WEBVTT 00:00:00.322 --> 00:00:07.588 - Hello and good evening, let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission 00:00:07.588 --> 00:00:14.783 - for Monday, July 13th We have quite a bit of business to get through this evening. Let me just give 00:00:14.783 --> 00:00:22.121 - a brief overview of the agenda. We do have some internal housekeeping items to take care of including 00:00:22.121 --> 00:00:26.654 - Appointment of a new planning director and some updates to our 00:00:27.170 --> 00:00:36.509 - our rules and procedures that we looked at at the last meeting. We have one petition that remains continued, 00:00:36.509 --> 00:00:45.420 - that's sub-2026-05-0010. There's no consent agenda tonight. And the petitions that we will hear tonight 00:00:45.420 --> 00:00:52.446 - will start with sub-2025-12-0051. That is the property at 2511 North Dunn Street. 00:00:52.610 --> 00:01:08.593 - We will then hear three more petitions that are Updates to the udl brought by the staff so With that 00:01:08.593 --> 00:01:21.886 - let's begin by calling the roll to make sure we got quorum Burrell here Bishop here 00:01:22.466 --> 00:01:35.462 - Rodkey here seabor homes here Kinsey here Smith here Stossburg here Whistler here Bishop Bishop here 00:01:35.462 --> 00:01:48.844 - All right We do have a quorum so let's move on first up we have approval of minutes we have the minutes 00:01:48.844 --> 00:01:52.190 - from the June 8th meeting 00:01:52.322 --> 00:02:00.635 - Do we have any corrections or questions to those minutes or a motion to approve? I'll motion to approve 00:02:00.635 --> 00:02:08.869 - the June 8th minutes. Second. All right. Any discussion. All right. Let's just do a voice vote on this 00:02:08.869 --> 00:02:17.662 - one tonight since everybody's here in person all in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Any opposed. 00:02:19.266 --> 00:02:26.690 - Okay those minutes are approved. We'll now move on to reports resolutions and communications. Do we 00:02:26.690 --> 00:02:34.262 - have any reports or communications from commissioners tonight. All right we'll move on to our reports 00:02:34.262 --> 00:02:36.638 - and resolutions from the staff. 00:02:37.634 --> 00:02:43.015 - Yes, we have a few actually first important to note the agenda Description that is listed on the two 00:02:43.015 --> 00:02:48.397 - entry doors into council chambers for the project description for Dunn Street is wrong It's actually 00:02:48.397 --> 00:02:53.778 - listening listing the project description for the Hopewell The agenda in the packet is right and all 00:02:53.778 --> 00:02:59.107 - the project descriptions in the packet are right It's just the agendas that were posted on the door 00:02:59.107 --> 00:03:03.902 - the description for the Dunn Street petition was wrong So I just wanted to point that out 00:03:04.258 --> 00:03:10.342 - And then obviously moving through what's on the agenda, we do have three things under reports, resolutions 00:03:10.342 --> 00:03:16.256 - and communications from staff. The first on those is obviously appointment of a new director or interim 00:03:16.256 --> 00:03:22.169 - director, Lynn Coyne. As many of the planning commission members know, our former director, Mr. Hiddle, 00:03:22.169 --> 00:03:27.969 - moved on to a different occupation in Charlotte where he will be working in the planning field. So we 00:03:27.969 --> 00:03:34.224 - wanted to thank him and recognize him for his time. And then tonight we are appointing a new interim director 00:03:34.224 --> 00:03:45.199 - in his place and so that is Lynn coin and so there is a memo in the packet for that and I believe Mayor 00:03:45.199 --> 00:03:56.173 - might be speaking to that as well Good evening commissioners, I'm proud to be not only Introducing Lynn 00:03:56.173 --> 00:03:59.550 - coin as our perspective new and 00:03:59.778 --> 00:04:08.110 - interim director, but also welcoming Chris Smith back to the plan commission. Thank you for serving 00:04:08.110 --> 00:04:10.526 - after your brief sabbatical. 00:04:11.202 --> 00:04:19.494 - LinCoin has served in many ways in our community. And as you all know, two of my priorities coming into 00:04:19.494 --> 00:04:27.706 - office have been housing and economic development. And no single department is impacted, impacts those 00:04:27.706 --> 00:04:31.294 - two areas more than our planning department. 00:04:31.394 --> 00:04:40.207 - We are sad to see David Hittle go and I am extremely grateful to Lynn for stepping up to serve the city 00:04:40.207 --> 00:04:49.021 - in this way Lynn has decades of experience in on the development side And the real estate side has been 00:04:49.021 --> 00:04:56.478 - interacting with a planning department in the city for I believe most of his career and 00:04:56.546 --> 00:05:05.038 - And and has acted as a trusted advisor to many of our affordable housing providers as well as market 00:05:05.038 --> 00:05:13.445 - rate housing folks so I am deeply grateful to Lynn for coming out of retirement and serving in this 00:05:13.445 --> 00:05:14.622 - interim role. 00:05:14.818 --> 00:05:25.205 - He is ready to hit the ground running to implement the permitting audit that we just got back. And so 00:05:25.205 --> 00:05:35.491 - I anticipate no gap in implementation. He's already been fully briefed and getting his feet wet with 00:05:35.491 --> 00:05:43.230 - that audit and intros to staff. So. Thank you. Do you want to say anything? 00:05:44.130 --> 00:05:53.218 - Mr. Coyne Well, thank you mayor and it's great to see everybody Some of you know me and My history it's 00:05:53.218 --> 00:06:01.694 - been long but I have spent a great deal of time in my career in land use planning and regulation 00:06:01.826 --> 00:06:08.112 - in one form or another and well as economic development over the years and it's because of that that 00:06:08.112 --> 00:06:14.585 - I am honored and excited to have the opportunity to sort of take it to another level and work with with 00:06:14.585 --> 00:06:20.995 - you with the planning staff with other departments of the city and the community and the City Council, 00:06:20.995 --> 00:06:27.654 - so I'm really looking forward to that I Think what we'll do of course is continue the level of development 00:06:27.654 --> 00:06:30.206 - services has been going on implement the 00:06:30.594 --> 00:06:37.015 - Provisions of the American structure point audit so that we can take that to a completely different 00:06:37.015 --> 00:06:43.693 - level As well as developing a communication strategy both internally Again with other developments with 00:06:43.693 --> 00:06:50.178 - the City Council in the community at large. So everybody has a role So I'm very much looking to that 00:06:50.178 --> 00:06:57.048 - forward to that. The end goal, of course is that we continue to provide for housing jobs and opportunities 00:06:57.048 --> 00:06:58.910 - to invest in Bloomington and 00:06:59.746 --> 00:07:06.269 - We're gonna do this, it's not gonna be easy because we are gonna do it within the confines of the Uniform 00:07:06.269 --> 00:07:12.730 - Development Ordinance. Any other applicable laws or regulations, that stays the same, that won't change. 00:07:12.730 --> 00:07:18.945 - So we have our marching orders, so to speak, are already there. I also believe if we implement these 00:07:18.945 --> 00:07:24.606 - changes and take additional steps, that we will also help maintain control over our future. 00:07:26.498 --> 00:07:34.383 - which is very important. So I look forward to working with you in this process and coming back here 00:07:34.383 --> 00:07:42.031 - and updating you on our progress from time to time. So thank you. I appreciate this opportunity. 00:07:42.031 --> 00:07:49.916 - Bye bye. Thank you. All right, so there is a memo with a resolution in the packet. Hopefully you've 00:07:49.916 --> 00:07:56.382 - all had a chance to see that. And I think the requirement is that we vote on that 00:07:56.642 --> 00:08:04.064 - Resolution as it's in the packet. Is there any any questions or comments from commissioners? Thank you. 00:08:04.064 --> 00:08:11.344 - I'm just wondering if we know how long the interim Director position is gonna last I Think that I saw 00:08:11.344 --> 00:08:18.481 - that the director position had been posted and then I was kind of surprised that we were then gonna 00:08:18.481 --> 00:08:25.118 - have an interim for a while so we are we expecting a three month a six month nine month does 00:08:25.922 --> 00:08:33.686 - Mayor Thompson, do you have any idea? We have posted the position but given where we are in the election 00:08:33.686 --> 00:08:41.228 - cycle We are not sure anyone will commit until they know who the next mayor is And so we wanted to be 00:08:41.228 --> 00:08:48.770 - sure that we don't put ourselves into a situation where we're understaffed and planning which already 00:08:48.770 --> 00:08:51.358 - is overloaded and Lynn brings some 00:08:52.162 --> 00:09:02.673 - Significant expertise and and systems management that can really advance us Okay, so probably into next 00:09:02.673 --> 00:09:12.981 - year then In terms of election cycle again, we have posted it but we don't know what will come of it. 00:09:12.981 --> 00:09:19.550 - Okay. Thanks Any other questions comments or emotion I'll motion 00:09:20.418 --> 00:09:30.443 - Adopt the resolution for the the appointment of Lynn coin as interim director of the planning 00:09:30.443 --> 00:09:41.322 - and transportation department All right, we have a motion and a second Any final discussion before we 00:09:41.322 --> 00:09:50.174 - call the roll All right, let's call the roll on this one Bishop yes, Borel Seaborg 00:09:51.714 --> 00:10:02.945 - Radke Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Smith. Yes Stossberg. Yes Whistler. Yes All right motion carries 00:10:02.945 --> 00:10:15.121 - congratulations and welcome All right, we will move on then I think next we would is revised rules and 00:10:15.121 --> 00:10:16.894 - procedures and 00:10:17.794 --> 00:10:23.703 - Did you have anything else before we get to that? Nope that moving right along to the adoption of our 00:10:23.703 --> 00:10:29.669 - rules and procedures So this has been on the agenda for the past two meetings or so We've been working 00:10:29.669 --> 00:10:35.520 - to make it a little bit cleaner copy so that everyone can kind of see what's changed from before and 00:10:35.520 --> 00:10:41.950 - after So a lot of the changes have just been removing old references changes to the UDO that have been amended 00:10:42.050 --> 00:10:48.619 - And so just a lot of housekeeping. We haven't really done anything within the rules and procedures for 00:10:48.619 --> 00:10:54.997 - several talks several years So the changes that we're proposing you can hopefully have had a chance 00:10:54.997 --> 00:11:01.502 - to kind of scroll through And see what's changed to get an idea of what you're looking at tonight. So 00:11:01.502 --> 00:11:08.007 - we're happy to answer any questions Yeah Are there any questions from commissioners about the updated 00:11:08.007 --> 00:11:10.558 - administrative procedures? Mr. Sossberg 00:11:12.674 --> 00:11:17.747 - At the last meeting one of the things that was mentioned was the idea of changing public comment time 00:11:17.747 --> 00:11:22.869 - from five minutes to three minutes and that change was not made that I saw in here. Was there any more 00:11:22.869 --> 00:11:28.140 - discussion given to that at the staff level. No I'm so sorry if that didn't get incorporated. Yeah that's 00:11:28.140 --> 00:11:33.213 - certainly something that's playing commission would like to institute. You can make a motion for that 00:11:33.213 --> 00:11:38.683 - and we can include that. I think there might be a couple other motions for a few changes that some commission 00:11:38.683 --> 00:11:39.678 - members might have. 00:11:40.034 --> 00:11:45.825 - But certainly we're able to incorporate that I apologize for not getting that in there I guess I'm kind 00:11:45.825 --> 00:11:51.505 - of interested in that change and I would be interested in hearing from other commissioners what their 00:11:51.505 --> 00:11:57.129 - thoughts on that are Sorry, can you repeat? I didn't catch what you were changing the public comment 00:11:57.129 --> 00:12:03.198 - time from five minutes to three minutes and I guess one of the reasons why I am leading in that direction is 00:12:03.330 --> 00:12:10.815 - Council recently changed or maybe not recently. It's it's been a few years at this point changed it 00:12:10.815 --> 00:12:18.299 - from five minutes to three minutes. And I think that it's helpful to have consistency for that kind 00:12:18.299 --> 00:12:25.933 - of thing across meetings. And yeah that's that's just why I would say that I would support that idea. 00:12:25.933 --> 00:12:32.894 - But only if a majority of you also support that. Mr. Kinsey I have a question and a proposed 00:12:33.282 --> 00:12:39.944 - Change the first I wonder if you could talk a little bit about shortening the notice from 21 to 10 days 00:12:39.944 --> 00:12:46.350 - What informs that and and how do we know that that will appropriately notify people about anything? 00:12:46.350 --> 00:12:52.820 - Yeah, so this was actually sinking it to a change that was made in the unified development ordinance 00:12:52.820 --> 00:12:59.419 - about three years ago So with all the boards and commissions Except for the hearing officer. I believe 00:12:59.419 --> 00:13:03.070 - everybody is a 10-day before the hearing notice deadline 00:13:03.298 --> 00:13:10.170 - So this is just, again, syncing it with languages already in the UDO. So we've been practicing this 00:13:10.170 --> 00:13:17.386 - for some time already. Yes. OK. All right. And so far, no concerns about it. OK. That sounds reasonable. 00:13:17.386 --> 00:13:24.327 - And my proposed change was, as we're doing these modifications and edits to this document to sync it 00:13:24.327 --> 00:13:31.406 - up and to do other things, I also would like to suggest that we consider the use of inclusive language 00:13:31.406 --> 00:13:32.574 - throughout this. 00:13:32.738 --> 00:13:40.532 - changing Article 1H, which still indicates himself to themselves and Article 2C from chairman to chair. 00:13:40.532 --> 00:13:48.026 - And to me, that would be in sync with some other proposals and language that we have in other codes 00:13:48.026 --> 00:13:56.120 - and administrative procedures. But to me, it just seems kind of archaic not to have this inclusive language 00:13:56.120 --> 00:14:00.766 - in this document. And since we're making these edits already, 00:14:00.898 --> 00:14:12.581 - I'd like to propose that we make those two rather modest edits to the document to make it more inclusive. 00:14:12.581 --> 00:14:23.714 - So that's my suggestion. If we can make that edit at the same time. Are you offering that as a as an 00:14:23.714 --> 00:14:24.926 - amendment. 00:14:25.730 --> 00:14:32.508 - Yeah, I guess if that's an addition, I don't know if that could be how we should consider this. So ultimately 00:14:32.508 --> 00:14:39.162 - you do have to vote on this. So what I would recommend is you adopt a motion to approve it with suggestions 00:14:39.162 --> 00:14:44.831 - by Plaint Commission member Kinsey by Plaint Commission member Stossberg and then take your 00:14:44.831 --> 00:14:49.822 - votes accordingly. Or you could vote to incorporate each amendment individually. 00:14:57.858 --> 00:15:06.592 - Feel free to make a motion as you wish. I think I think it'd be a little quicker to do it all in one. 00:15:06.592 --> 00:15:15.498 - Certainly I support your edits Commissioner Kinsey. I don't know if everybody would support my proposal 00:15:15.498 --> 00:15:21.150 - so I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to bundle them or not. 00:15:25.250 --> 00:15:32.570 - I guess I would ask how the three minute rule has been going in city meetings then too if that has worked 00:15:32.570 --> 00:15:39.544 - if we've had any concerns about it not providing the public sufficient time to comment if it is I do 00:15:39.544 --> 00:15:46.933 - think there's an interest in making sure people are concise but I don't want to shortchange public comment 00:15:46.933 --> 00:15:51.422 - for this. I can't think that we've had any any problems with it. 00:15:52.930 --> 00:16:00.178 - sometimes, especially when people have written comments, if they don't get all the way through it, then 00:16:00.178 --> 00:16:07.217 - they'll follow it up with an email later so then we see it all. But there hasn't been outrage that I 00:16:07.217 --> 00:16:14.395 - have noted, you can say. And I mean, it's been two, three years maybe. I think that it was like in the 00:16:14.395 --> 00:16:19.134 - very beginning of when my term started in 2024 that that change was 00:16:29.666 --> 00:16:37.694 - Someone needs to make a motion. I would just add that I'm in support of both suggestions so far. And 00:16:37.694 --> 00:16:46.198 - I'll just note that for the park commission public comment period is only two minutes. So it is consistent 00:16:46.198 --> 00:16:54.146 - with other I mean somewhat consistent with other groups. I know in the past for some other meetings 00:16:54.146 --> 00:16:57.246 - we have actually counted the number of 00:16:57.506 --> 00:17:05.170 - people in the audience or people here online who wanted to make comments, and then we altered the time 00:17:05.170 --> 00:17:13.133 - to assure that everyone would get a chance to say something and changed it. If I recollect this correctly, 00:17:13.133 --> 00:17:20.871 - I don't know if somebody can pull the minutes, but I know we did this when we had an issue, and I think 00:17:20.871 --> 00:17:26.750 - it may have been during the UDO adoption where we reduced it to three minutes. 