank you. We will pick that back up in July we any other reports communications from staff then All 00:14:29.287 --> 00:14:37.822 - right, well we have no consent agendas we are on to our first petition for the evening and 00:14:38.274 --> 00:14:49.615 - SUB 2025-12-0051 Looks like we have Jamie Kreindler to present the case Take it away whenever you're 00:14:49.615 --> 00:15:01.293 - ready Jamie Kreindler senior zoning planner and this is the petition for 25 11 north done This was last 00:15:01.293 --> 00:15:07.806 - before you in January of this year. So several months ago 00:15:08.290 --> 00:15:15.503 - And just as a refresher, it's a four acre property on the west side of North Dunn. And the request before 00:15:15.503 --> 00:15:22.443 - you is primary plat approval to subdivide the property into 11 residential lots and three common area 00:15:22.443 --> 00:15:29.248 - lots for a total of 14 lots. The petitioners are Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein. And the consultant is 00:15:29.248 --> 00:15:32.446 - Daniel Butler with Bynum Fanyo and Associates. 00:15:33.506 --> 00:15:39.936 - Zoning for the location is R2 residential medium lot surrounding properties to the north and south. 00:15:39.936 --> 00:15:46.494 - They're also zoned R2 with single family homes. To the west there's mixed use corridor zoning with an 00:15:46.494 --> 00:15:52.924 - office park and to the east is Meadowood assisted living and more residential homes. The petitioner 00:15:52.924 --> 00:15:59.546 - is requesting a total of three subdivision waivers and the three subdivision waivers are to one, allow 00:15:59.546 --> 00:16:00.318 - cul-de-sac, 00:16:00.706 --> 00:16:08.337 - two to not require 67% of the lots to be served by alleys and three to amend the riparian buffer easement 00:16:08.337 --> 00:16:15.895 - language. So when this case was before you in January at that time, there were a total of 15 residential 00:16:15.895 --> 00:16:23.742 - lots proposed. So the request has been reduced to 11 now. So that's a reduction of four lots and in January, 00:16:24.002 --> 00:16:30.306 - The petitioner was requesting two subdivision waivers. So the one to not require 67% of the lots to 00:16:30.306 --> 00:16:36.800 - be served by alleys, that's still the same and still a request. They have withdrawn the waiver request 00:16:36.800 --> 00:16:43.419 - to not require sidewalk installation for a portion of the Northwestern Street. So that's no longer being 00:16:43.419 --> 00:16:49.534 - requested. And then I have on the screen the three subdivision waivers that are being requested. 00:16:51.202 --> 00:16:57.551 - So the first one has to do with allowing a cul-de-sac for the development. Cul-de-sacs are not permitted 00:16:57.551 --> 00:17:03.719 - in the UDO, and this is the traditional subdivision type. So the petitioner is requesting a waiver to 00:17:03.719 --> 00:17:10.249 - allow a cul-de-sac instead of the road stubbing to the western boundary of the site. So this is an example, 00:17:10.249 --> 00:17:16.296 - this is the exhibit that the petitioner submitted showing what it would look like if the cul-de-sac 00:17:16.296 --> 00:17:17.566 - waiver was approved. 00:17:19.234 --> 00:17:26.423 - The petitioner is also requesting a subdivision waiver to amend the riparian buffer easement language 00:17:26.423 --> 00:17:34.106 - and the waiver request is from UDO section 20.04.050E10A and this is to accommodate both drainage allowances 00:17:34.106 --> 00:17:37.278 - and environmental preservation requirements. 00:17:38.018 --> 00:17:44.459 - City of Bloomington utilities and planning department staff, we met several times and discussed amending 00:17:44.459 --> 00:17:50.656 - the riparian buffer easement language. So as shown on the screen, this is what it would look like as 00:17:50.656 --> 00:17:56.852 - amended and it reads as required by city of Bloomington utilities and the operations and maintenance 00:17:56.852 --> 00:18:03.232 - manual associated with the stormwater infrastructure located within the easement. The final subdivision 00:18:03.232 --> 00:18:07.710 - waiver request is to not require 67% of the lots to be served by alleys. 00:18:07.906 --> 00:18:14.538 - and this was previously on the plans in January as well. On February 26th, there was a Board of Zoning 00:18:14.538 --> 00:18:21.105 - Appeals hearing for this case and they requested a total of seven variances. So since it's related to 00:18:21.105 --> 00:18:27.737 - the revisions to the plat, I just wanted to give a brief summary of what those variances were and what 00:18:27.737 --> 00:18:33.918 - the decisions were on them. So three of the variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width, 00:18:34.082 --> 00:18:40.682 - and minimum side building setback were denied by Board of Zoning Appeals. And then the other four variances 00:18:40.682 --> 00:18:46.794 - from minimum tree preservation, tree protection fencing, and riparian buffer disturbance activities 00:18:46.794 --> 00:18:52.966 - in the intermediate and fringe zones, those were approved by the BZA. I also want to inform the plan 00:18:52.966 --> 00:18:59.200 - commission that in early April of this year, the city received notice that several neighbors did file 00:18:59.200 --> 00:19:02.622 - a judicial review of this BZA decision, so that's still 00:19:02.754 --> 00:19:10.658 - and there is a motion to stay scheduled for next week on June 17th. This is the landscaping plan submitted 00:19:10.658 --> 00:19:18.192 - by the petitioner, and with the variance that was approved by Board of Zoning Appeals, the petitioner 00:19:18.192 --> 00:19:25.579 - is required to retain a minimum of 36% of the existing tree canopy on the site, and that equates to 00:19:25.579 --> 00:19:31.710 - .93 acres. And then lastly, I wanted to mention that City of Bloomington Utilities 00:19:31.810 --> 00:19:37.993 - a review on the plans that were submitted and the plans are not fully approved by CBU, but they did 00:19:37.993 --> 00:19:44.484 - receive conditional authorization to proceed to this hearing. So the main outstanding issues are related 00:19:44.484 --> 00:19:50.729 - to conflicts between easements, unallowed tree plantings and drainage paths and unacceptable outfall 00:19:50.729 --> 00:19:57.406 - rates still exist. So those don't meet CBU requirements and the petitioner is still coordinating with them. 00:19:58.370 --> 00:20:06.605 - So the department's recommending that the plan commission continue this case to the required second 00:20:06.605 --> 00:20:15.335 - hearing next month on July 13th, and we're happy to answer any questions. Can we start with just a couple 00:20:15.335 --> 00:20:23.570 - of procedural questions? One, we heard this in January already, right? Was that not a first hearing 00:20:23.570 --> 00:20:26.782 - that was a separate action on this or? 00:20:26.978 --> 00:20:35.329 - Have added two new waivers since then so that requires a hearing for those two waivers that have been 00:20:35.329 --> 00:20:44.253 - added those waivers do require two hearings So that's why we're here tonight to hear those two Substantially 00:20:44.253 --> 00:20:52.604 - since the last time we heard it. Yes in essence and then with regard to the judicial review of the of 00:20:52.604 --> 00:20:54.078 - the The variances 00:20:55.266 --> 00:21:03.739 - Does that have any impact on our ability to act on this or Is it just another step if we go ahead and 00:21:03.739 --> 00:21:12.378 - approve this before that is settled Is there any any yeah, it is the opinion of city legal that it does 00:21:12.378 --> 00:21:20.684 - not prevent the plan commission from acting It simply imposes restrictions on the petitioner taking 00:21:20.684 --> 00:21:21.598 - any action 00:21:22.754 --> 00:21:30.043 - Thank you. All right. Any other questions for staff at this point? I'd also just add that we'll probably 00:21:30.043 --> 00:21:37.541 - learn more after the stay hearing and legal will keep us updated here in a minute, but if there's questions 00:21:37.541 --> 00:21:44.691 - about anything kind of procedural, let's get it out of the way now. Go ahead. Commissioners. Questions 00:21:44.691 --> 00:21:48.926 - about the riparian buffer stuff because I was looking at the 00:21:49.218 --> 00:21:54.718 - Presentation link in the packet and I didn't see the slide that you had up there about the language 00:21:54.718 --> 00:22:00.218 - Changes and so I was trying to understand exactly what that new language would be and what it would 00:22:00.218 --> 00:22:05.718 - mean So I don't know if you could show that again Or if that's somewhere else in the packet because 00:22:05.718 --> 00:22:11.383 - I didn't see it in the presentation link that's provided but I also was wondering if the environmental 00:22:11.383 --> 00:22:12.318 - Commission had a 00:22:12.450 --> 00:22:18.390 - Reviewed at all that riparian buffer language change or anything related to that I think that they had 00:22:18.390 --> 00:22:24.214 - maybe looked at it in January, but if they looked at it at all since the BZA approved and Denied the 00:22:24.214 --> 00:22:30.039 - various variances and then they've updated this request at all We're certainly happy I don't know if 00:22:30.039 --> 00:22:36.036 - you wanted to hear from the petitioner first and then go into questions from playing commission I think 00:22:36.036 --> 00:22:41.918 - that to answer your question though I think that language for the easement was is in the staff report 00:22:42.530 --> 00:22:55.583 - Yeah, this exact table wasn't in the report but the proposed amended language is in the report and it's 00:22:55.583 --> 00:23:08.134 - also on the plat on page three of the plat that the petitioner submitted So basically the change is 00:23:08.134 --> 00:23:10.142 - that instead of 00:23:11.490 --> 00:23:17.987 - Except disturbing as allowed in the UV at UDO. It's disturbing as allowed by specific staff. Is that 00:23:17.987 --> 00:23:24.484 - how it's being changed? Yes, what we're and we're gonna talk I guess a little bit about this I don't 00:23:24.484 --> 00:23:30.981 - know how in depth you want us to go at this time But we're trying to reconcile two different aspects 00:23:30.981 --> 00:23:35.998 - of the UDO in terms of what's allowed in certain areas within riparian buffer 00:23:36.066 --> 00:23:42.354 - Areas the udio prohibits a lot of disturbance activities, but at the same time does allow for stormwater 00:23:42.354 --> 00:23:48.343 - facilities The city of Bloomington utilities department requires certain access to those facilities 00:23:48.343 --> 00:23:54.332 - certain maintenance Capabilities that they want to have so we've tried to balance the needs of both 00:23:54.332 --> 00:24:00.441 - departments and so this language works in new language that might make its way into future amendments 00:24:00.441 --> 00:24:04.094 - to the udio that allows for certain activities to happen and 00:24:04.226 --> 00:24:11.768 - Pending of remediation plan or some sort of replanting plan that will be outlined in an operations manual 00:24:11.768 --> 00:24:18.955 - That wasn't totally procedural but I guess that was something I didn't really understand in terms of 00:24:18.955 --> 00:24:26.070 - what it was that we were approving so Thanks Come on up to the podium and say your name you'll have 00:24:26.070 --> 00:24:28.062 - up to 20 minutes to present 00:24:39.170 --> 00:24:48.334 - Associates I Won't take too much time here this plan that you see before you tonight is the same road 00:24:48.334 --> 00:24:54.174 - design So the road hasn't changed with the exception that we are 00:24:54.562 --> 00:25:03.024 - Asking for more or less a cul-de-sac it's really a hammerhead turnarounds for emergency vehicles or 00:25:03.024 --> 00:25:11.571 - Delivery vehicles or anything like that We're putting that option before you tonight. We didn't give 00:25:11.571 --> 00:25:17.918 - you that option in January to try to save more trees less disturbance Less 00:25:18.274 --> 00:25:25.325 - Money to the lots that would be passed along to each one of the lots So those are the upsides to to 00:25:25.325 --> 00:25:32.377 - having that we're asking for that waiver So you see you see now three waivers before you? The other 00:25:32.377 --> 00:25:39.428 - change that you didn't see last time is that we were asking for a reduced lot size that did not get 00:25:39.428 --> 00:25:43.518 - approved at BZA So we're back to the r2 zoning which it's 00:25:43.618 --> 00:25:52.486 - Zoned that now so we're not asking for any lot size differences from what it's owned right now We're 00:25:52.486 --> 00:26:01.617 - just that we're putting those three waivers before you and those are the three things that we're asking 00:26:01.617 --> 00:26:10.923 - for the riparian language the the hammerhead cul-de-sac turnaround if We see good upside we see positives 00:26:10.923 --> 00:26:13.118 - and negatives on both so 00:26:13.282 --> 00:26:23.160 - but I think we would prefer to see the waiver of We've heard some of what the neighbors had been talking 00:26:23.160 --> 00:26:32.661 - to us about and trying our best to Preserve as much of this property as we can we haven't we've even 00:26:32.661 --> 00:26:41.598 - Had certain common lots that really preserve a stand of trees that are you know specimen large 00:26:41.858 --> 00:26:48.906 - Canopy trees that so we're not trying to You know take this piece of property. We understand that the 00:26:48.906 --> 00:26:56.300 - the people who live here do appreciate What's happening on this property a lot of trees trying to preserve 00:26:56.300 --> 00:27:03.279 - that so we're asking for 11 lots now and then three additional common lots on top of that so a total 00:27:03.279 --> 00:27:08.254 - of 14 lots of the three additional common lots would be preservation of 00:27:08.546 --> 00:27:15.257 - Trying to work with Drainage mixed with riparian to try to preserve some of the natural features that 00:27:15.257 --> 00:27:21.968 - are on the site Try to preserve as many trees as possible and then also plant many new trees that are 00:27:21.968 --> 00:27:28.810 - on the property we do feel at this time that it's a a good plan that feels I think in our eyes we would 00:27:28.810 --> 00:27:35.587 - have hoped for a little bit smaller lot so that we could drive down the prices of these homes a little 00:27:35.587 --> 00:27:37.758 - bit more, but we understand that 00:27:38.306 --> 00:27:46.390 - We understand the gives and takes of that as well And then of course you you heard in length in January 00:27:46.390 --> 00:27:54.162 - the positives and the negatives of the alleys behind the homes I won't go into depth about that. If 00:27:54.162 --> 00:28:02.091 - you have any questions, I went into pretty a lot of discussion on the negatives of doing that I don't 00:28:02.091 --> 00:28:07.998 - think I'm guessing that there's no neighbor here tonight that wants that so 00:28:08.098 --> 00:28:15.358 - I could be wrong, but it would add additional impervious area and it would be right on the borders of 00:28:15.358 --> 00:28:22.903 - the property Inviting people more into the backyards rather than in front of the homes and so have garage 00:28:22.903 --> 00:28:30.235 - on the front side with that Please ask questions and Paul Pruitt is here with ownership as well if you 00:28:30.235 --> 00:28:37.566 - have questions for him Other questions from commissioners either for the petitioner or for the staff I 00:28:38.754 --> 00:28:45.365 - The BZA recording and at the beginning of it the petitioner, I don't think it was you I think it was 00:28:45.365 --> 00:28:52.238 - your partner Who mentioned the prior? Attempts that you had with this property to develop it and I don't 00:28:52.238 --> 00:28:58.849 - remember I was hoping you could go over that history again that your first plan that you brought was 00:28:58.849 --> 00:29:01.598 - only two houses or maybe three houses and 00:29:01.730 --> 00:29:06.520 - But for some reason that didn't work and then you brought another plan with a few more houses and that 00:29:06.520 --> 00:29:11.216 - didn't work and I'd like to hear I'd like to hear that I'd like to hear what you reported to the BZA 00:29:11.216 --> 00:29:16.145 - of your initial plans on this and I really what I'm curious in is were they brought to playing Commission 00:29:16.145 --> 00:29:20.981 - did they because I've only been on here for less than a year so this could have all been before my time 00:29:20.981 --> 00:29:23.678 - but why were those non starters why did those plans fail. 00:29:24.386 --> 00:29:30.633 - That is a good question. I do not remember bringing any former plans. We studied I remember you asking 00:29:30.633 --> 00:29:36.758 - a question in particular about how many lots could we get on here with not putting a road through it 00:29:36.758 --> 00:29:43.005 - was very difficult with the length and the length to depth ratio rule to try to introduce a lot of new 00:29:43.005 --> 00:29:49.252 - lots just Having no lot, you know road that would go through here and having you know large backyards. 00:29:49.252 --> 00:29:51.678 - So it'd be hard to you know introduce a 00:29:51.874 --> 00:30:00.625 - Even two or three homes on this property if you're going about it that route Other than that we did 00:30:00.625 --> 00:30:09.727 - have an earlier plan that involved a cul-de-sac That did utilize r2 zoning. So still had a 7200 minimum 00:30:09.727 --> 00:30:12.702 - square foot lot, but it really is 00:30:13.346 --> 00:30:20.137 - Encompassed almost all the land and it became pretty clear quickly that that wasn't going to work for 00:30:20.137 --> 00:30:27.261 - anyone including environmental Commission So we started meeting with environmental Commission the planning 00:30:27.261 --> 00:30:34.052 - department we had some a neighborhood meeting with the neighbors and It just became clear that having 00:30:34.052 --> 00:30:38.846 - a cul-sac and not going for that particular waiver and we would need to 00:30:39.106 --> 00:30:46.119 - Reserve much of the land for drainage and for preservation Other than that, I'm not sure of any other 00:30:46.119 --> 00:30:53.063 - alternate plans Because there was it's recorded at the BZA hearing I think it was again your partner 00:30:53.063 --> 00:31:00.007 - who mentioned it that you had earlier plans to do I think it was two or three houses was the initial 00:31:00.007 --> 00:31:07.020 - one that you brought and that that was a non-starter No memory of that No, I think the the only study 00:31:07.020 --> 00:31:08.670 - that we've done is just 00:31:09.154 --> 00:31:16.464 - Everything came from Dunn Street rather than coming having a public road, but then also meeting with 00:31:16.464 --> 00:31:23.846 - Planning at that time. They were recommending that Tamarack be extended that it was kind of a part of 00:31:23.846 --> 00:31:31.083 - a long long-term plan Other than that. No, sir. I don't I don't remember any off the top of my head 00:31:31.083 --> 00:31:36.222 - Okay, if I may I have a separate question about the the cul-de-sac and 00:31:36.642 --> 00:31:43.724 - Is is it is it genuinely a cul-de-sac because isn't a cul-de-sac round like this looks like a stub Like 00:31:43.724 --> 00:31:50.805 - you said, it's a it's a dead end right that has a turnaround That is exactly correct So it's not a true 00:31:50.805 --> 00:31:57.682 - cul-de-sac I think the language of the cul-de-sac the planning department viewed it as that language 00:31:57.682 --> 00:32:05.036 - because it really is a more of a dead end and so they don't want necessarily dead ends or have a cul-de-sac 00:32:05.036 --> 00:32:06.398 - type feel but we're 00:32:06.530 --> 00:32:13.791 - Proposing more or less a future perhaps if it's necessary to extend that and give ability to do that 00:32:13.791 --> 00:32:21.195 - but for now Have a emergency turnaround as a hammerhead. They're calling a cul-de-sac. It's not a true 00:32:21.195 --> 00:32:28.384 - cul-de-sac The way this is going to stay indefinitely or their direct plans to eventually Extend it 00:32:28.384 --> 00:32:34.782 - and connect it to the shopping center on the other side or what are the? well, so let me 00:32:34.914 --> 00:32:40.543 - Clarify a few things. So the UDO does define a cul-de-sac and it doesn't say that it has to have a bulb 00:32:40.543 --> 00:32:46.011 - It just says it terminates by a vehicular turnaround at the other end So that could be a hammerhead. 