- Good evening. Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington playing Commission for Monday,
- June 8th 2026 Let me start by just giving a brief overview of our agenda for the evening We will have
- a little bit of internal housekeeping approval of minutes and some internal communications We have no
- petitions continued no consent agenda tonight, so we will get straight to our three
- Petitions for the evening at that point we have Petitioner Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein for the property
- at 2511 North Dunn Street we then have Sub 20 2603 triple 05 petitioner built alt LLC the property at
- 1320 South Roger Street and then finally SP 20 2603 dash triple 05 built alt LLC and
- also same property but for the final plan approval, so Three petitions this evening, but let's start
- by calling the roll to make sure we've got quorum here Here Bishop here Seaborg here Holmes here Kinsey
- here Stossburg here Whistler here
- All right, we do have a quorum. Let's move on to approval of minutes I believe we've got minutes from
- the April 13th meeting to approve tonight. Are there any questions or corrections about those minutes?
- Sarah motion to approve those minutes motion to approve the April 13th minutes Second Sorry, who was
- the second? All right All in favor approval of those minutes say aye aye
- Any opposed? All right, those minutes are approved We are now on to reports resolutions and communications
- are there any reports or communications from commissioners tonight Mr. Kinsey Yes, I wanted to comment
- on our list of commission members and for those of you who noticed on the agenda that we actually have
- a vacancy and there is
- a slot missing from our commission membership and I wanted to use this opportunity to acknowledge the
- service from the member who has left our commission and created that vacancy, and it's Tim Ballard.
- Tim was a very good colleague and has moved on to do some other things in his life and work. It's not
- a sad situation for him, but it is a sad situation for us because I think Tim brought tremendous expertise
- to this commission. He had a good deep development background and also was really committed to community
- input and community service. And I want to acknowledge Tim's contribution because I think one of the
- things he also valued was civic dialogue.
- and also really doing that in a way that respected people's input and conversation. And even when things
- got contentious in meetings, Tim was always level-headed and offered a very informed perspective.
- I think it's important to acknowledge that as we see a good public representation in here today
- to acknowledge the service that Tim brought to our commission, the expertise that he brought, and the
- way he conducted himself at meetings. So I just wanted to acknowledge Tim's service and thank him in
- absentia for his contributions to the planned commission. Thanks. Thank you. Couldn't agree more. He
- will be sorely missed. Commissioner Seaworth. I just wanted to note for the commission's sake and those
- listening that
- I will have to excuse myself around a little before seven o'clock today to attend another meeting. So
- just depending on where we are just wanted to share that. Thank you. Any other. Oh Mr. Stossberg I'll
- just tag on Commissioner Kinsey's comments and say that that vacancy.
- Creates an opportunity for somebody else who might be interested in serving on the plan Commission There
- are currently no applications for that spot So if you're out there thinking like oh that looks very
- interesting that work that they do or I might be interested in doing that You can go ahead and fill
- out an application for that not particular Vacancy is appointed by the mayor. Thank you Any other reports
- or communications from commissioners I
- All right, how about from the staff any reports or communications from the staff tonight? Nothing only
- other than one remaining housekeeping, which was the approval of the revised Rules and procedures that
- we introduced I think back in April So it was continued at that time. We didn't have a May meeting.
- So that is still in the docket for review and approval And I'm assuming you would like us to act on
- that tonight I
- If the commission feels comfortable doing that, if they needed more time or have questions, we're certainly
- happy to answer those questions. Or if he likes to need more time, you can continue that to the July
- meeting. I recall there were a few commissioners that had outstanding questions or concerns about that.
- I don't recall off the top of my head who it was, but are there any questions for staff about the proposed
- updated administrative manual?
- tonight. Commissioner Stossberg. Thank you. I did have a couple of questions. And now that you said,
- oh, we talked about this in April, all of a sudden I'm going, oh my gosh, did I ask these questions
- in April? And now I'm just trying to go back to my notes to see if they were answered. But the two questions
- that I had, one had to do with the changing of notice from 21 days to 10 days and why that was done.
- And the other thing that I noticed was in, I think, B8, it says that the petitioner no longer has to
- pay for the expense of advertising fees in the paper. And I was wondering if that meant that the department
- was paying for that expense or what was going on with that.
- Yep, so I can answer both of those. So the 21 days to 10 days, that just syncs it with changes and languages
- in the UDO. So a while ago, three, four years ago, we changed the public notification to 10 days for
- everything except hearing officer. So we haven't updated the rules and procedures in a long time, so
- this was syncing that with changes that were made in the UDO. In regards to the legal add in the paper,
- this was something that the department had been discussing and looking
- at for many years because we had encountered a lot of situations where there had been in communications
- with the Herald Times and petitioners and petitioners not being able to be heard because they couldn't
- get the payment figured out.
- And so to alleviate that and this was certainly something that other communities in Indiana also do
- is the Department takes care of paying for that filing fee. It's a very I don't say nominal. It's maybe
- $55 per petition so that's something that we added into the budget a year or so ago to Allow for the
- department to absorb that cost it helps reduce errors that happen with those legal ads and makes it
- cleaner and easier
- when we have petitions coming forward that have that requirement, which is everything. Okay, thank you.
- Eric, do you mind just giving a synopsis of the other, any other changes that are in this that we should
- be aware of?
- A lot some of them were in regards to the filing fees We had updated those a long time ago and then
- again just didn't make changes There were a few grammatical errors in the rules and procedures that
- we went through Mostly it was just kind of sinking everything with some practices that had changed over
- the years and we just had not updated this Like I said, the public notification was certainly one big
- one I think one thing that is in here is
- Removal of the requirement for petitions that are requesting a waiver that they are required to have
- two hearings Sometimes we see petitions come forward that Certainly one of the ones tonight that is
- required to have two hearings as part of a waiver, you know having that basic requirement sometimes
- Prolongs the conversation and just requires that waiver. That's unnecessarily there obviously the Planning
- Commission always has the right to continue something as well as staff does and
- So that was one aspect that was changed. You know, we talked about the public notification letter. We
- removed the references to use variances, which are no longer in the UDL as well. Those are the big ones
- that are jumping out. A lot of it was just, like I said, housekeeping because we haven't done anything
- in several years. All right. Any other questions about the updated administrative manual?
- Mr. Brill is one of the updates the Changing the time limit for public speaking we talked about that
- before That stayed the same and that has not changed We changed that for the Board of Zoning Appeals
- with the expedited agenda process But that has not changed for the Planning Commission and I don't think
- that that's changed for the consent agenda either
- So that that still stays at five minutes Certainly if that's something that the Plain Commission wants
- staff to look into You know, we can propose or if the Plain Commission wants to amend that tonight You
- know, you can you can certainly amend the rules and procedures if you feel like that should be adjusted
- in some capacity We're doing three minutes instead of five minutes and it has been more people are more
- to the point or
- when they do their comments. I don't think anybody suffered from it. I would like to say that council
- also has three minute comments and I do think that it adds to efficiency but I don't think that that
- is something that should get changed the night of a meeting because some people prepare comments ahead of time.
- Yeah, I would say if that's an amendment we could consider at any time, right? So maybe let's give that
- some thought and have some discussion about it. Unless there are any other questions or, oh, go ahead.
- I had one question, Eric. Were there any changes to the continuing case
- At all in any of this know that that still stands that the petitioner is allowed three You know after
- that the Plain Commission has to vote to approve continuances beyond that Again, you know, that's something
- that can be amended if the Plain Commission feels there's a need to adjust that I just wanted to make sure it's
- You know, I appreciate the new revised rules, but it's hard to know without a red line version what
- has changed. So thank you for offering some synopsis. One comment, and I think this is not a red line
- version. On page 10, there is number four is still in strike through form. And I don't know if that's
- an edit that needs to be made. Yeah, that was just a cleanup. I noticed that just a few minutes ago as well.
- But that's yeah, so that just needs or without for like that was it's part of the deletion.
- I assume Yes, that would be deleted. That's right there. Okay, and I would second the idea in the future
- I believe the first time you brought this to us we did have more View of what the changes were but we
- have to see a redline version, right? You have to be able to see what the original document was and
- What the new changes are side-by-side in order to be able to make an informed decision So for future
- amendments, I would request that we get that and not just a clean document with changes already understood
- Like I said, if the Plain Commission feels like they'd like to see that we can certainly make that redline
- version available It was at the April hearing there were some Edit I don't say editorial comments for
- staff that were in that but that's what how it was presented at the April hearing was that redline version and
- So we can certainly do that and make that available if that's easier for Plain Commission. We can revisit
- this in July You know, there's nothing that is immediately impending that has to be resolved tonight
- with this Well, that's the case and I would just I'd suggest we Pick this up at the July meeting and
- see if we can't see the red line before that if there's nothing that's particularly urgent Yeah, that's
- certainly fine
- Anyone object to that approach. All right. Great. I don't think we need to take any action then since
- this is not an agenda item or do we need to actually continue this to the. I don't think it would hurt
- to just continue this move that we continue this to the July meeting. I'll motion to continue the revision
- of the rules and
- Copy of the administrative manual to the next meeting second All in favor say aye any opposed Okay,
- thank you. We will pick that back up in July we any other reports communications from staff then All
- right, well we have no consent agendas we are on to our first petition for the evening and
- SUB 2025-12-0051 Looks like we have Jamie Kreindler to present the case Take it away whenever you're
- ready Jamie Kreindler senior zoning planner and this is the petition for 25 11 north done This was last
- before you in January of this year. So several months ago
- And just as a refresher, it's a four acre property on the west side of North Dunn. And the request before
- you is primary plat approval to subdivide the property into 11 residential lots and three common area
- lots for a total of 14 lots. The petitioners are Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein. And the consultant is
- Daniel Butler with Bynum Fanyo and Associates.
- Zoning for the location is R2 residential medium lot surrounding properties to the north and south.
- They're also zoned R2 with single family homes. To the west there's mixed use corridor zoning with an
- office park and to the east is Meadowood assisted living and more residential homes. The petitioner
- is requesting a total of three subdivision waivers and the three subdivision waivers are to one, allow
- cul-de-sac,
- two to not require 67% of the lots to be served by alleys and three to amend the riparian buffer easement
- language. So when this case was before you in January at that time, there were a total of 15 residential
- lots proposed. So the request has been reduced to 11 now. So that's a reduction of four lots and in January,
- The petitioner was requesting two subdivision waivers. So the one to not require 67% of the lots to
- be served by alleys, that's still the same and still a request. They have withdrawn the waiver request
- to not require sidewalk installation for a portion of the Northwestern Street. So that's no longer being
- requested. And then I have on the screen the three subdivision waivers that are being requested.
- So the first one has to do with allowing a cul-de-sac for the development. Cul-de-sacs are not permitted
- in the UDO, and this is the traditional subdivision type. So the petitioner is requesting a waiver to
- allow a cul-de-sac instead of the road stubbing to the western boundary of the site. So this is an example,
- this is the exhibit that the petitioner submitted showing what it would look like if the cul-de-sac
- waiver was approved.
- The petitioner is also requesting a subdivision waiver to amend the riparian buffer easement language
- and the waiver request is from UDO section 20.04.050E10A and this is to accommodate both drainage allowances
- and environmental preservation requirements.
- City of Bloomington utilities and planning department staff, we met several times and discussed amending
- the riparian buffer easement language. So as shown on the screen, this is what it would look like as
- amended and it reads as required by city of Bloomington utilities and the operations and maintenance
- manual associated with the stormwater infrastructure located within the easement. The final subdivision
- waiver request is to not require 67% of the lots to be served by alleys.
- and this was previously on the plans in January as well. On February 26th, there was a Board of Zoning
- Appeals hearing for this case and they requested a total of seven variances. So since it's related to
- the revisions to the plat, I just wanted to give a brief summary of what those variances were and what
- the decisions were on them. So three of the variances from minimum lot area, minimum lot width,
- and minimum side building setback were denied by Board of Zoning Appeals. And then the other four variances
- from minimum tree preservation, tree protection fencing, and riparian buffer disturbance activities
- in the intermediate and fringe zones, those were approved by the BZA. I also want to inform the plan
- commission that in early April of this year, the city received notice that several neighbors did file
- a judicial review of this BZA decision, so that's still
- and there is a motion to stay scheduled for next week on June 17th. This is the landscaping plan submitted
- by the petitioner, and with the variance that was approved by Board of Zoning Appeals, the petitioner
- is required to retain a minimum of 36% of the existing tree canopy on the site, and that equates to
- .93 acres. And then lastly, I wanted to mention that City of Bloomington Utilities
- a review on the plans that were submitted and the plans are not fully approved by CBU, but they did
- receive conditional authorization to proceed to this hearing. So the main outstanding issues are related
- to conflicts between easements, unallowed tree plantings and drainage paths and unacceptable outfall
- rates still exist. So those don't meet CBU requirements and the petitioner is still coordinating with them.
- So the department's recommending that the plan commission continue this case to the required second
- hearing next month on July 13th, and we're happy to answer any questions. Can we start with just a couple
- of procedural questions? One, we heard this in January already, right? Was that not a first hearing
- that was a separate action on this or?