00:17:27.138 --> 00:17:34.899 - And I sure hope that that was allowable when we did it. But it seems like something that we could do 00:17:34.899 --> 00:17:42.660 - if we had a substantial interest by the public and just say, let's give more people a chance to talk 00:17:42.660 --> 00:17:50.805 - for three minutes versus really exhausting everybody in the room by letting everyone go for five minutes. 00:17:50.805 --> 00:17:55.646 - So I'm a little bit torn because we could offer a shorter time 00:17:56.610 --> 00:18:03.804 - frame through our own our own procedures. Does that am I completely miss remembering this Eric. No that's 00:18:03.804 --> 00:18:10.726 - correct. Anybody else. We can of course suspend the rules by vote of the commission at any time which 00:18:10.726 --> 00:18:17.513 - we frequently do to extend meetings or to modify the things like the public comment period. We have 00:18:17.513 --> 00:18:19.006 - done that many times. 00:18:26.434 --> 00:18:38.346 - an agenda we do three minutes and people have been more concise and to the point and they have been 00:18:38.346 --> 00:18:50.376 - in their idea has come across. So all right. Any other comments while we're waiting on a motion. Any 00:18:50.376 --> 00:18:56.094 - other questions. Anyone ready to make a motion. 00:19:06.466 --> 00:19:18.716 - motion the proposed edits to the revised rules and procedures with the addition of the use of inclusive 00:19:18.716 --> 00:19:31.083 - language in article 1h changing himself to themselves and an article to see chair man change it to chair 00:19:31.083 --> 00:19:36.030 - and to In the public comment period allow 00:19:37.506 --> 00:19:55.838 - For three minutes for public speakers for public discussion Can you reference that by that change by 00:19:55.838 --> 00:20:07.454 - number? Let's see It is an article five hearings be One And two 00:20:10.114 --> 00:20:17.437 - referenced in both of those All right, did you get that? Yeah article 5 b1 and 2 b1 and 2 yes and b1 00:20:17.437 --> 00:20:25.050 - it states public comment five minutes per speaker and then in b2 it states it will be the responsibility 00:20:25.050 --> 00:20:32.446 - of staff to keep time specifically a five-minute time clock must be displayed inside the meeting room 00:20:32.446 --> 00:20:38.174 - Okay, does everybody understand the motion and the changes that are proposed I 00:20:40.770 --> 00:20:49.186 - Second for that motion. I'll second it All right any final discussion It may be helpful I think just 00:20:49.186 --> 00:20:57.519 - for maybe members in the audience tonight to know if that is something that you want to take effect 00:20:57.519 --> 00:21:06.102 - tonight or effective say August 1st Yeah, my inclination would be to have this take effect at the next 00:21:06.102 --> 00:21:07.102 - meeting and 00:21:11.618 --> 00:21:23.516 - I presume that doesn't need to be included in the motion when it takes effect. I don't think so. I wouldn't 00:21:23.516 --> 00:21:33.982 - vote. Okay. Great. All right. Do we need public comment on this motion? I'm not sure if we do. 00:21:35.458 --> 00:21:42.494 - Yeah I'm not I don't know that we need the public comment is required on the fees schedule adjustment 00:21:42.494 --> 00:21:49.600 - and a dean is here I think she could legal department might be able to advise typically on these types 00:21:49.600 --> 00:21:56.498 - of internal rule changes. So I know we got a lot of other things people want to talk about tonight. 00:21:56.498 --> 00:22:03.603 - So yeah unless there's any other discussion we'll go ahead and call the roll in motion. Good. OK let's 00:22:03.603 --> 00:22:04.638 - call the roll. 00:22:04.802 --> 00:22:24.714 - the motion to adopt the updated administrative manual See bore Co Rodkey Holmes Kinsey, yes Smith Stossberg. 00:22:24.714 --> 00:22:31.838 - Yes Whistler. Yes Beryl yes Bishop yes 00:22:34.210 --> 00:22:42.077 - All right motion carries and then we are on to the updated fee schedule, I believe Set the next thing 00:22:42.077 --> 00:22:50.175 - Yes, so another housekeeping Chore for us tonight is with the recent adoption of the unified development 00:22:50.175 --> 00:22:58.196 - ordinance. There was a new process that was instituted within there It's the payment in lieu of process 00:22:58.196 --> 00:23:02.206 - that is replacing the determinant sidewalk variance 00:23:02.818 --> 00:23:04.766 - process that did exist in the UDL. 00:23:04.834 --> 00:23:10.876 - So for those of you that maybe aren't familiar with the determinate sidewalk variance in situations 00:23:10.876 --> 00:23:16.917 - where somebody is Required to install some sort of a pedestrian facility whether that be a sidewalk 00:23:16.917 --> 00:23:23.019 - or a multi-use path They can always seek relief from any requirement within the UDO And there was an 00:23:23.019 --> 00:23:29.061 - allowance in the UDO for a determinate sidewalk variance to be approved Which means that a sidewalk 00:23:29.061 --> 00:23:34.800 - was not or a side path or whatever Wasn't required at that time but could be required at a few 00:23:34.800 --> 00:23:42.281 - future time when other situations might dictate that that would be necessary. And so we've seen a lot 00:23:42.281 --> 00:23:48.222 - of these determinate sidewalk variances be approved over the past decades or so. 00:23:48.322 --> 00:23:53.957 - You know, in reality, what's happening is very rarely, if ever, have these been called in. And so we 00:23:53.957 --> 00:23:59.312 - have lots of situations where these determinate sidewalk waivers have been granted, but there's 00:23:59.312 --> 00:24:04.891 - no improvements that happen on the ground. These determinate sidewalk variances can be very hard to 00:24:04.891 --> 00:24:08.350 - track, but then also just as hard to call in at a future time 00:24:08.866 --> 00:24:14.137 - You know if it's 10 years down the line and you're dealing with a new property owner who has no knowledge 00:24:14.137 --> 00:24:19.209 - of this although they're required to be recorded you know a future owner would have no idea that this 00:24:19.209 --> 00:24:24.430 - is happening and you know it's so far from when the activity was occurring on the property that it could 00:24:24.430 --> 00:24:29.501 - be very challenging. And so these determinant sidewalk variances had existed on paper but like I said 00:24:29.501 --> 00:24:32.286 - didn't really result in any improvements on the ground. 00:24:32.610 --> 00:24:39.096 - And so there are other communities that do have a payment in lieu process within their zoning codes 00:24:39.096 --> 00:24:45.648 - that allow for a different relief to be granted rather than a variance. There is a contribution that 00:24:45.648 --> 00:24:52.588 - is made based on some dollar amount that then relieves them of the requirement of installing that feature. 00:24:52.588 --> 00:24:58.750 - So with the incorporation of that process within the zoning code we also have to set an amount 00:24:59.010 --> 00:25:06.081 - for that material. So this would be applicable to situations where there is a concrete sidewalk may 00:25:06.081 --> 00:25:13.223 - be required, a bike lane, a multi-use path. And so we have to set an amount in the fee schedule that 00:25:13.223 --> 00:25:20.931 - dictates what that amount would be for concrete or asphalt. So we did some research on this. As I mentioned, 00:25:20.931 --> 00:25:26.942 - there are two communities in Indiana that do have this process. Indianapolis has it. 00:25:27.618 --> 00:25:35.690 - And they have a dollar amount of $90 a linear foot the city of Valparaiso also has this allowance and 00:25:35.690 --> 00:25:44.237 - they use the full value of that Improvement in their payment in lieu of contribution Process it's important 00:25:44.237 --> 00:25:51.518 - to note, you know in these communities what triggers the sidewalk can be very different and 00:25:51.746 --> 00:25:57.239 - In some of these communities The people may go put in that sidewalk somewhere else they may go put it 00:25:57.239 --> 00:26:02.624 - on this property But every community has different standards in terms of what triggers sidewalks as 00:26:02.624 --> 00:26:08.008 - you know And actually this will be something that we'll talk about later tonight with another round 00:26:08.008 --> 00:26:13.824 - of amendments are some of the triggers within the unified development and said do require site improvements 00:26:13.824 --> 00:26:19.209 - specifically sidewalks So we do have a lot more triggers in terms of when sidewalks are required so 00:26:19.209 --> 00:26:20.286 - when we analyze the 00:26:20.514 --> 00:26:26.256 - amount of value that should be assessed for these two things. We did look at it from an approach of, 00:26:26.256 --> 00:26:32.283 - you know, we want to make sure that the amount that is associated, you know, is not so low that it really 00:26:32.283 --> 00:26:38.196 - doesn't accomplish anything, but also at the same time we want to make sure that it's not so high that, 00:26:38.196 --> 00:26:44.052 - you know, it's cost prohibitive and people that are unable to pay for it or afford it are then seeking 00:26:44.052 --> 00:26:45.246 - permanent variances. 00:26:45.762 --> 00:26:52.376 - So this was built into the unified development ordinance to go to the Transportation Commission for 00:26:52.376 --> 00:26:59.057 - them to make an assessment of whether or not a project qualifies for it. The criteria that were used 00:26:59.057 --> 00:27:05.936 - to analyze that decision were very similar to what the determinant sidewalk variance criteria were such 00:27:05.936 --> 00:27:13.278 - that the topography of the lot may be unique that the adjacent lots are at presently developed or undeveloped. 00:27:13.442 --> 00:27:19.968 - And there's no reasonable expectation of more sidewalks Uniformity of development an area might be best 00:27:19.968 --> 00:27:24.862 - served by a different project So criteria like said they were very similar to 00:27:24.962 --> 00:27:31.912 - The determinant sidewalk variance criteria and so with this as I mentioned we wanted to suggest a value 00:27:31.912 --> 00:27:38.796 - that is somewhat Appropriate that does result in some real improvements in terms of other projects and 00:27:38.796 --> 00:27:45.947 - this being a contribution But at the same time was not so high That it was it was kind of cost-prohibitive 00:27:45.947 --> 00:27:52.830 - and really wouldn't be a viable option for individuals and so We are recommending that plank efficient 00:27:52.930 --> 00:27:59.739 - Plan Commission approve an amount of $15 a square foot for concrete and $9 a square foot for asphalt 00:27:59.739 --> 00:28:06.549 - And then in our staff know we kind of gave an example of what that might look like in the real world 00:28:06.549 --> 00:28:13.358 - You know a six foot wide sidewalk that is being installed on a 100 foot long project Which is a very 00:28:13.358 --> 00:28:19.358 - typical oftentimes project size. I'm certainly you're gonna see a wide range of that and 00:28:19.618 --> 00:28:26.585 - That would result in a value of $9,000 as that contribution amount. So this is just simply what staff 00:28:26.585 --> 00:28:33.483 - is coming forward to with the suggestion. You know, as I mentioned and kind of as we looked at it in 00:28:33.483 --> 00:28:40.587 - the staff report, you know, when you look at what NDOT uses for estimation purposes, you know, you have 00:28:40.587 --> 00:28:47.622 - a much higher number. It's $28 a square foot. But that's looking at what it costs to actually put that 00:28:47.622 --> 00:28:48.510 - facility in. 00:28:48.866 --> 00:28:55.379 - You know at $28 a square foot you're looking at a value of almost double that 9,000 which can be very 00:28:55.379 --> 00:29:01.892 - cost prohibitive for small businesses or other situations where You know these these sidewalks aren't 00:29:01.892 --> 00:29:08.533 - necessary based on the situation So that's that's what staff kind of looked at and evaluated as we came 00:29:08.533 --> 00:29:15.174 - into this So certainly the Planning Commission can modify that number if they want if they if they feel 00:29:15.174 --> 00:29:18.814 - that something different is appropriate but that is what 00:29:19.042 --> 00:29:27.917 - Staff is recommending in terms of the value and kind of how we how we came up with that. So with that 00:29:27.917 --> 00:29:36.705 - I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you any questions from commissioners Commissioner Smith good 00:29:36.705 --> 00:29:45.406 - so There was a text amendment recently that allowed a payment in lieu for sidewalks Yes, what else? 00:29:47.426 --> 00:29:53.045 - You said asphalt. Is that for a trail? Yes. So in situations where somebody had to install the bike. 00:29:53.045 --> 00:29:58.663 - So the transportation plan calls out for a variety of improvements based on what a typology is for a 00:29:58.663 --> 00:30:04.393 - road that could be a bike lane that could be a multi use path. It could be a sidewalk. It just depends 00:30:04.393 --> 00:30:09.956 - on what the exact road typology is and what the improvement is. And so in situations where somebody 00:30:09.956 --> 00:30:15.742 - is doing something on a property that triggers installation of that facility they can either install it 00:30:16.354 --> 00:30:22.706 - Or as I said, you know, they can seek relief from that through the variance process. So, yeah. So, right, 00:30:22.706 --> 00:30:28.758 - you can seek relief through the variance process. So, what precipitated this text change? What event 00:30:28.758 --> 00:30:34.930 - occurred if we thought this was a good idea to amend text? So, what was happening is we were approving 00:30:34.930 --> 00:30:41.162 - determinate sidewalk variances. You know, we would do a handful of these a year. And like I said, these 00:30:41.162 --> 00:30:44.638 - would result in no improvements on the ground whatsoever. 00:30:44.930 --> 00:30:50.149 - You know so it's just something that gets recorded that lives somewhere that doesn't have any improvement 00:30:50.149 --> 00:30:55.220 - to the community as a whole. So we wanted to have something better than nothing. So having the payment 00:30:55.220 --> 00:31:00.291 - in lieu process gives a pathway a contribution to be made that is less than the value of what it would 00:31:00.291 --> 00:31:05.312 - cost to put in that thing that could then be used to install other improvements within the community. 00:31:05.312 --> 00:31:10.285 - So is this going to change our interpretation when we go get a variance because we can force them to 00:31:10.285 --> 00:31:12.254 - pay us in lieu of getting the variance. 00:31:12.898 --> 00:31:18.269 - No, so somebody always has the right. So before you go through that variance process, you would go to 00:31:18.269 --> 00:31:23.640 - the Transportation Commission to see if you could utilize the payment in lieu. The payment in lieu is 00:31:23.640 --> 00:31:29.117 - advantageous because it's less than the cost of actually putting in the sidewalk. So the Transportation 00:31:29.117 --> 00:31:34.383 - Commission would look at whether or not it's appropriate to grant the payment in lieu process for a 00:31:34.383 --> 00:31:40.175 - site. If they say yes, then they can utilize the payment in lieu process. If they say no, then the petitioner 00:31:40.175 --> 00:31:42.334 - either can choose to put in the facility 00:31:42.498 --> 00:31:48.900 - Or they can seek a permanent variance. Does this mainly come about on vacant lots and existing subdivisions 00:31:48.900 --> 00:31:55.065 - that don't have infrastructure where you file for building permit and it's triggered a sidewalk. I mean 00:31:55.065 --> 00:32:00.993 - that's certainly when is this one. That's certainly one example is a subdivision you know an infill 00:32:00.993 --> 00:32:07.454 - subdivision where you know it's mid block for instance and you know you don't have sidewalks on either side. 00:32:07.586 --> 00:32:13.547 - But as part of the subdivision, you're required to put in sidewalks. So that's certainly one example 00:32:13.547 --> 00:32:19.450 - that could be utilized. Where else has this occurred? So in situations when there's a change in use 00:32:19.450 --> 00:32:24.998 - on a property and there is no sidewalk, then you would be required to install it. If you have 00:32:24.998 --> 00:32:31.078 - new construction on a property and there is no sidewalk or there's a substandard facility, then you're 00:32:31.078 --> 00:32:36.862 - required to bring it into compliance. There's a wide range of situations that could trigger this. 00:32:37.954 --> 00:32:44.599 - So we made any changes to our use determinations. So that's later in the agenda today. You know what 00:32:44.599 --> 00:32:51.179 - are the triggers for change in use. Yeah I understand that but if we made any discussions on actual 00:32:51.179 --> 00:32:55.390 - categorizing use changes. No. So that is on the agenda tonight. 