00:32:46.011 --> 00:32:51.640 - It could be a round bulb. It could be an oval. It could be a square It could be needed in any different 00:32:51.640 --> 00:32:57.215 - form, but the only thing that is not that is a stub street So a stub street extends all the way to the 00:32:57.215 --> 00:33:00.030 - property line within right away that has been built 00:33:00.098 --> 00:33:05.998 - so, you know with this petition, you know and what has changed tonight is the Petitioners have shown 00:33:05.998 --> 00:33:11.956 - a situation where they are stopping the street at a certain point in theory the plaque shows extended 00:33:11.956 --> 00:33:17.914 - right-of-way dedication But that's not really consistent with any of our adopted plans or goals where 00:33:17.914 --> 00:33:23.755 - you know We want right-of-way that doesn't have a street in it You know that that places the burden 00:33:23.755 --> 00:33:30.064 - on the taxpayers and to build that street or the city to build that street You know and honestly that's the 00:33:30.064 --> 00:33:35.472 - That's not something that you either make the decision to put in the street at the time of the development 00:33:35.472 --> 00:33:40.677 - or you don't You know to come back and build that street at a later time is extremely problematic from 00:33:40.677 --> 00:33:45.782 - a city perspective Certainly, we can't make an adjacent property owner go on to another property and 00:33:45.782 --> 00:33:50.886 - right away and build that street so you know what's before the Plain Commission tonight is either to 00:33:50.886 --> 00:33:51.998 - require the street or 00:33:52.130 --> 00:33:58.589 - To extend all the way to the West property line as a stub street Which is allowed or to allow for a 00:33:58.589 --> 00:34:05.243 - cul-de-sac again, whether that's a hammerhead or a turnaround doesn't matter Either it's a sub streets 00:34:05.243 --> 00:34:12.542 - of the West property line or it's not Some of the details because a stub street has to connect to unplatted land 00:34:12.738 --> 00:34:18.862 - Stub Street would extend to a property line with the expectation and requirement that it be extended 00:34:18.862 --> 00:34:24.986 - at some point in the future So with this certainly, you know, one of the things that we look at is a 00:34:24.986 --> 00:34:31.050 - transportation plan Which outlines a lot of expected and new road connections, but not every single 00:34:31.050 --> 00:34:34.142 - one Certainly it looks at the big road connections 00:34:34.210 --> 00:34:40.466 - Some local roads are identified in there, but it also is very situational So in situations exactly like 00:34:40.466 --> 00:34:46.782 - this come forward, you know, we look at the surrounding situation What are adjacent properties? What is? 00:34:46.850 --> 00:34:52.897 - You know the general traffic pattern within an area certainly learn from the stakes and say this is 00:34:52.897 --> 00:34:59.125 - a situation Where a through road moving through here? Accomplishes a lot of goals, you know One of the 00:34:59.125 --> 00:35:05.232 - things that we talked about is it directly aligns with Tamarack Trail to the east it directly aligns 00:35:05.232 --> 00:35:11.400 - with a very large property to the west that certainly over the next decades is going to see some form 00:35:11.400 --> 00:35:12.670 - of redevelopment and 00:35:12.738 --> 00:35:18.182 - And one of the things that we've learned over the years is, you know, the installation of roads is very 00:35:18.182 --> 00:35:23.417 - important and it's very important to do at the very beginning of a development. You know, it's very 00:35:23.417 --> 00:35:29.018 - hard to get public roads put in where they weren't accommodated in the beginning. So it's a very important 00:35:29.018 --> 00:35:34.357 - conversation to have right now because, you know, the layout of roads here and the connection network 00:35:34.357 --> 00:35:39.591 - that is established will be the pattern and will be what's on the ground for the next 100 years, if 00:35:39.591 --> 00:35:41.790 - not longer. So is there, has there been a 00:35:42.146 --> 00:35:49.414 - I guess I'm now talking with staff you you had a comment. Go ahead I can add to it once the conversation 00:35:49.414 --> 00:35:56.613 - is complete or I can add to it now So so the road connecting Tamarack is not in the transportation plan 00:35:56.613 --> 00:36:01.182 - you have It's not in there right now for the most part is private 00:36:01.506 --> 00:36:06.903 - But certainly it is there, you know, it is a paved road that moves through there You know as I mentioned 00:36:06.903 --> 00:36:12.043 - with this petition and as with any petitions that come forward over time You know, we we have a map 00:36:12.043 --> 00:36:17.337 - on the wall in the office where we have comments on there You know add this to the transportation plan 00:36:17.337 --> 00:36:22.580 - or do this and make this amendment So certainly if this is added on here, there'll be a note place to 00:36:22.580 --> 00:36:27.771 - you know Have that road moving through the adjacent property have that moving through Tamarack Trail 00:36:27.771 --> 00:36:31.472 - so that we can highlight this on the transportation plan and have it be 00:36:31.472 --> 00:36:38.346 - More established, but this is the opportunity for that conversation of connectivity here Okay, and there's 00:36:38.346 --> 00:36:44.835 - is a glendora the next street down. That's 30 feet south of Tamarack Trail That does connect over to 00:36:44.835 --> 00:36:51.259 - walnut and then there's another one that connects done to walnut and then there's the highway south 00:36:51.259 --> 00:36:57.941 - So there are at least three connections You have to run through Fritz Terrace Glendora is the most kind 00:36:57.941 --> 00:37:00.318 - of direct and then you can get their 00:37:00.482 --> 00:37:06.459 - vis-a-vis Seville and Gilbert Okay, so I mean I guess I questioned I mean it's not part of the transportation 00:37:06.459 --> 00:37:12.001 - plan I don't know what it adds to do that. It enables more houses to be built on the property I think 00:37:12.001 --> 00:37:17.542 - And last time that we went through this there was discussion of it needing to connect to the shopping 00:37:17.542 --> 00:37:23.084 - center on the other side It looks like that's not part of it So I guess that was my original question 00:37:23.084 --> 00:37:26.942 - is is that still part of the plan to eventually connect that street? I 00:37:27.234 --> 00:37:32.399 - Not is this a temporary end of the street? Is this a temporary dead end or is this envisioned as like 00:37:32.399 --> 00:37:37.565 - this is going to be the way it is? The expectation when the property so certainly it helps to have it 00:37:37.565 --> 00:37:43.135 - on the transportation plan shown clearly that this road would move through there So if there is a subdivision 00:37:43.135 --> 00:37:45.566 - on the property of the West they're required to 00:37:45.666 --> 00:37:50.865 - Dedicated and build it, you know, it kind of takes that conversation off the table If they don't subdivide 00:37:50.865 --> 00:37:55.773 - it and if it's not shown on the transportation plan Having this extension here. There is language in 00:37:55.773 --> 00:38:00.875 - the udo that says when roads are extended and stubbed to property lines They have to be extended through 00:38:00.875 --> 00:38:05.879 - a property. So that gives us language in the udo even if it isn't in the transportation plan currently 00:38:05.879 --> 00:38:10.884 - But this would certainly be the expectation is when the property to the west redevelops that this road 00:38:10.884 --> 00:38:13.022 - is extended and connected through there and 00:38:16.066 --> 00:38:21.871 - I see language in the UDO that says a cul-de-sac has to be round Has to be large enough to accommodate 00:38:21.871 --> 00:38:27.507 - the largest fire truck in service within the city. Yeah, so you'll see that language for commercial 00:38:27.507 --> 00:38:33.424 - subdivisions because cul-de-sacs are allowed there So there is language in the you know that talks about 00:38:33.424 --> 00:38:39.342 - cul-de-sacs where they're allowed. Yeah Is there language that says it doesn't have to be around because 00:38:39.342 --> 00:38:44.414 - this language says cul-de-sac shall be around bulb large enough to accommodate shall be a 00:38:45.026 --> 00:38:51.522 - It doesn't say one option is my question is is this a cul-de-sac? It doesn't look like one. It looks 00:38:51.522 --> 00:38:57.182 - like a dead end, right? So no, it's it's it's not It's it is a cul-de-sac by definition 00:38:57.282 --> 00:39:04.001 - but it doesn't meet the street design standards because it doesn't have a bulb. You know, the petitioner 00:39:04.001 --> 00:39:10.592 - is proposing something else. So, you know, we've interacted with a cul-de-sac discussion only very few 00:39:10.592 --> 00:39:17.055 - times, only one that's really kind of come to mind lately. And again, that wasn't really a kind of a 00:39:17.055 --> 00:39:23.454 - cul-de-sac. It had a roundabout turnaround at the end of it. So it's not a cul-de-sac, like I said, 00:39:23.454 --> 00:39:25.630 - from the street design standards. 00:39:25.890 --> 00:39:33.862 - But it is a cul-de-sac because you know, it doesn't it's not a stub street It doesn't extend to the 00:39:33.862 --> 00:39:42.472 - property line. It stops with some other version of a terminus Thank you May I add just to this conversation 00:39:42.472 --> 00:39:50.524 - before we go on something else and that's just what we want to put before you because There would be 00:39:50.524 --> 00:39:54.430 - additional Tree saving there would be additional 00:39:54.690 --> 00:40:02.437 - Areas that would be preserved at the time for the time being And it would allow for the same exact amount 00:40:02.437 --> 00:40:09.965 - of lots You would get a little more less money to the project. So that would be passed You know likely 00:40:09.965 --> 00:40:17.566 - on to the you know the actual lots and right now it's You would be getting that same dead end. It would 00:40:17.566 --> 00:40:23.486 - just be a little further down and so we're trying to see if there'd be something 00:40:24.162 --> 00:40:32.055 - Meeting in the middle that would allow for you know, maybe if continuing that street in the future And 00:40:32.055 --> 00:40:39.718 - you don't have to necessarily give up the connectivity potentially And then allow for you know this 00:40:39.718 --> 00:40:47.688 - allow for more Preservation now and I think that's what we want to put in front of you to see if that's 00:40:47.688 --> 00:40:49.374 - amenable to the panel 00:40:52.770 --> 00:40:55.902 - My questions continue on this same cul-de-sac. 00:40:56.226 --> 00:41:02.914 - Eric and the staff have trained me so well tend to not be opposed to cul-de-sac even though I happen 00:41:02.914 --> 00:41:09.535 - to live on one And enjoy it, but I've really learned that they are not good planning and they don't 00:41:09.535 --> 00:41:16.157 - allow connectivity And I've learned all this about why I will never want to approve a cul-de-sac So 00:41:16.157 --> 00:41:23.043 - now I have to be trained out of that very important lesson if we were to consider and move this forward 00:41:23.043 --> 00:41:25.758 - So I guess I want to understand how this 00:41:26.082 --> 00:41:32.963 - Particular I understand the instance in this case allows the trees to be preserved it is You know allows 00:41:32.963 --> 00:41:39.648 - for less disturbance in the land in general I mean that all sounds all quite good But it doesn't what 00:41:39.648 --> 00:41:46.398 - about the other side the the fact that it's not integrated that it's not part of good planning And how 00:41:46.398 --> 00:41:53.279 - do we how do we reconcile these two things to those things outweigh should they outweigh? the the reason 00:41:53.279 --> 00:41:55.966 - we don't do this anymore in planning and 00:41:58.050 --> 00:42:05.319 - Well, from a staff perspective, like I said, the installation establishment of a road network is something 00:42:05.319 --> 00:42:10.142 - that you're establishing and dealing with for the next 100, 200 years. 00:42:10.242 --> 00:42:16.400 - We are paying the price for a lot of these cul-de-sacs that have been done over the past 80 years In 00:42:16.400 --> 00:42:22.618 - situations where we have properties that develop and they don't have stubs to extend to so it results 00:42:22.618 --> 00:42:28.959 - in more traffic on roads Because you can't disperse things So it results in just a lack of connectivity 00:42:28.959 --> 00:42:35.422 - that there have been so many aspects of our comprehensive plan our transportation plan our climate action 00:42:35.422 --> 00:42:36.702 - plan that talk about 00:42:37.698 --> 00:42:42.739 - Increasing nodes of connection so that you don't have to push everybody out on the big roads You've 00:42:42.739 --> 00:42:47.831 - got these smaller internal roads that you can move from one location to another It gives you a wider 00:42:47.831 --> 00:42:53.225 - range of transportation options, you know You can feel more comfortable riding your bikes and your streets 00:42:53.225 --> 00:42:58.014 - down these smaller neighborhood streets and you don't have to go out on the bigger streets and 00:42:58.626 --> 00:43:06.737 - Yes, certainly, you know one of the factors that is a main discussion point with this is you know balancing 00:43:06.737 --> 00:43:14.322 - environmental impacts You know one of the things that we worked with with this is a tree remediation 00:43:14.322 --> 00:43:21.907 - plan to plant additional trees on the property So, you know the the trade-offs for a connectivity or 00:43:21.907 --> 00:43:27.614 - something that you will feel the impact of for decades down the line So the 00:43:27.778 --> 00:43:37.024 - Other thing is the I can't tell on the map that was in the staff packet for Tamarack Trail how much 00:43:37.024 --> 00:43:46.269 - is really in the Labeled section future dedicated right-of-way. What what space are we talking? How 00:43:46.269 --> 00:43:53.758 - much are we talking about there between? is future dedicated right away and then 00:43:54.114 --> 00:44:00.968 - How far is that from the property line or to the next? Property how much are we talking about? Yeah, 00:44:00.968 --> 00:44:07.823 - my petitioner statement kind of breaks it down. I'll just read it out loud It's eleven thousand four 00:44:07.823 --> 00:44:14.677 - hundred seventy square feet that would no longer be disturbed it's about a hundred eighty eight feet 00:44:14.677 --> 00:44:22.142 - of road and 24 large specimen trees would come down in favor of the road given it give or take again. I see a 00:44:22.562 --> 00:44:30.356 - I see the conversation positives and negatives on both sides and after studying looking at it We felt 00:44:30.356 --> 00:44:38.074 - like it would kind of also preserve more of the property but 188 Feet is the answer to your question 00:44:38.074 --> 00:44:44.798 - eleven thousand four hundred seventy Square feet of then undisturbed area you would get 00:44:47.554 --> 00:44:54.041 - And then the other question on this is the the last instance when we were discussing a cul-de-sac and 00:44:54.041 --> 00:45:00.718 - Viewing it positively and negatively for a development on the south side of town there was concern about 00:45:00.718 --> 00:45:07.078 - that property had a house right at the end of the cul-de-sac so it was on like there was nothing we 00:45:07.078 --> 00:45:13.310 - do we have a private property that was butting right up against it, but there's a house there and 00:45:13.538 --> 00:45:22.243 - So there was no way to work around it and we were not going to demolish somebody's home. So there is 00:45:22.243 --> 00:45:30.861 - no plan or any way to put something that would get in the way should this 10 year plan come up. And 00:45:30.861 --> 00:45:39.739 - the expectation is that the road is extended to let's say Walnut. There's nothing planned for that end 00:45:39.739 --> 00:45:42.238 - of the dedicated right away. 00:45:44.066 --> 00:45:51.191 - That is correct All of the exhibits and all the plans that you see in our packet from us Show the road 00:45:51.191 --> 00:45:58.386 - all the way through that you've always seen it in stubbing to the property of the West we also included 00:45:58.386 --> 00:46:05.442 - that exhibit as a possibility for then Dedicate maybe dedicating the right-of-way now or Some kind of 00:46:05.442 --> 00:46:12.222 - language as future dedicated right-of-way. I know as Eric has said that that would come with then 00:46:12.546 --> 00:46:20.125 - Someone else would be on the hook for that road if it was to continue on to the West But we are that's 00:46:20.125 --> 00:46:27.851 - what that exhibit was trying to show is a possibility that maybe you could Give that as future dedicated 00:46:27.851 --> 00:46:35.503 - right away so that nothing would be built in the way potentially And then just back to staff As in this 00:46:35.503 --> 00:46:41.022 - proposal right now if it's a dedicated right away that Makes it that's the 00:46:41.410 --> 00:46:48.567 - Requirement or that makes it possible to retain this space and then extend the road Should that be part 00:46:48.567 --> 00:46:55.448 - of a future development? Is that enough is it sufficient? The challenge would be you know, you have 00:46:55.448 --> 00:47:02.398 - right away sitting on the ground with no improvements in it So the city is then responsible for that 00:47:02.398 --> 00:47:10.174 - for maintaining that both for you know legal purposes But also, you know, we're responsible for maintaining that 00:47:10.370 --> 00:47:16.302 - So it would be completely on the city's burden to install that road at a future time You know, we can't 00:47:16.302 --> 00:47:22.120 - go back and make the homeowners here cough up whatever amount of money How many hundreds of thousands 00:47:22.120 --> 00:47:27.996 - of dollars it is to build that? So that would be an unfair burden to put on the city and the taxpayers 00:47:27.996 --> 00:47:33.985 - to build that, you know We can't make the adjacent property owner come in and do an off-site improvement 00:47:33.985 --> 00:47:35.582 - on an adjacent property and 00:47:35.746 --> 00:47:44.003 - But you know also mention, you know, this particular arrangement isn't the only thing they could also 00:47:44.003 --> 00:47:52.098 - stub this street to the north And that would mean So they they don't have to come forward with this 00:47:52.098 --> 00:48:00.274 - exact layout there are other proposals that could allow for the property on the west to be developed 00:48:00.274 --> 00:48:02.622 - and not require a waiver and 00:48:05.666 --> 00:48:16.864 - So in the first plan in January and Kind of with this with this cul-de-sac waiver plan. There's the 00:48:16.864 --> 00:48:28.062 - assumption that the road would extend west Toward walnut, but you just said that an alternate could 00:48:28.062 --> 00:48:30.526 - be extending the road 00:48:30.850 --> 00:48:37.612 - North they toward that adjacent property and that would fulfill Yes, because that would be a stub street 00:48:37.612 --> 00:48:44.375 - so they could stub it to the north rather than stubbing it to the west I think it would certainly result 00:48:44.375 --> 00:48:51.266 - in less lots and maybe that's been a challenge but Because of the riparian buffer No, I think just because 00:48:51.266 --> 00:48:57.835 - turning it you would lose some of the loss along the north side of the road But is there already some 00:48:57.835 --> 00:49:00.798 - kind of little turnaround there on the north? 