- Have added two new waivers since then so that requires a hearing for those two waivers that have been
- added those waivers do require two hearings So that's why we're here tonight to hear those two Substantially
- since the last time we heard it. Yes in essence and then with regard to the judicial review of the of
- the The variances
- Does that have any impact on our ability to act on this or Is it just another step if we go ahead and
- approve this before that is settled Is there any any yeah, it is the opinion of city legal that it does
- not prevent the plan commission from acting It simply imposes restrictions on the petitioner taking
- any action
- Thank you. All right. Any other questions for staff at this point? I'd also just add that we'll probably
- learn more after the stay hearing and legal will keep us updated here in a minute, but if there's questions
- about anything kind of procedural, let's get it out of the way now. Go ahead. Commissioners. Questions
- about the riparian buffer stuff because I was looking at the
- Presentation link in the packet and I didn't see the slide that you had up there about the language
- Changes and so I was trying to understand exactly what that new language would be and what it would
- mean So I don't know if you could show that again Or if that's somewhere else in the packet because
- I didn't see it in the presentation link that's provided but I also was wondering if the environmental
- Commission had a
- Reviewed at all that riparian buffer language change or anything related to that I think that they had
- maybe looked at it in January, but if they looked at it at all since the BZA approved and Denied the
- various variances and then they've updated this request at all We're certainly happy I don't know if
- you wanted to hear from the petitioner first and then go into questions from playing commission I think
- that to answer your question though I think that language for the easement was is in the staff report
- Yeah, this exact table wasn't in the report but the proposed amended language is in the report and it's
- also on the plat on page three of the plat that the petitioner submitted So basically the change is
- that instead of
- Except disturbing as allowed in the UV at UDO. It's disturbing as allowed by specific staff. Is that
- how it's being changed? Yes, what we're and we're gonna talk I guess a little bit about this I don't
- know how in depth you want us to go at this time But we're trying to reconcile two different aspects
- of the UDO in terms of what's allowed in certain areas within riparian buffer
- Areas the udio prohibits a lot of disturbance activities, but at the same time does allow for stormwater
- facilities The city of Bloomington utilities department requires certain access to those facilities
- certain maintenance Capabilities that they want to have so we've tried to balance the needs of both
- departments and so this language works in new language that might make its way into future amendments
- to the udio that allows for certain activities to happen and
- Pending of remediation plan or some sort of replanting plan that will be outlined in an operations manual
- That wasn't totally procedural but I guess that was something I didn't really understand in terms of
- what it was that we were approving so Thanks Come on up to the podium and say your name you'll have
- up to 20 minutes to present
- Associates I Won't take too much time here this plan that you see before you tonight is the same road
- design So the road hasn't changed with the exception that we are
- Asking for more or less a cul-de-sac it's really a hammerhead turnarounds for emergency vehicles or
- Delivery vehicles or anything like that We're putting that option before you tonight. We didn't give
- you that option in January to try to save more trees less disturbance Less
- Money to the lots that would be passed along to each one of the lots So those are the upsides to to
- having that we're asking for that waiver So you see you see now three waivers before you? The other
- change that you didn't see last time is that we were asking for a reduced lot size that did not get
- approved at BZA So we're back to the r2 zoning which it's
- Zoned that now so we're not asking for any lot size differences from what it's owned right now We're
- just that we're putting those three waivers before you and those are the three things that we're asking
- for the riparian language the the hammerhead cul-de-sac turnaround if We see good upside we see positives
- and negatives on both so
- but I think we would prefer to see the waiver of We've heard some of what the neighbors had been talking
- to us about and trying our best to Preserve as much of this property as we can we haven't we've even
- Had certain common lots that really preserve a stand of trees that are you know specimen large
- Canopy trees that so we're not trying to You know take this piece of property. We understand that the
- the people who live here do appreciate What's happening on this property a lot of trees trying to preserve
- that so we're asking for 11 lots now and then three additional common lots on top of that so a total
- of 14 lots of the three additional common lots would be preservation of
- Trying to work with Drainage mixed with riparian to try to preserve some of the natural features that
- are on the site Try to preserve as many trees as possible and then also plant many new trees that are
- 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
- have hoped for a little bit smaller lot so that we could drive down the prices of these homes a little
- bit more, but we understand that
- We understand the gives and takes of that as well And then of course you you heard in length in January
- the positives and the negatives of the alleys behind the homes I won't go into depth about that. If
- you have any questions, I went into pretty a lot of discussion on the negatives of doing that I don't
- think I'm guessing that there's no neighbor here tonight that wants that so
- I could be wrong, but it would add additional impervious area and it would be right on the borders of
- the property Inviting people more into the backyards rather than in front of the homes and so have garage
- on the front side with that Please ask questions and Paul Pruitt is here with ownership as well if you
- have questions for him Other questions from commissioners either for the petitioner or for the staff I
- The BZA recording and at the beginning of it the petitioner, I don't think it was you I think it was
- your partner Who mentioned the prior? Attempts that you had with this property to develop it and I don't
- remember I was hoping you could go over that history again that your first plan that you brought was
- only two houses or maybe three houses and
- But for some reason that didn't work and then you brought another plan with a few more houses and that
- 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
- of your initial plans on this and I really what I'm curious in is were they brought to playing Commission
- did they because I've only been on here for less than a year so this could have all been before my time
- but why were those non starters why did those plans fail.
- That is a good question. I do not remember bringing any former plans. We studied I remember you asking
- a question in particular about how many lots could we get on here with not putting a road through it
- was very difficult with the length and the length to depth ratio rule to try to introduce a lot of new
- lots just Having no lot, you know road that would go through here and having you know large backyards.
- So it'd be hard to you know introduce a
- Even two or three homes on this property if you're going about it that route Other than that we did
- have an earlier plan that involved a cul-de-sac That did utilize r2 zoning. So still had a 7200 minimum
- square foot lot, but it really is
- Encompassed almost all the land and it became pretty clear quickly that that wasn't going to work for
- anyone including environmental Commission So we started meeting with environmental Commission the planning
- department we had some a neighborhood meeting with the neighbors and It just became clear that having
- a cul-sac and not going for that particular waiver and we would need to
- Reserve much of the land for drainage and for preservation Other than that, I'm not sure of any other
- alternate plans Because there was it's recorded at the BZA hearing I think it was again your partner
- who mentioned it that you had earlier plans to do I think it was two or three houses was the initial
- one that you brought and that that was a non-starter No memory of that No, I think the the only study
- that we've done is just
- Everything came from Dunn Street rather than coming having a public road, but then also meeting with
- Planning at that time. They were recommending that Tamarack be extended that it was kind of a part of
- a long long-term plan Other than that. No, sir. I don't I don't remember any off the top of my head
- Okay, if I may I have a separate question about the the cul-de-sac and
- 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
- 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
- cul-de-sac I think the language of the cul-de-sac the planning department viewed it as that language
- 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
- type feel but we're
- Proposing more or less a future perhaps if it's necessary to extend that and give ability to do that
- but for now Have a emergency turnaround as a hammerhead. They're calling a cul-de-sac. It's not a true
- cul-de-sac The way this is going to stay indefinitely or their direct plans to eventually Extend it
- and connect it to the shopping center on the other side or what are the? well, so let me
- 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
- It just says it terminates by a vehicular turnaround at the other end So that could be a hammerhead.
- It could be a round bulb. It could be an oval. It could be a square It could be needed in any different
- form, but the only thing that is not that is a stub street So a stub street extends all the way to the
- property line within right away that has been built
- so, you know with this petition, you know and what has changed tonight is the Petitioners have shown
- a situation where they are stopping the street at a certain point in theory the plaque shows extended
- right-of-way dedication But that's not really consistent with any of our adopted plans or goals where
- you know We want right-of-way that doesn't have a street in it You know that that places the burden
- on the taxpayers and to build that street or the city to build that street You know and honestly that's the
- That's not something that you either make the decision to put in the street at the time of the development
- or you don't You know to come back and build that street at a later time is extremely problematic from
- a city perspective Certainly, we can't make an adjacent property owner go on to another property and
- right away and build that street so you know what's before the Plain Commission tonight is either to
- require the street or
- To extend all the way to the West property line as a stub street Which is allowed or to allow for a
- cul-de-sac again, whether that's a hammerhead or a turnaround doesn't matter Either it's a sub streets
- of the West property line or it's not Some of the details because a stub street has to connect to unplatted land
- Stub Street would extend to a property line with the expectation and requirement that it be extended
- at some point in the future So with this certainly, you know, one of the things that we look at is a
- transportation plan Which outlines a lot of expected and new road connections, but not every single
- one Certainly it looks at the big road connections
- Some local roads are identified in there, but it also is very situational So in situations exactly like
- this come forward, you know, we look at the surrounding situation What are adjacent properties? What is?
- You know the general traffic pattern within an area certainly learn from the stakes and say this is
- a situation Where a through road moving through here? Accomplishes a lot of goals, you know One of the
- things that we talked about is it directly aligns with Tamarack Trail to the east it directly aligns
- with a very large property to the west that certainly over the next decades is going to see some form
- of redevelopment and
- And one of the things that we've learned over the years is, you know, the installation of roads is very
- important and it's very important to do at the very beginning of a development. You know, it's very
- hard to get public roads put in where they weren't accommodated in the beginning. So it's a very important
- conversation to have right now because, you know, the layout of roads here and the connection network
- that is established will be the pattern and will be what's on the ground for the next 100 years, if
- not longer. So is there, has there been a
- I guess I'm now talking with staff you you had a comment. Go ahead I can add to it once the conversation
- is complete or I can add to it now So so the road connecting Tamarack is not in the transportation plan
- you have It's not in there right now for the most part is private
- But certainly it is there, you know, it is a paved road that moves through there You know as I mentioned
- with this petition and as with any petitions that come forward over time You know, we we have a map
- on the wall in the office where we have comments on there You know add this to the transportation plan
- or do this and make this amendment So certainly if this is added on here, there'll be a note place to
- you know Have that road moving through the adjacent property have that moving through Tamarack Trail
- so that we can highlight this on the transportation plan and have it be
- More established, but this is the opportunity for that conversation of connectivity here Okay, and there's
- is a glendora the next street down. That's 30 feet south of Tamarack Trail That does connect over to
- walnut and then there's another one that connects done to walnut and then there's the highway south
- So there are at least three connections You have to run through Fritz Terrace Glendora is the most kind
- of direct and then you can get their
- vis-a-vis Seville and Gilbert Okay, so I mean I guess I questioned I mean it's not part of the transportation
- plan I don't know what it adds to do that. It enables more houses to be built on the property I think
- And last time that we went through this there was discussion of it needing to connect to the shopping
- center on the other side It looks like that's not part of it So I guess that was my original question
- is is that still part of the plan to eventually connect that street? I
- Not is this a temporary end of the street? Is this a temporary dead end or is this envisioned as like
- this is going to be the way it is? The expectation when the property so certainly it helps to have it
- on the transportation plan shown clearly that this road would move through there So if there is a subdivision
- on the property of the West they're required to
- Dedicated and build it, you know, it kind of takes that conversation off the table If they don't subdivide
- it and if it's not shown on the transportation plan Having this extension here. There is language in
- the udo that says when roads are extended and stubbed to property lines They have to be extended through
- a property. So that gives us language in the udo even if it isn't in the transportation plan currently
- But this would certainly be the expectation is when the property to the west redevelops that this road
- is extended and connected through there and
- I see language in the UDO that says a cul-de-sac has to be round Has to be large enough to accommodate
- the largest fire truck in service within the city. Yeah, so you'll see that language for commercial
- subdivisions because cul-de-sacs are allowed there So there is language in the you know that talks about
- cul-de-sacs where they're allowed. Yeah Is there language that says it doesn't have to be around because
- this language says cul-de-sac shall be around bulb large enough to accommodate shall be a
- It doesn't say one option is my question is is this a cul-de-sac? It doesn't look like one. It looks
- like a dead end, right? So no, it's it's it's not It's it is a cul-de-sac by definition
- but it doesn't meet the street design standards because it doesn't have a bulb. You know, the petitioner
- is proposing something else. So, you know, we've interacted with a cul-de-sac discussion only very few
- times, only one that's really kind of come to mind lately. And again, that wasn't really a kind of a
- cul-de-sac. It had a roundabout turnaround at the end of it. So it's not a cul-de-sac, like I said,
- from the street design standards.
- 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
- property line. It stops with some other version of a terminus Thank you May I add just to this conversation
- before we go on something else and that's just what we want to put before you because There would be
- additional Tree saving there would be additional
- Areas that would be preserved at the time for the time being And it would allow for the same exact amount
- of lots You would get a little more less money to the project. So that would be passed You know likely
- on to the you know the actual lots and right now it's You would be getting that same dead end. It would
- just be a little further down and so we're trying to see if there'd be something
- Meeting in the middle that would allow for you know, maybe if continuing that street in the future And
- you don't have to necessarily give up the connectivity potentially And then allow for you know this
- allow for more Preservation now and I think that's what we want to put in front of you to see if that's
- amenable to the panel
- My questions continue on this same cul-de-sac.