00:32:55.874 --> 00:33:01.560 - The actual categorization the actual categorization of use I know I understand there's stuff in the 00:33:01.560 --> 00:33:07.587 - gender for use changes for limiting But the actual when you say it's a change of use, right? Yes anymore. 00:33:07.587 --> 00:33:13.273 - It seems like anything's a change of use. Have we Redefined what a change of use is to where like a 00:33:13.273 --> 00:33:18.959 - doctor's office is no different than a veterinary clinic Yes, as I said that it's in there today. I 00:33:18.959 --> 00:33:24.702 - just didn't read it. I didn't see it I read through that and see it. Okay All right. Okay. Thank you 00:33:27.170 --> 00:33:41.309 - Any other questions from commissioners. All right. Do we. Yeah. I'm curious. Do you know how often the 00:33:41.309 --> 00:33:55.998 - state updates their cost estimates. And is there any sense in like saying it's a percentage of the current 00:33:56.386 --> 00:34:02.836 - State estimate so that like it doesn't have to then continually be reviewed and adjusted for inflation 00:34:02.836 --> 00:34:09.098 - I think that happens every year and mr Seaborg can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but they they 00:34:09.098 --> 00:34:15.423 - do that analysis every year They look at all the projects and look at what the cost was for them. So 00:34:15.423 --> 00:34:21.935 - they come up with that number on an annual basis so we could certainly use that as a basis and say some 00:34:21.935 --> 00:34:25.630 - percentage of that Do we do that in anything else in them? 00:34:26.114 --> 00:34:37.075 - And then these we we don't within the planning department We don't have any fees that that are based 00:34:37.075 --> 00:34:47.928 - on another entity's value of something That I have a good correlation for you. Okay A suggestion if 00:34:47.928 --> 00:34:50.750 - it's worth entertaining I 00:34:54.274 --> 00:35:01.913 - I mean for reference you know obviously our number that I'm suggesting is about 50 percent right of 00:35:01.913 --> 00:35:10.010 - what in dots numbers uses for estimation purposes. So I guess that'd be a suggestion is instead of having 00:35:10.010 --> 00:35:17.725 - to review it every year tied to the we just tie it to the state rate at 50 50 percent or 53 percent. 00:35:17.725 --> 00:35:21.086 - You're a little closer to that at 15 of 28. 00:35:25.026 --> 00:35:32.850 - Makes sense to me. I think you feel free to propose that if you like Mr. Stossberg I guess I'm wondering 00:35:32.850 --> 00:35:40.302 - how you got the $15 a square foot number because that's feels significantly less than the true cost 00:35:40.302 --> 00:35:47.903 - of the project and even less than Than Indianapolis's estimate and of course Valpo does the true cost 00:35:47.903 --> 00:35:53.566 - of the project and I mean I appreciate your your argument there, but I mean 00:35:54.946 --> 00:36:02.750 - We're also talking about sidewalk. If I remember right from when we changed the UDO to allow this, it 00:36:02.750 --> 00:36:10.784 - was only in cases where it really didn't make practical sense for one reason or another. And so in those 00:36:10.784 --> 00:36:18.589 - situations, often I would imagine that the cost of the actual project would actually be more than the 00:36:18.589 --> 00:36:21.726 - average. And so I guess I just feel like 00:36:22.594 --> 00:36:29.124 - You said you wanted it to be smaller, but something that's still sort of significant, and I'm not sure 00:36:29.124 --> 00:36:35.717 - that $9,000 for a hundred foot long sidewalk is particularly significant. Yep, so that's a great point, 00:36:35.717 --> 00:36:42.246 - and kind of where we're trying to figure out of, obviously the full value of a sidewalk doesn't really 00:36:42.246 --> 00:36:48.649 - accomplish anything because somebody hasn't really sought any relief, but at the same time trying to 00:36:48.649 --> 00:36:49.790 - make it such that 00:36:50.082 --> 00:36:56.350 - It's not too much that people can't afford it and we're stuck listening dealt with a lot of variances 00:36:56.350 --> 00:37:02.617 - that are being applied for that are just based on a financial hardships that aren't really benefiting 00:37:02.617 --> 00:37:08.946 - the property owners and so we're trying to just balance out of you know right now determine a sidewalk 00:37:08.946 --> 00:37:10.974 - variances result in nothing and. 00:37:11.234 --> 00:37:16.547 - You know having them install something is X dollar amount and finding something between there that you 00:37:16.547 --> 00:37:21.808 - know still resulted in improvement You know, it's a contribution to order fund, you know, it's not an 00:37:21.808 --> 00:37:27.018 - expectation that this fully funds a sidewalk on another property It's just something else that helps 00:37:27.018 --> 00:37:32.177 - contribute to the fund that can be utilized for the city in the hole as we do projects So it's just 00:37:32.177 --> 00:37:37.438 - an improvement versus kind of the nothing that we are getting with the determinant sidewalk variances 00:37:44.514 --> 00:37:50.648 - Commissioner Kinsey, go ahead. I appreciate the inclusion of comparison to Indianapolis and Valparaiso 00:37:50.648 --> 00:37:56.662 - in here and wonder if you can add anything to what they've learned. What have they gained from these 00:37:56.662 --> 00:38:02.677 - provisions? Do you have any evidence that there were improvements to the number of sidewalks or more 00:38:02.677 --> 00:38:08.632 - sidewalks were available because of this? That's a great question and I and I did not get into that 00:38:08.632 --> 00:38:13.694 - kind of depth with the individuals there that I that I spoke to I was just trying to 00:38:13.954 --> 00:38:20.820 - Understand how they how they came up with their amount and you know, Indianapolis they don't have a 00:38:20.820 --> 00:38:27.686 - change in use process So their triggers for sidewalks are much less and different So, you know that 00:38:27.686 --> 00:38:34.826 - holler higher dollar amount, you know, that's going to be in the more extreme situations where you have 00:38:34.826 --> 00:38:41.761 - to do a sidewalk So they weren't trying I think balance because they don't have as many triggers for 00:38:41.761 --> 00:38:43.134 - Any other questions 00:38:46.690 --> 00:38:54.817 - Are you ready for a motion. I'm interested in Commissioner Co Radke's idea of tying this to the end 00:38:54.817 --> 00:39:03.187 - up rate as a way to make it something that we're not consistently revisiting unless we want to revisit 00:39:03.187 --> 00:39:11.314 - it for other reasons like it's not working or it's not resulting in improvements. But I think tying 00:39:11.314 --> 00:39:16.190 - it to a rate might be a more consistent way to handle this. 00:39:17.378 --> 00:39:23.549 - Mean from a staff perspective, that's fine. I would certainly welcome a commission member seaboard 00:39:23.549 --> 00:39:29.970 - perspective on the in dot Estimation values and whether or not he sees those changing or if that would 00:39:29.970 --> 00:39:31.902 - be a fair way to to base it on 00:39:47.682 --> 00:40:16.734 - I'll make a motion that we set a fee schedule 00:40:16.834 --> 00:40:29.836 - for payment in lieu of the determinant sidewalk is that determinant sidewalk variance to be fifty four 00:40:29.836 --> 00:40:42.334 - percent of the in dot posted average. I don't know if I said that very well but someone can words. 00:40:46.562 --> 00:40:58.036 - All right, so we have a motion in a second That would currently be fifteen dollars and twelve cents 00:40:58.036 --> 00:41:09.740 - is it worth it to Not do that simply because it's around like to make it a round number as opposed to 00:41:09.740 --> 00:41:13.182 - pennies off like I don't know 00:41:13.538 --> 00:41:21.651 - Well I think it only comes into play once the staff has been calculating the fee. So if they said oh 00:41:21.651 --> 00:41:30.006 - it's going to be you know three thousand six hundred and forty five dollars then it would just be that. 00:41:30.006 --> 00:41:35.870 - Does staff care about change at this point. I say do you care about the. 00:41:36.130 --> 00:41:42.934 - You know having having pennies added on to things or no it doesn't obviously we're not counting out 00:41:42.934 --> 00:41:49.737 - change and it's just you know a check that is written and it says based on the linear amount of her 00:41:49.737 --> 00:41:56.609 - frontage so you know it does not have to be an even number by any means that doesn't change anything 00:41:56.609 --> 00:42:03.413 - in us. All right. Any other discussion on this motion. Commissioner Smith good. What was the motion 00:42:03.413 --> 00:42:05.182 - we just made which which. 00:42:05.314 --> 00:42:14.803 - So the motion is that we that we set the amount for concrete and asphalt to be equal to 54% of the published 00:42:14.803 --> 00:42:23.856 - in dot values rather than a Hard-coded amount as staff had previously explained the 54 percent. Is that 00:42:23.856 --> 00:42:32.126 - where that 15 and 9 comes from? That's roughly So that just basically is saying that this will 00:42:32.706 --> 00:42:43.026 - Update annually as in the updates their numbers our numbers will follow. Okay A final discussion Mr. 00:42:43.026 --> 00:42:53.243 - Stossberg the 54% right now of the asphalt number takes it down to like 850 as opposed to the nine. 00:42:53.243 --> 00:42:54.878 - Is it worth the 00:42:55.010 --> 00:43:01.690 - separating those two things out like and I guess I have to look at staff right now and go like what's 00:43:01.690 --> 00:43:08.371 - the significant difference in terms of the asphalt and the concrete in terms of like pricing or worth 00:43:08.371 --> 00:43:15.182 - like Should should these things be tied in the same way to the percentage of the state number or should 00:43:15.182 --> 00:43:21.470 - they be two different percentages? I Think it's fine to use the same percentage for each one. I 00:43:29.890 --> 00:43:47.432 - Questions or comments. All right. Let's call the roll on the motion. Co Rodkey. Yes. Holmes. Yes. Kinsey. 00:43:47.432 --> 00:43:58.686 - Yes. Smith. No. Stossberg. No. Whistler. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Bishop. 00:43:59.522 --> 00:44:11.126 - No seabor. I lost count there. I believe that I believe that carried five to four. OK. Motion carries. 00:44:11.126 --> 00:44:23.518 - All right. We are. Is there anything else under reports resolutions communications from staff or is that the. 00:44:24.322 --> 00:44:34.139 - Nope, that is it. Well, we are ready to move on to the agenda now. All right. Now we're on to the fun 00:44:34.139 --> 00:44:43.861 - stuff. We have our first petition as you be 2025-12-0051 and Jamie Kreindler, are you presenting or? 00:44:43.861 --> 00:44:47.518 - Yeah. All right. Take it away, Jamie. 00:44:56.290 --> 00:45:04.569 - All right, Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning planner. And this case was last before you last month on June 00:45:04.569 --> 00:45:12.688 - 8th. And it's a request at 2511 North Dunn Street for primary plat approval for 14 lot subdivision of 00:45:12.688 --> 00:45:20.808 - four acres with three common area lots and 11 residential lots. And this is in the residential medium 00:45:20.808 --> 00:45:22.718 - lot R2 zoning district. 00:45:22.882 --> 00:45:30.952 - And the petitioner is also requesting three waivers before you tonight. So the first waiver is to allow 00:45:30.952 --> 00:45:38.712 - for a cul-de-sac, which is not permitted in the UDO. The second waiver is to not require 67% of the 00:45:38.712 --> 00:45:46.782 - lots to be served by alleys. And the third request is to amend the repair and buffer easement language. 00:45:49.858 --> 00:45:55.977 - So I'm going to try to go more quickly through some of the overarching information that we touched on 00:45:55.977 --> 00:46:02.276 - last month and then get into more of the findings and also the new additions to the staff report dealing 00:46:02.276 --> 00:46:08.395 - with the environmental commission, the wetland delineation, and some of the questions that were asked 00:46:08.395 --> 00:46:14.635 - last month. So I came back with that information. But a brief overview, the petitioners are Paul Pruitt 00:46:14.635 --> 00:46:18.654 - and Keith Klein. The consultants are Bynum, Fanyo, and Associates. 00:46:18.850 --> 00:46:25.804 - And currently there's one single-family dwelling on this property that's proposed to be demolished for 00:46:25.804 --> 00:46:32.623 - the creation of the new subdivision with single-family detached uses. This zoning map here shows the 00:46:32.623 --> 00:46:39.104 - surrounding land uses. So there's R2 zoning to the north and the south of the subject property. 00:46:39.104 --> 00:46:46.126 - To the east, there's a combination of R1 zoning and PUD zoning. And to the west, there's an office park 00:46:46.126 --> 00:46:48.286 - with mixed use corridor zoning. 00:46:51.074 --> 00:46:57.676 - So this quickly summarizes the hearings that have already taken place with the plan commission. This 00:46:57.676 --> 00:47:04.213 - case was first before you in January of this year on January 12th. And at that time, 15 residential 00:47:04.213 --> 00:47:10.881 - lots were proposed and two subdivision waivers were requested. So that's since been revised to reduce 00:47:10.881 --> 00:47:18.398 - the overall number of lots and to modify some of the waiver requests. And now there are three subdivision waivers. 00:47:19.970 --> 00:47:26.719 - This case was also at the Board of Zoning Appeals in February of this year on February 26th. And there 00:47:26.719 --> 00:47:33.271 - were seven variance requests. Four of those variances were approved. Three of them were denied. The 00:47:33.271 --> 00:47:39.823 - ones from minimum lot area, minimum lot width and minimum side building setback were denied. So the 00:47:39.823 --> 00:47:46.506 - petitioner after that hearing revised their plan and that impacted the overall number of lots for the 00:47:46.506 --> 00:47:47.358 - subdivision. 