00:49:01.986 --> 00:49:09.836 - I'm just surmising about loss of lots, but there is other alternatives besides stubbing to the West 00:49:09.836 --> 00:49:17.999 - it could stub to the north I guess that's sort of an interesting Theory to me is that stub to the north 00:49:17.999 --> 00:49:26.398 - and how that would look So, I don't know if that's something that could be considered by your team for the 00:49:26.658 --> 00:49:32.595 - Next meeting just in terms of what that would look like because that property to the north is very similar 00:49:32.595 --> 00:49:38.255 - to this current property in terms of a single house and then You know at some point in the next tower 00:49:38.255 --> 00:49:43.859 - for many years I Mean that one maybe is just as likely to change in the next tower for many years as 00:49:43.859 --> 00:49:45.246 - the one to the west is I 00:49:54.690 --> 00:50:03.640 - I guess I just want to continue on this same cul-de-sac Comment here the the other thing though I presume 00:50:03.640 --> 00:50:12.084 - that well, I know the staff would have told us what we needed to do in order to make sure that this 00:50:12.084 --> 00:50:20.190 - property is of the least burden to the city and not on the city's back to to care for and still 00:50:20.322 --> 00:50:27.818 - honor what the petition is trying to accomplish here to the degree that we can. But is there anything 00:50:27.818 --> 00:50:35.166 - else that could be done to both assure that that right away is the right approach and that there is 00:50:35.166 --> 00:50:42.883 - assurance that it's of that it remains available should it continue? Is there any did you have any other 00:50:42.883 --> 00:50:45.822 - thoughts about what else this could be? 00:50:46.114 --> 00:50:52.027 - If you're talking about, you know the length of right away that in theory would be dedicated but not 00:50:52.027 --> 00:50:58.174 - improved No, you know situ and we've we dealt with this situation in numerous other examples development 00:50:58.174 --> 00:51:04.380 - scenarios where people have proposed the same thing and every time it's just very problematic and there's 00:51:04.380 --> 00:51:05.726 - there's no benefit and 00:51:06.594 --> 00:51:14.341 - There's only problems and not not benefits that arise from right away sitting on the ground that's intended 00:51:14.341 --> 00:51:21.586 - to be constructed or have some improvement in but You know who's paying for it and who's maintaining 00:51:21.586 --> 00:51:28.759 - it and who's liable for it in the interim Okay Anything else from petitioner about this no, I don't 00:51:28.759 --> 00:51:31.198 - think so I think for us as a firm 00:51:31.522 --> 00:51:39.710 - thinking about how best to go about this. It always felt like a bit of a juggle of trying to come up 00:51:39.710 --> 00:51:47.898 - with a plan that really provided the least amount of environmental impact, and that's why we decided 00:51:47.898 --> 00:51:56.085 - to add this to give even less environmental impact at this time. We just weren't sure when that road 00:51:56.085 --> 00:51:59.166 - would be extended. And to put it all, 00:51:59.266 --> 00:52:07.769 - Understand going all the way to the West that that would then give an extension someday but when would 00:52:07.769 --> 00:52:16.024 - that happen and so we decided to go ahead and pose this before you as it Would lessen environmental 00:52:16.024 --> 00:52:24.279 - impact lower prices of the homes? Just a one more follow-up on that Does that have an impact on the 00:52:24.279 --> 00:52:29.150 - CBU report? I mean whether or not you pave that additional 00:52:30.626 --> 00:52:37.302 - Distance of road seems like it would have impact on runoff and yeah retention. So we've also Sorry to 00:52:37.302 --> 00:52:44.043 - interrupt in the past Months, we've been working with CBU as well. There's been a lot of concerns from 00:52:44.043 --> 00:52:50.849 - neighbors about the drainage So we wanted to make them feel comfortable for tonight's meeting that this 00:52:50.849 --> 00:52:52.158 - could be approvable 00:52:52.258 --> 00:52:59.070 - and all the stormwater was going to be treated as such and not be going on to neighboring properties 00:52:59.070 --> 00:53:05.883 - and Be an outflow at a rate that is acceptable and less than what's going out there now So all those 00:53:05.883 --> 00:53:12.628 - studies have been done. There are still a few outstanding comments, but they they felt like the the 00:53:12.628 --> 00:53:19.913 - whole project in theory is approvable and that To answer your question less road. It's just less Impervious 00:53:19.913 --> 00:53:22.206 - surface so just be even less of a 00:53:22.306 --> 00:53:29.493 - Runoff rate even though right now the way it stands is still approvable and acceptable Well approvable 00:53:29.493 --> 00:53:36.680 - and acceptable in either case with or without the the full distance of the road that's correct because 00:53:36.680 --> 00:53:43.657 - you just be replacing now impervious with environment, you know on Disturbed area and so that would 00:53:43.657 --> 00:53:50.844 - be still going it still would be going to the same place except at a slower rate but so with the worst 00:53:50.844 --> 00:53:52.030 - case scenario we 00:53:52.162 --> 00:53:59.297 - We've gotten approved. I guess is the way I'm putting it Thanks other questions from commissioners 00:53:59.297 --> 00:54:06.504 - Commissioner Stossberg One of the other reasons you gave about Not having to extend that road right 00:54:06.504 --> 00:54:13.783 - now had to do with with costs and costs that you would forward on to the property owners Do you have 00:54:13.783 --> 00:54:20.414 - an estimate about what that price difference would be in terms of? prices of the properties 00:54:20.610 --> 00:54:27.005 - Yeah, we estimate that this road extension is somewhere in the range with the hundred eighty eight feet 00:54:27.005 --> 00:54:33.278 - somewhere in the range of today's cost about four hundred thousand dollars that would be about thirty 00:54:33.278 --> 00:54:39.612 - eight thousand dollars a lot that would potentially be passed on to the the cost of the lots Thank you 00:54:39.612 --> 00:54:45.823 - And do you have a Estimated cost right now about because like I don't see any house plans in here in 00:54:45.823 --> 00:54:50.558 - terms of what you're actually thinking to build So do you have estimates on? 00:54:50.658 --> 00:54:57.079 - What the prices those homes are gonna go for at this point in your planning? See we have to consult 00:54:57.079 --> 00:55:03.499 - for this question. I know it's really hard to do estimates right now a new construction is like all 00:55:03.499 --> 00:55:10.177 - over the place we understand that that's been a question around this project generally, so we're trying 00:55:10.177 --> 00:55:16.662 - to do our best but We're we're trying to keep them under five hundred thousand Okay and that's about 00:55:16.662 --> 00:55:19.294 - what size like how many square foot like 00:55:24.354 --> 00:55:34.515 - The owner stating about fifteen hundred to two thousand. Okay. Thanks And driving down these these costs 00:55:34.515 --> 00:55:44.193 - is What we're trying we're trying to do that, but also marry those of course with the environmental 00:55:44.193 --> 00:55:51.838 - impact stuff Continuing on the questions of the cul-de-sac so it's I guess not 00:55:52.034 --> 00:55:58.790 - Maybe it's intentionally not clear yet. If it was approved as a cul-de-sac would it be dedicated as 00:55:58.790 --> 00:56:05.682 - right of way or kept on a Common area lot or that's a part of what you're wanting to discuss tonight. 00:56:05.682 --> 00:56:12.506 - I Think that's part of what I would like to discuss so if it was I mean If it was actually dedicated 00:56:12.506 --> 00:56:19.262 - right away, then I understand that there would be some maintenance but at the same time it would be 00:56:19.586 --> 00:56:26.273 - Hopefully be kept to a minimum maintenance because it's kept undisturbed However, we understand that 00:56:26.273 --> 00:56:32.961 - that there's still some maintenance involved with that So perhaps an idea what we put on our exhibit 00:56:32.961 --> 00:56:39.648 - is a future dedicated right-of-way set aside for the the possibility that that gets dedicated in the 00:56:39.648 --> 00:56:47.262 - future and that that road gets extended with a project to the west so I guess I know there's maybe limits on how I 00:56:47.394 --> 00:56:54.027 - Projects like this can be phased. I don't know if phasing is a factor or even possible just to kind 00:56:54.027 --> 00:57:00.991 - of Is that been explored? We would be open to that as well. Absolutely if it's a if it's a phasing issue 00:57:00.991 --> 00:57:07.956 - Potent even with phasing though, it wouldn't you'd still lose some of your environmental impact It would 00:57:07.956 --> 00:57:14.655 - help the project and we'd be open to that for sure But you'd still be then, you know passing on cost 00:57:14.655 --> 00:57:16.446 - and you know environmental 00:57:17.058 --> 00:57:23.004 - Impacts we'd be open to that though. And I guess just I know I might not be around at the end of this 00:57:23.004 --> 00:57:29.358 - discussion. So Just for for some awareness and maybe there's a question in here is when there's subdivisions 00:57:29.358 --> 00:57:35.420 - and public right away is established Typically, there's anticipated public improvements there's usually 00:57:35.420 --> 00:57:41.599 - done a public improvement bond that a developer puts and gives to the city to make sure that those public 00:57:41.599 --> 00:57:42.590 - improvements are 00:57:42.946 --> 00:57:49.358 - built to standard in case something were to happen to protect the city's interest. And so just a thought 00:57:49.358 --> 00:57:55.892 - in my mind and I don't know what I even think about this thought but is the idea of preserving the ability 00:57:55.892 --> 00:58:02.120 - for connectivity but some type of bonding or payment in lieu type of thing that could set aside funds 00:58:02.120 --> 00:58:08.410 - for in the future providing flexibility or somehow through phasing. I don't honestly know what I think 00:58:08.410 --> 00:58:12.318 - about that but just planting the question for the group's sake. 00:58:16.162 --> 00:58:21.912 - I think from a city's perspective, we would probably be very on The UDO doesn't have a path, you know 00:58:21.912 --> 00:58:27.549 - that allows for anything beyond three years You know, we certainly probably don't you know you that 00:58:27.549 --> 00:58:33.524 - would be inventing a wheel I guess for this that doesn't exist in terms of a funding mechanism or funding 00:58:33.524 --> 00:58:39.330 - place where you know $400,000 of the petitioners money would just sit You know if their goal is to try 00:58:39.330 --> 00:58:45.193 - to save that money then you know certainly they don't want to bond for it or have that sit for the next 00:58:45.193 --> 00:58:45.982 - hundred years 00:58:48.290 --> 00:58:59.516 - That's a wonderful and important point The studio also doesn't allow cul-de-sacs. So so just say one's 00:58:59.516 --> 00:59:10.742 - not allowed but so Commissioner Kinsey, okay. I would like to talk a little bit about the CBU Approval 00:59:10.742 --> 00:59:15.102 - and the flooding issues. I mean not yet 00:59:15.202 --> 00:59:25.047 - I watched the videos I saw the flooding I saw the existing damage and drainage challenges in this space 00:59:25.047 --> 00:59:34.608 - so I Want to know more about the mitigation and how it the how this will improve? the last sure like 00:59:34.608 --> 00:59:38.110 - the back of the southern side of the 00:59:38.530 --> 00:59:45.703 - Southern lots will then have a new drainage swale. So there's really not much going there now from our 00:59:45.703 --> 00:59:53.223 - property actually So we're not really contributing I it appears a lot of the drainage from done is probably 00:59:53.223 --> 01:00:00.257 - more contributing to The southern homes if there's any flooding down there, but we are taking any of 01:00:00.257 --> 01:00:04.574 - our Drainage and none of it will be going to the south at all 01:00:04.962 --> 01:00:10.959 - We will have a drainage swell that catches all of that taken to a beehive Inlet that will be taken to 01:00:10.959 --> 01:00:16.838 - our pond. That'll be going to the preserved I'm calling a little pond It's kind of like it's almost 01:00:16.838 --> 01:00:22.834 - like a wetland out there. If you've been out there it has the feel of a wetland So that's all will be 01:00:22.834 --> 01:00:28.831 - preserved and that really kind of even acts as a little pond It holds water right now so that we have 01:00:28.831 --> 01:00:33.534 - one pond that will hold water the second one will also hold water and then that 01:00:33.858 --> 01:00:40.956 - Gets delivered to the west and that goes through the you know, the current infrastructure at a more 01:00:40.956 --> 01:00:48.694 - controlled rate now Nothing everything from the northern property comes down to our site right now including 01:00:48.694 --> 01:00:55.792 - what they call is kind of a stream and we're taking that and preserving it to the pond now, so Yes, 01:00:55.792 --> 01:01:02.890 - it's been studied at length three iterations of back-and-forth with CBU to this point and they felt 01:01:02.890 --> 01:01:03.742 - comfortable 01:01:03.842 --> 01:01:12.356 - To that this this plan will work as is Yeah, and I guess you know I want to make sure I'm not naive 01:01:12.356 --> 01:01:21.380 - and thinking that somehow this development can't worsen the It can't contribute to worsening the flooding 01:01:21.380 --> 01:01:29.894 - that happens when there's a pretty significant rainfall in this space and at best it would actually 01:01:29.894 --> 01:01:33.470 - mitigate or potentially improve the water 01:01:33.602 --> 01:01:40.395 - flow storm water flow and is that I'd love to hear the staff's impression about that and Just given 01:01:40.395 --> 01:01:47.188 - the attention and you know, I have confidence in CBU and what they're doing But I just want to make 01:01:47.188 --> 01:01:53.980 - sure we're not missing something on this Yeah, so, you know and that was also another reason why we 01:01:53.980 --> 01:01:56.222 - were recommending continuance of 01:01:56.290 --> 01:02:02.312 - Tonight is to give CBU additional time to make sure that everything that is proposed on this site Works 01:02:02.312 --> 01:02:08.277 - for all of their requirements or stormwater management They're certainly aware of flooding issues that 01:02:08.277 --> 01:02:14.183 - have occurred along here as well as accommodating stormwater movement from Dunn Street As well as the 01:02:14.183 --> 01:02:19.974 - tree remediation that is required on this property as well from the BZA approval So we want to make 01:02:19.974 --> 01:02:25.822 - sure that CBU's had a chance to fully review this and you know are at a very high level review level 01:02:27.362 --> 01:02:33.459 - That we did extend an invitation to a CBU representative to attend the hearing this evening I'm not 01:02:33.459 --> 01:02:39.555 - sure if anyone was able to attend but there is a possibility that someone may attend next month for 01:02:39.555 --> 01:02:45.652 - what that's worth So they were aware this was happening I Would like a CBU person if there's nobody 01:02:45.652 --> 01:02:51.810 - here today Definitely for a second hearing. We got a I don't see anybody available on zoom. So we'll 01:02:51.810 --> 01:02:55.102 - have to reach out and have them available in July and 01:02:56.866 --> 01:03:05.215 - The part of the CBU review is an outside company who's reviewing my drainage it's not just in-house 01:03:05.215 --> 01:03:13.982 - Because there's been a high level of questions on this and knowing drainage or any flooding to the south 01:03:13.982 --> 01:03:22.749 - make sure that we're helping and not Contributing to that. So an outside firm that CBU uses has reviewed 01:03:22.749 --> 01:03:26.590 - our drainage report three times Mr. Stussberg 01:03:27.330 --> 01:03:35.537 - Thank you. I have a couple questions about the alleys and the Street parking so I guess for the petitioner 01:03:35.537 --> 01:03:43.283 - how many street parking spots are there gonna be or are there in your plan? I'd have to do the math. 01:03:43.283 --> 01:03:51.029 - I might have to get back to you on that. Yeah, I'm just interested in knowing that and then in terms 01:03:51.029 --> 01:03:54.174 - of evaluating the variance for alleys so 01:03:54.658 --> 01:04:00.899 - My computer like crashed in the middle of this meeting by the way and just really lost I think the question 01:04:00.899 --> 01:04:06.967 - that I actually wanted to ask so or where it was in my paper So I'm really sorry, but somewhere in there 01:04:06.967 --> 01:04:12.977 - It was like the alleys are required if it's more than three acres. Is that right? Well, the traditional 01:04:12.977 --> 01:04:18.756 - subdivision type is a requirement after you get over a certain lot size and I think that three acre 01:04:18.756 --> 01:04:22.686 - is that which is why you know, they have to utilize the traditional 01:04:22.786 --> 01:04:29.056 - The real question is why three acres because at that point the property is large enough that you can 01:04:29.056 --> 01:04:35.326 - accomplish a grid like network Okay, so it's kind of like a theory that works on averages and one of 01:04:35.326 --> 01:04:41.597 - the challenges with the site is that it's long and thin so it may be four acres, but the width isn't 01:04:41.597 --> 01:04:42.590 - quite there and 01:04:42.818 --> 01:04:49.249 - Yes certainly you know if it was a square you know that lays itself out you know and in a different 01:04:49.249 --> 01:04:55.745 - situation maybe where you know there were adjacent lots to access the alley or there was a different 01:04:55.745 --> 01:05:01.726 - arrangement of environmental features you know the grid could still very well be achievable. 01:05:02.082 --> 01:05:06.895 - You know this particular lot and the low number of lots that are being proposed off of here, you know 01:05:06.895 --> 01:05:11.661 - For instance if they were utilizing the sustainable development incentives or something else and you 01:05:11.661 --> 01:05:16.475 - know, they had doubled the amount of lots here You know you then the alley loaded lots would be a lot 01:05:16.475 --> 01:05:21.430 - more desirable That's a lot of road cuts a lot of drive cuts that you would have on those internal roads 01:05:21.430 --> 01:05:26.526 - And so having that alley loaded design would be a lot more advantageous from a pedestrian safety standpoint 01:05:26.754 --> 01:05:33.361 - So that does bring up my second question, which is you know, we're supposed to evaluate this partly 01:05:33.361 --> 01:05:40.430 - on This granting of the subdivision waiver shall not be detrimental to the public safety health or general 01:05:40.430 --> 01:05:47.169 - welfare And so that question was like well Will this be a detriment to public safety if everything is 01:05:47.169 --> 01:05:54.238 - front-loaded on the street in terms of pedestrian? Yeah, so in this case, you know, they're looking at the 01:05:54.402 --> 01:06:01.812 - Seven lots or so along the south side that would be seven drive cuts So, you know are those seven drive 01:06:01.812 --> 01:06:09.364 - cuts is that really? substantial increase in in safety or hazards that You know not allowing the granting 01:06:09.364 --> 01:06:16.774 - or not granting that waiver to have the alleys really increases safety along that street. That's That's 01:06:16.774 --> 01:06:22.046 - one of the challenges one of the questions Do you have an answer to that? 01:06:25.122 --> 01:06:39.551 - I mean, I think that I would argue it's probably minimal, you know, seven, seven drive cuts. And I think 01:06:39.551 --> 01:06:53.430 - it's like four on the north side of the street. Thank you. Six on the south side. Is that all? Okay. 01:06:53.430 --> 01:06:54.942 - All right. 01:06:57.730 --> 01:07:08.624 - So have you the question was posed that The driveway Extension could be to the north Have you ever considered 01:07:08.624 --> 01:07:18.527 - going to the north and does that I mean it looks like it would eat one of the lots if it goes north 01:07:18.527 --> 01:07:26.846 - We never looked at that because We never considered it because the current Tamarack 01:07:27.106 --> 01:07:34.944 - Line goes to the west ultimately to State Road old 37 So we never considered that and there's also a 01:07:34.944 --> 01:07:43.093 - natural drainage way there that would in my opinion be It'd be more difficult to try to work out because 01:07:43.093 --> 01:07:50.854 - of the the the drainage way the way that we even bent the road to the west Was to go around kind of 01:07:50.854 --> 01:07:56.830 - drainage features and try to minimize the impact on the environment Okay, so 01:07:57.026 --> 01:08:07.648 - If you don't go with the extension to sit to own it and you said it you're saving 400,000 On not doing 01:08:07.648 --> 01:08:18.476 - that part Does that mean you're is that was the solution you found for the because it was 14 lots before 01:08:18.476 --> 01:08:23.838 - now it's 11 So now that lots are more expensive the 01:08:25.890 --> 01:08:36.545 - I'm just trying to figure out I mean it's still cutting the side of the that you're not going to build 01:08:36.545 --> 01:08:47.510 - that you're proposing not to build would should potentially cut the cost of for about I don't know 35,000 01:08:47.510 --> 01:08:48.958 - per lot but I 01:08:51.714 --> 01:08:58.644 - Is that what you were thinking or are we just thinking we don't want to do something that we don't want 01:08:58.644 --> 01:09:05.440 - to keep You know keep keep up with The extension of the road to maintain the extension of the road it 01:09:05.440 --> 01:09:12.637 - would be in public right away So it'd be the city's maintenance. So it will be the city's main maintenance. 01:09:12.637 --> 01:09:15.102 - Well once it's they accepted correct 01:09:25.826 --> 01:09:34.005 - Still thinking yeah, go ahead Is there any unplatted land that's adjacent to the property or is it all? 01:09:34.005 --> 01:09:42.263 - Well, all of the land of this all of the land to this The land to the north of this is meets and bounds. 