- Eric and the staff have trained me so well tend to not be opposed to cul-de-sac even though I happen
- to live on one And enjoy it, but I've really learned that they are not good planning and they don't
- allow connectivity And I've learned all this about why I will never want to approve a cul-de-sac So
- now I have to be trained out of that very important lesson if we were to consider and move this forward
- So I guess I want to understand how this
- Particular I understand the instance in this case allows the trees to be preserved it is You know allows
- for less disturbance in the land in general I mean that all sounds all quite good But it doesn't what
- about the other side the the fact that it's not integrated that it's not part of good planning And how
- do we how do we reconcile these two things to those things outweigh should they outweigh? the the reason
- we don't do this anymore in planning and
- Well, from a staff perspective, like I said, the installation establishment of a road network is something
- that you're establishing and dealing with for the next 100, 200 years.
- We are paying the price for a lot of these cul-de-sacs that have been done over the past 80 years In
- situations where we have properties that develop and they don't have stubs to extend to so it results
- in more traffic on roads Because you can't disperse things So it results in just a lack of connectivity
- that there have been so many aspects of our comprehensive plan our transportation plan our climate action
- plan that talk about
- Increasing nodes of connection so that you don't have to push everybody out on the big roads You've
- got these smaller internal roads that you can move from one location to another It gives you a wider
- range of transportation options, you know You can feel more comfortable riding your bikes and your streets
- down these smaller neighborhood streets and you don't have to go out on the bigger streets and
- Yes, certainly, you know one of the factors that is a main discussion point with this is you know balancing
- environmental impacts You know one of the things that we worked with with this is a tree remediation
- plan to plant additional trees on the property So, you know the the trade-offs for a connectivity or
- something that you will feel the impact of for decades down the line So the
- Other thing is the I can't tell on the map that was in the staff packet for Tamarack Trail how much
- is really in the Labeled section future dedicated right-of-way. What what space are we talking? How
- much are we talking about there between? is future dedicated right away and then
- How far is that from the property line or to the next? Property how much are we talking about? Yeah,
- my petitioner statement kind of breaks it down. I'll just read it out loud It's eleven thousand four
- hundred seventy square feet that would no longer be disturbed it's about a hundred eighty eight feet
- of road and 24 large specimen trees would come down in favor of the road given it give or take again. I see a
- I see the conversation positives and negatives on both sides and after studying looking at it We felt
- like it would kind of also preserve more of the property but 188 Feet is the answer to your question
- eleven thousand four hundred seventy Square feet of then undisturbed area you would get
- And then the other question on this is the the last instance when we were discussing a cul-de-sac and
- Viewing it positively and negatively for a development on the south side of town there was concern about
- that property had a house right at the end of the cul-de-sac so it was on like there was nothing we
- do we have a private property that was butting right up against it, but there's a house there and
- So there was no way to work around it and we were not going to demolish somebody's home. So there is
- no plan or any way to put something that would get in the way should this 10 year plan come up. And
- the expectation is that the road is extended to let's say Walnut. There's nothing planned for that end
- of the dedicated right away.
- That is correct All of the exhibits and all the plans that you see in our packet from us Show the road
- all the way through that you've always seen it in stubbing to the property of the West we also included
- that exhibit as a possibility for then Dedicate maybe dedicating the right-of-way now or Some kind of
- language as future dedicated right-of-way. I know as Eric has said that that would come with then
- Someone else would be on the hook for that road if it was to continue on to the West But we are that's
- what that exhibit was trying to show is a possibility that maybe you could Give that as future dedicated
- right away so that nothing would be built in the way potentially And then just back to staff As in this
- proposal right now if it's a dedicated right away that Makes it that's the
- Requirement or that makes it possible to retain this space and then extend the road Should that be part
- of a future development? Is that enough is it sufficient? The challenge would be you know, you have
- right away sitting on the ground with no improvements in it So the city is then responsible for that
- for maintaining that both for you know legal purposes But also, you know, we're responsible for maintaining that
- So it would be completely on the city's burden to install that road at a future time You know, we can't
- go back and make the homeowners here cough up whatever amount of money How many hundreds of thousands
- of dollars it is to build that? So that would be an unfair burden to put on the city and the taxpayers
- to build that, you know We can't make the adjacent property owner come in and do an off-site improvement
- on an adjacent property and
- But you know also mention, you know, this particular arrangement isn't the only thing they could also
- stub this street to the north And that would mean So they they don't have to come forward with this
- exact layout there are other proposals that could allow for the property on the west to be developed
- and not require a waiver and
- So in the first plan in January and Kind of with this with this cul-de-sac waiver plan. There's the
- assumption that the road would extend west Toward walnut, but you just said that an alternate could
- be extending the road
- North they toward that adjacent property and that would fulfill Yes, because that would be a stub street
- so they could stub it to the north rather than stubbing it to the west I think it would certainly result
- in less lots and maybe that's been a challenge but Because of the riparian buffer No, I think just because
- turning it you would lose some of the loss along the north side of the road But is there already some
- kind of little turnaround there on the north?
- I'm just surmising about loss of lots, but there is other alternatives besides stubbing to the West
- it could stub to the north I guess that's sort of an interesting Theory to me is that stub to the north
- and how that would look So, I don't know if that's something that could be considered by your team for the
- Next meeting just in terms of what that would look like because that property to the north is very similar
- to this current property in terms of a single house and then You know at some point in the next tower
- for many years I Mean that one maybe is just as likely to change in the next tower for many years as
- the one to the west is I
- I guess I just want to continue on this same cul-de-sac Comment here the the other thing though I presume
- that well, I know the staff would have told us what we needed to do in order to make sure that this
- property is of the least burden to the city and not on the city's back to to care for and still
- honor what the petition is trying to accomplish here to the degree that we can. But is there anything
- else that could be done to both assure that that right away is the right approach and that there is
- assurance that it's of that it remains available should it continue? Is there any did you have any other
- thoughts about what else this could be?
- If you're talking about, you know the length of right away that in theory would be dedicated but not
- improved No, you know situ and we've we dealt with this situation in numerous other examples development
- scenarios where people have proposed the same thing and every time it's just very problematic and there's
- there's no benefit and
- There's only problems and not not benefits that arise from right away sitting on the ground that's intended
- to be constructed or have some improvement in but You know who's paying for it and who's maintaining
- it and who's liable for it in the interim Okay Anything else from petitioner about this no, I don't
- think so I think for us as a firm
- thinking about how best to go about this. It always felt like a bit of a juggle of trying to come up
- with a plan that really provided the least amount of environmental impact, and that's why we decided
- to add this to give even less environmental impact at this time. We just weren't sure when that road
- would be extended. And to put it all,
- Understand going all the way to the West that that would then give an extension someday but when would
- that happen and so we decided to go ahead and pose this before you as it Would lessen environmental
- impact lower prices of the homes? Just a one more follow-up on that Does that have an impact on the
- CBU report? I mean whether or not you pave that additional
- Distance of road seems like it would have impact on runoff and yeah retention. So we've also Sorry to
- interrupt in the past Months, we've been working with CBU as well. There's been a lot of concerns from
- neighbors about the drainage So we wanted to make them feel comfortable for tonight's meeting that this
- could be approvable
- and all the stormwater was going to be treated as such and not be going on to neighboring properties
- and Be an outflow at a rate that is acceptable and less than what's going out there now So all those
- studies have been done. There are still a few outstanding comments, but they they felt like the the
- whole project in theory is approvable and that To answer your question less road. It's just less Impervious
- surface so just be even less of a
- Runoff rate even though right now the way it stands is still approvable and acceptable Well approvable
- and acceptable in either case with or without the the full distance of the road that's correct because
- you just be replacing now impervious with environment, you know on Disturbed area and so that would
- be still going it still would be going to the same place except at a slower rate but so with the worst
- case scenario we
- We've gotten approved. I guess is the way I'm putting it Thanks other questions from commissioners
- Commissioner Stossberg One of the other reasons you gave about Not having to extend that road right
- now had to do with with costs and costs that you would forward on to the property owners Do you have
- an estimate about what that price difference would be in terms of? prices of the properties
- Yeah, we estimate that this road extension is somewhere in the range with the hundred eighty eight feet
- somewhere in the range of today's cost about four hundred thousand dollars that would be about thirty
- eight thousand dollars a lot that would potentially be passed on to the the cost of the lots Thank you
- And do you have a Estimated cost right now about because like I don't see any house plans in here in
- terms of what you're actually thinking to build So do you have estimates on?
- What the prices those homes are gonna go for at this point in your planning? See we have to consult
- for this question. I know it's really hard to do estimates right now a new construction is like all
- over the place we understand that that's been a question around this project generally, so we're trying
- to do our best but We're we're trying to keep them under five hundred thousand Okay and that's about
- what size like how many square foot like
- The owner stating about fifteen hundred to two thousand. Okay. Thanks And driving down these these costs
- is What we're trying we're trying to do that, but also marry those of course with the environmental
- impact stuff Continuing on the questions of the cul-de-sac so it's I guess not
- Maybe it's intentionally not clear yet. If it was approved as a cul-de-sac would it be dedicated as
- right of way or kept on a Common area lot or that's a part of what you're wanting to discuss tonight.
- I Think that's part of what I would like to discuss so if it was I mean If it was actually dedicated
- right away, then I understand that there would be some maintenance but at the same time it would be
- Hopefully be kept to a minimum maintenance because it's kept undisturbed However, we understand that
- that there's still some maintenance involved with that So perhaps an idea what we put on our exhibit
- is a future dedicated right-of-way set aside for the the possibility that that gets dedicated in the
- 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
- Projects like this can be phased. I don't know if phasing is a factor or even possible just to kind
- of Is that been explored? We would be open to that as well. Absolutely if it's a if it's a phasing issue
- Potent even with phasing though, it wouldn't you'd still lose some of your environmental impact It would
- help the project and we'd be open to that for sure But you'd still be then, you know passing on cost
- and you know environmental
- Impacts we'd be open to that though. And I guess just I know I might not be around at the end of this
- discussion. So Just for for some awareness and maybe there's a question in here is when there's subdivisions
- and public right away is established Typically, there's anticipated public improvements there's usually
- done a public improvement bond that a developer puts and gives to the city to make sure that those public
- improvements are
- built to standard in case something were to happen to protect the city's interest. And so just a thought
- in my mind and I don't know what I even think about this thought but is the idea of preserving the ability
- for connectivity but some type of bonding or payment in lieu type of thing that could set aside funds
- for in the future providing flexibility or somehow through phasing. I don't honestly know what I think
- about that but just planting the question for the group's sake.
- I think from a city's perspective, we would probably be very on The UDO doesn't have a path, you know
- that allows for anything beyond three years You know, we certainly probably don't you know you that
- would be inventing a wheel I guess for this that doesn't exist in terms of a funding mechanism or funding
- place where you know $400,000 of the petitioners money would just sit You know if their goal is to try
- to save that money then you know certainly they don't want to bond for it or have that sit for the next
- hundred years
- That's a wonderful and important point The studio also doesn't allow cul-de-sacs. So so just say one's
- not allowed but so Commissioner Kinsey, okay. I would like to talk a little bit about the CBU Approval
- and the flooding issues. I mean not yet
- I watched the videos I saw the flooding I saw the existing damage and drainage challenges in this space
- so I Want to know more about the mitigation and how it the how this will improve? the last sure like
- the back of the southern side of the
- Southern lots will then have a new drainage swale. So there's really not much going there now from our
- property actually So we're not really contributing I it appears a lot of the drainage from done is probably
- more contributing to The southern homes if there's any flooding down there, but we are taking any of
- our Drainage and none of it will be going to the south at all
- We will have a drainage swell that catches all of that taken to a beehive Inlet that will be taken to
- our pond. That'll be going to the preserved I'm calling a little pond It's kind of like it's almost
- like a wetland out there. If you've been out there it has the feel of a wetland So that's all will be
- preserved and that really kind of even acts as a little pond It holds water right now so that we have
- one pond that will hold water the second one will also hold water and then that
- Gets delivered to the west and that goes through the you know, the current infrastructure at a more
- controlled rate now Nothing everything from the northern property comes down to our site right now including
- what they call is kind of a stream and we're taking that and preserving it to the pond now, so Yes,
- it's been studied at length three iterations of back-and-forth with CBU to this point and they felt
- comfortable
- To that this this plan will work as is Yeah, and I guess you know I want to make sure I'm not naive
- and thinking that somehow this development can't worsen the It can't contribute to worsening the flooding
- that happens when there's a pretty significant rainfall in this space and at best it would actually
- mitigate or potentially improve the water
- flow storm water flow and is that I'd love to hear the staff's impression about that and Just given
- the attention and you know, I have confidence in CBU and what they're doing But I just want to make
- sure we're not missing something on this Yeah, so, you know and that was also another reason why we
- were recommending continuance of
- Tonight is to give CBU additional time to make sure that everything that is proposed on this site Works
- for all of their requirements or stormwater management They're certainly aware of flooding issues that
- have occurred along here as well as accommodating stormwater movement from Dunn Street As well as the
- tree remediation that is required on this property as well from the BZA approval So we want to make
- sure that CBU's had a chance to fully review this and you know are at a very high level review level
- That we did extend an invitation to a CBU representative to attend the hearing this evening I'm not
- sure if anyone was able to attend but there is a possibility that someone may attend next month for
- what that's worth So they were aware this was happening I Would like a CBU person if there's nobody
- here today Definitely for a second hearing. We got a I don't see anybody available on zoom. So we'll
- have to reach out and have them available in July and
- The part of the CBU review is an outside company who's reviewing my drainage it's not just in-house
- Because there's been a high level of questions on this and knowing drainage or any flooding to the south
- make sure that we're helping and not Contributing to that. So an outside firm that CBU uses has reviewed
- our drainage report three times Mr. Stussberg
- Thank you. I have a couple questions about the alleys and the Street parking so I guess for the petitioner
- how many street parking spots are there gonna be or are there in your plan? I'd have to do the math.