00:47:49.154 --> 00:47:55.832 - I'll also share that on June 17th, there was a motion to stay and that motion was denied. So that's 00:47:55.832 --> 00:48:02.577 - new information from the hearing last month. As far as the environmental commission's involvement in 00:48:02.577 --> 00:48:09.322 - this project, the proposed development was presented to the environmental commission plan commission 00:48:09.322 --> 00:48:16.535 - in December of last year. And then it was sent back to the environmental commission in January and February 00:48:16.535 --> 00:48:17.470 - of this year. 00:48:17.570 --> 00:48:24.171 - and the environmental commission declined to comment on the proposed development at that time. So we've 00:48:24.171 --> 00:48:30.771 - not since then asked for additional feedback from them since in the past on multiple occasions, they've 00:48:30.771 --> 00:48:37.245 - chosen to not provide comment. So the current plan has not been seen by the environmental commission, 00:48:37.245 --> 00:48:43.845 - but what we've seen in the past is that when we've given them the chance to provide comment, they chose 00:48:43.845 --> 00:48:44.734 - not to do so. 00:48:46.434 --> 00:48:54.146 - As far as the wetland delineation, the UDO has a definition for a wetland, and I'm not going to read 00:48:54.146 --> 00:49:01.782 - it out loud, but it's on the screen. It's also in the staff report. And there was a site visit with 00:49:01.782 --> 00:49:09.494 - the senior environmental planner last fall. There's three conditions that have to be met to classify 00:49:09.494 --> 00:49:14.686 - it as a wetland, and those conditions were not found to be met. So, 00:49:16.290 --> 00:49:23.810 - the site has not been regulated as having a wetland. It has been regulated as having an intermittent 00:49:23.810 --> 00:49:31.629 - stream and there's a definition for that in the UDO. So that's how the department has handled this case. 00:49:31.629 --> 00:49:39.372 - We've not required there to be a wetland delineation report because we did not find that the definition 00:49:39.372 --> 00:49:44.510 - of the wetland was met. There are other entities, state and federal, 00:49:44.770 --> 00:49:52.529 - Agencies that have jurisdiction over wetlands so if they found that there was determined to be a wetland 00:49:52.529 --> 00:49:59.993 - on the site their requirements would still have to be met and that would The local regulations would 00:49:59.993 --> 00:50:07.457 - be applicable in that case, but this time we've not seen that to be the case As far as the repairing 00:50:07.457 --> 00:50:10.782 - buffer easement language that is the the new 00:50:10.978 --> 00:50:19.073 - waiver that's being requested. So on the left is what the UDO's language currently states for riparian 00:50:19.073 --> 00:50:27.012 - buffer easements and on the right is how the petitioners requesting that the language is amended and 00:50:27.012 --> 00:50:35.186 - this is really to resolve any conflicts that might exist between City of Bloomington's regulations when 00:50:35.186 --> 00:50:40.766 - it comes to drainage allowances and drainage maintenance and the UDO's 00:50:41.186 --> 00:50:48.088 - requirements when it comes to the environmental factors like the riparian buffer and tree preservation 00:50:48.088 --> 00:50:55.056 - and those criteria. So this amendment would allow, would still prohibit land disturbing activity except 00:50:55.056 --> 00:51:01.958 - in the cases when CBU needed to do maintenance on the property and that's for the purpose of drainage. 00:51:01.958 --> 00:51:08.659 - So I just wanted to provide a little bit of clarity on that. The proposed plat is fairly similar to 00:51:08.659 --> 00:51:10.334 - what you saw last month. 00:51:10.626 --> 00:51:17.755 - Just a couple changes with the setbacks. Those have now been corrected on the plat before it was five 00:51:17.755 --> 00:51:24.955 - feet, which was incorrect. That's been corrected to show the eight feet, which is the R2 standard. And 00:51:24.955 --> 00:51:32.224 - that I think is actually the main change on the plat. This cul-de-sac exhibit was before you last month 00:51:32.224 --> 00:51:38.654 - as well. And that has pretty much stayed the same. So the petitioner is requesting a waiver 00:51:38.882 --> 00:51:46.276 - to allow for a cul-de-sac instead of extending the road all the way to the western boundary. And the 00:51:46.276 --> 00:51:54.036 - site plan is largely the same as well. On the landscaping plan, they did make a few minor changes, adding 00:51:54.036 --> 00:52:01.723 - some additional tree plantings and changing out some of the species, but those were pretty minor changes 00:52:01.723 --> 00:52:04.798 - overall. As far as City of Bloomington's, 00:52:05.346 --> 00:52:11.847 - Last month they did have some comments and some items that needed to be addressed. As far as we are 00:52:11.847 --> 00:52:18.479 - aware at this time, there are no major issues that have been identified by CBU. So the sanitary sewer 00:52:18.479 --> 00:52:25.241 - service is being provided through a connection to the south. So that is a change on the plan. The water 00:52:25.241 --> 00:52:31.742 - service is provided through existing water lines on Dunn Street and prior storm water comments were 00:52:31.842 --> 00:52:38.856 - were addressed in the most recent review and appear to be acceptable. CBU stated that they may have 00:52:38.856 --> 00:52:46.151 - some minor comments as this project gets closer to construction, but none that would affect the planned 00:52:46.151 --> 00:52:53.305 - commission hearing tonight. And Phil Peden from Engineering at CBU is here per your request, and he's 00:52:53.305 --> 00:52:58.846 - available for helping to explain the CBU perspective and answer any questions. 00:53:00.610 --> 00:53:07.486 - So I'll just briefly touch on some of the criteria that we evaluated in our staff report. The first 00:53:07.486 --> 00:53:14.362 - is the general compliance criteria, and besides the waivers that are being requested, we found that 00:53:14.362 --> 00:53:21.720 - all the UDO standards were met with this petition, this primary plat request, as modified by the variances 00:53:21.720 --> 00:53:25.502 - that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved in February. 00:53:27.138 --> 00:53:35.468 - There are additional criteria that are applicable to primary plots and we found that the plan is consistent 00:53:35.468 --> 00:53:43.180 - with the comprehensive plan and it's including sidewalks, tree plots, adequate road systems, public 00:53:43.180 --> 00:53:51.124 - services and public facilities are provided. For the review and decision criteria, it's mentioned that 00:53:51.124 --> 00:53:56.446 - the stormwater detention on lot two is included in a common area lot 00:53:56.610 --> 00:54:04.031 - and CBU has not identified any major issues with providing water and sewer services to this property. 00:54:04.031 --> 00:54:11.378 - And then for the three subdivision waivers, there are certain criteria that have to be evaluated, so 00:54:11.378 --> 00:54:18.653 - I'll just go through each of them pretty briefly. For the first one, the lot served by alleys, this 00:54:18.653 --> 00:54:20.254 - waiver will allow for 00:54:20.738 --> 00:54:27.375 - Mortuary preservation and a buffer between the adjoining properties, especially to the south. The unique 00:54:27.375 --> 00:54:34.013 - condition with the property in this case is that it's long and narrow and overall there's a lower number 00:54:34.013 --> 00:54:40.334 - of drive cuts. So it's accomplishing something similar to what the alleys intended to accomplish as 00:54:40.334 --> 00:54:46.719 - well. And then for the subdivision waiver from the easement language, as I mentioned before, this is 00:54:46.719 --> 00:54:49.374 - intended to accommodate both the drainage 00:54:49.666 --> 00:54:56.439 - allowances and maintenance required by CBU and the environmental preservation requirements in the UDO. 00:54:56.439 --> 00:55:03.080 - And the repairing buffer really is the unique condition in this case, taking up a fairly substantial 00:55:03.080 --> 00:55:10.116 - portion of the northwest corner of the property. And that's why the easement is required. And then lastly, 00:55:10.116 --> 00:55:15.902 - with the cul-de-sac, the planning department is not supportive of the cul-de-sac waiver 00:55:16.098 --> 00:55:22.596 - The department is supportive of the road connection to the western boundary of the site to allow for 00:55:22.596 --> 00:55:29.029 - potential connectivity in the future. And we did not find that there was a peculiar condition as to 00:55:29.029 --> 00:55:35.591 - why the cul-de-sac needed to be installed in this case. So that is a summary of the staff report. The 00:55:35.591 --> 00:55:42.025 - department is recommending that the plan commission adopt the proposed findings, approve the waiver 00:55:42.025 --> 00:55:46.078 - request to not require 67% of the lots to be served by alleys. 00:55:46.274 --> 00:55:52.517 - approve the waiver request to amend the riparian buffer easement language and deny the waiver request 00:55:52.517 --> 00:55:58.638 - to allow the cul-de-sac. And there are two conditions in the recommendation. The first having to do 00:55:58.638 --> 00:56:04.943 - with the board of zoning appeals approval. And then the second having to do with final acceptance from 00:56:04.943 --> 00:56:11.247 - CBU, which is required prior to permitting. So with that, I'll turn it back to the plan commission and 00:56:11.247 --> 00:56:15.838 - happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there a representative of the 00:56:16.002 --> 00:56:31.829 - Petitioner who'd like to present tonight All right, good evening Daniel Butler by them fanning associates 00:56:31.829 --> 00:56:39.742 - licensed civil engineer here in the state of Indiana 00:56:40.034 --> 00:56:47.123 - With me tonight is Keith Klein and Paul Pruitt. They're representing ownership So if there's any questions 00:56:47.123 --> 00:56:53.881 - that might be pertinent to them, they are here and able to answer any other questions I'll go through 00:56:53.881 --> 00:57:00.904 - real quick. Just again the history of this project. I think everyone has heard and is aware of everything 00:57:00.904 --> 00:57:08.126 - Regarding this but I'm happy to answer any questions we did start out with a denser project and this kind of 00:57:08.258 --> 00:57:16.523 - Piece of land to see what it can could be useful for and providing a road connection of Tamarack Trail 00:57:16.523 --> 00:57:24.628 - to go through it but also providing Lots that would be be able to Serve a single-family need here in 00:57:24.628 --> 00:57:33.054 - Bloomington So at one point we were using most of the land and that's over gosh over a year now has been 00:57:33.314 --> 00:57:42.278 - studies and meetings and neighborhood meeting and hearing feedback I I hope you Believe me when I say 00:57:42.278 --> 00:57:51.329 - we really are trying to marry all the things together to make this functional and work for all parties 00:57:51.329 --> 00:57:53.790 - And I hope the neighborhood 00:57:54.050 --> 00:58:01.767 - Would also believe me when I say that that we're trying to make this a project that now is r2 zoning 00:58:01.767 --> 00:58:09.561 - That's what it's zoned for now. So it's not as dense of a project and we've also taken away lots that 00:58:09.561 --> 00:58:17.279 - we could have in order to preserve trees to allow for drainage to preserve environmental features on 00:58:17.279 --> 00:58:18.654 - the site to add a 00:58:19.778 --> 00:58:28.750 - I think it's a hundred and eighty new trees to the property to to try to Make this work for everyone 00:58:28.750 --> 00:58:37.899 - So we have 11 we've now come down to 11 single-family lots with three other common lots and to be able 00:58:37.899 --> 00:58:45.982 - to preserve and in perpetuity keep the environmental trees everything on site as it is and 00:58:48.226 --> 00:58:55.492 - It is a unique, it's another one of those kind of unique rectangular lots that you've seen in the past 00:58:55.492 --> 00:59:02.829 - that it's hard to have a traditional neighborhood or what the UDO is calling a traditional neighborhood 00:59:02.829 --> 00:59:10.166 - where you would have alleys behind the homes. I don't think anyone here would say that they want those, 00:59:10.166 --> 00:59:16.798 - at least from probably the adjoining neighborhoods, and so I won't go through too much of why 00:59:16.930 --> 00:59:25.811 - Why no alleys on the perimeter of the properties of the property? But we're also asking for the riparian 00:59:25.811 --> 00:59:34.523 - buffer language waiver with this tonight and then of course I assume probably the most discussion will 00:59:34.523 --> 00:59:36.638 - be around the cul-de-sac 00:59:37.346 --> 00:59:44.834 - it's again a hammerhead turnaround that is good for police and fire and Delivery trucks in order to 00:59:44.834 --> 00:59:52.472 - not have the extension of the road to go all the way to the west Everyone is probably aware remembers 00:59:52.472 --> 01:00:00.110 - why? That this would be a good thing Again, we're not looking for this is a deal breaker by any means 01:00:00.110 --> 01:00:05.726 - we're suggesting it in terms of another thing that we could maybe save and 01:00:06.050 --> 01:00:14.783 - To make further tree preservation further less disturbance on the site Less cost to the project in order 01:00:14.783 --> 01:00:23.182 - to provide a little more affordability for these 11 homes So again that one that is 160 feet of road 01:00:23.182 --> 01:00:32.414 - on the west side There'd be you know approximate, you know $400,000 or something close to that in cost savings 01:00:32.642 --> 01:00:39.786 - it would save 21 large specimen trees on that side to do this and Minimizes disturbance. Like I said 01:00:39.786 --> 01:00:47.213 - again, I imagine there'll be most discussion around that particular waiver and so we're we're suggesting 01:00:47.213 --> 01:00:54.569 - it but again, we we understand that there is a Desire also for Tamarack Trail to hit that West property 01:00:54.569 --> 01:01:01.854 - line and have future connectivity I think everyone remembers that conversation from last month however 01:01:02.594 --> 01:01:13.886 - I'll end there for now and feel free to answer or ask questions Thank you, are there any questions from 01:01:13.886 --> 01:01:26.046 - commissioners either for staff or for the petitioner Go ahead Commissioner Stossberg Go first if they want to I 01:01:32.898 --> 01:01:38.369 - I was gonna let the other end go first. Go ahead commissioners Smith. Oh, I Forgot my reading glasses 01:01:38.369 --> 01:01:43.732 - when I zoom in it goes blurry explain the street cross-section to me. I can't see it It's two lanes 01:01:43.732 --> 01:01:49.095 - that are how many feet I Will have to get my paper. It's on it's on that. It's right. I mean I have 01:01:49.095 --> 01:01:54.673 - it right here I just can't read if they can pull up the cross-section and zoom in on it We can all look 01:01:54.673 --> 01:01:58.910 - at it, but otherwise I can grab my paperwork. I'm looking I just can't read it 01:02:05.538 --> 01:02:23.812 - so she's bringing it up so I don't have to go back to my seat. Right there at the bottom. Travel lanes 01:02:23.812 --> 01:02:35.166 - are, parking lanes are. Can anybody read it? Can you read that? 01:02:38.242 --> 01:02:47.367 - Andrew do you know I think it's a neighborhood cross-section, isn't it like a neighborhood street? One 01:02:47.367 --> 01:02:56.581 - foot gap between the property line and a sidewalk six foot wide sidewalk Looks like nine foot tree plot 01:02:56.581 --> 01:03:06.238 - curb and gutter Ten foot travel lanes to ten foot travel lanes plus extra space for parking on both sides so 01:03:06.562 --> 01:03:13.125 - Essentially four feet on each side, but because of the narrow nature of the road the transportation 01:03:13.125 --> 01:03:19.689 - plan says I think that matches the transportation plan and that just Goes on to the other side with 01:03:19.689 --> 01:03:26.318 - again curb and gutter Well, no, what's what are the travel lane widths and what are the parking lane 01:03:26.318 --> 01:03:32.947 - widths? The travel lane widths are 10 feet and there's an extra Four feet beyond the traveling width 01:03:32.947 --> 01:03:35.966 - to the face of curb on both sides of the road 01:03:37.058 --> 01:03:44.672 - The cross-section is not to scale. So I thought they were quite of on-street parking now They are I 01:03:44.672 --> 01:03:52.744 - Guess I'll keep answering the question The transportation plan suggests that for low volume local streets 01:03:52.744 --> 01:04:00.511 - like this You can have on-street parking if you have on both sides if you have a 28 foot wide roadway 01:04:00.511 --> 01:04:06.526 - surface So this is consistent with that section of for the transportation plan 01:04:07.522 --> 01:04:13.617 - That's good. Okay. All right. With regard to the hammerhead turnaround versus the connecting roads I 01:04:13.617 --> 01:04:19.954 - understand connectivity and I looked at what it was connecting to 160 feet of asphalt impervious surface 01:04:19.954 --> 01:04:26.049 - 28 feet wide. That adds four thousand dollars the cost that's thirty six thirty five thousand a lot. 01:04:26.049 --> 01:04:32.325 - We have an attainable housing problem in this community. Eleven lots on four acres is ridiculous. There 01:04:32.325 --> 01:04:36.670 - should be more here. These are going to be expensive homes and it's not 01:04:37.090 --> 01:04:42.417 - I mean I'm for the petition but I just want to say out loud that this is what's wrong with our UDO is 01:04:42.417 --> 01:04:47.849 - that we can't build attainable housing in this community and it's getting tiring. My daughter graduates 01:04:47.849 --> 01:04:53.177 - from IU next year and she's going to leave this town because we don't have attainable housing. I wish 01:04:53.177 --> 01:04:57.982 - there was more lots here. I wish I would have not dropped off Plan Commission but I had to. 01:04:58.210 --> 01:05:03.439 - I think we should not build that road through. I think we should do a hammerhead turnaround. I think 01:05:03.439 --> 01:05:08.668 - we should reduce the cost of this petitioner and try to get the cost of these houses down. Also, the 01:05:08.668 --> 01:05:14.104 - climate action plan, all of our codes talk about maintaining our natural resources, using them equitably 01:05:14.104 --> 01:05:19.436 - or reasonably or scarce resources, using them properly to pave this road and to put in these sidewalks 01:05:19.436 --> 01:05:24.665 - all the way to the adjacent property line at a cost of $400,000 isn't assisting anybody and it's not 01:05:24.665 --> 01:05:26.270 - using our resources that well. 01:05:27.074 --> 01:05:33.863 - So that's just my comments. I think I don't think we should require the builder. I think we should give 01:05:33.863 --> 01:05:40.457 - him the waiver for the call the second. All right. Let's try to keep it to questions at this at this 01:05:40.457 --> 01:05:47.312 - phase and we'll have we'll have comment later. Any more questions on this end. To my left Mr. Stossberg. 