01:09:42.263 --> 01:09:47.454 - So it's not been platted You know certainly it's very likely that 01:09:47.586 --> 01:09:54.607 - That those loss will redevelop in some capacity over the next hundred years You know, so we'll be stuck 01:09:54.607 --> 01:10:01.358 - with kind of the same conversation, you know If we don't have a stub to those of cul-de-sacs on all 01:10:01.358 --> 01:10:08.244 - of those possibly Right with houses correct there are there are lots there now, but they're meets and 01:10:08.244 --> 01:10:14.590 - bounds so they've never been platted Well to the west of this is that very large property and 01:10:14.786 --> 01:10:20.570 - That we we've talked about several times it encompasses and I'll put that up on the screen here And 01:10:20.570 --> 01:10:26.760 - has it been platted? No, the the lot to the west that has that commercial subdivision has not been platted 01:10:26.760 --> 01:10:32.544 - either So this area, you know, you've got Blue Ridge that is further to the north You know that has 01:10:32.544 --> 01:10:38.328 - been platted and then you've got Fritz Terrace to the south and then the area that is between those 01:10:38.328 --> 01:10:44.286 - two areas Has never really had any development has never been platted So certainly I think that that's 01:10:44.386 --> 01:10:50.072 - Fair to expect something to happen there in the next hundred years and you know again, that's that's 01:10:50.072 --> 01:10:55.477 - something that we talked about a lot Is you know we as as planners and the planning Commission, 01:10:55.477 --> 01:11:01.220 - you know, our job is to look to the future You know that that is a very important element and what we 01:11:01.220 --> 01:11:06.962 - do now reflects the development and the abilities of Residents in the next hundred years 200 years to 01:11:06.962 --> 01:11:12.649 - use the city and the roads that we've built and so it's important to You know have this conversation 01:11:12.649 --> 01:11:13.662 - and do it, right? 01:11:24.770 --> 01:11:33.607 - Last one for me is about the riparian buffer easement language. Help me understand what that adds to 01:11:33.607 --> 01:11:42.532 - this, or the need for the easement language that you're prohibiting land disturbance activities. What 01:11:42.532 --> 01:11:49.182 - is the purpose of this? And say more about if other things were considered. 01:11:50.274 --> 01:11:57.370 - So I think what we were running into a lot of the times with this is the drainage easement requirements 01:11:57.370 --> 01:12:04.465 - conflict with the riparian buffer easement requirements. So the riparian buffer is intended to not have 01:12:04.465 --> 01:12:11.356 - mowing and to not have really any disturbance, but that's not what the drainage easement is intended 01:12:11.356 --> 01:12:19.134 - for because CBU needs the ability to mow if needed or disturb the land if there is some kind of drainage problem. 01:12:19.394 --> 01:12:25.963 - That's what we were running into with CBU and also with the petitioner is how to resolve the situation 01:12:25.963 --> 01:12:32.595 - where the riparian buffer easement regulations conflict with the drainage easement regulations. So this 01:12:32.595 --> 01:12:39.100 - was the agreement we came to with CBU as a way for this case to accommodate both the need to preserve 01:12:39.100 --> 01:12:45.605 - the land there, but also to allow for effective stormwater infrastructure, if that makes sense. Okay, 01:12:45.605 --> 01:12:47.582 - that helps. So this is really, 01:12:48.002 --> 01:12:54.440 - to accommodate and make sure that the needs of the city of Bloomington utilities they are allowed to 01:12:54.440 --> 01:13:01.068 - do what they could need to do in this space. What about the question that Commissioner Stossberg raised 01:13:01.068 --> 01:13:07.570 - earlier about environmental commission. Have they seen this revised language or the adapted language. 01:13:07.570 --> 01:13:12.350 - So I don't think they have the last we heard from them is that they didn't 01:13:12.546 --> 01:13:21.808 - Want to comment or didn't want to write a letter for this case? Our senior environmental planner is 01:13:21.808 --> 01:13:31.070 - now on an extended leave So I I don't think it was brought back to it or if it was they declined to 01:13:31.070 --> 01:13:38.942 - comment. So She was aware of it and was comfortable with it Let's call for questions 01:13:42.338 --> 01:13:48.853 - None, okay. We are now on to public comment If you would like to make comment if you're here in the 01:13:48.853 --> 01:13:55.628 - chambers make your way up to the podium Sign in on the sheet that's there. Also, please state your name 01:13:55.628 --> 01:14:02.143 - for the record before you make your comment You'll have up to five minutes to make your comments If 01:14:02.143 --> 01:14:07.550 - you are online and you want to make a comment, please find the reactions button on 01:14:08.098 --> 01:14:14.200 - Click on the raise hand button or send a chat message to the meeting host and we will recognize you 01:14:14.200 --> 01:14:20.486 - when it is your turn to speak We will try to get through a good chunk of comments here in the chambers 01:14:20.486 --> 01:14:26.649 - Then we'll we'll break and move to some online commenters and then we'll come back Here so we try to 01:14:26.649 --> 01:14:32.446 - keep it balanced. But if you're ready to comment State your name and take it away Good evening 01:14:32.706 --> 01:14:39.122 - Jason McCauley, I'm the attorney for several of the adjacent and nearby property owners who have concerns 01:14:39.122 --> 01:14:45.175 - about the proposed North Grove subdivision. Briefly speaking, we've got quite a few folks here that 01:14:45.175 --> 01:14:51.410 - are gonna tell you about their specific concerns. They really surround a lot of drainage concerns that 01:14:51.410 --> 01:14:55.102 - several of the commissioners have addressed questions about. 01:14:55.394 --> 01:15:02.595 - There are some of the processes that I want to go over with you just to highlight some things that what 01:15:02.595 --> 01:15:09.797 - our requests are and the primary request is that this is a Fundamentally different plan that we haven't 01:15:09.797 --> 01:15:16.998 - had a lot of time to review the CBU process when you log into the city's portal I know Daniel said that 01:15:16.998 --> 01:15:23.230 - it was approved conditionally. It's it's at 13% of the review process through the CBU and 01:15:23.618 --> 01:15:30.544 - The proposal that has changed dramatically, um, you know requests the the changes to the repairing buffer 01:15:30.544 --> 01:15:37.143 - language These revisions also are not minor in the sense that they they still change the road layout 01:15:37.143 --> 01:15:40.606 - the tree preservation the repairing buffer treatment 01:15:40.706 --> 01:15:48.599 - The drainage design and the utility issues I want to emphasize that CBU has has not signed off on this 01:15:48.599 --> 01:15:56.339 - without conditions there are easements that are still at issue in especially a Septic sewer easement 01:15:56.339 --> 01:16:04.386 - that goes across lot 57 to the south That is I suppose from the petitioners standpoint being negotiated, 01:16:04.386 --> 01:16:06.302 - but it doesn't exist and 01:16:06.658 --> 01:16:13.648 - So that is still up in the air Second, I want to emphasize that the staff report Shows that this is 01:16:13.648 --> 01:16:20.778 - not ready for final action tonight and the our community members that I represent They want some more 01:16:20.778 --> 01:16:27.838 - additional time to review this The They haven't provided you with final findings of fact to sign off 01:16:27.970 --> 01:16:34.032 - Obviously, so a second hearing is necessary and we request that Third there are unresolved utility and 01:16:34.032 --> 01:16:39.977 - drainage issues that some of you have already asked questions about The staff report states that CBU 01:16:39.977 --> 01:16:45.863 - has reviewed the submitted plans But the plan is not fully approved and I and we fully support that 01:16:45.863 --> 01:16:52.043 - It further states that there's conflicts with the easements the unallowed tree plantings in the drainage 01:16:52.043 --> 01:16:56.222 - paths and the unacceptable unacceptable outfall rates that still exist 01:16:56.322 --> 01:17:03.146 - Those are the primary concerns that that my clients want to be see addressed because they are experiencing 01:17:03.146 --> 01:17:09.524 - flooding as it exists now So any increase in outfall they want that to be studied. They want to see 01:17:09.524 --> 01:17:15.902 - the numbers They want to know that that is going to be addressed I believe Daniel stated that there 01:17:15.902 --> 01:17:22.535 - is no water that exits this property to the under the properties to the south I've reviewed videos from 01:17:22.535 --> 01:17:25.022 - my clients. I've seen the pictures and 01:17:25.602 --> 01:17:32.837 - the water flowing from the north to the south onto their property. So I think there's something to be 01:17:32.837 --> 01:17:40.284 - said for what's on paper and what is actually being experienced by the folks to the south. Fourth, there 01:17:40.284 --> 01:17:47.448 - is a wetland and riparian buffer issue that I think deserves further review. The staff report states 01:17:47.448 --> 01:17:49.150 - that there are no known 01:17:49.250 --> 01:17:55.465 - wetland areas. But the only reason that there's no known wetland areas is because no one has done a 01:17:55.465 --> 01:18:01.742 - delineation study to see if there is one. So we would like to see the basis upon which that comment, 01:18:01.742 --> 01:18:08.331 - that assertion is based. If there's no wetland known, then let's do a study to see whether or not there's 01:18:08.331 --> 01:18:14.794 - a delineation report that needs to be done to figure out whether it is. Daniel stated tonight that it's 01:18:14.794 --> 01:18:16.286 - kind of like a wetland. 01:18:16.386 --> 01:18:22.151 - It is in kind of like a wetland. Yes. So what we would like for the Plan Commission to do is require 01:18:22.151 --> 01:18:28.258 - the petitioner to submit the property to a delineation report to figure out whether or not it is a wetland 01:18:28.258 --> 01:18:34.023 - because the folks that I represent have been on and around this property for a lot of years and they 01:18:34.023 --> 01:18:39.902 - see a lot of wildlife and they see a wetland of what most of it most folks would say that's a wetland. 01:18:40.354 --> 01:18:46.937 - So that's something that I think that this report, the staff report, makes a conclusory statement that 01:18:46.937 --> 01:18:53.392 - yes, there are no known wetlands, but we don't have any basis upon which to show why that is that we 01:18:53.392 --> 01:18:59.784 - know that there are no known wetlands. Fifth, I addressed the sewer issue. That's something that is 01:18:59.784 --> 01:19:06.750 - probably gonna take a substantial amount of time, whether it's negotiated or litigated one way or the other. 01:19:06.946 --> 01:19:14.507 - That is the proposed easement runs across lot 57. It is not Described by a meets and bounds description 01:19:14.507 --> 01:19:21.777 - the CBU requires that and so at that point we are looking for Some process to negotiate or litigate 01:19:21.777 --> 01:19:29.193 - that Finally the related litigation is pending. There's currently an order in place that suspends any 01:19:29.193 --> 01:19:36.318 - action based upon the variances that are granted and we would Appreciate your time on this matter 01:19:36.418 --> 01:19:50.926 - Thank you. Hi. My name's Julie Williams and I live just south of my name's Julie Williams. And tonight 01:19:50.926 --> 01:20:00.926 - I'm going to show you a video. Some people have mentioned it that will 01:20:01.346 --> 01:20:09.286 - Demonstrate the problems that we have been facing and dealing with the expense the work She's gonna 01:20:09.286 --> 01:20:17.782 - speed it up a little bit and I'm gonna talk much faster than I normally do This is looking at the property 01:20:17.782 --> 01:20:25.961 - that we're talking about from the West I mean looking from the West. This is this is the flooding from 01:20:25.961 --> 01:20:29.534 - March of this year, I believe So you can see 01:20:30.402 --> 01:20:37.231 - It looks like a wetland. Um, it probably is. Um, this is why we're so worried about this development. 01:20:37.231 --> 01:20:44.328 - This is flooding our basements. This is flooding our yards. This is some of the damage that's been caused 01:20:44.328 --> 01:20:51.090 - by the flooding. This property I have the addresses. I think this is 401 Glendora. The house you see 01:20:51.090 --> 01:20:55.710 - up on the left is the house that will be demolished as part of this. 01:20:57.154 --> 01:21:07.651 - There it's pouring in from 2511, done onto Glendora here, 401 Glendora. I'm gonna have to just talk 01:21:07.651 --> 01:21:18.254 - over it. You'll see, this is just, I took these last month in a rainstorm that wasn't huge. It was a 01:21:18.254 --> 01:21:25.182 - thunderstorm, but it wasn't any major storm. This is my backyard. 01:21:25.378 --> 01:21:35.451 - It's coming in, as you can see from behind me, which is 2511. This is my shelter house. So it's moving 01:21:35.451 --> 01:21:45.231 - to the west. And you can kind of see it running. And this is my backyard underwater. OK. So this is 01:21:45.231 --> 01:21:54.718 - the second major flood that I've had, I've experienced in the last two years. The first one was. 01:21:54.978 --> 01:22:03.615 - I think it was March of 22 years ago. In that first flood, I have a finished basement, an apartment 01:22:03.615 --> 01:22:13.029 - down there. I lost everything that was down there, the furniture, the rugs, none of it covered by insurance, 01:22:13.029 --> 01:22:21.666 - of course, because water damage isn't unless you pay a lot extra, which I hadn't, because I had had 01:22:21.666 --> 01:22:24.862 - a dry basement before two years ago. 01:22:25.090 --> 01:22:32.303 - Now these kind of floods that you're seeing now are happening on a regular basis. And when we get to 01:22:32.303 --> 01:22:39.516 - the front of the house, you'll see what was coming in from, this is the street. This is what happens 01:22:39.516 --> 01:22:46.871 - to our street. This is the property directly opposite me. You can see his yard is like a lake in every 01:22:46.871 --> 01:22:50.942 - rainstorm. This ditch with the previous owner of my home 01:22:51.362 --> 01:23:00.077 - It had this ditch dug. It was running full, as you can see. What can I say? Not a 100-year storm, or 01:23:00.077 --> 01:23:09.051 - not by our old understanding of what a 100-year storm was. This is just a normal rainfall. This is what 01:23:09.051 --> 01:23:17.939 - we're dealing with. This is the expense that neighbors have been struggling with. This is, anytime you 01:23:17.939 --> 01:23:18.974 - have to do, 01:23:19.746 --> 01:23:30.201 - this kind of damage control on your property, it's tens of thousands of dollars. I have a French drain. 01:23:30.201 --> 01:23:40.455 - I have done landscaping to mitigate some of this. I have done everything I could. I have a heavy duty 01:23:40.455 --> 01:23:49.502 - sump pump that just can't keep up. So this is looking east on Glendora up to Dunn Street. 01:23:50.050 --> 01:23:59.821 - And this is where, yes, a lot of it is pouring down, done. It's taking out the asphalt on our streets, 01:23:59.821 --> 01:24:09.782 - cracking our streets. My French drain goes right into this ditch and it backs up when the ditch is full. 01:24:09.782 --> 01:24:19.838 - It backs up into the basement through the drains there. And this is my basement. This is the lesser of my 01:24:20.002 --> 01:24:27.235 - of my floods in what used to be a rentable apartment, an apartment that a caretaker used to, for the 01:24:27.235 --> 01:24:34.540 - elderly owner before me, there was a caretaker that lived down there. My kids have occupied the space 01:24:34.540 --> 01:24:42.275 - off and on. It's got a kitchen, a bathroom. This is what's happening. Now that space is no longer rentable, 01:24:42.275 --> 01:24:44.638 - obviously, and no longer usable. 01:24:45.410 --> 01:24:52.306 - And you're going to be hearing from others who have experienced similar things. Pardon? 10 seconds. 01:24:52.306 --> 01:24:59.271 - I have other things that were included in your packet. I hope you'll review those. And thank you for 01:24:59.271 --> 01:25:00.030 - listening. 01:25:18.466 --> 01:25:25.471 - Hi. Thank you very much for being here and for listening to us. My name is Deirdre Sheets. I live on 01:25:25.471 --> 01:25:32.544 - Fritz Drive, and I'm going to first speak on behalf of one of my neighbors on the corner of Fritz and 01:25:32.544 --> 01:25:39.688 - Glandora, Tyler Kovacs. On May 20th, 2026, our finished basement at 301 East Glandora Drive completely 01:25:39.688 --> 01:25:43.294 - flooded. The entire finished basement was impacted. 01:25:43.458 --> 01:25:49.108 - All flooring, carpet, baseboards, and six inches of drywall has been removed to allow for drying. All 01:25:49.108 --> 01:25:55.145 - of these materials are now damaged beyond repair. Thus, they have been disposed of. Based on recommendations 01:25:55.145 --> 01:26:00.795 - from various basement experts, our entire basement needs an interior aqua guard gutter system to deal 01:26:00.795 --> 01:26:06.611 - with the water. This will require all drywall and studs to be cut to a height of four feet off the floor 01:26:06.611 --> 01:26:10.654 - so that this system can be placed against the existing block foundation. 01:26:10.978 --> 01:26:16.192 - The entire basement will then need to be refinished to return it to the condition it was when we bought 01:26:16.192 --> 01:26:21.256 - this home. My wife, myself, and three and a half year old daughter bought this house only two months 01:26:21.256 --> 01:26:26.270 - ago. The house is beautiful and the neighborhood is even more beautiful. This entire experience has 01:26:26.270 --> 01:26:31.283 - been emotionally and financially traumatic for our family. The once finished basement that we loved 01:26:31.283 --> 01:26:35.294 - and initially spent time in now sits quiet and empty until repairs can be made. 01:26:36.034 --> 01:26:41.216 - Allowing any additional watershed towards the homes on Glendora from any new development is 01:26:41.216 --> 01:26:46.961 - both irresponsible and unnecessary. The drainage in this area is already non-existent due to no storm 01:26:46.961 --> 01:26:52.931 - sewers or roadside ditches. Any additional watershed or continued lack of addressing the current drainage 01:26:52.931 --> 01:26:58.901 - problem is unfathomable. Our family prays for a fair solution for all parties involved and that no family 01:26:58.901 --> 01:27:01.886 - has to experience what we have experienced recently. 01:27:03.010 --> 01:27:08.949 - So that's my neighbor's experience and I will add some of my own. Again, they bought their home two 01:27:08.949 --> 01:27:15.008 - months ago. We bought our home in Matlock Heights nearly two years ago. Previously, years back, I was 01:27:15.008 --> 01:27:21.007 - a renter in Matlock Heights and I was excited to return to a neighborhood that I love and to a ranch 01:27:21.007 --> 01:27:26.174 - home that my husband and I bought to grow old and retire in. And making this purchase, 01:27:27.298 --> 01:27:33.262 - We entered into a compact with the city of Bloomington, and we want Bloomington to hold up their end 01:27:33.262 --> 01:27:39.168 - of the bargain by following the UDO, addressing the crumbling roads and insufficient storm drainage 01:27:39.168 --> 01:27:45.073 - infrastructure in Matlock Heights, and not green lighting a development that will absolutely affect 01:27:45.073 --> 01:27:51.273 - our homes, sometimes catastrophically, as demonstrated by my neighbor's experience. I work in government 01:27:51.273 --> 01:27:55.230 - contracting, so I uploaded the new plans into a secure AI platform 01:27:55.426 --> 01:28:02.115 - built for government defense and highly regulated commercial industries. Unsurprisingly, the interpretation 01:28:02.115 --> 01:28:08.618 - of the plans indicated that as a result of this development, the existing homes in Matlock Heights would 01:28:08.618 --> 01:28:15.059 - experience increased runoff, flooding, sediment runoff, long-term water quality issues, and groundwater 01:28:15.059 --> 01:28:21.252 - issues. I'm saying this as broadly as I can. This was fairly detailed as far as the levels of these 01:28:21.252 --> 01:28:25.278 - issues. We will see impacts on the local watershed and wildlife. 01:28:25.858 --> 01:28:32.383 - This is not difficult to conclude from our lived experience. The plan to significantly reduce permeable 01:28:32.383 --> 01:28:38.719 - surfaces, remove trees that naturally prevent or mitigate erosion, and leave it up to the homeowners 01:28:38.719 --> 01:28:44.993 - to manage a detention pond all upstream from an area without storm drains and with already existing 01:28:44.993 --> 01:28:51.267 - drainage and flooding issues, to pretend that anything other than the obvious is going to happen is 01:28:51.267 --> 01:28:53.086 - to participate in a fiction. 