- I might have to get back to you on that. Yeah, I'm just interested in knowing that and then in terms
- of evaluating the variance for alleys so
- My computer like crashed in the middle of this meeting by the way and just really lost I think the question
- that I actually wanted to ask so or where it was in my paper So I'm really sorry, but somewhere in there
- It was like the alleys are required if it's more than three acres. Is that right? Well, the traditional
- subdivision type is a requirement after you get over a certain lot size and I think that three acre
- is that which is why you know, they have to utilize the traditional
- The real question is why three acres because at that point the property is large enough that you can
- accomplish a grid like network Okay, so it's kind of like a theory that works on averages and one of
- the challenges with the site is that it's long and thin so it may be four acres, but the width isn't
- quite there and
- Yes certainly you know if it was a square you know that lays itself out you know and in a different
- situation maybe where you know there were adjacent lots to access the alley or there was a different
- arrangement of environmental features you know the grid could still very well be achievable.
- You know this particular lot and the low number of lots that are being proposed off of here, you know
- For instance if they were utilizing the sustainable development incentives or something else and you
- know, they had doubled the amount of lots here You know you then the alley loaded lots would be a lot
- more desirable That's a lot of road cuts a lot of drive cuts that you would have on those internal roads
- And so having that alley loaded design would be a lot more advantageous from a pedestrian safety standpoint
- So that does bring up my second question, which is you know, we're supposed to evaluate this partly
- on This granting of the subdivision waiver shall not be detrimental to the public safety health or general
- welfare And so that question was like well Will this be a detriment to public safety if everything is
- front-loaded on the street in terms of pedestrian? Yeah, so in this case, you know, they're looking at the
- Seven lots or so along the south side that would be seven drive cuts So, you know are those seven drive
- cuts is that really? substantial increase in in safety or hazards that You know not allowing the granting
- or not granting that waiver to have the alleys really increases safety along that street. That's That's
- one of the challenges one of the questions Do you have an answer to that?
- I mean, I think that I would argue it's probably minimal, you know, seven, seven drive cuts. And I think
- it's like four on the north side of the street. Thank you. Six on the south side. Is that all? Okay.
- All right.
- So have you the question was posed that The driveway Extension could be to the north Have you ever considered
- going to the north and does that I mean it looks like it would eat one of the lots if it goes north
- We never looked at that because We never considered it because the current Tamarack
- Line goes to the west ultimately to State Road old 37 So we never considered that and there's also a
- natural drainage way there that would in my opinion be It'd be more difficult to try to work out because
- of the the the drainage way the way that we even bent the road to the west Was to go around kind of
- drainage features and try to minimize the impact on the environment Okay, so
- 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
- that part Does that mean you're is that was the solution you found for the because it was 14 lots before
- now it's 11 So now that lots are more expensive the
- I'm just trying to figure out I mean it's still cutting the side of the that you're not going to build
- that you're proposing not to build would should potentially cut the cost of for about I don't know 35,000
- per lot but I
- Is that what you were thinking or are we just thinking we don't want to do something that we don't want
- to keep You know keep keep up with The extension of the road to maintain the extension of the road it
- would be in public right away So it'd be the city's maintenance. So it will be the city's main maintenance.
- Well once it's they accepted correct
- Still thinking yeah, go ahead Is there any unplatted land that's adjacent to the property or is it all?
- Well, all of the land of this all of the land to this The land to the north of this is meets and bounds.
- So it's not been platted You know certainly it's very likely that
- That those loss will redevelop in some capacity over the next hundred years You know, so we'll be stuck
- with kind of the same conversation, you know If we don't have a stub to those of cul-de-sacs on all
- of those possibly Right with houses correct there are there are lots there now, but they're meets and
- bounds so they've never been platted Well to the west of this is that very large property and
- That we we've talked about several times it encompasses and I'll put that up on the screen here And
- has it been platted? No, the the lot to the west that has that commercial subdivision has not been platted
- either So this area, you know, you've got Blue Ridge that is further to the north You know that has
- been platted and then you've got Fritz Terrace to the south and then the area that is between those
- two areas Has never really had any development has never been platted So certainly I think that that's
- Fair to expect something to happen there in the next hundred years and you know again, that's that's
- something that we talked about a lot Is you know we as as planners and the planning Commission,
- you know, our job is to look to the future You know that that is a very important element and what we
- do now reflects the development and the abilities of Residents in the next hundred years 200 years to
- use the city and the roads that we've built and so it's important to You know have this conversation
- and do it, right?
- Last one for me is about the riparian buffer easement language. Help me understand what that adds to
- this, or the need for the easement language that you're prohibiting land disturbance activities. What
- is the purpose of this? And say more about if other things were considered.
- So I think what we were running into a lot of the times with this is the drainage easement requirements
- conflict with the riparian buffer easement requirements. So the riparian buffer is intended to not have
- mowing and to not have really any disturbance, but that's not what the drainage easement is intended
- for because CBU needs the ability to mow if needed or disturb the land if there is some kind of drainage problem.
- That's what we were running into with CBU and also with the petitioner is how to resolve the situation
- where the riparian buffer easement regulations conflict with the drainage easement regulations. So this
- was the agreement we came to with CBU as a way for this case to accommodate both the need to preserve
- the land there, but also to allow for effective stormwater infrastructure, if that makes sense. Okay,
- that helps. So this is really,
- to accommodate and make sure that the needs of the city of Bloomington utilities they are allowed to
- do what they could need to do in this space. What about the question that Commissioner Stossberg raised
- earlier about environmental commission. Have they seen this revised language or the adapted language.
- So I don't think they have the last we heard from them is that they didn't
- Want to comment or didn't want to write a letter for this case? Our senior environmental planner is
- now on an extended leave So I I don't think it was brought back to it or if it was they declined to
- comment. So She was aware of it and was comfortable with it Let's call for questions
- None, okay. We are now on to public comment If you would like to make comment if you're here in the
- chambers make your way up to the podium Sign in on the sheet that's there. Also, please state your name
- for the record before you make your comment You'll have up to five minutes to make your comments If
- you are online and you want to make a comment, please find the reactions button on
- Click on the raise hand button or send a chat message to the meeting host and we will recognize you
- when it is your turn to speak We will try to get through a good chunk of comments here in the chambers
- Then we'll we'll break and move to some online commenters and then we'll come back Here so we try to
- keep it balanced. But if you're ready to comment State your name and take it away Good evening
- Jason McCauley, I'm the attorney for several of the adjacent and nearby property owners who have concerns
- about the proposed North Grove subdivision. Briefly speaking, we've got quite a few folks here that
- are gonna tell you about their specific concerns. They really surround a lot of drainage concerns that
- several of the commissioners have addressed questions about.
- There are some of the processes that I want to go over with you just to highlight some things that what
- our requests are and the primary request is that this is a Fundamentally different plan that we haven't
- had a lot of time to review the CBU process when you log into the city's portal I know Daniel said that
- it was approved conditionally. It's it's at 13% of the review process through the CBU and
- The proposal that has changed dramatically, um, you know requests the the changes to the repairing buffer
- language These revisions also are not minor in the sense that they they still change the road layout
- the tree preservation the repairing buffer treatment
- The drainage design and the utility issues I want to emphasize that CBU has has not signed off on this
- without conditions there are easements that are still at issue in especially a Septic sewer easement
- that goes across lot 57 to the south That is I suppose from the petitioners standpoint being negotiated,
- but it doesn't exist and
- So that is still up in the air Second, I want to emphasize that the staff report Shows that this is
- not ready for final action tonight and the our community members that I represent They want some more
- additional time to review this The They haven't provided you with final findings of fact to sign off
- Obviously, so a second hearing is necessary and we request that Third there are unresolved utility and
- drainage issues that some of you have already asked questions about The staff report states that CBU
- has reviewed the submitted plans But the plan is not fully approved and I and we fully support that
- It further states that there's conflicts with the easements the unallowed tree plantings in the drainage
- paths and the unacceptable unacceptable outfall rates that still exist
- Those are the primary concerns that that my clients want to be see addressed because they are experiencing
- flooding as it exists now So any increase in outfall they want that to be studied. They want to see
- the numbers They want to know that that is going to be addressed I believe Daniel stated that there
- is no water that exits this property to the under the properties to the south I've reviewed videos from
- my clients. I've seen the pictures and
- the water flowing from the north to the south onto their property. So I think there's something to be
- said for what's on paper and what is actually being experienced by the folks to the south. Fourth, there
- is a wetland and riparian buffer issue that I think deserves further review. The staff report states
- that there are no known
- wetland areas. But the only reason that there's no known wetland areas is because no one has done a
- delineation study to see if there is one. So we would like to see the basis upon which that comment,
- that assertion is based. If there's no wetland known, then let's do a study to see whether or not there's
- a delineation report that needs to be done to figure out whether it is. Daniel stated tonight that it's
- kind of like a wetland.
- It is in kind of like a wetland. Yes. So what we would like for the Plan Commission to do is require
- the petitioner to submit the property to a delineation report to figure out whether or not it is a wetland
- because the folks that I represent have been on and around this property for a lot of years and they
- see a lot of wildlife and they see a wetland of what most of it most folks would say that's a wetland.
- So that's something that I think that this report, the staff report, makes a conclusory statement that
- yes, there are no known wetlands, but we don't have any basis upon which to show why that is that we
- know that there are no known wetlands. Fifth, I addressed the sewer issue. That's something that is
- probably gonna take a substantial amount of time, whether it's negotiated or litigated one way or the other.
- That is the proposed easement runs across lot 57. It is not Described by a meets and bounds description
- the CBU requires that and so at that point we are looking for Some process to negotiate or litigate
- that Finally the related litigation is pending. There's currently an order in place that suspends any
- action based upon the variances that are granted and we would Appreciate your time on this matter
- Thank you. Hi. My name's Julie Williams and I live just south of my name's Julie Williams. And tonight
- I'm going to show you a video. Some people have mentioned it that will
- Demonstrate the problems that we have been facing and dealing with the expense the work She's gonna
- speed it up a little bit and I'm gonna talk much faster than I normally do This is looking at the property
- that we're talking about from the West I mean looking from the West. This is this is the flooding from
- March of this year, I believe So you can see
- It looks like a wetland. Um, it probably is. Um, this is why we're so worried about this development.
- This is flooding our basements. This is flooding our yards. This is some of the damage that's been caused
- by the flooding. This property I have the addresses. I think this is 401 Glendora. The house you see
- up on the left is the house that will be demolished as part of this.
- There it's pouring in from 2511, done onto Glendora here, 401 Glendora. I'm gonna have to just talk
- over it. You'll see, this is just, I took these last month in a rainstorm that wasn't huge. It was a
- thunderstorm, but it wasn't any major storm. This is my backyard.
- It's coming in, as you can see from behind me, which is 2511. This is my shelter house. So it's moving
- to the west. And you can kind of see it running. And this is my backyard underwater. OK. So this is
- the second major flood that I've had, I've experienced in the last two years. The first one was.
- I think it was March of 22 years ago. In that first flood, I have a finished basement, an apartment
- down there. I lost everything that was down there, the furniture, the rugs, none of it covered by insurance,
- of course, because water damage isn't unless you pay a lot extra, which I hadn't, because I had had
- a dry basement before two years ago.
- Now these kind of floods that you're seeing now are happening on a regular basis. And when we get to
- the front of the house, you'll see what was coming in from, this is the street. This is what happens
- to our street. This is the property directly opposite me. You can see his yard is like a lake in every
- rainstorm. This ditch with the previous owner of my home
- It had this ditch dug. It was running full, as you can see. What can I say? Not a 100-year storm, or
- not by our old understanding of what a 100-year storm was. This is just a normal rainfall. This is what
- we're dealing with. This is the expense that neighbors have been struggling with. This is, anytime you
- have to do,
- this kind of damage control on your property, it's tens of thousands of dollars. I have a French drain.