01:05:47.312 --> 01:05:48.030 - Thank you. 01:05:50.114 --> 01:05:55.923 - I have a couple questions. So first off while we're talking about that that expansion of the road and 01:05:55.923 --> 01:06:02.017 - whether or not to grant that variance on one of the the images that we were given the option if we Granted 01:06:02.017 --> 01:06:08.111 - the variance and did not extend the road. It said like future row dedication and I think that we discussed 01:06:08.111 --> 01:06:13.977 - that a little bit last time because the petitioners like willing to be like here like give this to the 01:06:13.977 --> 01:06:18.078 - city and then if you all want to build a road later you can but I'm not 01:06:18.370 --> 01:06:24.553 - I'm confused about whether that variance would actually come with that road dedication because there's 01:06:24.553 --> 01:06:30.555 - an issue of maintenance and liability if we do have that road dedication so Can staff address that? 01:06:30.555 --> 01:06:36.678 - Like if that variance is granted Would there be that road dedication that the city would have to deal 01:06:36.678 --> 01:06:42.981 - with? Granted the waiver to allow for the cul-de-sac we would not want to have that right away dedicated 01:06:42.981 --> 01:06:45.502 - for that those reasons that you just said 01:06:46.242 --> 01:06:52.782 - And amongst other things, you know, I don't see a scenario where the city would be spending money To 01:06:52.782 --> 01:06:59.322 - go in and put in a road or a facility in that area. Okay, so Does that road education come with that 01:06:59.322 --> 01:07:06.056 - waiver right now then so no They're separate things. Yeah, they just show the right of way as you know, 01:07:06.056 --> 01:07:13.438 - here's something we would give But we don't we don't desire it in this case. It's not it's not a benefit. Okay, I 01:07:13.826 --> 01:07:19.966 - Okay, great and then for the petitioner on the same time one of the other things that we talked about 01:07:19.966 --> 01:07:26.226 - last time in the Syria was the idea that you could you also wouldn't need that waiver if you had a road 01:07:26.226 --> 01:07:32.306 - Attaching to the north property in the theory that that you know if that ever got developed was that 01:07:32.306 --> 01:07:38.326 - something that you guys explored at all between the two hearings Yeah, we we looked at it again and 01:07:38.326 --> 01:07:39.710 - it is something that's 01:07:39.810 --> 01:07:45.762 - You know taking that road all the way to the north We just don't see a lot of connectivity over there 01:07:45.762 --> 01:07:51.596 - to those backyards and there is a current kind of drainage area there are so there's a drainage way 01:07:51.596 --> 01:07:57.431 - on the north side of the property and then there's another drainage way just to the property to the 01:07:57.431 --> 01:08:03.324 - north and so for those reasons We didn't draw something up per se we did look at it and we felt that 01:08:03.324 --> 01:08:07.934 - going to the west if anything would be the best solution if we chose to take a 01:08:08.098 --> 01:08:14.760 - connectivity plus tamarack trail on the Kind of the future road plan. That's the direction that it went. 01:08:14.760 --> 01:08:21.422 - Yeah. Okay. Great. Thanks. And I have one more question. That's about something different Unless anybody 01:08:21.422 --> 01:08:27.767 - wants to carry on with that. Please continue. Okay So last time the other thing that was concerning 01:08:27.767 --> 01:08:30.686 - it was the sewage access and and through that 01:08:31.010 --> 01:08:38.615 - I guess there's a Glendora property that you all have to get rid of way in order to connect to the sewage 01:08:38.615 --> 01:08:46.004 - and The it seems to say in here like all of that's fine But is that actually fine and do you have that 01:08:46.004 --> 01:08:53.179 - those permissions to connect? Yeah, yes, we do because we went in a different direction there was a 01:08:53.179 --> 01:08:56.766 - purchase of a property in on Glendora at the very 01:08:57.026 --> 01:09:05.442 - East end that did not go the same route that it did before and so we decided to go that direction instead 01:09:05.442 --> 01:09:13.381 - and have connectivity to Glendora public sewer there Rather than the original Directions and so now 01:09:13.381 --> 01:09:21.480 - we are yes approved for that. Okay direction because it is not going through a Property that we don't 01:09:21.480 --> 01:09:22.750 - have control of 01:09:23.042 --> 01:09:32.519 - Okay great and then kind of on that note especially since we have a CBU person here there has been through 01:09:32.519 --> 01:09:41.552 - this I'm not sure where the CBU person is but there's been lots of discussion with this petition with 01:09:41.552 --> 01:09:43.678 - regard to challenges in 01:09:44.386 --> 01:09:52.756 - That neighborhood with regard to their sewer and just the the volume and the the older infrastructure 01:09:52.756 --> 01:10:00.962 - that's in there being able to support these New structures, so could you speak to that at all? Sure 01:10:00.962 --> 01:10:05.886 - again Phil Peden CPU assistant director of engineering so I 01:10:06.114 --> 01:10:12.814 - This has 11 lots, and so if you look at the existing system, it's an eight-inch petrified clay pipe. 01:10:12.814 --> 01:10:19.448 - That running at minimum slope could handle over 300 homes. So what they're tying into has plenty of 01:10:19.448 --> 01:10:26.082 - capacity there downstream. Okay, and what about the issues that, I mean, maybe you don't know about 01:10:26.082 --> 01:10:32.715 - any of the issues that neighbors have brought up in terms of the leaks, the smell, all of that kind 01:10:32.715 --> 01:10:35.966 - of, those sorts of issues. Are you familiar with 01:10:36.354 --> 01:10:42.372 - I am familiar with some odor complaints and we've been pursuing that. We've put some some gauges out 01:10:42.372 --> 01:10:48.390 - in the system there to try to determine where those smells are coming from. And we believe it's from 01:10:48.390 --> 01:10:54.705 - some offsite lift stations where they discharge further upstream of Mount Long Heights. So we're pursuing 01:10:54.705 --> 01:11:00.842 - that and working with those owners of those lift stations to try to correct that. OK. But but this new 01:11:00.842 --> 01:11:04.894 - development shouldn't have continued negative effect on that issue. 01:11:06.114 --> 01:11:12.828 - No, I don't believe they're going to contribute any more than any other home in that surrounding area. 01:11:12.828 --> 01:11:19.541 - Those are from, again, long detention time in a lift station where it sits before it's pumped and then 01:11:19.541 --> 01:11:26.190 - sits in the force main a long time and then finally discharges into the gravity system. Okay, thanks. 01:11:26.190 --> 01:11:32.708 - I'd like to just follow up, Eric, on the question about the right of way here, because I'm not sure 01:11:32.708 --> 01:11:34.142 - I understand what the 01:11:35.650 --> 01:11:42.371 - city's position is on this you're saying correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're saying you would 01:11:42.371 --> 01:11:46.430 - not want the right away dedicated if the road weren't built. 01:11:47.394 --> 01:11:52.431 - Correct if the decision is made to stop the road at a certain location We would not want that right 01:11:52.431 --> 01:11:57.517 - away dedicated beyond there because it just brings with us a responsibility and a liability for that 01:11:57.517 --> 01:12:02.554 - land that is That's a city owns So if there are issues of trees that are coming down or maintenance 01:12:02.554 --> 01:12:07.842 - problems, you know that would fall squarely on the city But how is that different if the road were built 01:12:07.842 --> 01:12:10.814 - if the roads built the city's got to maintain it, right? I 01:12:11.266 --> 01:12:16.566 - Sure, but it's got improvements within there that you know, we accept, you know So there are situations 01:12:16.566 --> 01:12:21.712 - where folks dedicate right away and they build those required improvements within there But in terms 01:12:21.712 --> 01:12:26.961 - of areas within the city where there's right away Dedicated and don't have any improvements in general 01:12:26.961 --> 01:12:32.210 - in this situation. Like what would be the benefit? You know why benefit would be preserving the option 01:12:32.210 --> 01:12:37.458 - to connect the road at some point which I think is the the first principle here right could the reason 01:12:37.458 --> 01:12:40.414 - we have this in the first place is to be able to maintain 01:12:40.930 --> 01:12:47.656 - connectivity and and I mean what I'm hearing is that the city's position is we'd rather See that option 01:12:47.656 --> 01:12:54.188 - go away forever than have to maintain an unimproved Space, I guess, you know when when we have these 01:12:54.188 --> 01:12:59.038 - conversations and and we've had a couple there have been a couple problems 01:12:59.298 --> 01:13:04.451 - Projects where we've talked about the idea of dedicating right away But not building a road in there 01:13:04.451 --> 01:13:09.604 - and at some point in the future somebody will come in and build it You know, we can't obviously make 01:13:09.604 --> 01:13:14.706 - the current owner come and build it, you know, they're not bonding for it So to dedicate right away 01:13:14.706 --> 01:13:19.962 - with the intention that at some point in the future the city or the taxpayers would fund that on their 01:13:19.962 --> 01:13:25.115 - own You know, that's that's very taxing on city resources, you know, if we want the road to be built 01:13:25.115 --> 01:13:25.982 - build it now and 01:13:26.178 --> 01:13:38.041 - If not, then allow all of that to be in common area and owned by the owners there. Hold on. How is that 01:13:38.041 --> 01:13:49.790 - policy codified or decided? Well, it's not codified in situations, and they're situational, certainly. 01:13:50.114 --> 01:13:55.506 - when somebody wants to dedicate right away like this, we look at what are the advantages. So yes, we 01:13:55.506 --> 01:14:00.844 - can certainly have them dedicate the right of way. There's no harm in that, but if we're looking at 01:14:00.844 --> 01:14:06.289 - what is the reality of the city coming in, we can't make the adjacent property owner come into it. So 01:14:06.289 --> 01:14:11.735 - it's just a, what would be the benefit of that? Certainly we can have them dedicate the right of way. 01:14:11.735 --> 01:14:17.180 - It's highly unlikely the city is ever gonna spend the money to put in that road, though. How is that, 01:14:17.180 --> 01:14:19.582 - I mean, is that just a staff level decision? 01:14:19.810 --> 01:14:26.447 - whether we want to have that right away dedicated or not or is there something in written policy somewhere 01:14:26.447 --> 01:14:32.773 - that I mean I would say it's a staff level from aggregation of comments from a lot of departments you 01:14:32.773 --> 01:14:39.162 - know not not just planning but engineering public works you know the people that actually be designing 01:14:39.162 --> 01:14:45.054 - the project putting in the money to build it you know their intention would be build it now or 01:14:45.410 --> 01:14:52.301 - don't build it but don't put it out there with the belief that at some point the city's gonna come in 01:14:52.301 --> 01:14:59.259 - and build it. If we wanted to do what we just did for sidewalks, it seems like the obvious answer here 01:14:59.259 --> 01:15:06.149 - is allow for some payment in lieu. We're not gonna build it today. It doesn't make any sense to build 01:15:06.149 --> 01:15:12.905 - it today. Nobody's gonna drive on it until the adjacent property is redeveloped. What would it take 01:15:12.905 --> 01:15:13.918 - for us to have 01:15:14.562 --> 01:15:21.091 - that as an option on the table for a situation like this? That's a great question. And I don't have 01:15:21.091 --> 01:15:28.078 - an answer for a mechanism in the UDO that allows for that. The payment in lieu just talks about pedestrian 01:15:28.078 --> 01:15:34.607 - improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes. To have that same thing for a road, we would need to build in, 01:15:34.607 --> 01:15:41.267 - I guess, a similar process for the payment in lieu. So it doesn't exist now. Could we build in? Yeah, 01:15:41.267 --> 01:15:43.422 - probably. But it would just take 01:15:44.034 --> 01:15:50.625 - A U.D.O. amendment. Something yes. Build in a process for it and then set you know just as we just did 01:15:50.625 --> 01:15:57.152 - you know a dollar amount for it. I would like to hear from other departments if there's any objection 01:15:57.152 --> 01:16:04.063 - to that because it seems like something we just obviously should. I mean I think the challenge the inherent 01:16:04.063 --> 01:16:10.654 - challenge with that is it is it defeats the connectivity purpose that we're trying to accomplish here. 01:16:10.654 --> 01:16:12.830 - You know certainly you can have a 01:16:13.026 --> 01:16:18.128 - transportation commissioner, somebody review whether or not that cul-de-sac, but that's the planning 01:16:18.128 --> 01:16:23.432 - commission's job, you know, to decide when that connectivity is the most important. But we can certainly 01:16:23.432 --> 01:16:28.635 - look into what a process might look like. I would argue it doesn't defeat the purpose. It achieves two 01:16:28.635 --> 01:16:33.283 - purposes, right? It keeps costs down for now while keeping the option of that connectivity. 01:16:33.283 --> 01:16:38.334 - Because we're not, even if we build it today, and I know I'm getting into comments now, but even if 01:16:38.334 --> 01:16:39.294 - we build it today, 01:16:39.522 --> 01:16:46.768 - We're not achieving connectivity because it's not connecting to anything. We only achieve connectivity 01:16:46.768 --> 01:16:54.366 - when it connects to the next property. So I would rather see us keep that option open than see it disappear 01:16:54.366 --> 01:17:01.401 - entirely. Anyway, thank you for indulging me. Any other questions? Commissioner Kinsey. I do have a 01:17:01.401 --> 01:17:03.582 - question for Bill Peden again. 01:17:03.682 --> 01:17:09.340 - Around the stormwater management. I know that was also an issue and I don't know if you could address 01:17:09.340 --> 01:17:14.887 - that in some of your current What's your evaluation or sense of the stormwater management? Yeah, so 01:17:14.887 --> 01:17:20.435 - we've completed our review of that. We have no further comments So it's gonna be approvable at this 01:17:20.435 --> 01:17:25.982 - point for stormwater and I think I think a big part of that was for the folks that are concerned is 01:17:26.114 --> 01:17:32.661 - The basin is 16 acres that goes through there. And so the responsibility of the developer and what's 01:17:32.661 --> 01:17:39.402 - in our code is to is to provide detention for what's on site. So that that area of disturbance is about 01:17:39.402 --> 01:17:45.949 - three acres. So they're going to reduce the flow off of their site only. That's what our requirement 01:17:45.949 --> 01:17:51.134 - is. And still there's another 12 acres of offsite that's passing through there. 