01:28:53.282 --> 01:28:59.939 - And it feels like, and I apologize for my language here, but, and it feels like giving the homeowners 01:28:59.939 --> 01:29:06.531 - and residents of Matlock Heights a really big middle finger. So, unfortunately, I have experience in 01:29:06.531 --> 01:29:13.123 - Bloomington with storm drainage, new developments, and homeowner responsibility for detention ponds. 01:29:13.123 --> 01:29:19.650 - I previously lived up near North High School, near Fritz Terrace, that's where it is, where Matlock 01:29:19.650 --> 01:29:21.086 - Heights, and we were, 01:29:21.186 --> 01:29:27.092 - We were north of Bloomington High School North. It was a new development. It was supposed to connect 01:29:27.092 --> 01:29:33.115 - to the Kinser Pike side of the development, and the plan was for a detention pond to be built that the 01:29:33.115 --> 01:29:39.489 - HOA would be responsible for. There are things that have to happen for that to happen, i.e., as I understand 01:29:39.489 --> 01:29:45.629 - it, the developer has to start an HOA, has to become a member of it, has to be paying dues for the first 01:29:45.629 --> 01:29:50.366 - houses to join until there are enough houses to take responsibility for the HOA. 01:29:50.946 --> 01:29:57.507 - That didn't happen properly, so the first homeowners, four or five of us, I wanna be clear, my husband 01:29:57.507 --> 01:30:04.005 - bought the home, I was not there at the time, were not responsible for being in an HOA, it was stated 01:30:04.005 --> 01:30:10.503 - in our closing paperwork. Homeowners that came after us were creating a division in the neighborhood. 01:30:10.503 --> 01:30:16.937 - I'm out of time, so I will give you the punchline to the story, which is my husband bought that home 01:30:16.937 --> 01:30:19.230 - in 2011, it's 2026, there's no HOA, 01:30:19.586 --> 01:30:35.709 - There's no detention pond and there's still serious storm drainage issues up in that neighborhood. I 01:30:35.709 --> 01:30:48.958 - Was just up there the other day Thank you so much for your time Pardon me, I don't 01:30:50.306 --> 01:31:15.004 - Get around very quickly. Let's see Okay My name is Jean Ream and I live at 2520 North Fritz Drive I 01:31:15.004 --> 01:31:20.190 - Purchased my home in 01:31:20.994 --> 01:31:31.303 - 71 Matlock Heights was a nice area. It was close to IU where I worked My home at home has a nice yard. 01:31:31.303 --> 01:31:41.411 - It had adequate space for children to play and a space for garden There was a nice property along my 01:31:41.411 --> 01:31:49.918 - northern property line at 2600 North Walnut Street and Fritz Drive was a south of my 01:31:50.946 --> 01:32:02.911 - lot in the second house east of Walnut Street across from the Cascades Inn. But in 1975, the house that 01:32:02.911 --> 01:32:14.416 - was at 2600 North Walnut was demolished and the large building complex Executive Park North and its 01:32:14.416 --> 01:32:18.558 - parking lot were constructed there. 01:32:19.618 --> 01:32:28.012 - I was one of the neighbors that protested to that development, but my attorney said he believed the 01:32:28.012 --> 01:32:36.574 - company would be thoughtful and would be a good neighbor. That statement turned out not to be true in 01:32:36.574 --> 01:32:44.968 - the long run. The parking area, the culvert, the street to the business created a flooding problem. 01:32:44.968 --> 01:32:48.158 - They have an upper and a lower level. 01:32:48.450 --> 01:33:00.995 - in that large building. I believe Arby's, it was Paul. Anyway, it was originally Arby's. There's been 01:33:00.995 --> 01:33:13.663 - a number of other businesses in there in the course of the years. In that parking lot, the water flows 01:33:13.663 --> 01:33:15.262 - into a ditch 01:33:16.290 --> 01:33:25.964 - into my north part of my property and also the neighbors at 2530 North Fritz. Heavy rainfall creates 01:33:25.964 --> 01:33:35.829 - flooding in my backyard and causes damage there. The water on the business property is due west of the 01:33:35.829 --> 01:33:45.886 - property at 2511 North Dunn. If the Dunn Street project advances, it too will add to the flooding issues 01:33:46.882 --> 01:33:57.597 - I challenged them if they think it doesn't. Mr. Pruitt proposes to remove trees at a road and 11 houses. 01:33:57.597 --> 01:34:08.006 - Rainfall will have no restraint and will increase the volume of water coming onto my property because 01:34:08.006 --> 01:34:15.966 - it comes from the East from Dunn through that property onto that parking lot. 01:34:16.098 --> 01:34:24.387 - that's behind the large building and that's right up against our property line. My neighbors eastward 01:34:24.387 --> 01:34:32.839 - on Fritz and Glendora currently have water issues, which they have mentioned. They too agree that there 01:34:32.839 --> 01:34:41.047 - must be a resolution to this major situation. Currently we have Mr. Pruitt to negotiate with on this 01:34:41.047 --> 01:34:44.542 - issue, but once those properties are sold, 01:34:44.898 --> 01:34:52.497 - There will be 11 different individual property owners inheriting these issues. He will have his profits 01:34:52.497 --> 01:35:00.022 - and go on to the next project for him. If the current project mirrors the executive park construction, 01:35:00.022 --> 01:35:07.329 - I do not see a bright future for Matlock Hype property valuation or the resolution of our water and 01:35:07.329 --> 01:35:14.270 - the environmental concerns. If the city wishes stable property ownership, long term occupancy, 01:35:14.690 --> 01:35:23.722 - and taxable sites then there should be an interest in residents that will maintain their properties 01:35:23.722 --> 01:35:33.387 - follow follow regulations and contribute to the well-being of Bloomington. Does anyone have any questions. 01:35:33.387 --> 01:35:38.174 - Not understanding what I said. Thank you. Thank you. 01:35:52.738 --> 01:36:00.931 - Hello, my name's Julia Livingston and I brought some photos today of the land. You know, you've been 01:36:00.931 --> 01:36:09.204 - seeing it on drawings, right? It looks like these lines and then these little houses and so I thought 01:36:09.204 --> 01:36:17.722 - it might help your imagination a little, help understand the property that we're actually talking about. 01:36:17.722 --> 01:36:21.534 - The property, as Eric Grulich said earlier, is 01:36:21.698 --> 01:36:30.632 - related to the probably five properties that head north, including ours, which are undeveloped in the 01:36:30.632 --> 01:36:40.004 - back area. Now, I believe there's a reason that all of the back areas, including the pond and the riparian 01:36:40.004 --> 01:36:48.938 - buffer zone that we're talking about tonight, were never developed. And that's because our lot, which 01:36:48.938 --> 01:36:51.390 - is four lots from the 2511, 01:36:51.522 --> 01:36:58.956 - From the very back of it, from the west side, we can see where there is a slope that comes down from 01:36:58.956 --> 01:37:06.317 - Blue Ridge. And that slope that comes down is a stream that comes through the back of our property. 01:37:06.317 --> 01:37:13.677 - And it goes to our neighbor's property. And it goes to the next neighbor's property. It's a natural 01:37:13.677 --> 01:37:21.406 - wetland area. We even have a black Tupelo volunteer tree in our back area, which is a sign of a wetland. 01:37:22.018 --> 01:37:29.911 - And so these properties have never been developed. We don't plan to develop ours. Our neighbors are 01:37:29.911 --> 01:37:38.042 - hopefully, I would like to put ours in the Sycamore Land Trust because I think all of these properties 01:37:38.042 --> 01:37:45.935 - on top of being a corridor from Griffey Woods where you can see the deer heading down the cascades, 01:37:45.935 --> 01:37:51.934 - they do provide an incredible wildlife sanctuary in the middle of the city. 01:37:52.130 --> 01:38:02.398 - And these trees that are there are enormous. And they're kind of the backdrop of our neighborhood. They 01:38:02.398 --> 01:38:12.568 - wrap their arms around us. In the winter, they're what we see that is still green, all the huge pines. 01:38:12.568 --> 01:38:22.046 - We see owls. We see pilated woodpeckers. I recorded 12 birds the other morning in five minutes. 01:38:22.178 --> 01:38:31.528 - So these are some of the pine trees that are so beautiful on the property, not ours, but 2511. And this, 01:38:31.528 --> 01:38:40.700 - I wish you that you could all come and see the property so that you could really understand what could 01:38:40.700 --> 01:38:49.694 - be lost here. I know that when the city, when the engineers were talking about the benefit of having 01:38:49.922 --> 01:38:57.988 - No cul-de-sacs and having through streets and having grids. That is a type of benefit, but there are 01:38:57.988 --> 01:39:06.134 - other benefits and value that are more important to me than that. And that is the lived experience of 01:39:06.134 --> 01:39:14.279 - being in a neighborhood. And this is our neighborhood. We don't want a street cutting through a small 01:39:14.279 --> 01:39:19.710 - subdivision with a street going through. We don't want these plans. 01:39:19.906 --> 01:39:30.457 - we would be happy if the city would consider a conservation district because we feel that that is more 01:39:30.457 --> 01:39:40.905 - appropriate for this land. And I do impress upon the plan commission to request a wetland delineation 01:39:40.905 --> 01:39:45.310 - survey because again, it seems so apparent 01:39:45.506 --> 01:39:52.961 - Us that it is and that would change everything about what is possible on this property This house will 01:39:52.961 --> 01:40:00.417 - be destroyed it's a nice example of a mid-century modern home It's got its problems They could I think 01:40:00.417 --> 01:40:07.727 - be fixed and we would love for someone to own it who would preserve it or for maybe the city Take to 01:40:07.727 --> 01:40:15.038 - take over and preserve it. I don't know lots of things are possible. There's a view from my backyard 01:40:15.426 --> 01:40:44.254 - toward it and you can see the immense presence it has. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Greg Grant. 01:40:44.354 --> 01:40:51.611 - I live at the corner of North Dunn and Lakewood. I expressed my concerns about the proposed development 01:40:51.611 --> 01:40:58.938 - of a high-density subdivision at 2511 North Dunn Street to the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 26th. 01:40:58.938 --> 01:41:06.056 - None of those concerns have been significantly reduced by the developer reducing the number of houses 01:41:06.056 --> 01:41:13.662 - from 15 previously to 11 in their new plan. Therefore, I will try to better clarify my concerns. Number one. 01:41:13.762 --> 01:41:20.854 - The lot sizes are still way too small pushing a high-density urban style housing complex into an existing 01:41:20.854 --> 01:41:27.545 - moderate and low-density suburban neighborhood Would be severely disruptive to the character of the 01:41:27.545 --> 01:41:34.369 - surrounding neighborhood and undermine property values Approving such disruption could even undermine 01:41:34.369 --> 01:41:40.993 - the value of Bloomington's unified development ordinance for protecting property values throughout 01:41:40.993 --> 01:41:43.134 - Bloomington number two flooding 01:41:43.330 --> 01:41:50.170 - It could be worsened due to many factors, including conversion of at least 75% of the current permeable 01:41:50.170 --> 01:41:56.813 - natural land area into impermeable surfaces. When new subdivisions are proposed in Indiana, the code 01:41:56.813 --> 01:42:03.916 - and standard practice is to make certain that existing drainage issues for adjoining properties, downstream 01:42:03.916 --> 01:42:10.624 - properties, and even upstream properties are addressed. This proposal ignores responsibility for this 01:42:10.624 --> 01:42:12.926 - standard that the state of Indiana 01:42:14.562 --> 01:42:21.100 - Uses as normal practice for protecting other property owners even preliminary construction plans are 01:42:21.100 --> 01:42:27.637 - not yet available For the public's review for stormwater management and pollution protection erosion 01:42:27.637 --> 01:42:34.110 - and sedimentation control Therefore it's premature at best to consider any udo variances or waivers 01:42:34.110 --> 01:42:40.906 - for items that could potentially increase this existing flooding number three traffic likewise a traffic 01:42:40.906 --> 01:42:42.654 - safety impact analysis and 01:42:43.010 --> 01:42:50.074 - has not been provided for public review. The resulting traffic increase on North Dunn would likely reduce 01:42:50.074 --> 01:42:56.871 - safety for all users, motorized vehicles, bicyclists, and walkers alike. Living at the corner of Dunn 01:42:56.871 --> 01:43:03.668 - and Lakewood, I've witnessed personally how extremely unsafe North Dunn is already. Likewise, with or 01:43:03.668 --> 01:43:10.332 - without the alleys, as specified in the UDO, it's unclear how cars can be parked without creating a 01:43:10.332 --> 01:43:11.198 - major hazard 01:43:11.682 --> 01:43:18.695 - Safety hazard like the traffic safety impacts the proposed developments noise impacts have not been 01:43:18.695 --> 01:43:25.779 - adequately quantified Excuse me The increase in noise would detract greatly from property values for 01:43:25.779 --> 01:43:33.002 - all properties adjacent to Either the proposed development or to access streets such as North Dunn The 01:43:33.002 --> 01:43:40.016 - traffic and noise impacts would be even worse if the planned road were extended to the lots western 01:43:40.016 --> 01:43:41.278 - boundary as shown 01:43:41.474 --> 01:43:48.447 - in the new plan for potential future extension to walnut. Number four, environmentally. The new plan 01:43:48.447 --> 01:43:55.419 - still violates the UDO's specification to retain at least 60% of the existing tree canopy. Replacing 01:43:55.419 --> 01:44:02.737 - 80 to 100 maturing 50-year-old trees using any number of new trees would not offset the loss of permeable 01:44:02.737 --> 01:44:10.814 - surface and tree roots for water retention, nor would any number of small trees offset the loss of wildlife habitat. 01:44:11.106 --> 01:44:17.199 - and the protection of the environment more generally as intended by the UDO, as well as by so many other 01:44:17.199 --> 01:44:23.292 - programs directed toward protecting Bloomington's natural environment for all of Bloomington's residents 01:44:23.292 --> 01:44:29.327 - and visitors, such as Canopy Bloomington, Bee City, plans for habitat connectivity, wildlife corridors, 01:44:29.327 --> 01:44:35.130 - et cetera, et cetera. Furthermore, no overall environmental impact assessment has been made public. 01:44:35.130 --> 01:44:38.206 - In this regard, despite year-round pooling of water, 01:44:39.330 --> 01:44:45.900 - across the back of the lot due to drainage from the ravine to the north as well as the four acre lot, 01:44:45.900 --> 01:44:52.340 - the developer is now claiming for the first time there is no wetland at the back of the lot despite 01:44:52.340 --> 01:44:58.974 - what we heard earlier on the drawings that there's no wetland. This wetland determination needs review 01:44:58.974 --> 01:45:05.415 - by appropriate state or US authorities. In general, the plans provided to date by the developer are 01:45:05.415 --> 01:45:09.086 - at best inadequate to estimate the proposed developments 01:45:10.274 --> 01:45:17.094 - the likely impacts on neighbors and others property values Additionally the adequately to adequately 01:45:17.094 --> 01:45:24.049 - address the concerns expressed by many of us I would suggest that the developer in the city Reconsider 01:45:24.049 --> 01:45:30.802 - the developers original plan for two houses or perhaps up to a maximum of four houses using a short 01:45:30.802 --> 01:45:35.934 - stemmed cul-de-sac that keeps the back two acres as natural as possible and 01:45:36.610 --> 01:45:43.202 - summary I'd urge the Commission to deny the developers requested waiver for the second hearing and To 01:45:43.202 --> 01:45:49.729 - continue continue the case to July 13th So the new revised plan with its unresolved drainage wetland 01:45:49.729 --> 01:45:55.998 - riparian CBU sewer and other waiver issues can be adequately addressed time is up sir. Thank you 01:46:14.018 --> 01:46:20.895 - My name is Jessica will and I live at 211 East Gilbert. You can see it as the bird flies on the map 01:46:20.895 --> 01:46:27.841 - there I'm here tonight as a concerned Northside resident an advocate for responsible growth I'm also 01:46:27.841 --> 01:46:34.718 - here to report on the results so far of a petition opposing the proposed North Grove subdivision. I 01:46:37.794 --> 01:46:44.454 - Part of an effort to quantify the concerns of Bloomington residents We fielded and are still fielding 01:46:44.454 --> 01:46:51.310 - a petition to request that the city deny the requested variances and waivers We've included the petition 01:46:51.310 --> 01:46:57.904 - language on this slide for your reference So far we've collected digital and print signatures from a 01:46:57.904 --> 01:47:01.822 - total of 291 unique petitioners representing 253 households 01:47:01.922 --> 01:47:09.335 - With each entry, we verified the signature was unique, mapped the household address, and measured the 01:47:09.335 --> 01:47:16.675 - proximity to the proposed North Grove subdivision. We learned 221 of these petitioners represent 186 01:47:16.675 --> 01:47:24.524 - households located within Bloomington City limits. We then sorted Bloomington City petitioners by proximity 01:47:24.524 --> 01:47:31.646 - to 2511 North Dunn Street. On this map, each house icon represents a household from the petition. 01:47:31.906 --> 01:47:38.363 - Gray indicates the household is outside Bloomington City limits yellow shows households within Bloomington 01:47:38.363 --> 01:47:44.398 - City limits, but not on the north side The dark crimson signifies petitioner households adjacent to 01:47:44.398 --> 01:47:50.554 - the proposed development Meaning their property directly borders the lot in question here tonight the 01:47:50.554 --> 01:47:56.830 - light crimson signifies petitioner households that are not adjacent but are located within 500 feet and 01:47:57.410 --> 01:48:04.062 - Orange signifies petitioner households that aren't adjacent or within 500 feet But are located on the 01:48:04.062 --> 01:48:10.648 - north side within Bloomington City limits for simplicity We are calling these groups adjacent within 01:48:10.648 --> 01:48:17.299 - 500 feet and northside petitioners Seven petitioners representing six households live adjacent to the 01:48:17.299 --> 01:48:23.038 - proposed subdivision 26 petitioners representing 15 households live within 500 feet and 01:48:23.138 --> 01:48:28.646 - 98 petitioners representing 77 households live on the north side within Bloomington City limits and 01:48:28.646 --> 01:48:34.430 - 90 petitioners representing 88 households live within Bloomington City limits, but not on the north side 01:48:35.810 --> 01:48:41.483 - Notably adjacent petitioners and those within 500 feet are most likely to experience negative impacts 01:48:41.483 --> 01:48:47.212 - from the proposed North Grove plans We have collected signatures from all adjacent households with the 01:48:47.212 --> 01:48:53.218 - exception of a home in Matlock Heights. Mr Pruitt purchased We also collected signatures from approximately 01:48:53.218 --> 01:48:58.836 - half of the households within 500 feet and signatures are still rolling in in addition to collecting 01:48:58.836 --> 01:49:04.286 - signatures we gave petitioners the opportunity to express their concerns by leaving a comment and 01:49:04.546 --> 01:49:11.067 - Top themes so far include ordinance and zoning compliance infrastructure and utility strain public safety 01:49:11.067 --> 01:49:17.218 - and traffic conditions and environment and wildlife impact This Northside petitioner cited concerns 01:49:17.218 --> 01:49:23.431 - about showing preference to developers at the expense of property owners saying Developers shouldn't 01:49:23.431 --> 01:49:29.705 - be able to bypass ordinances that the rest of us already owning properties in the area have to follow 01:49:29.705 --> 01:49:33.950 - It's not fair treatment of your citizens and it's showing preference 01:49:34.082 --> 01:49:39.971 - We bought our properties essentially signing a contract to follow these rules thus protecting the value 01:49:39.971 --> 01:49:45.634 - of our assets Developers shouldn't be able to break these rules either Another Northside petitioner 01:49:45.634 --> 01:49:51.353 - cited their concerns saying we recently moved to Bloomington and chose to live in the north side due 01:49:51.353 --> 01:49:54.014 - to its abundant nature low density housing and 01:49:54.114 --> 01:50:00.181 - and wild feel with residential homes interspersed with family farms. We drive past 2511 North Dunn every 01:50:00.181 --> 01:50:06.133 - day on our commute to campus and feel strongly that the planned development would significantly change 01:50:06.133 --> 01:50:12.027 - the character of the neighborhood, negatively impact traffic patterns, and have adverse environmental 01:50:12.027 --> 01:50:17.921 - effects. And one Bloomington petitioner questions the value of the proposed development writing. This 01:50:17.921 --> 01:50:23.006 - variance enables a development that solves no problem for Bloomington's housing market. 