- I have done landscaping to mitigate some of this. I have done everything I could. I have a heavy duty
- sump pump that just can't keep up. So this is looking east on Glendora up to Dunn Street.
- And this is where, yes, a lot of it is pouring down, done. It's taking out the asphalt on our streets,
- cracking our streets. My French drain goes right into this ditch and it backs up when the ditch is full.
- It backs up into the basement through the drains there. And this is my basement. This is the lesser of my
- of my floods in what used to be a rentable apartment, an apartment that a caretaker used to, for the
- elderly owner before me, there was a caretaker that lived down there. My kids have occupied the space
- off and on. It's got a kitchen, a bathroom. This is what's happening. Now that space is no longer rentable,
- obviously, and no longer usable.
- And you're going to be hearing from others who have experienced similar things. Pardon? 10 seconds.
- I have other things that were included in your packet. I hope you'll review those. And thank you for
- listening.
- Hi. Thank you very much for being here and for listening to us. My name is Deirdre Sheets. I live on
- Fritz Drive, and I'm going to first speak on behalf of one of my neighbors on the corner of Fritz and
- Glandora, Tyler Kovacs. On May 20th, 2026, our finished basement at 301 East Glandora Drive completely
- flooded. The entire finished basement was impacted.
- All flooring, carpet, baseboards, and six inches of drywall has been removed to allow for drying. All
- of these materials are now damaged beyond repair. Thus, they have been disposed of. Based on recommendations
- from various basement experts, our entire basement needs an interior aqua guard gutter system to deal
- with the water. This will require all drywall and studs to be cut to a height of four feet off the floor
- so that this system can be placed against the existing block foundation.
- The entire basement will then need to be refinished to return it to the condition it was when we bought
- this home. My wife, myself, and three and a half year old daughter bought this house only two months
- ago. The house is beautiful and the neighborhood is even more beautiful. This entire experience has
- been emotionally and financially traumatic for our family. The once finished basement that we loved
- and initially spent time in now sits quiet and empty until repairs can be made.
- Allowing any additional watershed towards the homes on Glendora from any new development is
- both irresponsible and unnecessary. The drainage in this area is already non-existent due to no storm
- sewers or roadside ditches. Any additional watershed or continued lack of addressing the current drainage
- problem is unfathomable. Our family prays for a fair solution for all parties involved and that no family
- has to experience what we have experienced recently.
- So that's my neighbor's experience and I will add some of my own. Again, they bought their home two
- months ago. We bought our home in Matlock Heights nearly two years ago. Previously, years back, I was
- a renter in Matlock Heights and I was excited to return to a neighborhood that I love and to a ranch
- home that my husband and I bought to grow old and retire in. And making this purchase,
- We entered into a compact with the city of Bloomington, and we want Bloomington to hold up their end
- of the bargain by following the UDO, addressing the crumbling roads and insufficient storm drainage
- infrastructure in Matlock Heights, and not green lighting a development that will absolutely affect
- our homes, sometimes catastrophically, as demonstrated by my neighbor's experience. I work in government
- contracting, so I uploaded the new plans into a secure AI platform
- built for government defense and highly regulated commercial industries. Unsurprisingly, the interpretation
- of the plans indicated that as a result of this development, the existing homes in Matlock Heights would
- experience increased runoff, flooding, sediment runoff, long-term water quality issues, and groundwater
- issues. I'm saying this as broadly as I can. This was fairly detailed as far as the levels of these
- issues. We will see impacts on the local watershed and wildlife.
- This is not difficult to conclude from our lived experience. The plan to significantly reduce permeable
- surfaces, remove trees that naturally prevent or mitigate erosion, and leave it up to the homeowners
- to manage a detention pond all upstream from an area without storm drains and with already existing
- drainage and flooding issues, to pretend that anything other than the obvious is going to happen is
- to participate in a fiction.
- And it feels like, and I apologize for my language here, but, and it feels like giving the homeowners
- and residents of Matlock Heights a really big middle finger. So, unfortunately, I have experience in
- Bloomington with storm drainage, new developments, and homeowner responsibility for detention ponds.
- I previously lived up near North High School, near Fritz Terrace, that's where it is, where Matlock
- Heights, and we were,
- We were north of Bloomington High School North. It was a new development. It was supposed to connect
- to the Kinser Pike side of the development, and the plan was for a detention pond to be built that the
- HOA would be responsible for. There are things that have to happen for that to happen, i.e., as I understand
- it, the developer has to start an HOA, has to become a member of it, has to be paying dues for the first
- houses to join until there are enough houses to take responsibility for the HOA.
- That didn't happen properly, so the first homeowners, four or five of us, I wanna be clear, my husband
- bought the home, I was not there at the time, were not responsible for being in an HOA, it was stated
- in our closing paperwork. Homeowners that came after us were creating a division in the neighborhood.
- I'm out of time, so I will give you the punchline to the story, which is my husband bought that home
- in 2011, it's 2026, there's no HOA,
- There's no detention pond and there's still serious storm drainage issues up in that neighborhood. I
- Was just up there the other day Thank you so much for your time Pardon me, I don't
- Get around very quickly. Let's see Okay My name is Jean Ream and I live at 2520 North Fritz Drive I
- Purchased my home in
- 71 Matlock Heights was a nice area. It was close to IU where I worked My home at home has a nice yard.
- It had adequate space for children to play and a space for garden There was a nice property along my
- northern property line at 2600 North Walnut Street and Fritz Drive was a south of my
- lot in the second house east of Walnut Street across from the Cascades Inn. But in 1975, the house that
- was at 2600 North Walnut was demolished and the large building complex Executive Park North and its
- parking lot were constructed there.
- I was one of the neighbors that protested to that development, but my attorney said he believed the
- company would be thoughtful and would be a good neighbor. That statement turned out not to be true in
- the long run. The parking area, the culvert, the street to the business created a flooding problem.
- They have an upper and a lower level.
- in that large building. I believe Arby's, it was Paul. Anyway, it was originally Arby's. There's been
- a number of other businesses in there in the course of the years. In that parking lot, the water flows
- into a ditch
- into my north part of my property and also the neighbors at 2530 North Fritz. Heavy rainfall creates
- flooding in my backyard and causes damage there. The water on the business property is due west of the
- property at 2511 North Dunn. If the Dunn Street project advances, it too will add to the flooding issues
- I challenged them if they think it doesn't. Mr. Pruitt proposes to remove trees at a road and 11 houses.
- Rainfall will have no restraint and will increase the volume of water coming onto my property because
- it comes from the East from Dunn through that property onto that parking lot.
- that's behind the large building and that's right up against our property line. My neighbors eastward
- on Fritz and Glendora currently have water issues, which they have mentioned. They too agree that there
- must be a resolution to this major situation. Currently we have Mr. Pruitt to negotiate with on this
- issue, but once those properties are sold,
- There will be 11 different individual property owners inheriting these issues. He will have his profits
- and go on to the next project for him. If the current project mirrors the executive park construction,
- I do not see a bright future for Matlock Hype property valuation or the resolution of our water and
- the environmental concerns. If the city wishes stable property ownership, long term occupancy,
- and taxable sites then there should be an interest in residents that will maintain their properties
- follow follow regulations and contribute to the well-being of Bloomington. Does anyone have any questions.
- Not understanding what I said. Thank you. Thank you.
- Hello, my name's Julia Livingston and I brought some photos today of the land. You know, you've been
- seeing it on drawings, right? It looks like these lines and then these little houses and so I thought
- it might help your imagination a little, help understand the property that we're actually talking about.
- The property, as Eric Grulich said earlier, is
- related to the probably five properties that head north, including ours, which are undeveloped in the
- back area. Now, I believe there's a reason that all of the back areas, including the pond and the riparian
- buffer zone that we're talking about tonight, were never developed. And that's because our lot, which
- is four lots from the 2511,
- From the very back of it, from the west side, we can see where there is a slope that comes down from
- Blue Ridge. And that slope that comes down is a stream that comes through the back of our property.
- And it goes to our neighbor's property. And it goes to the next neighbor's property. It's a natural
- wetland area. We even have a black Tupelo volunteer tree in our back area, which is a sign of a wetland.
- And so these properties have never been developed. We don't plan to develop ours. Our neighbors are
- hopefully, I would like to put ours in the Sycamore Land Trust because I think all of these properties
- on top of being a corridor from Griffey Woods where you can see the deer heading down the cascades,
- they do provide an incredible wildlife sanctuary in the middle of the city.
- And these trees that are there are enormous. And they're kind of the backdrop of our neighborhood. They
- wrap their arms around us. In the winter, they're what we see that is still green, all the huge pines.
- We see owls. We see pilated woodpeckers. I recorded 12 birds the other morning in five minutes.
- So these are some of the pine trees that are so beautiful on the property, not ours, but 2511. And this,
- I wish you that you could all come and see the property so that you could really understand what could
- be lost here. I know that when the city, when the engineers were talking about the benefit of having
- No cul-de-sacs and having through streets and having grids. That is a type of benefit, but there are
- other benefits and value that are more important to me than that. And that is the lived experience of
- being in a neighborhood. And this is our neighborhood. We don't want a street cutting through a small
- subdivision with a street going through. We don't want these plans.
- we would be happy if the city would consider a conservation district because we feel that that is more
- appropriate for this land. And I do impress upon the plan commission to request a wetland delineation
- survey because again, it seems so apparent
- Us that it is and that would change everything about what is possible on this property This house will
- be destroyed it's a nice example of a mid-century modern home It's got its problems They could I think
- be fixed and we would love for someone to own it who would preserve it or for maybe the city Take to
- take over and preserve it. I don't know lots of things are possible. There's a view from my backyard
- toward it and you can see the immense presence it has. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Greg Grant.
- I live at the corner of North Dunn and Lakewood. I expressed my concerns about the proposed development
- of a high-density subdivision at 2511 North Dunn Street to the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 26th.
- None of those concerns have been significantly reduced by the developer reducing the number of houses
- from 15 previously to 11 in their new plan. Therefore, I will try to better clarify my concerns. Number one.
- The lot sizes are still way too small pushing a high-density urban style housing complex into an existing
- moderate and low-density suburban neighborhood Would be severely disruptive to the character of the
- surrounding neighborhood and undermine property values Approving such disruption could even undermine
- the value of Bloomington's unified development ordinance for protecting property values throughout
- Bloomington number two flooding
- It could be worsened due to many factors, including conversion of at least 75% of the current permeable
- natural land area into impermeable surfaces. When new subdivisions are proposed in Indiana, the code
- and standard practice is to make certain that existing drainage issues for adjoining properties, downstream
- properties, and even upstream properties are addressed. This proposal ignores responsibility for this
- standard that the state of Indiana
- Uses as normal practice for protecting other property owners even preliminary construction plans are
- not yet available For the public's review for stormwater management and pollution protection erosion
- and sedimentation control Therefore it's premature at best to consider any udo variances or waivers
- for items that could potentially increase this existing flooding number three traffic likewise a traffic
- safety impact analysis and
- has not been provided for public review. The resulting traffic increase on North Dunn would likely reduce
- safety for all users, motorized vehicles, bicyclists, and walkers alike. Living at the corner of Dunn
- and Lakewood, I've witnessed personally how extremely unsafe North Dunn is already. Likewise, with or
- without the alleys, as specified in the UDO, it's unclear how cars can be parked without creating a
- major hazard
- Safety hazard like the traffic safety impacts the proposed developments noise impacts have not been
- adequately quantified Excuse me The increase in noise would detract greatly from property values for
- all properties adjacent to Either the proposed development or to access streets such as North Dunn The
- traffic and noise impacts would be even worse if the planned road were extended to the lots western
- boundary as shown
- in the new plan for potential future extension to walnut. Number four, environmentally. The new plan
- still violates the UDO's specification to retain at least 60% of the existing tree canopy. Replacing
- 80 to 100 maturing 50-year-old trees using any number of new trees would not offset the loss of permeable
- surface and tree roots for water retention, nor would any number of small trees offset the loss of wildlife habitat.
- and the protection of the environment more generally as intended by the UDO, as well as by so many other
- programs directed toward protecting Bloomington's natural environment for all of Bloomington's residents
- and visitors, such as Canopy Bloomington, Bee City, plans for habitat connectivity, wildlife corridors,
- et cetera, et cetera. Furthermore, no overall environmental impact assessment has been made public.