01:17:51.362 --> 01:17:59.461 - They they have met that requirement and they've decreased what was four point six seven cubic feet per 01:17:59.461 --> 01:18:07.482 - second in the pre-developed and they've reduced that to one point three five CFS It after they've put 01:18:07.482 --> 01:18:15.660 - their detention upon it. Okay. I appreciate your technical explanation here help me translate that into 01:18:15.660 --> 01:18:21.086 - the concerns that I heard from the neighbors about increasing runoff 01:18:22.050 --> 01:18:27.682 - Can you explain it and yeah, so there's two parts to really what they've done to decrease what's going 01:18:27.682 --> 01:18:33.150 - to affect the neighbors and that's a goal of our design standards so we look when we do a review we 01:18:33.150 --> 01:18:39.000 - want to see how it's going to impact the neighbors and we want to reduce the impact as minimal as possible 01:18:39.000 --> 01:18:44.687 - so what they did they added the roadway which is therefore intercepting some of the flow that was going 01:18:44.687 --> 01:18:45.726 - to go south to the 01:18:45.890 --> 01:18:52.642 - Five lots that are closest to Dunn Street and then they also added a rear yard swale So anything that 01:18:52.642 --> 01:18:59.593 - comes off the back of the house is also being intercepted It travels west through that swale to an inlet 01:18:59.593 --> 01:19:06.212 - that's piped to the detention pond So they've they've captured area that is was going off-site onto 01:19:06.212 --> 01:19:12.766 - those lots from their development and they've routed it through the pond which is then detained by 01:19:12.866 --> 01:19:20.329 - by close to 25 percent reduction from what was previously being released. So anything downstream of 01:19:20.329 --> 01:19:27.867 - the pond as far as the development is concerned they've reduced that to 25 percent of what it was in 01:19:27.867 --> 01:19:35.330 - the pre developed scenario. So they're they're reducing the runoff by at least 25 percent for their 01:19:35.330 --> 01:19:42.718 - site. But again that's only three to four acres of a 16 acre drainage basin. Right. OK. Thank you. 01:19:45.762 --> 01:19:58.083 - Any other questions. Thank you for coming back again. So we have rules on how we are supposed to answer 01:19:58.083 --> 01:20:10.760 - these questions and we're asked to grant the waiver. So this is about the cul-de-sac waiver the conditions 01:20:10.760 --> 01:20:15.262 - upon which the request for the waiver 01:20:15.458 --> 01:20:21.465 - Is based are supposed to be unique to the property and in court cases of these things what that consistently 01:20:21.465 --> 01:20:26.976 - means is it's not caused by the plan. It's unique to the property. You can't build on this property 01:20:26.976 --> 01:20:32.542 - without getting the waiver. It's not because of my plan. It's because of the property. So what is it 01:20:32.542 --> 01:20:38.329 - about the property that requires a cul-de-sac because the way I read it and it's the correct way frankly 01:20:38.329 --> 01:20:44.446 - we can't grant a waiver for it unless there's something unique to the property that is distinct from the plan. 01:20:44.834 --> 01:20:53.121 - That's a requiring a cul-de-sac. So what is it? great question the West side of this property and really 01:20:53.121 --> 01:21:01.566 - a lot of the property has had a lot of mature trees and that's Understandably a concern from the neighbors 01:21:01.566 --> 01:21:06.302 - that some of these would be taken down in order to put in a 01:21:06.434 --> 01:21:13.290 - This new development and so we're trying to as best as we can reduce that as much as possible So one 01:21:13.290 --> 01:21:20.213 - unique feature of this is there's a lot of tree canopy cover, which we achieved a variance at the BZA 01:21:20.213 --> 01:21:27.273 - level already however to the west is a lot of environmental sensitive area and now we tried to Maneuver 01:21:27.273 --> 01:21:33.246 - the road. So if we decide to build it, we already gave you a design that would work and 01:21:33.666 --> 01:21:41.028 - That would maneuver around the low-line area in the northwest corner of the site so that can maintain 01:21:41.028 --> 01:21:48.245 - as is and be undisturbed and then still Go around that however Just the environmental features that 01:21:48.245 --> 01:21:55.679 - are on the west side of the site We would say that that is unique to this property that's not on every 01:21:55.679 --> 01:21:58.782 - site that would in our suggestion would be 01:21:59.330 --> 01:22:07.090 - You could build it later and that that would save some of the environmental tree and trees on that side 01:22:07.090 --> 01:22:14.625 - of the property That's what I would say to that question Okay, is there no other plan for developing 01:22:14.625 --> 01:22:19.102 - this site that wouldn't require the waiver? Yeah, you would 01:22:19.522 --> 01:22:27.322 - As the further you get to the west, the more environmental and mature trees you get into. So the more 01:22:27.322 --> 01:22:35.351 - that you get into that side of the site, then yes, there would be more of that need for that. But again, 01:22:35.351 --> 01:22:43.380 - we married the functionality of having the turnaround. Where would that go in preserving the most amount 01:22:43.380 --> 01:22:48.350 - of trees possible? But yeah, the environmentally sensitive areas 01:22:48.450 --> 01:22:55.469 - more to the west But so to answer the question though, is there no other plan? Can you come up? I mean, 01:22:55.469 --> 01:23:02.285 - I realize you're not going to submit a new plan like this But I mean could someone else come up with 01:23:02.285 --> 01:23:09.169 - a plan that doesn't require a cul-de-sac And develop this property not 90% your plan and make a tweak 01:23:09.169 --> 01:23:16.188 - to it But is it possible to develop this property without this waiver? If you want to do r2 zoning with 01:23:16.188 --> 01:23:18.078 - the 7200 lot minimum and to 01:23:18.626 --> 01:23:25.296 - This is the way to develop it No, I don't so there's no possibly it would be like geometrically impossible 01:23:25.296 --> 01:23:31.780 - to develop the property you would you could get less slots You could put part of the plan with respect. 01:23:31.780 --> 01:23:38.138 - That's a facet of the plan, right? We can't save an aspect of the plan by going to a waiver We're not 01:23:38.138 --> 01:23:44.435 - allowed to do that. It has to be you can't build without it, right? So that's what I'm trying to get 01:23:44.435 --> 01:23:47.614 - at constrained and when we can grant these waivers 01:23:49.986 --> 01:23:56.736 - Struggling to see a staff doesn't see that there was anything unique to the land that required The cul-de-sac 01:23:56.736 --> 01:24:02.872 - and so I'm just my opportunity like I'm giving you the opportunity. What is it? What is why is this 01:24:02.872 --> 01:24:09.315 - required? Because we have to have that in order to say yes to the waiver, right? I think that that would 01:24:09.315 --> 01:24:15.943 - be my answer to that still that In order to have an r2 zoning here now. We've talked about this in previous 01:24:15.943 --> 01:24:19.870 - Plan Commission sessions that You you could you would only get? 01:24:20.802 --> 01:24:28.343 - 123 lots at the most because of need for other waivers then in order to achieve, you know having Several 01:24:28.343 --> 01:24:35.596 - connections to Dunn Street rather than having a central road that then connects You know the overall 01:24:35.596 --> 01:24:42.921 - development. So when I say there is no other way there is Obviously other ways to design it, but this 01:24:42.921 --> 01:24:50.462 - would be the way that lines up engineering wise to tamarack trail that's already there and then having a 01:24:50.594 --> 01:24:57.577 - to avoid the most amount of environmentally sensitive areas on the site and avoid the most amount of 01:24:57.577 --> 01:25:04.974 - trees. I think we achieved that. And that's why I say that this is the best design and why it was designed 01:25:04.974 --> 01:25:11.957 - that way. Thank you. Just quick follow up on that. Is there any neighborhood there's no neighborhood 01:25:11.957 --> 01:25:18.110 - configuration that wouldn't require the road to go all the way through. Is that correct. 01:25:19.106 --> 01:25:25.541 - Well from the staff's perspective from the UTO UTO requires that all new single-family lots front on 01:25:25.541 --> 01:25:32.103 - a public street So, you know based on how the lot is laid out now, you know The only way to accomplish 01:25:32.103 --> 01:25:38.538 - new lots without a road going through the center of it is solely with frontage on the more curb cuts 01:25:38.538 --> 01:25:45.100 - on Yeah, I mean in reality you well, you've got the depth of width ratio that would maybe probably not 01:25:45.100 --> 01:25:48.222 - even allow any right, so then So I think that is 01:25:48.450 --> 01:25:54.857 - There really is no other Yeah, so in order to in reality orders the only way to subdivide this property 01:25:54.857 --> 01:26:01.264 - is to create a public road down the center of it Or in some capacity so that you can have lots of front 01:26:01.264 --> 01:26:07.424 - off of that street Thanks without a waiver, of course, and that's what my point was with a depth to 01:26:07.424 --> 01:26:13.831 - width ratio You could get a waiver from that but it would also require way of a different sort And then 01:26:13.831 --> 01:26:16.542 - you'd have multiple drives fronting on done 01:26:18.850 --> 01:26:26.190 - Any other questions? All right. We will then go to public comment on sub twenty twenty five dash twelve 01:26:26.190 --> 01:26:33.389 - dash double oh five one. If you are here in the chambers and you would like to make comment just make 01:26:33.389 --> 01:26:40.517 - your way up to the podium state your name for the record please before you start making your comment 01:26:40.517 --> 01:26:47.998 - there is a little sign in sheet there as well. If you're joining us online and you'd like to make comment 01:26:48.290 --> 01:26:56.093 - You can click on the reactions button and raise your hand or you can send a chat message to the meeting 01:26:56.093 --> 01:27:03.897 - host and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak and we will Allow five minutes per speaker 01:27:03.897 --> 01:27:11.550 - tonight And there will be a timer up on the screen so you can keep track of where where you stand and 01:27:12.194 --> 01:27:18.270 - Go ahead take it away. Jason McCauley on behalf of many of the concerned north side neighbors many of 01:27:18.270 --> 01:27:24.525 - whom reside in Matlock Heights. What I'm going to speak about is not about one of the requested waivers. 01:27:24.525 --> 01:27:30.661 - I'll incorporate some comments about it. But this is fundamentally one issue that I want to talk about 01:27:30.661 --> 01:27:36.678 - and it's about a wetland that everyone refers to as a wetland but nobody wants to figure out whether 01:27:36.678 --> 01:27:41.086 - it's actually a wetland because no one wants to do a wetland delineation. 01:27:41.218 --> 01:27:49.428 - Okay. There was one visit into that in October of 2025 by our environmental senior planner. And at that 01:27:49.428 --> 01:27:57.716 - time she found that there was a substantial amount of water and wet soil and that the area was retaining 01:27:57.716 --> 01:28:06.321 - water. There are three indicators that have to be found. Actually let me back up. There are three indicators 01:28:06.321 --> 01:28:10.110 - of a wetland only one of which has to be found. 01:28:12.386 --> 01:28:19.933 - it to be indicative of the UDO to require a wetland delineation one of those was found but instead of 01:28:19.933 --> 01:28:27.407 - requiring a wetland delineation there was later on a determination based upon that one visit that no 01:28:27.407 --> 01:28:35.028 - delineation was required okay so I also want to address there's a letter that was addressed to members 01:28:35.028 --> 01:28:38.654 - of the Commission that stated that it's not your 01:28:38.754 --> 01:28:45.673 - obligation and you're not empowered or have the authority to require a wetland delineation. 01:28:45.673 --> 01:28:53.194 - That is incorrect. You have the authority under your general provisions under Section 2660 B3E. You 01:28:53.194 --> 01:29:00.414 - approve with conditions or deny based on the general approval criteria and the flood standards. 01:29:01.026 --> 01:29:07.625 - You're not required to do anything just because of the flood standards. This is under your general approval 01:29:07.625 --> 01:29:14.041 - criteria. And those criteria require you to find that this plat minimizes adverse impacts to the natural 01:29:14.041 --> 01:29:20.334 - environment, expressly including water, stormwater management and soils, and the stormwater facilities 01:29:20.334 --> 01:29:26.750 - are adequate. Those findings must rest on competent material and substantial evidence. The record before 01:29:26.750 --> 01:29:28.766 - you right now is devoid of that. 01:29:28.994 --> 01:29:35.541 - There's a June 12th of this year, the applicant's own professional engineer described the feature that 01:29:35.541 --> 01:29:41.960 - receives this project stormwater as a wetland. The environmental planner described this feature as a 01:29:41.960 --> 01:29:48.443 - wetland. Now we discussed this at the prior hearing that a wetland, just because we call it is, there 01:29:48.443 --> 01:29:54.926 - has to be a delineation to figure out if it's in fact a wetland. Everybody has turned their head away 01:29:54.926 --> 01:29:57.214 - from this for one reason or another 01:29:57.346 --> 01:30:04.893 - They don't want to ask the question. They don't want to do the report on behalf of my clients I reached 01:30:04.893 --> 01:30:12.584 - out to counsel for the developers and we offered to hire at our cost a Wetland a certified soil scientist 01:30:12.584 --> 01:30:20.058 - to do the what the wetland delineation We asked for access to do that within a 30-day time frame. They 01:30:20.058 --> 01:30:23.614 - declined Why this matters is that the stormwater 01:30:24.098 --> 01:30:30.641 - And the plan, the plat that's put before you is that the stormwater discharges into this wetland. Under 01:30:30.641 --> 01:30:36.995 - the code, section 200430G says that stormwater discharge into a wetland may not be increased over or 01:30:36.995 --> 01:30:43.538 - substantially reduced below its pre-existing rate. You don't have those numbers in front of you because 01:30:43.538 --> 01:30:50.207 - we don't know that it's a wetland or not. But the UDO requires you to know that because we have different 01:30:50.207 --> 01:30:53.982 - rules if it is a wetland. We're asking you to do one thing. 01:30:54.082 --> 01:31:00.603 - You've got a condition that was placed in front of each of you. You have the authority to order a wetland 01:31:00.603 --> 01:31:07.001 - delineation. We have offered to pay for it. That condition is very succinct, and it is in front of you, 01:31:07.001 --> 01:31:13.461 - and we're asking you that if you do approve this plat, that you approve it conditioned to the petitioner 01:31:13.461 --> 01:31:19.736 - performing a wetland delineation to make sure, because there's no going back. Once they start feeding 01:31:19.736 --> 01:31:22.750 - water into this and they've ripped out the trees 01:31:22.882 --> 01:31:28.812 - The detention facility is constructed. There is no going back. We can't do it after the fact There is 01:31:28.812 --> 01:31:34.625 - this will not set them back in the in the sake of housing and having affordable housing This is not 01:31:34.625 --> 01:31:40.555 - going to be a delay between now and their secondary plow approval This can be performed and it can be 01:31:40.555 --> 01:31:46.892 - performed with no harm to the petitioner There will be no cost to the petitioner the the Northside neighbors 01:31:46.892 --> 01:31:49.566 - have have willingly offered to pay for it and 01:31:49.986 --> 01:32:03.182 - And so we would ask that if you do approve this plan, that you do so subject to the condition that's 01:32:03.182 --> 01:32:16.769 - put before each of you tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment? 01:32:16.769 --> 01:32:19.774 - My name is Greg Grant. 01:32:19.906 --> 01:32:26.553 - I live at the corner of East Lakewood and North Dunn Street in the Blue Ridge neighborhood just to the 01:32:26.553 --> 01:32:33.393 - north of the proposed development in Matlock Heights. I will focus on the need to scientifically evaluate 01:32:33.393 --> 01:32:40.105 - the possible wetland. However, I must also state that in my view, the developer's latest proposal still 01:32:40.105 --> 01:32:46.558 - provides a very poor fit with the surrounding low to moderate density Matlock Heights neighborhood. 01:32:47.490 --> 01:32:53.888 - Claims that this plan will expand the availability of affordable family-friendly housing have not been 01:32:53.888 --> 01:33:00.535 - supported by the developer nor by any other evaluation reviewable by the public. My conclusion, therefore, 01:33:00.535 --> 01:33:06.748 - is that the negative impacts from the plan's poor fit, especially impacts on the closest neighbors, 01:33:06.748 --> 01:33:12.960 - traffic, noise, privacy loss, wildlife habitat loss are highly unlikely to be offset by benefits to 01:33:12.960 --> 01:33:15.134 - the Bloomington community overall. 