01:50:23.330 --> 01:50:32.438 - Bringing new luxury housing the city doesn't need and would adversely affect the quality of life in 01:50:32.438 --> 01:50:41.637 - North Bloomington neighborhoods Including the Matlock Heights Historic District Thank you for taking 01:50:41.637 --> 01:50:50.654 - the time to consider the voices and households represented in this petition so far Thank you Hello 01:50:50.786 --> 01:50:57.186 - My name is Stephanie Dickinson, and I live at 2301 North Dunn Street in Matlock Heights. First, thank 01:50:57.186 --> 01:51:03.524 - you for hearing our concerns tonight and taking the time to consider these issues. I have a map, can 01:51:03.524 --> 01:51:09.987 - you go back to the slides please, of the Matlock Heights neighborhood. I live on the south side of the 01:51:09.987 --> 01:51:16.575 - neighborhood, but then I have another one with a map of the whole neighborhood and the historic district 01:51:16.575 --> 01:51:19.838 - inside of it. The Neighborhood Association includes 01:51:20.034 --> 01:51:26.797 - Houses on both sides of Dunn Street up to Blue Ridge. This is an active and vibrant neighborhood of 01:51:26.797 --> 01:51:33.424 - residents with a diverse range of ages, incomes, and abilities. Renters and homeowners, students, 01:51:33.424 --> 01:51:40.661 - professionals, and retirees working together for a common goal of a safe and healthy community and quality 01:51:40.661 --> 01:51:47.627 - of life. Can you go to the next slide? We have a neighborhood meeting twice a year with a lovely pitch 01:51:47.627 --> 01:51:49.182 - in picnic in the fall. 01:51:49.538 --> 01:51:56.008 - people who connect and look out for each other. We work together on handling football traffic, problem 01:51:56.008 --> 01:52:02.667 - solving the stormwater challenges. We spent years forming the historic district to preserve the character 01:52:02.667 --> 01:52:09.012 - of the neighborhood consistent with principles in the UDO. While a neighborhood association is not a 01:52:09.012 --> 01:52:15.294 - legally binding agreement among neighbors like an HOA or the restrictions of the historic district, 01:52:15.458 --> 01:52:22.541 - I hope that the plan commission will hear and respect the views and values of those in the neighborhood 01:52:22.541 --> 01:52:29.555 - for which the subdivision will be a part. One question we haven't had a chance to ask is how this will 01:52:29.555 --> 01:52:36.502 - work to have an HOA in this proposed subdivision that sits inside of the Matlock Heights Neighborhood 01:52:36.502 --> 01:52:43.857 - Association. Seems like a little bit of a misfit. I hope that our group and the neighbors are not dismissed 01:52:43.857 --> 01:52:44.606 - as typical 01:52:44.770 --> 01:52:50.767 - Nimbis we do value urban density. We support single-family homes in Bloomington. I Don't think it's 01:52:50.767 --> 01:52:56.883 - simple sentimentality of the old days But we don't think this is the right spot for increased density 01:52:56.883 --> 01:53:03.060 - Dunn Street is not built for high volumes of traffic. There's no shoulder or walking path. No bus line 01:53:03.060 --> 01:53:09.056 - for commuters The Planning Commission has a challenge to protect the character of these established 01:53:09.056 --> 01:53:12.894 - neighborhoods at the same time a strategic expansion of housing 01:53:13.474 --> 01:53:20.162 - I hope we can work together to find the right places for this density. My neighbors have mentioned the 01:53:20.162 --> 01:53:26.786 - stormwater flooding is a significant issue and clearly a source subject. One I wanted to point out is 01:53:26.786 --> 01:53:33.409 - the petitioner said that they were worried about the issues to the south of the, if you could go back 01:53:33.409 --> 01:53:39.838 - one second, the south of the neighborhood, the south of the development is some homes, but it does 01:53:40.354 --> 01:53:46.572 - The drainage does flow directly to the west and the southwest. There was a little stream on one of the 01:53:46.572 --> 01:53:52.729 - pictures Jamie had early on. That does go to North Fritz. So that's Jean and Julie's properties right 01:53:52.729 --> 01:53:58.946 - there. So the increased runoff while the retention pond holds it, it will then flow from the retention 01:53:58.946 --> 01:54:04.439 - pond directly to these backyards. We're concerned about the environment, the mature trees, 01:54:04.439 --> 01:54:10.174 - riparian areas. We're concerned about possible wetlands. We would like more time to be able to 01:54:10.466 --> 01:54:16.233 - facilitate or learn about what the process is for a proper wetland delineation. And I want to speak 01:54:16.233 --> 01:54:22.231 - to concerns of safety. As I said, the traffic on Dunn is a huge issue. Cars traveling high speeds, they 01:54:22.231 --> 01:54:27.999 - don't stop at stop signs. They're dodging cyclists and pedestrians. 11 more homes with two to three 01:54:27.999 --> 01:54:34.112 - cars each will significantly increase the traffic on Dunn, increasing likelihood of accidents. Similarly, 01:54:34.112 --> 01:54:37.630 - I'm concerned about the development's waiver for the alleys. 01:54:39.010 --> 01:54:45.831 - While the neighbors adjacent to the property don't want an alley immediately in their backyard, as the 01:54:45.831 --> 01:54:52.585 - petitioner said, there is a reason for safety that the alleys are required by the UDO to maintain the 01:54:52.585 --> 01:54:59.472 - safety for the pedestrians instead of the drive cuts. I believe the alleys are not included in the plat 01:54:59.472 --> 01:55:05.630 - simply because it enables more properties to be built on the lot. It seems to me that a plan 01:55:05.826 --> 01:55:12.329 - Two to three houses with access off done would solve all these problems the most tree saving the least 01:55:12.329 --> 01:55:18.896 - disturbance are riparian areas the least additional drainage Safety without needing alleys no increased 01:55:18.896 --> 01:55:25.336 - traffic Least cost to build the least city maintenance and least harms to the neighborhood. Thanks so 01:55:25.336 --> 01:55:27.230 - much for hearing us Thank you 01:55:36.226 --> 01:55:44.204 - Good evening, my name is Robin Halpin Young. I live at 331 East Glendora Drive. I'm here tonight to 01:55:44.204 --> 01:55:52.181 - speak out in opposition to the proposed high density development at 2511 North Dunn Street. We good 01:55:52.181 --> 01:56:00.239 - citizens come to these meetings with our carefully drafted five minute speeches, hoping to share the 01:56:00.239 --> 01:56:06.142 - expertise of our experience and our firsthand knowledge of the situation. 01:56:06.402 --> 01:56:13.401 - Despite our compelling arguments and obvious strong community opposition, the city is moving forward 01:56:13.401 --> 01:56:20.331 - with their support for this plan. I believe because it supports their plan for density at any cost. 01:56:20.331 --> 01:56:27.469 - The reason we are even talking about alleys tonight is because the Planning Commission has deemed this 01:56:27.469 --> 01:56:34.815 - project a traditional subdivision, which per the UDO must, quote, ensure the creation of grid-like street 01:56:34.815 --> 01:56:36.062 - and alley system. 01:56:36.226 --> 01:56:44.277 - The UDO also states that any new traditional subdivision must, quote, facilitate compatible development 01:56:44.277 --> 01:56:52.174 - of parcels located next to existing subdivisions characterized by more grid-like street patterns. The 01:56:52.174 --> 01:57:00.148 - adjacent neighborhood, Matlock Heights, has zero alleys and zero sidewalks. Either way, this plan puts 01:57:00.148 --> 01:57:02.238 - an alley just off the back 01:57:02.370 --> 01:57:09.987 - puts an alley or two houses just off the back of my north property line. It certainly would not ensure 01:57:09.987 --> 01:57:17.383 - compatible development. It would be as close as 10 feet to my back patio, 20 feet to my screened-in 01:57:17.383 --> 01:57:24.926 - porch, and 30 feet from my back bedroom window. I guess that is all right for density at any costers. 01:57:25.122 --> 01:57:32.139 - Any damage I may suffer as a result of loss of value to my property, or loss of enjoyment of use I get 01:57:32.139 --> 01:57:39.087 - as a result of this intrusion, or the already horrible drainage issues I suffer get worse, that would 01:57:39.087 --> 01:57:46.104 - be all right, density at any cost. I believe this project has been green flagged. For example, we have 01:57:46.104 --> 01:57:51.486 - been told that it does not contain a wetland, yet no study has been conducted. 01:57:51.586 --> 01:57:58.395 - Anyone who has lived beside the property knows that there is a seasonal pond on it. We've been assured 01:57:58.395 --> 01:58:05.071 - that there will be no increase in the amount of runoff and that it will be captured and then control 01:58:05.071 --> 01:58:11.748 - released. I think this is naive bordering on a lie. The Environmental Commission has yet to weigh in 01:58:11.748 --> 01:58:14.590 - on this. The CBU is holding back too. Why? 01:58:15.010 --> 01:58:21.858 - All this information is relevant to granting or not granting requested waivers and variances, yet here 01:58:21.858 --> 01:58:28.906 - we are talking about alleys. I believe what we are witnessing is pocket zoning, the practice of bypassing 01:58:28.906 --> 01:58:35.554 - existing laws and norms, and that is a dangerous, chiseling away of property rights and the rule of 01:58:35.554 --> 01:58:42.336 - law. The alleys aren't the only part of the plan that don't fit the traditional subdivision category. 01:58:42.336 --> 01:58:43.998 - The parcel fundamentally 01:58:44.130 --> 01:58:52.477 - does not fit. I believe it is best categorized as a conservation subdivision. Per the UDO, the conservation 01:58:52.477 --> 01:59:00.747 - subdivision facilitates clustered development of land while ensuring maximum protection of environmentally 01:59:00.747 --> 01:59:05.694 - sensitive features and set aside significant common open space. 01:59:05.826 --> 01:59:13.106 - allow very limited development for those parcels containing environmental features such as mature tree 01:59:13.106 --> 01:59:20.316 - stands, karst geology, steep slopes and water resources to ensure the space-efficient installation of 01:59:20.316 --> 01:59:27.102 - utilities, streets and sidewalk networks, as well as the placement of individual building lots. 01:59:27.266 --> 01:59:33.874 - Have Pruitt and Klein or the City Blooming Planning Zoning Commission considered categorization as a 01:59:33.874 --> 01:59:40.613 - conservation subdivision? I doubt it as it would limit the number of homes that could be built and the 01:59:40.613 --> 01:59:43.230 - number of trees that could be cut down. 01:59:43.298 --> 01:59:50.490 - and that made it clear that their absolute top priority is to make as much money as possible, maximum 01:59:50.490 --> 01:59:57.682 - profit at any cost. This description of a conservation subdivision fits 2511 North Dunn like a glove. 01:59:57.682 --> 02:00:04.803 - It shows a borderline with the historic conservation neighborhood of Matlock Heights and is directly 02:00:04.803 --> 02:00:12.347 - adjacent to Lake Griffey Nature Preserve and Cascades Creek Park. This parcel is an environmental treasure 02:00:12.347 --> 02:00:13.264 - and deserves 02:00:13.264 --> 02:00:21.263 - to be conserved. Thank you for your time. In fairness, I respectfully urge the commission to deny the 02:00:21.263 --> 02:00:29.105 - petitioner's waiver for second hearing. And in the meantime, I look forward to our judicial hearing 02:00:29.105 --> 02:00:36.948 - on July 17th, at which time I will have the opportunity to share my thoughts on this and many other 02:00:36.948 --> 02:00:39.614 - things with the judge. Thank you. 02:00:46.306 --> 02:00:53.207 - Good evening. I'm Susan Sandberg, and I thank my neighbors for their diligence in protecting the value 02:00:53.207 --> 02:01:00.174 - of their homes and the integrity of our neighborhood. I live at 2201 North Fritz Drive. My home is more 02:01:00.174 --> 02:01:03.390 - than my castle. It is my only source of wealth. 02:01:03.682 --> 02:01:11.045 - It is my family home where three generations of Sandburgs have lived and thrived. My home is what I 02:01:11.045 --> 02:01:18.481 - have to pass on to my millennial daughter and her husband. It is the home our parents bought in 1992 02:01:18.481 --> 02:01:25.917 - and passed on to my sister and me. The value of our homes and the stability of this neighborhood are 02:01:25.917 --> 02:01:27.390 - worth fighting for. 02:01:27.586 --> 02:01:35.167 - Matlock Heights is a stable neighborhood of modest but substantial limestone homes in a historic district. 02:01:35.167 --> 02:01:42.252 - Matlock was developed in the 1950s, a mid-century modern neighborhood with no alleys, no sidewalks, 02:01:42.252 --> 02:01:46.078 - and ample yards for gardens and for children to play. 02:01:46.562 --> 02:01:53.887 - we are graced by a canopy of mature trees that support an array of wildlife and Connect along North 02:01:53.887 --> 02:02:01.284 - Dunn to Griffey Lake and its precious wooded nature preserve When the neighborhood I am fortunate to 02:02:01.284 --> 02:02:08.975 - live in is under threat of harm from over development my neighbors act We go to work to meet to organize 02:02:08.975 --> 02:02:16.446 - and to push back against development pressures that disrupt and violate reasonable zoning protections 02:02:16.930 --> 02:02:23.731 - We organized to become a conservation district when our residential homes were first threatened by developers 02:02:23.731 --> 02:02:30.037 - looking to build inappropriate structures that were out of scale and incompatible with the livability 02:02:30.037 --> 02:02:36.281 - of the residential area. This was met with strong neighborhood opposition. The conservation district 02:02:36.281 --> 02:02:43.082 - elevated to historic, offering more protections for private property rights and the environmental stewardship 02:02:43.082 --> 02:02:44.318 - of Matlock Heights. 02:02:44.546 --> 02:02:52.368 - Tonight we are first hearing the revised petition for the North Grove subdivision at 2511 North Dunn 02:02:52.368 --> 02:03:00.191 - quite simply a subdivision of 11 homes on four sensitive and wooded acres does not belong in a lower 02:03:00.191 --> 02:03:08.091 - density are to zone cramming a high density development directly adjacent to historic Matlock Heights 02:03:08.091 --> 02:03:13.822 - is an insult a violation of our trust in the UDO and in city planning and 02:03:14.434 --> 02:03:21.150 - As you have heard from the neighbors, this is an area already challenged by drainage and stormwater 02:03:21.150 --> 02:03:28.203 - issues. Now we're asked to believe that this intense disturbance of soil, increased impervious surfaces, 02:03:28.203 --> 02:03:34.046 - and removal of mature trees will cause no harm to Matlock Heights. We are incredulous. 02:03:34.818 --> 02:03:41.584 - More than just our north side neighborhood will be negatively impacted by this type of spot zoning By 02:03:41.584 --> 02:03:48.483 - allowing waivers and variances to greenlight this much housing density where it clearly does not belong 02:03:48.483 --> 02:03:53.790 - We appeal to your judgment the appointed decision makers on the Plan Commission 02:03:54.050 --> 02:04:00.937 - We humbly ask that you consider the whole intent and scope of the UDO. We urge you to not contribute 02:04:00.937 --> 02:04:07.892 - to spot zoning through multiple variances and waivers that enable developers to bend the rules at the 02:04:07.892 --> 02:04:14.711 - expense of surrounding neighborhoods. If a high density development doesn't meet R2 code, it should 02:04:14.711 --> 02:04:15.870 - not be approved. 02:04:16.514 --> 02:04:24.798 - At the very least, this subdivision proposal requires a second hearing for information to be 02:04:24.798 --> 02:04:34.241 - more thoughtfully examined and more questions from the public better answered. Thank you for your careful 02:04:34.241 --> 02:04:41.278 - consideration. Thank you. Eric, do we have any online commenters at this time? 02:04:43.106 --> 02:04:59.762 - Speak please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat and we can recognize you I'm not 02:04:59.762 --> 02:05:11.966 - seeing anybody online Okay, seeing none we are back to the Commission and 02:05:13.314 --> 02:05:21.268 - or any additional questions or comments? We'll start down here. Go ahead, Commissioner Stosberg. Can 02:05:21.268 --> 02:05:29.379 - you clarify about lot size? Do the current proposed lot sizes meet the R2 requirements? Yes, so in the 02:05:29.379 --> 02:05:37.726 - R2, 60 feet wide and 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size, and these all meet that. Okay, thank you. 02:05:45.186 --> 02:05:54.489 - You have an answer for that, but I was intrigued by the question from Stephanie she was talking about 02:05:54.489 --> 02:06:03.791 - the HOA that the Metlock historic neighborhood Is in charge of this that this potential lot fits into 02:06:03.791 --> 02:06:12.912 - the HOA a Metlock Heights HOA well so neighborhood associations have boundaries that can be defined 02:06:12.912 --> 02:06:14.462 - by whatever they 02:06:14.562 --> 02:06:21.432 - Kind of want You know you have historic districts you have zoning districts and then you have HOA's 02:06:21.432 --> 02:06:28.783 - And those those lines can blur, you know, so matlock heights is a historic district They have a homeowners 02:06:28.783 --> 02:06:35.859 - association that has lines that expand, you know beyond that But then you know, you can obviously have 02:06:35.859 --> 02:06:43.966 - subdivisions that occur within HOA's You know, or I'm sorry not within HOA's within neighborhood associations but the 02:06:44.066 --> 02:06:51.215 - two aren't necessarily prohibitive of each other. Yeah I just wanted an explanation. Thank you. Kinsey. 02:06:51.215 --> 02:06:58.226 - Yeah I wonder if we could talk a little bit about the wetland delineation and if the petitioner could 02:06:58.226 --> 02:07:03.038 - talk a little bit about that issue that was raised by some residents. 02:07:09.218 --> 02:07:15.778 - Was done at the beginning of this process and was done by the senior environmental planner at the city 02:07:15.778 --> 02:07:22.401 - of Bloomington She deemed it was not a wetland. However Since the beginning we have decided to preserve 02:07:22.401 --> 02:07:29.088 - it anyway, and we put around riparian buffers to protect it so Whether it's a wetland or not. It's being 02:07:29.088 --> 02:07:35.902 - preserved as is but the senior environmental planner did do a study on and it was deemed not a wetland and 02:07:38.274 --> 02:07:48.380 - And is that you know Jamie and Eric I'm looking for your wisdom here and that is what would be required 02:07:48.380 --> 02:07:56.542 - in a UDO to delineate a wetland is that senior environmental planner would deem it. 02:07:56.674 --> 02:08:02.587 - Assessment to see if there is a wetland present that then warrants a study to define it And go forth, 02:08:02.587 --> 02:08:08.616 - you know with a more in-depth analysis and so our environmental planner went out there Certainly looked 02:08:08.616 --> 02:08:14.587 - at the site looked at all the characteristics and the attributes that are required to be evaluated And 02:08:14.587 --> 02:08:21.022 - did not find that it met that that warranted a wetland study. Yeah, I mean I read the UDO and it's certainly a 02:08:21.442 --> 02:08:29.018 - Makes a lot of statements about preserving wetlands and easements and conservation But as the petitioner 02:08:29.018 --> 02:08:36.306 - even indicated this has been placed into a at least a common area with riparian buffers and easement 02:08:36.306 --> 02:08:43.521 - That is correct and preserved at that I just want to take just a second per your question as we are 02:08:43.521 --> 02:08:45.758 - not from the beginning I think 02:08:45.986 --> 02:08:52.850 - We have tried our best to really preserve a property that I agree with the neighbors is stunning and 02:08:52.850 --> 02:08:59.782 - has characteristics of it that are warranted to preserve some of it. And we have tried to do that. We 02:08:59.782 --> 02:09:06.850 - understand that I believe we could have tried for a more dense subdivision and maybe some don't believe 02:09:06.850 --> 02:09:12.830 - that or don't believe us that we haven't done that, but we have taken parts of the site 02:09:12.930 --> 02:09:27.119 - in and out of a riparian requirement to preserve With the the best intentions to try to marry those 02:09:27.119 --> 02:09:42.302 - two together Questions to my right Okay You know a lot more the flooding issue was clearly demonstrated by 02:09:42.434 --> 02:09:49.734 - public comment today. And, you know, I'm struck by, I mean, this is a significant issue in this community, 02:09:49.734 --> 02:09:57.035 - but even if the property is not developed, the flooding remains or the problems remain. So if the property 02:09:57.035 --> 02:10:04.062 - stays exactly as it is, it doesn't change at all. It's not going to mitigate the flooding problem. And 02:10:04.062 --> 02:10:11.294 - I realize I said that earlier that, that having any change to the property makes it, could make it worse. 