- In this regard, despite year-round pooling of water,
- across the back of the lot due to drainage from the ravine to the north as well as the four acre lot,
- the developer is now claiming for the first time there is no wetland at the back of the lot despite
- what we heard earlier on the drawings that there's no wetland. This wetland determination needs review
- by appropriate state or US authorities. In general, the plans provided to date by the developer are
- at best inadequate to estimate the proposed developments
- the likely impacts on neighbors and others property values Additionally the adequately to adequately
- address the concerns expressed by many of us I would suggest that the developer in the city Reconsider
- the developers original plan for two houses or perhaps up to a maximum of four houses using a short
- stemmed cul-de-sac that keeps the back two acres as natural as possible and
- summary I'd urge the Commission to deny the developers requested waiver for the second hearing and To
- continue continue the case to July 13th So the new revised plan with its unresolved drainage wetland
- riparian CBU sewer and other waiver issues can be adequately addressed time is up sir. Thank you
- My name is Jessica will and I live at 211 East Gilbert. You can see it as the bird flies on the map
- there I'm here tonight as a concerned Northside resident an advocate for responsible growth I'm also
- here to report on the results so far of a petition opposing the proposed North Grove subdivision. I
- Part of an effort to quantify the concerns of Bloomington residents We fielded and are still fielding
- a petition to request that the city deny the requested variances and waivers We've included the petition
- language on this slide for your reference So far we've collected digital and print signatures from a
- total of 291 unique petitioners representing 253 households
- With each entry, we verified the signature was unique, mapped the household address, and measured the
- proximity to the proposed North Grove subdivision. We learned 221 of these petitioners represent 186
- households located within Bloomington City limits. We then sorted Bloomington City petitioners by proximity
- to 2511 North Dunn Street. On this map, each house icon represents a household from the petition.
- Gray indicates the household is outside Bloomington City limits yellow shows households within Bloomington
- City limits, but not on the north side The dark crimson signifies petitioner households adjacent to
- the proposed development Meaning their property directly borders the lot in question here tonight the
- light crimson signifies petitioner households that are not adjacent but are located within 500 feet and
- Orange signifies petitioner households that aren't adjacent or within 500 feet But are located on the
- north side within Bloomington City limits for simplicity We are calling these groups adjacent within
- 500 feet and northside petitioners Seven petitioners representing six households live adjacent to the
- proposed subdivision 26 petitioners representing 15 households live within 500 feet and
- 98 petitioners representing 77 households live on the north side within Bloomington City limits and
- 90 petitioners representing 88 households live within Bloomington City limits, but not on the north side
- Notably adjacent petitioners and those within 500 feet are most likely to experience negative impacts
- from the proposed North Grove plans We have collected signatures from all adjacent households with the
- exception of a home in Matlock Heights. Mr Pruitt purchased We also collected signatures from approximately
- half of the households within 500 feet and signatures are still rolling in in addition to collecting
- signatures we gave petitioners the opportunity to express their concerns by leaving a comment and
- Top themes so far include ordinance and zoning compliance infrastructure and utility strain public safety
- and traffic conditions and environment and wildlife impact This Northside petitioner cited concerns
- about showing preference to developers at the expense of property owners saying Developers shouldn't
- be able to bypass ordinances that the rest of us already owning properties in the area have to follow
- It's not fair treatment of your citizens and it's showing preference
- We bought our properties essentially signing a contract to follow these rules thus protecting the value
- of our assets Developers shouldn't be able to break these rules either Another Northside petitioner
- cited their concerns saying we recently moved to Bloomington and chose to live in the north side due
- to its abundant nature low density housing and
- and wild feel with residential homes interspersed with family farms. We drive past 2511 North Dunn every
- day on our commute to campus and feel strongly that the planned development would significantly change
- the character of the neighborhood, negatively impact traffic patterns, and have adverse environmental
- effects. And one Bloomington petitioner questions the value of the proposed development writing. This
- variance enables a development that solves no problem for Bloomington's housing market.
- Bringing new luxury housing the city doesn't need and would adversely affect the quality of life in
- North Bloomington neighborhoods Including the Matlock Heights Historic District Thank you for taking
- the time to consider the voices and households represented in this petition so far Thank you Hello
- My name is Stephanie Dickinson, and I live at 2301 North Dunn Street in Matlock Heights. First, thank
- you for hearing our concerns tonight and taking the time to consider these issues. I have a map, can
- you go back to the slides please, of the Matlock Heights neighborhood. I live on the south side of the
- neighborhood, but then I have another one with a map of the whole neighborhood and the historic district
- inside of it. The Neighborhood Association includes
- Houses on both sides of Dunn Street up to Blue Ridge. This is an active and vibrant neighborhood of
- residents with a diverse range of ages, incomes, and abilities. Renters and homeowners, students,
- professionals, and retirees working together for a common goal of a safe and healthy community and quality
- of life. Can you go to the next slide? We have a neighborhood meeting twice a year with a lovely pitch
- in picnic in the fall.
- people who connect and look out for each other. We work together on handling football traffic, problem
- solving the stormwater challenges. We spent years forming the historic district to preserve the character
- of the neighborhood consistent with principles in the UDO. While a neighborhood association is not a
- legally binding agreement among neighbors like an HOA or the restrictions of the historic district,
- I hope that the plan commission will hear and respect the views and values of those in the neighborhood
- for which the subdivision will be a part. One question we haven't had a chance to ask is how this will
- work to have an HOA in this proposed subdivision that sits inside of the Matlock Heights Neighborhood
- Association. Seems like a little bit of a misfit. I hope that our group and the neighbors are not dismissed
- as typical
- Nimbis we do value urban density. We support single-family homes in Bloomington. I Don't think it's
- simple sentimentality of the old days But we don't think this is the right spot for increased density
- Dunn Street is not built for high volumes of traffic. There's no shoulder or walking path. No bus line
- for commuters The Planning Commission has a challenge to protect the character of these established
- neighborhoods at the same time a strategic expansion of housing
- I hope we can work together to find the right places for this density. My neighbors have mentioned the
- stormwater flooding is a significant issue and clearly a source subject. One I wanted to point out is
- the petitioner said that they were worried about the issues to the south of the, if you could go back
- one second, the south of the neighborhood, the south of the development is some homes, but it does
- The drainage does flow directly to the west and the southwest. There was a little stream on one of the
- pictures Jamie had early on. That does go to North Fritz. So that's Jean and Julie's properties right
- there. So the increased runoff while the retention pond holds it, it will then flow from the retention
- pond directly to these backyards. We're concerned about the environment, the mature trees,
- riparian areas. We're concerned about possible wetlands. We would like more time to be able to
- facilitate or learn about what the process is for a proper wetland delineation. And I want to speak
- to concerns of safety. As I said, the traffic on Dunn is a huge issue. Cars traveling high speeds, they
- don't stop at stop signs. They're dodging cyclists and pedestrians. 11 more homes with two to three
- cars each will significantly increase the traffic on Dunn, increasing likelihood of accidents. Similarly,
- I'm concerned about the development's waiver for the alleys.
- While the neighbors adjacent to the property don't want an alley immediately in their backyard, as the
- petitioner said, there is a reason for safety that the alleys are required by the UDO to maintain the
- safety for the pedestrians instead of the drive cuts. I believe the alleys are not included in the plat
- simply because it enables more properties to be built on the lot. It seems to me that a plan
- Two to three houses with access off done would solve all these problems the most tree saving the least
- disturbance are riparian areas the least additional drainage Safety without needing alleys no increased
- traffic Least cost to build the least city maintenance and least harms to the neighborhood. Thanks so
- much for hearing us Thank you
- Good evening, my name is Robin Halpin Young. I live at 331 East Glendora Drive. I'm here tonight to
- speak out in opposition to the proposed high density development at 2511 North Dunn Street. We good
- citizens come to these meetings with our carefully drafted five minute speeches, hoping to share the
- expertise of our experience and our firsthand knowledge of the situation.
- Despite our compelling arguments and obvious strong community opposition, the city is moving forward
- with their support for this plan. I believe because it supports their plan for density at any cost.
- The reason we are even talking about alleys tonight is because the Planning Commission has deemed this
- project a traditional subdivision, which per the UDO must, quote, ensure the creation of grid-like street
- and alley system.
- The UDO also states that any new traditional subdivision must, quote, facilitate compatible development
- of parcels located next to existing subdivisions characterized by more grid-like street patterns. The
- adjacent neighborhood, Matlock Heights, has zero alleys and zero sidewalks. Either way, this plan puts
- an alley just off the back
- puts an alley or two houses just off the back of my north property line. It certainly would not ensure
- compatible development. It would be as close as 10 feet to my back patio, 20 feet to my screened-in
- porch, and 30 feet from my back bedroom window. I guess that is all right for density at any costers.
- Any damage I may suffer as a result of loss of value to my property, or loss of enjoyment of use I get
- as a result of this intrusion, or the already horrible drainage issues I suffer get worse, that would
- be all right, density at any cost. I believe this project has been green flagged. For example, we have
- been told that it does not contain a wetland, yet no study has been conducted.
- Anyone who has lived beside the property knows that there is a seasonal pond on it. We've been assured
- that there will be no increase in the amount of runoff and that it will be captured and then control
- released. I think this is naive bordering on a lie. The Environmental Commission has yet to weigh in
- on this. The CBU is holding back too. Why?
- All this information is relevant to granting or not granting requested waivers and variances, yet here
- we are talking about alleys. I believe what we are witnessing is pocket zoning, the practice of bypassing
- existing laws and norms, and that is a dangerous, chiseling away of property rights and the rule of
- law. The alleys aren't the only part of the plan that don't fit the traditional subdivision category.
- The parcel fundamentally
- does not fit. I believe it is best categorized as a conservation subdivision. Per the UDO, the conservation
- subdivision facilitates clustered development of land while ensuring maximum protection of environmentally
- sensitive features and set aside significant common open space.
- allow very limited development for those parcels containing environmental features such as mature tree
- stands, karst geology, steep slopes and water resources to ensure the space-efficient installation of
- utilities, streets and sidewalk networks, as well as the placement of individual building lots.
- Have Pruitt and Klein or the City Blooming Planning Zoning Commission considered categorization as a
- conservation subdivision? I doubt it as it would limit the number of homes that could be built and the
- number of trees that could be cut down.
- and that made it clear that their absolute top priority is to make as much money as possible, maximum
- profit at any cost. This description of a conservation subdivision fits 2511 North Dunn like a glove.
- It shows a borderline with the historic conservation neighborhood of Matlock Heights and is directly
- adjacent to Lake Griffey Nature Preserve and Cascades Creek Park. This parcel is an environmental treasure
- and deserves
- to be conserved. Thank you for your time. In fairness, I respectfully urge the commission to deny the
- petitioner's waiver for second hearing. And in the meantime, I look forward to our judicial hearing
- on July 17th, at which time I will have the opportunity to share my thoughts on this and many other
- things with the judge. Thank you.
- Good evening. I'm Susan Sandberg, and I thank my neighbors for their diligence in protecting the value
- of their homes and the integrity of our neighborhood. I live at 2201 North Fritz Drive. My home is more
- than my castle. It is my only source of wealth.
- It is my family home where three generations of Sandburgs have lived and thrived. My home is what I
- have to pass on to my millennial daughter and her husband. It is the home our parents bought in 1992
- and passed on to my sister and me. The value of our homes and the stability of this neighborhood are
- worth fighting for.
- Matlock Heights is a stable neighborhood of modest but substantial limestone homes in a historic district.
- Matlock was developed in the 1950s, a mid-century modern neighborhood with no alleys, no sidewalks,
- and ample yards for gardens and for children to play.
- we are graced by a canopy of mature trees that support an array of wildlife and Connect along North
- Dunn to Griffey Lake and its precious wooded nature preserve When the neighborhood I am fortunate to
- live in is under threat of harm from over development my neighbors act We go to work to meet to organize
- and to push back against development pressures that disrupt and violate reasonable zoning protections
- We organized to become a conservation district when our residential homes were first threatened by developers
- looking to build inappropriate structures that were out of scale and incompatible with the livability
- of the residential area. This was met with strong neighborhood opposition. The conservation district
- elevated to historic, offering more protections for private property rights and the environmental stewardship
- of Matlock Heights.
- Tonight we are first hearing the revised petition for the North Grove subdivision at 2511 North Dunn
- quite simply a subdivision of 11 homes on four sensitive and wooded acres does not belong in a lower
- density are to zone cramming a high density development directly adjacent to historic Matlock Heights
- is an insult a violation of our trust in the UDO and in city planning and
- As you have heard from the neighbors, this is an area already challenged by drainage and stormwater
- issues. Now we're asked to believe that this intense disturbance of soil, increased impervious surfaces,
- and removal of mature trees will cause no harm to Matlock Heights. We are incredulous.
- More than just our north side neighborhood will be negatively impacted by this type of spot zoning By
- allowing waivers and variances to greenlight this much housing density where it clearly does not belong
- We appeal to your judgment the appointed decision makers on the Plan Commission
- We humbly ask that you consider the whole intent and scope of the UDO. We urge you to not contribute
- to spot zoning through multiple variances and waivers that enable developers to bend the rules at the
- expense of surrounding neighborhoods. If a high density development doesn't meet R2 code, it should
- not be approved.
- At the very least, this subdivision proposal requires a second hearing for information to be
- more thoughtfully examined and more questions from the public better answered. Thank you for your careful
- consideration. Thank you. Eric, do we have any online commenters at this time?