01:33:17.314 --> 01:33:25.764 - Turning to the the need for a scientific evaluation You can go back slide This lot was deemed suitable 01:33:25.764 --> 01:33:34.295 - originally for only a single house for reasons that had become more valid with time especially the lots 01:33:34.295 --> 01:33:41.022 - central role in drainage of stormwater for the entire Griffey Creek watershed and 01:33:41.794 --> 01:33:47.970 - Neighbors have experienced more flooding recently, likely due to, at least in part, the reported cutting 01:33:47.970 --> 01:33:54.088 - of some trees by the current property owner, thus increasing runoff and sedimentation of the stormwater 01:33:54.088 --> 01:34:00.382 - channels, including the pond area at the back of the lot. Typical of wetlands, this pond area has provided 01:34:00.382 --> 01:34:06.382 - important values to the Matlock Heights neighborhood, but also to the entire city and beyond. Slowing 01:34:06.382 --> 01:34:10.558 - stormwater flow to minimize erosion of land and related sedimentation. 01:34:11.106 --> 01:34:17.640 - also reducing water pollution from chemicals in runoff from our streets and our yards, while simultaneously 01:34:17.640 --> 01:34:23.690 - providing for wildlife habitat, especially for endangered species. Therefore, this pond area should 01:34:23.690 --> 01:34:29.800 - be evaluated by qualified wetland scientists to determine if the level of protection consistent with 01:34:29.800 --> 01:34:36.031 - the scientific definition of the wetland would be more appropriate, rather than basically allowing the 01:34:36.031 --> 01:34:38.814 - developer to decide its degree of protection. 01:34:40.994 --> 01:34:49.703 - And to give you a little better view of what we're really talking about You can see from this picture 01:34:49.703 --> 01:34:58.498 - a Very visible pond but around that pond if you go to the next slide You'll see the next slide, please 01:34:58.498 --> 01:35:07.378 - You can see the pond in the upper left-hand corner But this circle is drawn around the entire area that 01:35:07.378 --> 01:35:10.110 - is water soaked behind the pond 01:35:10.658 --> 01:35:18.325 - So, you know the area we're talking about is not just what's invisible. It's a much larger area Next 01:35:18.325 --> 01:35:26.145 - slide skip the text. There you go Now this short video, can you run the video? Okay, it's running From 01:35:26.145 --> 01:35:33.812 - the neighboring property immediately to the north shows a primary water flow toward the pond extends 01:35:33.812 --> 01:35:35.710 - from the neighbor's yard 01:35:36.290 --> 01:35:42.234 - Additionally, it appears a substantial channel exists in the neighbors property along the fence line 01:35:42.234 --> 01:35:48.472 - Can you run it again? This channel could divert runoff from the 2511 lot directly into the pond bypassing 01:35:48.472 --> 01:35:54.651 - the planned detention basin Therefore the riparian easement identified by the developers drawing appears 01:35:54.651 --> 01:36:00.830 - incomplete Particularly if the easement is for access for maintenance or requires the neighbors approval 01:36:00.830 --> 01:36:05.950 - as well has a riparian easement been identified and approved for the neighbors lot and 01:36:06.754 --> 01:36:16.652 - Next slide, please This this video this short video shows the flow of water into the pond area from 01:36:16.652 --> 01:36:25.757 - the ravine to the north which is basically Draining the lots six matlock Heights lots north 01:36:25.757 --> 01:36:35.358 - of the development lot and four lots at the top of the ravine in the Blue Ridge neighborhood and 01:36:36.322 --> 01:36:43.335 - For this reason, these lots to the north, like the lot at 2511 Dunn, was naturally limited to a couple 01:36:43.335 --> 01:36:50.689 - hundred feet from Dunn Street, between one third and one half of the lot's total depths. As their backyards 01:36:50.689 --> 01:36:57.770 - slope off into the ravine, this ravine forms a natural channel for the Griffey Creek watershed, flowing 01:36:57.770 --> 01:37:03.966 - directly toward the pond area at the back of the 2511 Dunn Street lot. Next slide, please. 01:37:04.930 --> 01:37:13.699 - And this video shows the natural, the overflow from the natural depression, forming the wetland-like 01:37:13.699 --> 01:37:22.467 - pond area. And this overflow is being channeled with some berming, so the overflow goes mostly under 01:37:22.467 --> 01:37:31.409 - the driveway created within the commercial lot to the west. That's awfully slow, sorry about that. And 01:37:31.409 --> 01:37:34.014 - go to the, okay, well I have, 01:37:34.114 --> 01:37:48.672 - More comments at all submit. Thank you Hello, my name is Julia Livingston and I live at 2641 North Dunn 01:37:48.672 --> 01:37:57.630 - I am part of a group of neighbors that you see here tonight and 01:37:57.794 --> 01:38:05.003 - who have come together in a very sustained effort to protect the character, beauty, and peace of our 01:38:05.003 --> 01:38:12.427 - neighborhood, the value of our properties, and the environmentally sensitive land and native trees that 01:38:12.427 --> 01:38:19.637 - make up what our neighbors like to call Sinclair Woods. Our persistence and the hundreds of hours of 01:38:19.637 --> 01:38:26.775 - sustained effort is fueled by the belief that we live in a town in which our voices matter and that 01:38:26.775 --> 01:38:27.774 - if we show up 01:38:27.874 --> 01:38:36.051 - and speak out, we will be protected by its laws and historical norms. Our group is truly democracy in 01:38:36.051 --> 01:38:41.022 - action. I would like to bring to the Commissioner's attention 01:38:41.250 --> 01:38:48.293 - to the intermittent stream, again, that flows across the western ends of all of the five properties 01:38:48.293 --> 01:38:55.476 - just to the north of 2511 North Dunn. Maybe go back to the first slide, thanks. As you can see in the 01:38:55.476 --> 01:39:02.800 - overview, the water flows in a path, the blue dotted line from a high point, that's Blue Ridge up there 01:39:02.800 --> 01:39:05.406 - at the beginning of the dotted line. 01:39:06.050 --> 01:39:15.075 - and it flows from up there across our property as the next one, and then all the continuing four other 01:39:15.075 --> 01:39:24.189 - properties down to the pond. As you can see, this is such a beautifully wooded area and is part of what 01:39:24.189 --> 01:39:33.214 - makes Bloomington Bloomington and Matlock Heights, Matlock Heights. You can also see in the next image 01:39:33.634 --> 01:39:40.776 - the streaming and pooling of water through our own wooded land at the west end of our property in photos 01:39:40.776 --> 01:39:47.715 - taken last March. The soil in this area is remarkably moist with water soaked areas most of the year. 01:39:47.715 --> 01:39:54.517 - This is also true of the west ends of our neighbor's properties. All of this water adds to the flow 01:39:54.517 --> 01:39:58.462 - of the water onto the property of 2511 from other sources 01:39:58.562 --> 01:40:07.403 - as it makes its way to the northwest corner, filling the pond and flooding the surrounding land. The 01:40:07.403 --> 01:40:16.244 - developers have said that they will reduce the volume, the rate of flow, but not really in the past, 01:40:16.244 --> 01:40:25.173 - the volume that will be passing through. And we living there know that this loss of trees who soak up 01:40:25.173 --> 01:40:28.062 - hundreds of gallons of water and 01:40:28.386 --> 01:40:37.042 - our actual lived experience in this area that this will increase our flooding. We've also taken note 01:40:37.042 --> 01:40:46.126 - that the city's utilities engineer both called and the developers engineer both called the area including 01:40:46.126 --> 01:40:54.782 - the surrounding pond at the northwest end of the property a wetland yet again no wetland delineation 01:40:55.330 --> 01:41:03.342 - has been made in giving guidance to property owners and developers. The Indiana Department of Environmental 01:41:03.342 --> 01:41:10.983 - and Management item advises you should not begin to plan or lay out your site or development until you 01:41:10.983 --> 01:41:18.772 - have had a wetland delineation completed and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This guidance 01:41:18.772 --> 01:41:20.478 - has not been followed. 01:41:22.978 --> 01:41:29.785 - As we look at the basis on which the city planning department made as our lawyer said the decision not 01:41:29.785 --> 01:41:36.723 - to require wetland delineation of the site that was made only after one visit by a city planner in which 01:41:36.723 --> 01:41:42.142 - who reported that the three attributes of a wetland did not appear to be present. 01:41:43.522 --> 01:41:49.941 - This prompted me to ask the city planners if the petitioners had conducted a wetland survey, a car survey, 01:41:49.941 --> 01:41:56.300 - and if soil borings had been done. I was told no when I asked if the environmental commission had weighed 01:41:56.300 --> 01:42:02.599 - in on the petitioners plans for this environmentally sensitive land. Strangely, no. When our group asked 01:42:02.599 --> 01:42:08.718 - the petitioners through their lawyer for a one-time entrance to the property, we were told no so that 01:42:08.718 --> 01:42:11.358 - we could have a wetland delineation report. 01:42:11.970 --> 01:42:20.570 - Given the lack of actual fact on which to base such an important and required determination, we respectfully 01:42:20.570 --> 01:42:28.855 - ask the plan commission members to allow a continuance of the case until an official wetland delineation 01:42:28.855 --> 01:42:31.774 - has been made. Thank you. Thank you. 01:42:43.170 --> 01:42:51.979 - Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jeannie Green, Jeannie Reem, and I'm a resident 01:42:51.979 --> 01:43:00.135 - of Matlock neighborhood. I'm here tonight to voice my concern regarding the proposed development at 01:43:00.135 --> 01:43:08.373 - 2511 North Dunn Street, specifically focusing on stormwater mitigation, public safety, and long-term 01:43:08.373 --> 01:43:10.494 - developer accountability. 01:43:12.290 --> 01:43:20.647 - First, we must address stormwater mitigation. As we have witnessed this year, flooding is a critical 01:43:20.647 --> 01:43:29.169 - issue already impacting many Matlock Heights residents. While the developers have proposed a retention 01:43:29.169 --> 01:43:37.856 - basin, it is not a comprehensive plan. We need concrete technical details. Specifically, who will manage 01:43:37.856 --> 01:43:41.662 - this basin long term? Will there be training? 01:43:41.794 --> 01:43:50.391 - and maintenance records. What is the inspection schedule to monitor the drainage and prevent algae growth. 01:43:50.391 --> 01:43:58.586 - We've seen that in our nation's capital as a problem lately. Given this will sit here given that this 01:43:58.586 --> 01:44:06.621 - will be near a residential area. What safety measures will be implemented to ensure that this basin 01:44:06.621 --> 01:44:10.558 - does not pose a hazard to neighborhood children. 01:44:12.898 --> 01:44:21.657 - My second point, second is vital infrastructure and emergency access questions remain unanswered. A 01:44:21.657 --> 01:44:30.678 - four acre development introduces significant logistical demands. Has adequate space been allocated for 01:44:30.678 --> 01:44:39.525 - essential sewer, water, and utility lines? Will utility providers have unhindered access to maintain 01:44:39.525 --> 01:44:40.926 - their services? 01:44:42.530 --> 01:44:51.455 - Will the site layout allow full immediate access for fire and emergency vehicles? Finally, we need to 01:44:51.455 --> 01:45:00.205 - address developer accountability. Will the developers simply build on this lot, sell the units, and 01:45:00.205 --> 01:45:08.955 - then move on to their next project? When infrastructure or drainage issues inevitably arise at 2511 01:45:08.955 --> 01:45:11.230 - North Dunn, who steps in? 01:45:12.674 --> 01:45:20.071 - who will finance and maintain the common grounds and infrastructure outside of individual homeowner 01:45:20.071 --> 01:45:27.765 - lots. On these last two points if the developer moves on will the city assume responsibility for future 01:45:27.765 --> 01:45:35.236 - problems of drainage algae control street upkeep and tree control. While Bloomington desires housing 01:45:35.236 --> 01:45:41.598 - growth it must not come at the expense of established homeowners who have invested in 01:45:41.858 --> 01:45:50.777 - maintained and sustained this community for years. I urge the commission to defer approval until more 01:45:50.777 --> 01:45:59.696 - questions have been answered. Thank you very much for your time. Anybody have questions for him here. 01:45:59.696 --> 01:46:05.118 - Thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment. 01:46:09.442 --> 01:46:16.326 - I'm cutting in line. I'm sorry My name is Chris Branham. I'm a resident at two seven zero one North 01:46:16.326 --> 01:46:23.348 - Dunn So I'm one of those houses that doesn't belong to the Blue Ridge or Matlock Heights neighborhood 01:46:23.348 --> 01:46:30.576 - But just a few houses down from this area You know, I just wanted to speak on one of the proposals about 01:46:30.576 --> 01:46:37.597 - running the road north and this idea I think a staffer may be alluded to last time that won a hundred 01:46:37.597 --> 01:46:38.974 - years all that land 01:46:39.170 --> 01:46:46.209 - be developed anyway. Well, God, I hope not. I invite any of you to come step into my backyard where 01:46:46.209 --> 01:46:53.529 - my little kids play. I'm a six and four-year-old. Jenny and Thayer and Jim and Julia, my neighbors here 01:46:53.529 --> 01:47:01.131 - have met both of them. You truly walk into our backyard, and it is a courtyard of just greenery everywhere. 01:47:01.131 --> 01:47:04.158 - In fact, a couple years before I was born, 01:47:04.386 --> 01:47:11.055 - You know, Bloomington was named one of Indiana's first tree city USAs, right? That was a big badge of 01:47:11.055 --> 01:47:18.051 - honor. Probably growing up in Bloomington is part of the reason why I care so much about environmentalism. 01:47:18.051 --> 01:47:24.720 - I remember my dad working as a custodian at Marlin Elementary, coming home and deciding we were going 01:47:24.720 --> 01:47:31.258 - to start recycling from then on, because Marlin started. So I appreciate the commissioner's comment 01:47:31.258 --> 01:47:32.958 - about, you know, the idea 01:47:33.058 --> 01:47:40.082 - Just increasing this impermeable space And cutting down these trees the idea that we're we have a developer 01:47:40.082 --> 01:47:46.585 - Wanting to save trees and we have people saying well, you know We've got to run this to the western 01:47:46.585 --> 01:47:53.153 - edge because we want connectivity Is it just connectivity for connectivity sake? I live on the road. 01:47:53.153 --> 01:47:59.786 - I'm able to get Told 37 I can drive by the dam I can get on Glendora I don't have a road going out my 01:47:59.786 --> 01:48:03.038 - backyard and somehow I still managed to get there 01:48:03.202 --> 01:48:09.145 - If this road is put through the way it'll function is the same way when I was at Bloomington South And 01:48:09.145 --> 01:48:15.030 - we were coming up Henderson and it got backed up at that four-way stop by Frank Southern. What did we 01:48:15.030 --> 01:48:20.915 - do? We cut through that neighborhood They're often rolling through stop signs driving way too fast so 01:48:20.915 --> 01:48:27.088 - we could beat people to line to get the park a little bit closer You put this road in that's what Tamarack 01:48:27.088 --> 01:48:31.646 - is gonna become. Okay? residential community filled with a lot of retirees and 01:48:31.842 --> 01:48:38.362 - They're walking on that road and suddenly this will become a quick easy way to cut through all of that 01:48:38.362 --> 01:48:44.819 - So what I'm largely speaking in support of is the idea of allowing a cul-de-sac If this proposal goes 01:48:44.819 --> 01:48:51.150 - through Because one it's just a good thing to save trees when we're dealing with climate change and 01:48:51.150 --> 01:48:57.480 - the heat waves and all the stuff we're going through and For another reason that we don't need this 01:48:57.480 --> 01:49:01.342 - connectivity. I'm not sure what the purpose of it serves and 01:49:01.474 --> 01:49:16.202 - Right. So like I said, I didn't have anything prepared, but I just wanted to speak on in support of 01:49:16.202 --> 01:49:30.046 - allowing that cul-de-sac. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Robin helping young. 01:49:30.242 --> 01:49:38.472 - I live at 331 East Glendora Drive. This is my third time I've stood before this commission. The first 01:49:38.472 --> 01:49:46.622 - time I came believing that by appealing to the commission with firsthand knowledge of the situation, 01:49:47.074 --> 01:49:54.450 - awareness of how strong and clear neighborhood opposition is, that I would be able to help convince 01:49:54.450 --> 01:50:02.048 - the Commission that the high density development at 2511 North Dunn currently being considered is both 01:50:02.048 --> 01:50:10.162 - unwelcome and unwise. I was shocked to realize that the Commission does not seem to care about the sentiments 01:50:10.162 --> 01:50:17.022 - of the people living near or next to the development. Our concerns seem to be being ignored. 