02:10:11.682 --> 02:10:19.319 - You're removing trees. I mean I get all that but boy this really does seem like a pretty serious matter 02:10:19.319 --> 02:10:26.810 - and You know, I saw some of the reports that were in the packet that indicated when people started to 02:10:26.810 --> 02:10:34.814 - reporting it So I guess I just want to do more public announcement or public information that that this is a 02:10:35.714 --> 02:10:42.654 - A reportable you report needs to be addressed for this neighborhood. And I just wonder if the commit 02:10:42.654 --> 02:10:49.663 - you know if Eric and Jamie if you guys from a city perspective have any other advice about what to do 02:10:49.663 --> 02:10:56.741 - about this larger flooding issue that's clearly as you know it's going to happen. It's happening. It's 02:10:56.741 --> 02:10:59.902 - happened. It's serious for this neighborhood. 02:11:00.514 --> 02:11:05.822 - Yeah, so that's certainly something that City of Bloomington utilities is very aware of and so there 02:11:05.822 --> 02:11:11.394 - are drainage easements that are being required on both the north side and the south side of this property 02:11:11.394 --> 02:11:16.649 - as well as Swales that are being installed with this to capture and collect that water So certainly 02:11:16.649 --> 02:11:22.221 - the site now has no stormwater collection management system whatsoever and it just sheet flows and drains 02:11:22.221 --> 02:11:26.110 - to adjacent properties You know as we've certainly seen with developments 02:11:26.338 --> 02:11:31.578 - You know allowing for something to be developed allows for it to be brought into compliance with current 02:11:31.578 --> 02:11:33.374 - requirements but also again that's. 02:11:33.570 --> 02:11:39.263 - One of the reasons why I said we're recommending continuing tonight is to allow for city of Bloomington 02:11:39.263 --> 02:11:44.846 - utilities to continue to review it. Make sure that it meets all of their requirements so that when we 02:11:44.846 --> 02:11:50.430 - come back to the planning commission you know we can sit here and say that utilities has reviewed it. 02:11:50.430 --> 02:11:56.068 - You know the plans meet make the situation better and can have somebody from CBU here as well to speak 02:11:56.068 --> 02:11:56.670 - to that to 02:11:56.866 --> 02:12:03.833 - speak to all of the things that they're trying to solve on this. You know Dunn Street has no stormwater 02:12:03.833 --> 02:12:11.069 - infrastructure now. So this would be capturing some of that and directing it and providing for a stormwater 02:12:11.069 --> 02:12:17.902 - stormwater management system. Like I said where there is nothing now that the plan meets or makes the 02:12:17.902 --> 02:12:23.262 - situation better for stormwater management and water. OK. All right. Thank you. 02:12:27.810 --> 02:12:35.172 - I have one more. Somebody raised the issue of HOAs managing the retention pond and that being a concern 02:12:35.172 --> 02:12:39.774 - for them based on their prior experience with something similar. 02:12:39.906 --> 02:12:47.500 - Can either or both maybe the petitioner and staff speak to that in terms of procedure that is normally 02:12:47.500 --> 02:12:54.357 - followed, how that's maybe worked in your experience in the past? If the petitioner has done 02:12:54.357 --> 02:13:01.804 - other developments where HOAs have successfully managed that kind of infrastructure, I would love to 02:13:01.804 --> 02:13:02.910 - hear about it. 02:13:03.970 --> 02:13:11.155 - Can just kind of address them the city perspective initially and then the petitioner can give a little 02:13:11.155 --> 02:13:18.480 - bit of their experience They've certainly been involved with a lot of subdivisions So the UDO over time, 02:13:18.480 --> 02:13:22.526 - you know as we kind of look as how it has evolved in 2000 02:13:22.690 --> 02:13:29.223 - 2015 I think is when we required all detention areas to be on common area lots Rather than just located 02:13:29.223 --> 02:13:35.882 - within easements having them located on a common area lot provides a mechanism for homeowners Association 02:13:35.882 --> 02:13:42.353 - to be involved have an operations manual that outlines What are the maintenance requirements for these 02:13:42.353 --> 02:13:46.750 - detention facilities, but then also provides a mechanism where we can 02:13:46.850 --> 02:13:53.332 - pursue enforcement if a facility is not being maintained. So the utilities department and their operations 02:13:53.332 --> 02:13:59.511 - manuals that go along with the subdivision approval have requirements for the size of capacity, maybe 02:13:59.511 --> 02:14:05.569 - maintenance is required on an annual basis. And that's one of the things that has certainly been an 02:14:05.569 --> 02:14:11.626 - issue with this is ensuring that the pond can be maintained with the access easements, which is why 02:14:11.626 --> 02:14:12.414 - we have this 02:14:12.514 --> 02:14:19.727 - Language that's being crafted to this for this project to make sure that they can be maintained while 02:14:19.727 --> 02:14:26.798 - at the same time Balancing the environmental preservation requirements of the udl So the petitioner 02:14:26.798 --> 02:14:34.082 - wants to adding from you know personal experience The only thing I'll add is it's the process over the 02:14:34.082 --> 02:14:41.790 - last and I've been practicing for 17 years and the practice has gotten a lot better in the last five I think 02:14:41.922 --> 02:14:50.301 - A lot of HOA's now have a manual that they can really look to those are now being recorded So it's public 02:14:50.301 --> 02:14:58.759 - information on how those get maintained And there needs to be funds that are set aside for the maintenance 02:14:58.759 --> 02:15:06.901 - of these ponds And the eight it yes, we plan on doing an HOA and the hope is that those that HOA would 02:15:06.901 --> 02:15:11.486 - run that correctly so that you wouldn't have a flood or a 02:15:11.746 --> 02:15:18.990 - Drainage event that would then surprise everyone that they would have to be regular sea pigeon of the 02:15:18.990 --> 02:15:26.163 - soils Regular cleansing of the water that would have to take place So I guess the only thing I would 02:15:26.163 --> 02:15:33.265 - add is it seems like the process has gotten better and there's a new CBU stormwater manual that has 02:15:33.265 --> 02:15:36.958 - gotten approved and what was that two years ago and 02:15:37.058 --> 02:15:47.830 - and a half That also is just a little more strict and stringent Which is a good thing and it helps regulate 02:15:47.830 --> 02:15:57.805 - and you know the heightened events that we're seeing It's a little stricter on those. So that's the 02:15:57.805 --> 02:16:05.086 - only thing I'll add right now Any other questions or comments or motions 02:16:07.074 --> 02:16:15.080 - Reminder the staff recommendation is that we continue this case to the required second hearing on July 02:16:15.080 --> 02:16:22.853 - 13th All right, we have motion a second any final comments before we call the question I do want to 02:16:22.853 --> 02:16:30.859 - make sure that we log a couple of concerns as we continue to as we continue this proposal and consider 02:16:30.859 --> 02:16:35.678 - it and one is around all of the CBU discussion that we've had 02:16:36.130 --> 02:16:42.152 - We earlier indicated that we want to make sure CBU representative is here. I think that would help us 02:16:42.152 --> 02:16:48.057 - in the discussion and I appreciate what the petitioner was just saying about the new CBU stormwater 02:16:48.057 --> 02:16:54.079 - management requirements. And I think getting a copy of that might be helpful. I don't know if I could 02:16:54.079 --> 02:17:00.043 - weigh in on that but at least making sure that we're aware of all of that and CBU is aware that it's 02:17:00.043 --> 02:17:04.766 - been mentioned here today in case there are further questions that we get that. 02:17:05.314 --> 02:17:13.005 - somebody who knows that work well. To me that's really important. The other thing I think is if there's 02:17:13.005 --> 02:17:20.622 - any other information from, I realize the environmental planner is out, but certainly getting a little 02:17:20.622 --> 02:17:28.239 - more information about the review and if this was delineated wetland, I think we need to know that and 02:17:28.239 --> 02:17:32.158 - how it was reviewed before. That would seem helpful. 02:17:38.786 --> 02:17:44.955 - Yeah, I just first want to thank all of the commenters for coming out and speaking tonight and also 02:17:44.955 --> 02:17:51.248 - the number of people who emailed their comments and I know that you care a lot about your about where 02:17:51.248 --> 02:17:57.479 - you live and your neighborhood and And that shows and I do appreciate when people come out and share 02:17:57.479 --> 02:18:03.834 - their concerns and I hope that at least some of what we've said a lays at least some of those concerns 02:18:03.834 --> 02:18:04.574 - in terms of 02:18:04.674 --> 02:18:11.311 - some of these issues Secondly, I want to I want to second what Commissioner Kinsey just said about the 02:18:11.311 --> 02:18:18.142 - the wetland review piece of this I did a quick Google Google search and like how do you how do you figure 02:18:18.142 --> 02:18:24.972 - out where a wetland is? I used to do environmental education for those of you don't know With kids mostly 02:18:24.972 --> 02:18:32.254 - and I there was a wetland on the park property that I worked in and and it was fantastic and There are some real 02:18:32.546 --> 02:18:38.157 - like specific indicators of wetlands. And I don't know if they exist out there or not, but they're very, 02:18:38.157 --> 02:18:43.608 - very specific. And so I would appreciate maybe, I don't know if the environmental planner can, or you 02:18:43.608 --> 02:18:49.059 - guys can give a little guidance about what it is that our planner looked at and what those guidelines 02:18:49.059 --> 02:18:54.403 - are, just kind of for public knowledge, for our knowledge, just so then everybody can kind of be on 02:18:54.403 --> 02:18:59.961 - the same page and understanding what a wetland actually is. Just because there's a whole bunch of water 02:18:59.961 --> 02:19:02.526 - somewhere doesn't mean it's actually a wetland. 02:19:02.594 --> 02:19:10.164 - that it has to do with soils and it has to do with how the water retains and what exact plants there 02:19:10.164 --> 02:19:17.884 - are. It can't just be one or two. There has to be several. Anyway, I just want you to know that I hear 02:19:17.884 --> 02:19:21.182 - those complaints and those concerns and the 02:19:21.346 --> 02:19:28.355 - Flooding is real. There's flooding all over this town and all kinds of places. And it absolutely has 02:19:28.355 --> 02:19:35.294 - increased over the last several years. And some of that, I think, is aging infrastructure. And some 02:19:35.294 --> 02:19:42.303 - of it is worsening storms. So we certainly don't want anything new that is built to make any of that 02:19:42.303 --> 02:19:46.814 - any worse than Mother Nature is already making it. So thank you. 02:19:52.674 --> 02:19:59.223 - Final comments. I just want to make a quick comment about the road First of all, I think the idea of 02:19:59.223 --> 02:20:05.967 - it Stubbing to the north makes very very little sense And I doubt that it was ever seriously considered 02:20:05.967 --> 02:20:12.451 - because there it would go to nowhere There would be six lots it would have to go through to connect 02:20:12.451 --> 02:20:19.195 - to anything to the north makes perfect sense to have connectivity to the west there and I know we don't 02:20:19.195 --> 02:20:21.918 - in our current UDO have a mechanism for a 02:20:22.242 --> 02:20:28.865 - payment in lieu but This really highlights why we probably should I mean if a developer otherwise would 02:20:28.865 --> 02:20:35.360 - be required to foot the bill for the construction of a road and It's going through an environmentally 02:20:35.360 --> 02:20:41.982 - sensitive area that we wouldn't want to construct it unnecessarily until the connectivity really exists 02:20:41.982 --> 02:20:48.414 - then Payment in lieu makes perfect perfect sense here. I think it really is something that we should 02:20:48.706 --> 02:20:56.388 - That we should consider for this kind of situation because this is not the first time we've seen it 02:20:56.388 --> 02:21:04.301 - where we what we were wanting a developer to continue a road But it really is not going to be used for 02:21:04.301 --> 02:21:12.137 - any Predictable period of time. So that's something that we should come back and look more closely at 02:21:12.137 --> 02:21:18.590 - This there's any other questions we'll call the roll on the motion All right Bishop 02:21:20.002 --> 02:21:34.150 - Yes Holmes. Yes, Kenzie. Yes, Stossberg Yes Whistler. Yes, Burrell. Yes All right motion carries that 02:21:34.150 --> 02:21:46.078 - petition is continued. We'll hear it again on July 13th next up on our agenda we have 02:21:46.178 --> 02:21:52.614 - Subdivision twenty twenty six oh three dash triple oh five built alt LLC and I believe Eric is going 02:21:52.614 --> 02:21:59.368 - to present this one. Yes so I'm going to actually present both petitions at the same time because they're 02:21:59.368 --> 02:22:01.662 - they're very intrinsically related. 02:22:01.730 --> 02:22:09.195 - So this is a petition for a built LLC for a property at 1320 South Rogers. So the petitioners are coming 02:22:09.195 --> 02:22:16.519 - forward for final plan approval to allow for the construction of five buildings and then also included 02:22:16.519 --> 02:22:23.842 - within this is a request for a secondary plat amendment to allow for the vacation of certain easements 02:22:23.842 --> 02:22:26.686 - that are within this particular parcel. 02:22:26.754 --> 02:22:32.862 - So this is within the Thompson planned unit development is located on parcel C. 02:22:32.994 --> 02:22:39.523 - This particular parcel, as you can see right now, is undeveloped. It is part of a larger final plan 02:22:39.523 --> 02:22:46.116 - that was somewhat phased and segmented out and started in 2008 with an office park that was approved 02:22:46.116 --> 02:22:52.775 - or envisioned for a majority of the area. They built one particular property in there that was out of 02:22:52.775 --> 02:22:59.500 - the floodplain, but the remainder of the area has kind of sat undeveloped. So the map that you see now 02:22:59.500 --> 02:23:02.960 - is an exhibit of the floodplain that surrounds this. 02:23:02.960 --> 02:23:09.547 - area. This went to the Board of Zoning Appeals for conditional use approval to allow for the placement 02:23:09.547 --> 02:23:16.325 - of buildings and roads. The Board of Zoning Appeals did approve that. So the petitioner is coming forward 02:23:16.325 --> 02:23:22.784 - tonight to request final plan approval to kind of carry forward with the development of this parcel. 02:23:22.784 --> 02:23:24.638 - So this is an excerpt of the 02:23:24.866 --> 02:23:30.902 - final plan approval that was given in 2008. So you can see in the top northeast corner of this a building 02:23:30.902 --> 02:23:36.654 - that was proposed. That's the one building that has been actually constructed on the site. The final 02:23:36.654 --> 02:23:42.633 - plan approval at the time envisioned other buildings being constructed to the south of that with parking 02:23:42.633 --> 02:23:48.384 - along the west side. The petition was developed with the expectation that the buildings would all be 02:23:48.384 --> 02:23:49.694 - out of the floodplain. 02:23:49.762 --> 02:23:56.116 - You'd have some parking within the floodplain to the west. There was a multi-use path or a pedestrian 02:23:56.116 --> 02:24:02.656 - path that was installed through the west side of the site that went through that floodplain and riparian 02:24:02.656 --> 02:24:08.885 - buffer area. There was a substantial kind of planting plan that was accomplished with that as well. 02:24:08.885 --> 02:24:15.301 - But as I mentioned, the only thing that has been constructed is that office building on the north side 02:24:15.301 --> 02:24:19.038 - of the property and the rest of the property has sat empty. 02:24:19.426 --> 02:24:27.757 - There was also a subdivision approval that was done in that 2008 2011 period that platted some right-of-way 02:24:27.757 --> 02:24:36.010 - for Hillside Drive As I mentioned it was expected that this parcel to the that we're talking about tonight 02:24:36.010 --> 02:24:44.033 - Would be developed at a later time There were a series of blanket easements that were placed along this 02:24:44.033 --> 02:24:49.278 - property to deal with everything utility easements access easements 02:24:49.730 --> 02:24:56.008 - drainage easements just blanket easements have replaced across the entire property and so with this 02:24:56.008 --> 02:25:02.286 - petition now that we have a specific development proposal coming forward the petitioner is amending 02:25:02.286 --> 02:25:08.752 - some of those easements to vacate some of those and place them where actual infrastructure will occur. 02:25:08.752 --> 02:25:09.694 - So this actual 02:25:09.794 --> 02:25:18.186 - Specific development plan consists of five buildings as I mentioned these would be for the use of contractors 02:25:18.186 --> 02:25:25.433 - yard So what is actually envisioned here are a series of work bays within these buildings that 02:25:25.433 --> 02:25:33.139 - the prospective tenants or leasers would store the materials could also operate out of and work from 02:25:33.139 --> 02:25:37.182 - could store work materials work vehicles whatnot and 02:25:37.442 --> 02:25:44.631 - but then, yeah, could also use as their workspace. So these would be, in essence, self-storage type 02:25:44.631 --> 02:25:52.035 - buildings with large pull-up doors and individual doors to access the buildings or each workspace. And 02:25:52.035 --> 02:25:59.584 - so one of the challenges certainly with this has been managing buildings and work within the floodplain. 02:25:59.584 --> 02:26:05.694 - So you can see again on this exhibit here, the blue line shows that floodplain line. 02:26:06.466 --> 02:26:13.758 - There is a portion of two buildings that are within that flood plain. All of the buildings that are 02:26:13.758 --> 02:26:21.195 - in here would be elevated two feet, at least two feet above the lowest floor elevation. So that meets 02:26:21.195 --> 02:26:28.559 - DNR's flood proofing requirements as well as Corps of Engineers flood proofing requirements as well. 02:26:28.559 --> 02:26:34.174 - One of the aspects with this that they also have to manage is not increasing 02:26:34.434 --> 02:26:40.987 - any flood elevations and so they're accomplishing that by creating these compensatory storage areas. 02:26:40.987 --> 02:26:47.604 - So they're offsetting areas where fill is occurring with excavating additional areas so that you have 02:26:47.604 --> 02:26:54.092 - that balance. And so there are two ponds that are being shown here. One is predominantly serving as 02:26:54.092 --> 02:27:00.126 - a stormwater detention component and then another is serving as a compensatory storage area. 02:27:00.258 --> 02:27:07.721 - So again, just like with the last petition, the petitioner has been going through a lot of conversations 02:27:07.721 --> 02:27:15.041 - with City of Bloomington utilities to try to manage this very technical aspect to ensure that it meets 02:27:15.041 --> 02:27:20.798 - CBU's requirements as well as DNR and FEMA requirements for floodwater capacity. 02:27:20.962 --> 02:27:27.946 - So the petitioners are about halfway through that conversation right now, but they have worked at least 02:27:27.946 --> 02:27:35.198 - to a comfort level with CBU where, you know, CBU has said that they are, you know, able to proceed forward. 02:27:35.198 --> 02:27:41.981 - There's still some more intricacies to work out, but conceptually, it does appear that it will work. 02:27:41.981 --> 02:27:48.763 - So the petitioners are moving forward with the site plan approval and then the Platt Amendment, as I 02:27:48.763 --> 02:27:49.502 - mentioned. 