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.