- Speak please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat and we can recognize you I'm not
- seeing anybody online Okay, seeing none we are back to the Commission and
- or any additional questions or comments? We'll start down here. Go ahead, Commissioner Stosberg. Can
- you clarify about lot size? Do the current proposed lot sizes meet the R2 requirements? Yes, so in the
- R2, 60 feet wide and 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size, and these all meet that. Okay, thank you.
- You have an answer for that, but I was intrigued by the question from Stephanie she was talking about
- the HOA that the Metlock historic neighborhood Is in charge of this that this potential lot fits into
- the HOA a Metlock Heights HOA well so neighborhood associations have boundaries that can be defined
- by whatever they
- Kind of want You know you have historic districts you have zoning districts and then you have HOA's
- And those those lines can blur, you know, so matlock heights is a historic district They have a homeowners
- association that has lines that expand, you know beyond that But then you know, you can obviously have
- subdivisions that occur within HOA's You know, or I'm sorry not within HOA's within neighborhood associations but the
- two aren't necessarily prohibitive of each other. Yeah I just wanted an explanation. Thank you. Kinsey.
- Yeah I wonder if we could talk a little bit about the wetland delineation and if the petitioner could
- talk a little bit about that issue that was raised by some residents.
- Was done at the beginning of this process and was done by the senior environmental planner at the city
- of Bloomington She deemed it was not a wetland. However Since the beginning we have decided to preserve
- it anyway, and we put around riparian buffers to protect it so Whether it's a wetland or not. It's being
- preserved as is but the senior environmental planner did do a study on and it was deemed not a wetland and
- And is that you know Jamie and Eric I'm looking for your wisdom here and that is what would be required
- in a UDO to delineate a wetland is that senior environmental planner would deem it.
- Assessment to see if there is a wetland present that then warrants a study to define it And go forth,
- you know with a more in-depth analysis and so our environmental planner went out there Certainly looked
- at the site looked at all the characteristics and the attributes that are required to be evaluated And
- did not find that it met that that warranted a wetland study. Yeah, I mean I read the UDO and it's certainly a
- Makes a lot of statements about preserving wetlands and easements and conservation But as the petitioner
- even indicated this has been placed into a at least a common area with riparian buffers and easement
- That is correct and preserved at that I just want to take just a second per your question as we are
- not from the beginning I think
- We have tried our best to really preserve a property that I agree with the neighbors is stunning and
- has characteristics of it that are warranted to preserve some of it. And we have tried to do that. We
- understand that I believe we could have tried for a more dense subdivision and maybe some don't believe
- that or don't believe us that we haven't done that, but we have taken parts of the site
- in and out of a riparian requirement to preserve With the the best intentions to try to marry those
- two together Questions to my right Okay You know a lot more the flooding issue was clearly demonstrated by
- public comment today. And, you know, I'm struck by, I mean, this is a significant issue in this community,
- but even if the property is not developed, the flooding remains or the problems remain. So if the property
- stays exactly as it is, it doesn't change at all. It's not going to mitigate the flooding problem. And
- I realize I said that earlier that, that having any change to the property makes it, could make it worse.
- You're removing trees. I mean I get all that but boy this really does seem like a pretty serious matter
- and You know, I saw some of the reports that were in the packet that indicated when people started to
- reporting it So I guess I just want to do more public announcement or public information that that this is a
- A reportable you report needs to be addressed for this neighborhood. And I just wonder if the commit
- you know if Eric and Jamie if you guys from a city perspective have any other advice about what to do
- about this larger flooding issue that's clearly as you know it's going to happen. It's happening. It's
- happened. It's serious for this neighborhood.
- Yeah, so that's certainly something that City of Bloomington utilities is very aware of and so there
- are drainage easements that are being required on both the north side and the south side of this property
- as well as Swales that are being installed with this to capture and collect that water So certainly
- the site now has no stormwater collection management system whatsoever and it just sheet flows and drains
- to adjacent properties You know as we've certainly seen with developments
- You know allowing for something to be developed allows for it to be brought into compliance with current
- requirements but also again that's.
- One of the reasons why I said we're recommending continuing tonight is to allow for city of Bloomington
- utilities to continue to review it. Make sure that it meets all of their requirements so that when we
- come back to the planning commission you know we can sit here and say that utilities has reviewed it.
- You know the plans meet make the situation better and can have somebody from CBU here as well to speak
- to that to
- speak to all of the things that they're trying to solve on this. You know Dunn Street has no stormwater
- infrastructure now. So this would be capturing some of that and directing it and providing for a stormwater
- stormwater management system. Like I said where there is nothing now that the plan meets or makes the
- situation better for stormwater management and water. OK. All right. Thank you.
- I have one more. Somebody raised the issue of HOAs managing the retention pond and that being a concern
- for them based on their prior experience with something similar.
- Can either or both maybe the petitioner and staff speak to that in terms of procedure that is normally
- followed, how that's maybe worked in your experience in the past? If the petitioner has done
- other developments where HOAs have successfully managed that kind of infrastructure, I would love to
- hear about it.
- Can just kind of address them the city perspective initially and then the petitioner can give a little
- bit of their experience They've certainly been involved with a lot of subdivisions So the UDO over time,
- you know as we kind of look as how it has evolved in 2000
- 2015 I think is when we required all detention areas to be on common area lots Rather than just located
- within easements having them located on a common area lot provides a mechanism for homeowners Association
- to be involved have an operations manual that outlines What are the maintenance requirements for these
- detention facilities, but then also provides a mechanism where we can
- pursue enforcement if a facility is not being maintained. So the utilities department and their operations
- manuals that go along with the subdivision approval have requirements for the size of capacity, maybe
- maintenance is required on an annual basis. And that's one of the things that has certainly been an
- issue with this is ensuring that the pond can be maintained with the access easements, which is why
- we have this
- Language that's being crafted to this for this project to make sure that they can be maintained while
- at the same time Balancing the environmental preservation requirements of the udl So the petitioner
- wants to adding from you know personal experience The only thing I'll add is it's the process over the
- last and I've been practicing for 17 years and the practice has gotten a lot better in the last five I think
- A lot of HOA's now have a manual that they can really look to those are now being recorded So it's public
- information on how those get maintained And there needs to be funds that are set aside for the maintenance
- of these ponds And the eight it yes, we plan on doing an HOA and the hope is that those that HOA would
- run that correctly so that you wouldn't have a flood or a
- Drainage event that would then surprise everyone that they would have to be regular sea pigeon of the
- soils Regular cleansing of the water that would have to take place So I guess the only thing I would
- add is it seems like the process has gotten better and there's a new CBU stormwater manual that has
- gotten approved and what was that two years ago and
- and a half That also is just a little more strict and stringent Which is a good thing and it helps regulate
- and you know the heightened events that we're seeing It's a little stricter on those. So that's the
- only thing I'll add right now Any other questions or comments or motions
- Reminder the staff recommendation is that we continue this case to the required second hearing on July
- 13th All right, we have motion a second any final comments before we call the question I do want to
- make sure that we log a couple of concerns as we continue to as we continue this proposal and consider
- it and one is around all of the CBU discussion that we've had
- We earlier indicated that we want to make sure CBU representative is here. I think that would help us
- in the discussion and I appreciate what the petitioner was just saying about the new CBU stormwater
- management requirements. And I think getting a copy of that might be helpful. I don't know if I could
- weigh in on that but at least making sure that we're aware of all of that and CBU is aware that it's
- been mentioned here today in case there are further questions that we get that.
- somebody who knows that work well. To me that's really important. The other thing I think is if there's
- any other information from, I realize the environmental planner is out, but certainly getting a little
- more information about the review and if this was delineated wetland, I think we need to know that and
- how it was reviewed before. That would seem helpful.
- Yeah, I just first want to thank all of the commenters for coming out and speaking tonight and also
- the number of people who emailed their comments and I know that you care a lot about your about where
- you live and your neighborhood and And that shows and I do appreciate when people come out and share
- their concerns and I hope that at least some of what we've said a lays at least some of those concerns
- in terms of
- some of these issues Secondly, I want to I want to second what Commissioner Kinsey just said about the
- the wetland review piece of this I did a quick Google Google search and like how do you how do you figure
- out where a wetland is? I used to do environmental education for those of you don't know With kids mostly
- and I there was a wetland on the park property that I worked in and and it was fantastic and There are some real
- like specific indicators of wetlands. And I don't know if they exist out there or not, but they're very,
- very specific. And so I would appreciate maybe, I don't know if the environmental planner can, or you
- guys can give a little guidance about what it is that our planner looked at and what those guidelines
- are, just kind of for public knowledge, for our knowledge, just so then everybody can kind of be on
- the same page and understanding what a wetland actually is. Just because there's a whole bunch of water
- somewhere doesn't mean it's actually a wetland.
- that it has to do with soils and it has to do with how the water retains and what exact plants there
- are. It can't just be one or two. There has to be several. Anyway, I just want you to know that I hear
- those complaints and those concerns and the
- Flooding is real. There's flooding all over this town and all kinds of places. And it absolutely has
- increased over the last several years. And some of that, I think, is aging infrastructure. And some
- of it is worsening storms. So we certainly don't want anything new that is built to make any of that
- any worse than Mother Nature is already making it. So thank you.
- Final comments. I just want to make a quick comment about the road First of all, I think the idea of
- it Stubbing to the north makes very very little sense And I doubt that it was ever seriously considered
- because there it would go to nowhere There would be six lots it would have to go through to connect
- to anything to the north makes perfect sense to have connectivity to the west there and I know we don't
- in our current UDO have a mechanism for a
- payment in lieu but This really highlights why we probably should I mean if a developer otherwise would
- be required to foot the bill for the construction of a road and It's going through an environmentally
- sensitive area that we wouldn't want to construct it unnecessarily until the connectivity really exists
- then Payment in lieu makes perfect perfect sense here. I think it really is something that we should
- That we should consider for this kind of situation because this is not the first time we've seen it
- where we what we were wanting a developer to continue a road But it really is not going to be used for
- any Predictable period of time. So that's something that we should come back and look more closely at
- This there's any other questions we'll call the roll on the motion All right Bishop
- Yes Holmes. Yes, Kenzie. Yes, Stossberg Yes Whistler. Yes, Burrell. Yes All right motion carries that
- petition is continued. We'll hear it again on July 13th next up on our agenda we have
- Subdivision twenty twenty six oh three dash triple oh five built alt LLC and I believe Eric is going
- to present this one. Yes so I'm going to actually present both petitions at the same time because they're
- they're very intrinsically related.
- So this is a petition for a built LLC for a property at 1320 South Rogers. So the petitioners are coming
- forward for final plan approval to allow for the construction of five buildings and then also included
- within this is a request for a secondary plat amendment to allow for the vacation of certain easements
- that are within this particular parcel.
- So this is within the Thompson planned unit development is located on parcel C.
- This particular parcel, as you can see right now, is undeveloped. It is part of a larger final plan
- that was somewhat phased and segmented out and started in 2008 with an office park that was approved
- or envisioned for a majority of the area. They built one particular property in there that was out of
- the floodplain, but the remainder of the area has kind of sat undeveloped. So the map that you see now
- is an exhibit of the floodplain that surrounds this.
- area. This went to the Board of Zoning Appeals for conditional use approval to allow for the placement
- of buildings and roads. The Board of Zoning Appeals did approve that. So the petitioner is coming forward
- tonight to request final plan approval to kind of carry forward with the development of this parcel.
- So this is an excerpt of the
- final plan approval that was given in 2008. So you can see in the top northeast corner of this a building
- that was proposed. That's the one building that has been actually constructed on the site. The final
- plan approval at the time envisioned other buildings being constructed to the south of that with parking
- along the west side. The petition was developed with the expectation that the buildings would all be
- out of the floodplain.
- You'd have some parking within the floodplain to the west. There was a multi-use path or a pedestrian
- path that was installed through the west side of the site that went through that floodplain and riparian
- buffer area. There was a substantial kind of planting plan that was accomplished with that as well.
- But as I mentioned, the only thing that has been constructed is that office building on the north side
- of the property and the rest of the property has sat empty.
- There was also a subdivision approval that was done in that 2008 2011 period that platted some right-of-way
- for Hillside Drive As I mentioned it was expected that this parcel to the that we're talking about tonight
- Would be developed at a later time There were a series of blanket easements that were placed along this
- property to deal with everything utility easements access easements
- drainage easements just blanket easements have replaced across the entire property and so with this
- petition now that we have a specific development proposal coming forward the petitioner is amending
- some of those easements to vacate some of those and place them where actual infrastructure will occur.
- So this actual
- Specific development plan consists of five buildings as I mentioned these would be for the use of contractors
- yard So what is actually envisioned here are a series of work bays within these buildings that
- the prospective tenants or leasers would store the materials could also operate out of and work from
- could store work materials work vehicles whatnot and
- but then, yeah, could also use as their workspace. So these would be, in essence, self-storage type
- buildings with large pull-up doors and individual doors to access the buildings or each workspace. And
- so one of the challenges certainly with this has been managing buildings and work within the floodplain.
- So you can see again on this exhibit here, the blue line shows that floodplain line.