02:27:49.922 --> 02:27:55.992 - So the buildings would all be accessed internally. There would not be any access drives on Roger Street 02:27:55.992 --> 02:28:01.829 - So the property was developed with a drive cut on Patterson to the north So that drive is a private 02:28:01.829 --> 02:28:07.957 - drive moves through the site and connects to Hillside Drive You know to that right away that I mentioned 02:28:07.957 --> 02:28:13.502 - that was plotted in 2011 So all of the access to these would come from that internal drive and 02:28:13.634 --> 02:28:19.866 - All of the buildings do have to meet our architectural requirements as well as our landscaping requirements. 02:28:19.866 --> 02:28:25.697 - There are street trees along Roger Street now. The petitioner will be filling in where there are some 02:28:25.697 --> 02:28:31.529 - gaps. There will also be installing sidewalks and street trees along Hillside Drive and replacing the 02:28:31.529 --> 02:28:37.360 - side path that is on Roger Street with a wider side path to meet the transportation plan requirements 02:28:37.360 --> 02:28:42.334 - as well as installing landscaping through throughout the interior of the site as well. 02:28:43.042 --> 02:28:49.997 - So as I mentioned, architecture is certainly something that is sometimes very challenging for self-storage 02:28:49.997 --> 02:28:56.561 - buildings. So the petitioner has worked to accommodate the requirements of the UDO. The UDO requires 02:28:56.561 --> 02:29:03.386 - that all four sides of buildings incorporate three out of four design elements that deal with the change 02:29:03.386 --> 02:29:09.885 - in building height, require certain projections and modulation, and then either awnings or canopies 02:29:09.885 --> 02:29:12.030 - or a certain percentage of glass 02:29:12.322 --> 02:29:19.117 - So the petitioner has incorporated those elements. There are also pedestrian entry requirements for 02:29:19.117 --> 02:29:26.183 - the buildings that face public streets So each building does have a pedestrian entry that is shown that 02:29:26.183 --> 02:29:33.386 - inquire that incorporates certain elements that the UDO requires as well So we've submitted in the packet 02:29:33.386 --> 02:29:38.142 - and then again on the screen here all four elevations of the building 02:29:38.562 --> 02:29:46.286 - So the building does meet the architectural requirements. There is one condition of approval that requires 02:29:46.286 --> 02:29:53.866 - some additional lighting elements around the pedestrian entry that shouldn't affect the overall proposal 02:29:53.866 --> 02:30:01.157 - in any substantial way that changes what is before the plane commission. So kind of moving on to the 02:30:01.157 --> 02:30:04.478 - easements. So this exhibit here kind of shows 02:30:04.706 --> 02:30:11.701 - the spider web of easements that span this property. So one of the things that I mentioned is this blanket 02:30:11.701 --> 02:30:18.827 - ingress and egress, utility, drainage, and parking easement that was platted for a majority of the property. 02:30:18.827 --> 02:30:25.561 - So this is the exhibit in the top left of your screen now. You see that that kind of encompasses a lot 02:30:25.561 --> 02:30:31.902 - of the property. The petitioner will be modifying that to just place those easements on the kind 02:30:32.066 --> 02:30:38.449 - west side of the property. There will still be other easements for the stormwater infrastructure that 02:30:38.449 --> 02:30:44.769 - will be adjusted and accommodated with this petition, as well as drainage easements. There's a fiber 02:30:44.769 --> 02:30:49.150 - optic line that is in that area that will be moved with this as well. 02:30:49.410 --> 02:30:56.380 - There will still be pedestrian easements as well as a conservancy easement that encompasses the riparian 02:30:56.380 --> 02:31:03.084 - buffer area and the floodplain that I mentioned as well. So in essence, what is being requested with 02:31:03.084 --> 02:31:10.319 - the easements is just, as I mentioned, modifying the east side of the site to remove those blanket easements 02:31:10.319 --> 02:31:16.957 - and more accurately define where those are going based on actual infrastructure with that petition. 02:31:16.957 --> 02:31:17.886 - So with this, 02:31:18.722 --> 02:31:25.388 - Planning staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the findings. It does meet all of 02:31:25.388 --> 02:31:32.121 - the requirements for the site plan approval. It is a permitted use in the Thompson PUD. The plat, as 02:31:32.121 --> 02:31:39.388 - I mentioned, just involves amending one easement. The Utilities Department has reviewed all of the easements 02:31:39.388 --> 02:31:43.454 - and it is satisfactory to where the infrastructure is going. 02:31:43.938 --> 02:31:51.158 - It is approved also per the Board of Zoning Appeals case that approved the work within the floodplain. 02:31:51.158 --> 02:31:58.167 - So we are recommending approval with the five conditions that are listed in staff's report. And I'm 02:31:58.167 --> 02:32:05.176 - happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there a representative of the petitioner would like to 02:32:05.176 --> 02:32:12.606 - add to the presentation. Something that was you audience. Dylan Reynolds with Spaceco the civil engineer. 02:32:12.706 --> 02:32:19.604 - On the project representing the owner. I don't really have a lot to add from Eric's presentation Maybe 02:32:19.604 --> 02:32:26.436 - just clarifying, you know the type of users we get the question like who? rents this space one of the 02:32:26.436 --> 02:32:33.535 - big demands they see are Like electricians HVAC contractors kind of those it's you know, it's not limited 02:32:33.535 --> 02:32:40.232 - to the trades But they do get a lot of interest from them Just as somebody let's say you're a small 02:32:40.232 --> 02:32:41.438 - shop that you got 02:32:41.762 --> 02:32:48.009 - You know, you're an HVAC guy that's got a couple vans and you kind of just need a home base that can 02:32:48.009 --> 02:32:54.256 - kind of be half You know somewhere to park my vehicles half, you know many office space just to kind 02:32:54.256 --> 02:33:00.688 - of have as a home base It's really kind of the intent for for these type of uses that someone that kind 02:33:00.688 --> 02:33:07.244 - of needs that kind of niche niche space to rent so But other than that I can answer answer any questions. 02:33:07.244 --> 02:33:11.326 - Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners? Mr. Kinsey 02:33:11.458 --> 02:33:18.311 - Question I have is exactly kind of where you were just going with this is who rents this and what are 02:33:18.311 --> 02:33:25.232 - they. And I can't say that in the time that I've been here that we've talked about what is called this 02:33:25.232 --> 02:33:32.488 - contractors yard designation. And I don't know if is there another example of this that we've seen recently 02:33:32.488 --> 02:33:36.318 - or is there another example in town of contractors here. 02:33:37.506 --> 02:33:44.462 - So a contractor's yard represents a wide range of things which you see on the ground typically. So the 02:33:44.462 --> 02:33:51.892 - UDO does have a definition and so it's characterized by folks in the trades industry, plumbers, electricians, 02:33:51.892 --> 02:33:58.781 - allows for things to be stored outside, stored vehicles that are used in those trades industries. And 02:33:58.781 --> 02:34:06.075 - it allows for them to use it as a workshop as well as for customers to visit it. So we don't have something 02:34:06.075 --> 02:34:07.358 - exactly like this. 02:34:07.522 --> 02:34:15.571 - other things like plumbing businesses, electricians' businesses that have large outdoor storage yards. 02:34:15.571 --> 02:34:23.385 - But this use, the Thompson PUD was an industrial use. It certainly envisioned other industrial uses 02:34:23.385 --> 02:34:31.355 - within that area. So this is one of the allowed uses and it is in keeping with that. That's why we're 02:34:31.355 --> 02:34:35.262 - here. It's nothing like it. Yeah. Mr. Stosbrough. 02:34:36.898 --> 02:34:43.803 - Yeah, thank you. I have a few clarifications. So I think you answered the first one, Eric, that Hillside 02:34:43.803 --> 02:34:50.445 - will end up connecting now on the other side. So it'll be an all the way through sort of little bend 02:34:50.445 --> 02:34:56.495 - behind these. OK, great. How many units are going to be available for rent? And do you know 02:34:56.495 --> 02:35:03.005 - about approximately how much rent will be on those? And your lease terms is going to be per month, 02:35:03.005 --> 02:35:06.622 - per year, per six months? Or are you not that far yet? 02:35:06.946 --> 02:35:14.494 - I do not know the rental rate Obviously we can get that information from the developer if you guys want 02:35:14.494 --> 02:35:22.042 - it later Eric if you want to pull can you pull the elevations back up? You can kind of just see I don't 02:35:22.042 --> 02:35:29.300 - remember the exact number but this elevation will Tell you each each space has one man door and one 02:35:29.300 --> 02:35:35.614 - overhead door So when we get this elevation pulled back up, there's only a handful per 02:35:37.730 --> 02:35:46.025 - But I think the I think the demising walls Can also be moved to so if you want to be able to you know, 02:35:46.025 --> 02:35:54.160 - it's a tenant tenant needs both Yeah So could be up to ten but if a tenant needs more space they can 02:35:54.160 --> 02:36:02.294 - they can take more of the building Somebody could rent say two of these side-by-side and like remove 02:36:02.294 --> 02:36:05.918 - the wall in between them somehow interesting 02:36:06.050 --> 02:36:14.283 - Okay, great. I should also mention this was presented to McDowell Neighborhood Association, and they 02:36:14.283 --> 02:36:22.434 - seemed very favorable and interested in it. It would activate the space and provide for jobs within 02:36:22.434 --> 02:36:30.829 - the area, so it seemed favorably received. Okay, and then I think the last question that just occurred 02:36:30.829 --> 02:36:34.334 - to me as you were talking, in terms of the 02:36:34.562 --> 02:36:40.892 - Electricity in the units are they going to be solar capable? because as you're saying like if people 02:36:40.892 --> 02:36:47.159 - can park their vehicles and things like that and there are more solar vehicles now, so it's is that 02:36:47.159 --> 02:36:53.489 - going to be a possibility in terms of somebody who might want to have a have a solar vehicle charger 02:36:53.489 --> 02:36:59.756 - in there At this point, there's no plans for that I can't speak to on if that's a future capability 02:36:59.756 --> 02:37:01.950 - they want to add but at this point 02:37:06.306 --> 02:37:16.349 - That's all for now. I saw somebody else's hand up down there. So Since we had the elevations up I wanted 02:37:16.349 --> 02:37:26.297 - to just ask Steph is the Are the the void to solid ratio requirements in the PUD? Pretty different from 02:37:26.297 --> 02:37:33.662 - what we see in in the UDO and in other zones. Yep, so the design elements so 02:37:34.402 --> 02:37:40.604 - Downtown has, each district has kind of their own standards. So the downtown has certain architectural 02:37:40.604 --> 02:37:46.685 - standards and then outside the downtown, you're different. So the basic design elements are you have 02:37:46.685 --> 02:37:53.067 - to have three out of four design elements on all four sides of the building. The one that you're thinking 02:37:53.067 --> 02:37:59.389 - of the void to solid talks about the incorporation of glass, requires at least 50% of facade or a module 02:37:59.389 --> 02:38:00.894 - have that glass element. 02:38:00.994 --> 02:38:08.256 - They don't have to do that. They've elected to do the other three, which are a change in building height, 02:38:08.256 --> 02:38:15.312 - projection of that module, and then the incorporation of awnings and canopies. So they do not have any 02:38:15.312 --> 02:38:22.232 - glass on the buildings, but they have accomplished it through the other three. Thanks. Just briefly, 02:38:22.232 --> 02:38:30.110 - so I realize this isn't allowed use in the area. Is it, and you mentioned workshop. Is like manufacturing allowed? 02:38:30.754 --> 02:38:36.293 - in it or is it lower intensity use than that? Now the concern is there is residential right across the 02:38:36.293 --> 02:38:41.831 - street and I'm like wondering how loud is it gonna be disruptive as compared to what was there before? 02:38:41.831 --> 02:38:47.263 - Yeah, technically within the Thompson PUD, light manufacturing isn't permitted use. That is actually 02:38:47.263 --> 02:38:52.156 - what Catalint is listed as, is a light manufacturer. So, you know, the difference would be 02:38:52.156 --> 02:38:57.856 - light manufacturing is you take pre-assembled parts and you put them together versus heavy manufacturing, 02:38:57.856 --> 02:39:00.222 - you're making the whole thing from scratch. 02:39:01.634 --> 02:39:08.061 - I'm not familiar enough with it. I know that mentioned that there were trees to be planted Is there 02:39:08.061 --> 02:39:14.680 - anything there that is to help mitigate noise or other things? To be indoor I know Eric mentioned that 02:39:14.680 --> 02:39:21.621 - like outdoor storage I think it's technically allowed by right. Is that correct? It is with the contractors 02:39:21.621 --> 02:39:28.240 - yard. This does not identify any areas where that would occur So this is we don't have any point. It's 02:39:28.240 --> 02:39:31.582 - allowed but we don't have any plan. So it'll all be 02:39:31.682 --> 02:39:40.352 - Indoor so landscaping and nothing outside. Okay. Thank you Any other questions or comments Commissioner 02:39:40.352 --> 02:39:48.855 - Stasberg Follow-up to that like in terms of the view from across South Rogers What are they gonna see 02:39:48.855 --> 02:39:58.526 - because I was realizing like these mock-ups that you showed on the slideshow. They all show the full-size doors but 02:39:58.882 --> 02:40:05.761 - You also said that access will be all from like the inside of the property. So what is somebody going 02:40:05.761 --> 02:40:12.505 - to see when they're like driving by in Rogers? So they live across the street. The one next I guess 02:40:12.505 --> 02:40:19.856 - is showing right here is one of the buildings is to be the side facing Roger. So it does have the pedestrian 02:40:19.856 --> 02:40:26.398 - entry door but otherwise it's a pretty solid front. OK. And so there's no overhead doors facing. 02:40:26.626 --> 02:40:34.217 - The perimeter okay, so there's just like a single and where is that single door gonna go into one of 02:40:34.217 --> 02:40:42.033 - the units then or like an office kind of space for the Like for the yard itself or Yeah, right now just 02:40:42.033 --> 02:40:49.548 - one of the units. Okay, and What kind of landscaping is there just gonna be like street trees there 02:40:49.548 --> 02:40:52.254 - is that like what's the setback? I? 02:40:52.930 --> 02:40:59.444 - Yes, so right now along those fronts they do have street trees shown There is a little bit more landscaping 02:40:59.444 --> 02:41:05.475 - that is required for the general site landscaping So we can work with them to get a little bit more 02:41:05.475 --> 02:41:11.688 - shrubs. Hopefully along that side of the building Okay So I think that it would be good to like soften 02:41:11.688 --> 02:41:17.840 - that a little bit especially because it's basically like a solid wall on that on that side Whether or 02:41:17.840 --> 02:41:21.278 - not it's in the plan just because I think that that will 02:41:21.378 --> 02:41:29.738 - a little bit more attractive especially for the people who live across the street Okay, and then The 02:41:29.738 --> 02:41:38.016 - other follow-up I had is this Eric is this essentially by right and we're only seeing it because it 02:41:38.016 --> 02:41:46.294 - exceeds a certain size Because it's over 25,000 square feet. So that's why it needs major site plan 02:41:46.294 --> 02:41:48.446 - approval. Okay. Thanks. I 02:41:57.154 --> 02:42:02.717 - Commissioner Kinsey's point this does fill a need for contractors in Bloomington right now Most of them 02:42:02.717 --> 02:42:08.280 - that don't have a building of their own or subleasing space, you know You can think out like industrial 02:42:08.280 --> 02:42:10.526 - drive production Parkway places like that 02:42:10.626 --> 02:42:16.415 - So it provides a concentration of an industrial park of sorts But it gives it a much more polished facade 02:42:16.415 --> 02:42:22.041 - like what you'd think on maybe the backside of like Menards lumberyard things like that So the outside 02:42:22.041 --> 02:42:27.557 - public it looks nice polished put together and then all the action stuff actually takes place on the 02:42:27.557 --> 02:42:33.019 - other side of the building So it is hidden from public view and also blocks a significant amount of 02:42:33.019 --> 02:42:38.590 - noise So really intent is for all that stuff to go toward Catalan and not toward residential areas is 02:42:38.590 --> 02:42:39.518 - my understanding 02:42:45.218 --> 02:42:54.346 - the questions or comments Quick question for legal. Do we need two separate motions on each of these 02:42:54.346 --> 02:43:03.564 - or can we well before we should hear public comment obviously You can you can do two separate motions 02:43:03.564 --> 02:43:09.438 - or or one Okay Is there anyone would like to make public comment 02:43:10.242 --> 02:43:19.181 - on either SP twenty twenty six oh three triple oh five or subdivision twenty oh twenty twenty six oh 02:43:19.181 --> 02:43:28.474 - three triple oh five. If there is anybody online please use the raise hand function and we can recognize 02:43:28.474 --> 02:43:37.502 - you. Last call for public comment. Yeah I don't see anybody online. All right back to the commission. 02:43:39.010 --> 02:43:48.142 - The staff recommendation is that we adopt the proposed findings and approve. S. P. Twenty twenty six 02:43:48.142 --> 02:43:57.455 - oh three triple oh five and subdivision twenty twenty six oh three triple oh five with five conditions 02:43:57.455 --> 02:44:07.582 - that are listed in the packet. So moved second. All right. We've got a motion and a second. Any final comments. 02:44:08.386 --> 02:44:15.086 - Thank you. I just want to want to make a final comment partly because I've been really outspoken in 02:44:15.086 --> 02:44:21.853 - general about storage units and I really generally Excuse me. Don't don't really likes storage units 02:44:21.853 --> 02:44:24.734 - as a as a use of space. I do see this as a 02:44:25.058 --> 02:44:32.394 - Different type of storage unit and I appreciate that especially I was actually Speaking with a contractor 02:44:32.394 --> 02:44:39.315 - who I use regularly and they are in a position right now where storage of their equipment that they 02:44:39.315 --> 02:44:42.430 - use is becoming challenging because of other 02:44:42.626 --> 02:44:49.881 - parts of their life. So I do think that there is a niche, especially for small companies, very small 02:44:49.881 --> 02:44:57.568 - companies, individuals who might want to make sure that they have a secure place to store their equipment, 02:44:57.568 --> 02:45:05.182 - because that equipment costs a whole lot, like tools and big tools. I mean, it costs a lot. And so having 02:45:05.794 --> 02:45:11.729 - I think that that becomes an obstacle sometimes for people to get into that field, but then it can become 02:45:11.729 --> 02:45:17.552 - an obstacle depending on what your living situations are. If you don't have a garage, for example, then 02:45:17.552 --> 02:45:23.376 - how do you make sure that all of those expensive tools that you're investing in are safe? So I do think 02:45:23.376 --> 02:45:29.087 - that there's a space for that. I do think it's helpful that it is centrally located in Bloomington so 02:45:29.087 --> 02:45:34.910 - that then no matter where you're working and kind of the general region, it's pretty easily accessible. 02:45:35.202 --> 02:45:43.882 - I am always reluctant to support storage units, but it is, as was said, essentially, by right. And I 02:45:43.882 --> 02:45:52.476 - do think that this type of storage is different and will go toward helping people start, especially 02:45:52.476 --> 02:46:01.758 - those startups, those small one, two, three person crews to help them develop their business. So thank you. 02:46:07.138 --> 02:46:22.962 - All right, let's call the roll on the motion to approve Yes Kenzie, yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes, 02:46:22.962 --> 02:46:33.822 - bro. Yes Bishop. Yes All right motion case, thank you and that is our 02:46:34.146 --> 02:46:41.988 - final petition for the evening. Any announcements, questions before we adjourn? All right, thank you 02:46:41.988 --> 02:46:43.774 - all. We are adjourned.