- There is a portion of two buildings that are within that flood plain. All of the buildings that are
- in here would be elevated two feet, at least two feet above the lowest floor elevation. So that meets
- DNR's flood proofing requirements as well as Corps of Engineers flood proofing requirements as well.
- One of the aspects with this that they also have to manage is not increasing
- any flood elevations and so they're accomplishing that by creating these compensatory storage areas.
- So they're offsetting areas where fill is occurring with excavating additional areas so that you have
- that balance. And so there are two ponds that are being shown here. One is predominantly serving as
- a stormwater detention component and then another is serving as a compensatory storage area.
- So again, just like with the last petition, the petitioner has been going through a lot of conversations
- with City of Bloomington utilities to try to manage this very technical aspect to ensure that it meets
- CBU's requirements as well as DNR and FEMA requirements for floodwater capacity.
- So the petitioners are about halfway through that conversation right now, but they have worked at least
- to a comfort level with CBU where, you know, CBU has said that they are, you know, able to proceed forward.
- There's still some more intricacies to work out, but conceptually, it does appear that it will work.
- So the petitioners are moving forward with the site plan approval and then the Platt Amendment, as I
- mentioned.
- So the buildings would all be accessed internally. There would not be any access drives on Roger Street
- So the property was developed with a drive cut on Patterson to the north So that drive is a private
- drive moves through the site and connects to Hillside Drive You know to that right away that I mentioned
- that was plotted in 2011 So all of the access to these would come from that internal drive and
- All of the buildings do have to meet our architectural requirements as well as our landscaping requirements.
- There are street trees along Roger Street now. The petitioner will be filling in where there are some
- gaps. There will also be installing sidewalks and street trees along Hillside Drive and replacing the
- side path that is on Roger Street with a wider side path to meet the transportation plan requirements
- as well as installing landscaping through throughout the interior of the site as well.
- So as I mentioned, architecture is certainly something that is sometimes very challenging for self-storage
- buildings. So the petitioner has worked to accommodate the requirements of the UDO. The UDO requires
- that all four sides of buildings incorporate three out of four design elements that deal with the change
- in building height, require certain projections and modulation, and then either awnings or canopies
- or a certain percentage of glass
- So the petitioner has incorporated those elements. There are also pedestrian entry requirements for
- the buildings that face public streets So each building does have a pedestrian entry that is shown that
- inquire that incorporates certain elements that the UDO requires as well So we've submitted in the packet
- and then again on the screen here all four elevations of the building
- So the building does meet the architectural requirements. There is one condition of approval that requires
- some additional lighting elements around the pedestrian entry that shouldn't affect the overall proposal
- in any substantial way that changes what is before the plane commission. So kind of moving on to the
- easements. So this exhibit here kind of shows
- the spider web of easements that span this property. So one of the things that I mentioned is this blanket
- ingress and egress, utility, drainage, and parking easement that was platted for a majority of the property.
- So this is the exhibit in the top left of your screen now. You see that that kind of encompasses a lot
- of the property. The petitioner will be modifying that to just place those easements on the kind
- west side of the property. There will still be other easements for the stormwater infrastructure that
- will be adjusted and accommodated with this petition, as well as drainage easements. There's a fiber
- optic line that is in that area that will be moved with this as well.
- There will still be pedestrian easements as well as a conservancy easement that encompasses the riparian
- buffer area and the floodplain that I mentioned as well. So in essence, what is being requested with
- the easements is just, as I mentioned, modifying the east side of the site to remove those blanket easements
- and more accurately define where those are going based on actual infrastructure with that petition.
- So with this,
- Planning staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the findings. It does meet all of
- the requirements for the site plan approval. It is a permitted use in the Thompson PUD. The plat, as
- I mentioned, just involves amending one easement. The Utilities Department has reviewed all of the easements
- and it is satisfactory to where the infrastructure is going.
- It is approved also per the Board of Zoning Appeals case that approved the work within the floodplain.
- So we are recommending approval with the five conditions that are listed in staff's report. And I'm
- happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there a representative of the petitioner would like to
- add to the presentation. Something that was you audience. Dylan Reynolds with Spaceco the civil engineer.
- On the project representing the owner. I don't really have a lot to add from Eric's presentation Maybe
- just clarifying, you know the type of users we get the question like who? rents this space one of the
- big demands they see are Like electricians HVAC contractors kind of those it's you know, it's not limited
- to the trades But they do get a lot of interest from them Just as somebody let's say you're a small
- shop that you got
- You know, you're an HVAC guy that's got a couple vans and you kind of just need a home base that can
- kind of be half You know somewhere to park my vehicles half, you know many office space just to kind
- of have as a home base It's really kind of the intent for for these type of uses that someone that kind
- of needs that kind of niche niche space to rent so But other than that I can answer answer any questions.
- Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners? Mr. Kinsey
- Question I have is exactly kind of where you were just going with this is who rents this and what are
- they. And I can't say that in the time that I've been here that we've talked about what is called this
- contractors yard designation. And I don't know if is there another example of this that we've seen recently
- or is there another example in town of contractors here.
- So a contractor's yard represents a wide range of things which you see on the ground typically. So the
- UDO does have a definition and so it's characterized by folks in the trades industry, plumbers, electricians,
- allows for things to be stored outside, stored vehicles that are used in those trades industries. And
- it allows for them to use it as a workshop as well as for customers to visit it. So we don't have something
- exactly like this.
- other things like plumbing businesses, electricians' businesses that have large outdoor storage yards.
- But this use, the Thompson PUD was an industrial use. It certainly envisioned other industrial uses
- within that area. So this is one of the allowed uses and it is in keeping with that. That's why we're
- here. It's nothing like it. Yeah. Mr. Stosbrough.
- Yeah, thank you. I have a few clarifications. So I think you answered the first one, Eric, that Hillside
- will end up connecting now on the other side. So it'll be an all the way through sort of little bend
- behind these. OK, great. How many units are going to be available for rent? And do you know
- about approximately how much rent will be on those? And your lease terms is going to be per month,
- per year, per six months? Or are you not that far yet?
- I do not know the rental rate Obviously we can get that information from the developer if you guys want
- it later Eric if you want to pull can you pull the elevations back up? You can kind of just see I don't
- remember the exact number but this elevation will Tell you each each space has one man door and one
- overhead door So when we get this elevation pulled back up, there's only a handful per
- But I think the I think the demising walls Can also be moved to so if you want to be able to you know,
- it's a tenant tenant needs both Yeah So could be up to ten but if a tenant needs more space they can
- they can take more of the building Somebody could rent say two of these side-by-side and like remove
- the wall in between them somehow interesting
- Okay, great. I should also mention this was presented to McDowell Neighborhood Association, and they
- seemed very favorable and interested in it. It would activate the space and provide for jobs within
- the area, so it seemed favorably received. Okay, and then I think the last question that just occurred
- to me as you were talking, in terms of the
- Electricity in the units are they going to be solar capable? because as you're saying like if people
- can park their vehicles and things like that and there are more solar vehicles now, so it's is that
- going to be a possibility in terms of somebody who might want to have a have a solar vehicle charger
- in there At this point, there's no plans for that I can't speak to on if that's a future capability
- they want to add but at this point
- That's all for now. I saw somebody else's hand up down there. So Since we had the elevations up I wanted
- to just ask Steph is the Are the the void to solid ratio requirements in the PUD? Pretty different from
- what we see in in the UDO and in other zones. Yep, so the design elements so
- Downtown has, each district has kind of their own standards. So the downtown has certain architectural
- standards and then outside the downtown, you're different. So the basic design elements are you have
- to have three out of four design elements on all four sides of the building. The one that you're thinking
- of the void to solid talks about the incorporation of glass, requires at least 50% of facade or a module
- have that glass element.
- They don't have to do that. They've elected to do the other three, which are a change in building height,
- projection of that module, and then the incorporation of awnings and canopies. So they do not have any
- glass on the buildings, but they have accomplished it through the other three. Thanks. Just briefly,
- so I realize this isn't allowed use in the area. Is it, and you mentioned workshop. Is like manufacturing allowed?
- in it or is it lower intensity use than that? Now the concern is there is residential right across the
- street and I'm like wondering how loud is it gonna be disruptive as compared to what was there before?
- Yeah, technically within the Thompson PUD, light manufacturing isn't permitted use. That is actually
- what Catalint is listed as, is a light manufacturer. So, you know, the difference would be
- light manufacturing is you take pre-assembled parts and you put them together versus heavy manufacturing,
- you're making the whole thing from scratch.
- I'm not familiar enough with it. I know that mentioned that there were trees to be planted Is there
- anything there that is to help mitigate noise or other things? To be indoor I know Eric mentioned that
- like outdoor storage I think it's technically allowed by right. Is that correct? It is with the contractors
- yard. This does not identify any areas where that would occur So this is we don't have any point. It's
- allowed but we don't have any plan. So it'll all be
- Indoor so landscaping and nothing outside. Okay. Thank you Any other questions or comments Commissioner
- Stasberg Follow-up to that like in terms of the view from across South Rogers What are they gonna see
- because I was realizing like these mock-ups that you showed on the slideshow. They all show the full-size doors but
- You also said that access will be all from like the inside of the property. So what is somebody going
- to see when they're like driving by in Rogers? So they live across the street. The one next I guess
- is showing right here is one of the buildings is to be the side facing Roger. So it does have the pedestrian
- entry door but otherwise it's a pretty solid front. OK. And so there's no overhead doors facing.
- The perimeter okay, so there's just like a single and where is that single door gonna go into one of
- the units then or like an office kind of space for the Like for the yard itself or Yeah, right now just
- one of the units. Okay, and What kind of landscaping is there just gonna be like street trees there
- is that like what's the setback? I?
- Yes, so right now along those fronts they do have street trees shown There is a little bit more landscaping
- that is required for the general site landscaping So we can work with them to get a little bit more
- shrubs. Hopefully along that side of the building Okay So I think that it would be good to like soften
- that a little bit especially because it's basically like a solid wall on that on that side Whether or
- not it's in the plan just because I think that that will
- a little bit more attractive especially for the people who live across the street Okay, and then The
- other follow-up I had is this Eric is this essentially by right and we're only seeing it because it
- exceeds a certain size Because it's over 25,000 square feet. So that's why it needs major site plan
- approval. Okay. Thanks. I
- Commissioner Kinsey's point this does fill a need for contractors in Bloomington right now Most of them
- that don't have a building of their own or subleasing space, you know You can think out like industrial
- drive production Parkway places like that
- So it provides a concentration of an industrial park of sorts But it gives it a much more polished facade
- like what you'd think on maybe the backside of like Menards lumberyard things like that So the outside
- public it looks nice polished put together and then all the action stuff actually takes place on the
- other side of the building So it is hidden from public view and also blocks a significant amount of
- noise So really intent is for all that stuff to go toward Catalan and not toward residential areas is
- my understanding
- the questions or comments Quick question for legal. Do we need two separate motions on each of these
- or can we well before we should hear public comment obviously You can you can do two separate motions
- or or one Okay Is there anyone would like to make public comment
- on either SP twenty twenty six oh three triple oh five or subdivision twenty oh twenty twenty six oh
- three triple oh five. If there is anybody online please use the raise hand function and we can recognize
- you. Last call for public comment. Yeah I don't see anybody online. All right back to the commission.
- The staff recommendation is that we adopt the proposed findings and approve. S. P. Twenty twenty six
- oh three triple oh five and subdivision twenty twenty six oh three triple oh five with five conditions
- that are listed in the packet. So moved second. All right. We've got a motion and a second. Any final comments.
- Thank you. I just want to want to make a final comment partly because I've been really outspoken in
- general about storage units and I really generally Excuse me. Don't don't really likes storage units
- as a as a use of space. I do see this as a
- Different type of storage unit and I appreciate that especially I was actually Speaking with a contractor
- who I use regularly and they are in a position right now where storage of their equipment that they
- use is becoming challenging because of other
- parts of their life. So I do think that there is a niche, especially for small companies, very small
- companies, individuals who might want to make sure that they have a secure place to store their equipment,
- because that equipment costs a whole lot, like tools and big tools. I mean, it costs a lot. And so having
- I think that that becomes an obstacle sometimes for people to get into that field, but then it can become
- an obstacle depending on what your living situations are. If you don't have a garage, for example, then
- how do you make sure that all of those expensive tools that you're investing in are safe? So I do think
- that there's a space for that. I do think it's helpful that it is centrally located in Bloomington so
- that then no matter where you're working and kind of the general region, it's pretty easily accessible.
- I am always reluctant to support storage units, but it is, as was said, essentially, by right. And I
- do think that this type of storage is different and will go toward helping people start, especially
- those startups, those small one, two, three person crews to help them develop their business. So thank you.
- All right, let's call the roll on the motion to approve Yes Kenzie, yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes,
- bro. Yes Bishop. Yes All right motion case, thank you and that is our
- final petition for the evening. Any announcements, questions before we adjourn? All right, thank you
- all. We are adjourned.