01:50:17.730 --> 01:50:25.685 - For example, we are being told that steps will be taken to protect our properties from rampant surface 01:50:25.685 --> 01:50:34.026 - water flooding. Yet we know for sure that the 100-year flood water marker, which is the top of the standard 01:50:34.026 --> 01:50:41.904 - they are using, is no longer adequate. Logic tells us there will be increased flooding because 75% of 01:50:41.904 --> 01:50:45.534 - the area will become impermeable. In addition, 01:50:45.762 --> 01:50:52.905 - They are not accounting for water flowing onto the property off North Dunn and the property to the north, 01:50:52.905 --> 01:50:59.912 - or that water is currently being taken up through the roots of mature trees. Why should we take comfort 01:50:59.912 --> 01:51:06.853 - in any of this? It was in a meeting with our local group head with the CBU that we were told that they 01:51:06.853 --> 01:51:13.726 - do not include the amount drawn up through the trees roots, that it is not part of their calculation. 01:51:13.890 --> 01:51:20.995 - Yet, a simple Google search reveals that a mature tree can draw up to 100 gallons of water a day. Why 01:51:20.995 --> 01:51:28.101 - not include that in their surface water calculation? The water will no longer be drawn up by a mature 01:51:28.101 --> 01:51:35.067 - forest once the trees are cut down. Concerned Northside neighbors have requested information with a 01:51:35.067 --> 01:51:42.590 - freedom of information request, hoping to better understand CBU and the Environmental Commission's actions. 01:51:43.202 --> 01:51:50.597 - We have received huge sections of email records that have been entirely redacted. Why? And why has the 01:51:50.597 --> 01:51:57.777 - Environmental Commission failed to provide an official assessment? The area was once considered one 01:51:57.777 --> 01:52:05.100 - of the city's top conservation priorities. Why has this changed? It seems the whole project is moving 01:52:05.100 --> 01:52:12.926 - along without a serious environmental assessment. Many neighbors and other people familiar with the property 01:52:13.026 --> 01:52:20.877 - are of the mind that is the high probability that the property contains a wetland. I've lived next to 01:52:20.877 --> 01:52:28.729 - the property for 23 years and have been on the property many times. I myself have observed a definite 01:52:28.729 --> 01:52:33.886 - seasonal pond many times. In the spring, there are always peepers. 01:52:34.818 --> 01:52:42.616 - If we have a long dry period, it may not appear to be a pond, but if an observer went after any rain 01:52:42.616 --> 01:52:50.800 - at all, they would see a pond with water flowing in from many directions. We are petitioning here tonight 01:52:50.800 --> 01:52:58.830 - that you include in any decision made that a stay on the development of 2511 North Dunn be put in until 01:52:58.830 --> 01:53:01.918 - a wetland delineation may be conducted. 01:53:02.594 --> 01:53:10.346 - the concerned northside neighbors have a wetland delineation professional lined up and are prepared 01:53:10.346 --> 01:53:18.408 - to cover the cost of the delineation currently all we have to go on is the opinion of the environmental 01:53:18.408 --> 01:53:26.316 - commission senior staff person that it is not a wetland that person is on leave now so we cannot hear 01:53:26.316 --> 01:53:31.742 - how that opinion was formed we need more than an opinion the truth is 01:53:31.842 --> 01:53:39.318 - If a delineation were to be conducted and if it is established that is in fact not opinion a wetland, 01:53:39.318 --> 01:53:46.940 - all bets are off for the development as it currently stands. This is presumably why the developers have 01:53:46.940 --> 01:53:54.342 - refused to grant us access to conduct the delineation. Wouldn't it be better to know for sure before 01:53:54.342 --> 01:53:57.054 - we let them decimate Sinclair Woods? 01:53:58.850 --> 01:54:06.693 - The members of the concerned Northside neighborhood believe this development is being rushed along before 01:54:06.693 --> 01:54:14.315 - proper due diligence has been taken. We have a sense of betrayal. It seems that established zoning and 01:54:14.315 --> 01:54:21.714 - planning ordinances are being ignored and protections conferred by the rule of law can no longer be 01:54:21.714 --> 01:54:28.670 - counted on from Bloomington City Government. Our main concern, that is if you get this wrong, 01:54:28.994 --> 01:54:49.319 - There's no turning back. Thank you. Hello again. This is my third time here also. You've heard again 01:54:49.319 --> 01:54:58.174 - and again about our problems, the flooding, 01:54:58.754 --> 01:55:09.738 - I want to speak to something that I haven't heard anyone talk about, and that is there is a larger problem 01:55:09.738 --> 01:55:20.208 - here. And when we ask why this property deserves all these variances and waivers and why this ill fit 01:55:20.208 --> 01:55:28.318 - has to be, why this high density urban development has to be crammed onto this 01:55:28.642 --> 01:55:37.889 - Heavily wooded lot, which is not not appropriate at all Why does this have to have to happen? 01:55:37.889 --> 01:55:48.120 - Why not just? Submit a plan that fits the lot so all these waivers aren't required The only reason that 01:55:48.120 --> 01:55:57.662 - I've heard or inferred is that the mayor wants it And mainly that Bloomington needs more housing 01:55:58.242 --> 01:56:06.170 - You know, that's what I keep hearing. But we need more housing. Well, I'm not sure we do, because everywhere 01:56:06.170 --> 01:56:14.170 - I look, there's construction. There's apartment buildings popping up everywhere. So construction's happening. 01:56:14.170 --> 01:56:21.589 - Housing is happening. What we need is affordable housing. I think we can all agree about that. Prices 01:56:21.589 --> 01:56:26.462 - are out of control. But this project does nothing to address that. 01:56:26.626 --> 01:56:35.025 - and all these homes crammed onto this environmentally sensitive property that we all have to bend over 01:56:35.025 --> 01:56:43.423 - backwards to make work, it doesn't fit. And it's of no benefit to anyone other than the developer. The 01:56:43.423 --> 01:56:51.659 - only reason there need to be so many houses is so he can make as much money as he needs to. And he's 01:56:51.659 --> 01:56:56.062 - already said that if he doesn't get this many houses, 01:56:56.194 --> 01:57:04.166 - or 15 it used to be, now it's 11. But if he doesn't get as many houses as he needs to make a profit, 01:57:04.166 --> 01:57:12.059 - he'll just pass the cost on to the, they've said it more than once. The cost will be just passed on 01:57:12.059 --> 01:57:20.109 - to the homeowners. It'll just increase the price of the homes. Why is there no possibility that maybe 01:57:20.109 --> 01:57:25.950 - he just makes a little less money? You know, it seems a little backwards. 01:57:26.146 --> 01:57:34.789 - the whole thing. There are many unanswered questions. And when we got the redacted emails after waiting 01:57:34.789 --> 01:57:43.433 - three weeks, when we didn't get this plan for tonight's meeting until Saturday night, there's been some 01:57:43.433 --> 01:57:52.326 - obstruction going on. There's been a real lack of communication and a general lack of transparency through 01:57:52.326 --> 01:57:53.406 - all of this. 01:57:54.210 --> 01:58:02.109 - You know, I think we really need to look at, especially as the mayor has her sights on the north side 01:58:02.109 --> 01:58:09.931 - for development, the north side, which is ravines and streams. And is it just not suited to the kind 01:58:09.931 --> 01:58:17.907 - of development that you can do on the south side or on the west side? It's not the same. We have steep 01:58:17.907 --> 01:58:23.870 - hillsides. We have winding roads. We have wetlands, two watersheds, and this 01:58:24.226 --> 01:58:37.389 - The property is right on the apex between those two watersheds, Griffey and Cascades. You can't just 01:58:37.389 --> 01:58:50.942 - go in and bulldoze and throw up a bunch of little houses in a row. That's all. Thank you. Good evening. 01:58:51.458 --> 01:58:57.059 - My name is Adam Will. I live at 211 East Gilbert Drive in Melak Heights. While I have broader concerns 01:58:57.059 --> 01:59:02.551 - about the plans for North Grove, I'm speaking tonight specifically about the structural necessity of 01:59:02.551 --> 01:59:07.989 - the alley access requirement. The staff report notes that because this property is over three acres 01:59:07.989 --> 01:59:13.536 - in size, it is legally required to utilize the traditional subdivision design standard. This means at 01:59:13.536 --> 01:59:18.974 - least 67% of the proposed lots must be served by alleys. The UDO triggers this mandate for a reason 01:59:19.426 --> 01:59:24.396 - Traditional subdivisions introduce compressed layouts with narrow lot profiles. The alley network is 01:59:24.396 --> 01:59:29.760 - required to pull parking, service vehicles, and utility access to the rear, preventing chaotic and hazardous 01:59:29.760 --> 01:59:35.026 - front-facing drive cuts along a narrow neighborhood stream. This infrastructure becomes even more critical 01:59:35.026 --> 01:59:40.094 - when we look at the city's long-term vision for the dense development of the north side. If the city's 01:59:40.094 --> 01:59:45.064 - stated goal is to integrate this development into a larger, highly connected, more densely populated 01:59:45.064 --> 01:59:46.590 - network to the west and north, 01:59:46.978 --> 01:59:52.151 - It is short-sighted to strip away the safety infrastructure needed to support that long-term growth 01:59:52.151 --> 01:59:57.633 - The petitioner is requesting a waiver from the alley requirement because this long narrow property Cannot 01:59:57.633 --> 02:00:03.168 - physically accommodate both the standard public road and the required alley network While staff recommends 02:00:03.168 --> 02:00:08.547 - approving this waiver doing so ignores two fundamental planning realities First if a development design 02:00:08.547 --> 02:00:14.030 - triggers traditional density standards the land tract cannot physically support the safety infrastructure 02:00:14.030 --> 02:00:15.582 - required for that density and 02:00:15.874 --> 02:00:21.318 - then the proposed plan is simply overbuilt for the site. Second, if this area is designed for future 02:00:21.318 --> 02:00:26.817 - urban connectivity, bypassing this alley requirement now creates a permanent unfixable infrastructure 02:00:26.817 --> 02:00:32.369 - bottleneck. You cannot logically champion future neighborhood connectivity while simultaneously waving 02:00:32.369 --> 02:00:38.298 - the safety mechanisms required to handle resulting traffic and surface loads. By waving the alley requirement 02:00:38.298 --> 02:00:41.694 - entirely, the city isn't just making a minor design exception, 02:00:41.954 --> 02:00:47.934 - It is granting the developer high density while removing the infrastructure mechanisms required to make 02:00:47.934 --> 02:00:53.800 - that density safe for future residents and the surrounding area. If we're going to lay the groundwork 02:00:53.800 --> 02:00:59.895 - for the city's future we must build it right from day one. Please hold the line on the UDO infrastructure 02:00:59.895 --> 02:01:03.230 - mandates and deny the alley waiver. Thank you. Thank you. 02:01:10.242 --> 02:01:16.352 - My name is Jessica will and I live at 211 East Gilbert Drive as well in Matlock Heights I'm here tonight 02:01:16.352 --> 02:01:22.288 - regarding the proposed subdivision at 25 11 North Dunn Street While I still have overarching concerns 02:01:22.288 --> 02:01:28.515 - about this development I'm speaking tonight specifically to urge the Commission to approve the petitioners 02:01:28.515 --> 02:01:33.694 - waiver requests to allow a cul-de-sac as I understand it the staff report indicates that 02:01:33.794 --> 02:01:39.592 - that denying the cul-de-sac and forcing a future street connection between Dunn Street and Walnut Street 02:01:39.592 --> 02:01:45.280 - is necessary to advance the city's connectivity goals. However, I believe connectivity must never come 02:01:45.280 --> 02:01:50.912 - at the expense of safety and common sense. If you look at the map, you can see the reality of what we 02:01:50.912 --> 02:01:56.489 - face daily on the north side. Matlock Heights already struggles with speeding, commuter traffic, and 02:01:56.489 --> 02:02:01.790 - drivers ignoring stop signs to use our residential streets as bypasses between Dunn and Walnut. 02:02:02.498 --> 02:02:08.938 - I argue the last thing the North Side needs is another shortcut for daily commuters and football fans. 02:02:08.938 --> 02:02:15.190 - Forcing this street, proposed as East Tamarack Trail, to stub out to the western property line sets 02:02:15.190 --> 02:02:21.692 - the stage to funnel traffic directly past 11 new family homes. It seems to me local residential streets 02:02:21.692 --> 02:02:27.006 - should handle local residential traffic, not act as a pressure valve for congestion. 02:02:27.970 --> 02:02:34.298 - Under the unified development ordinance, I believe a waiver may be granted if it is not detrimental 02:02:34.298 --> 02:02:40.689 - to public safety, health, or general welfare. While the staff argue that a cul-de-sac is detrimental 02:02:40.689 --> 02:02:47.270 - because it prevents future connectivity, I argue the opposite. Forcing a future road here is what truly 02:02:47.270 --> 02:02:53.598 - threatens public safety by introducing potentially high-volume traffic to a quiet residential area. 02:02:53.730 --> 02:03:00.699 - If a subdivision must be built on this four acre tract, let it be a safe, self-contained neighborhood. 02:03:00.699 --> 02:03:07.736 - Please protect the integrity of the north side, prioritize pedestrian safety over commuter convenience, 02:03:07.736 --> 02:03:11.390 - and approve the cul-de-sac waiver. Thanks. Thank you. 02:03:21.602 --> 02:03:27.846 - Hello, I'm Stephanie Dickinson 2301 North Dunn Street, Matlock Heights. I wanted to also add a comment 02:03:27.846 --> 02:03:34.515 - in support of the cul-de-sac To maintain the trees the natural resources and reduced costs While I understand 02:03:34.515 --> 02:03:40.698 - and fully agree with the value of connectivity specified in the UDO As a general best practice in the 02:03:40.698 --> 02:03:46.821 - city for promoting a grid system and increasing transportation option options I believe the benefits 02:03:46.821 --> 02:03:50.398 - are reduced in this specific context if Jamie can show the 02:03:50.530 --> 02:03:57.470 - visual just to remind us that we're talking about a connection between one specific lot that may in 02:03:57.470 --> 02:04:04.410 - the future connect to a second lot on the west. I just want to mention for discussion that the west 02:04:04.410 --> 02:04:11.489 - is then bounded by Walnut, a ravine, Cascades Park. There's not a lot of room for development to that 02:04:11.489 --> 02:04:13.918 - side, maybe similarly to the east. 02:04:14.210 --> 02:04:20.296 - Tamarack Trail and Meadowood, like was mentioned, is almost a semi-private road. They don't want the 02:04:20.296 --> 02:04:26.442 - traffic. Either way, it's already developed. You have Griffey Lake to the north of that. So just food 02:04:26.442 --> 02:04:32.529 - for thought that maybe the development around these areas for the future may be limited already such 02:04:32.529 --> 02:04:38.615 - that the value of the connectivity between these may be limited. Additionally, I wanted to point out 02:04:38.615 --> 02:04:43.134 - the considerations of public health that was mentioned in the staff report 02:04:43.266 --> 02:04:50.759 - Certainly having a grid like system in principle provides more opportunities for biking and walking 02:04:50.759 --> 02:04:58.403 - to different points in the city But I want to mention the trade-off and the public health benefits of 02:04:58.403 --> 02:05:06.121 - green spaces the tree canopy And the natural spaces which are also shown in the science to be valuable 02:05:06.121 --> 02:05:09.118 - for our public health. Thanks Thank you 02:05:16.354 --> 02:05:27.118 - I forgot to sign in. Hi. My name's Jenny Ritchie. I sent you a letter. It's probably in your packet. 02:05:27.118 --> 02:05:38.415 - I just want to comment on a few things I said. My husband and I live in the northernmost house of Matlock 02:05:38.415 --> 02:05:45.342 - Heights. It was built in the early 50s and we bought it in 1916. 02:05:45.506 --> 02:05:56.038 - 96, small problem with reversing numbers there. And like Professor Sinclair's property, when we bought 02:05:56.038 --> 02:06:07.082 - it, it was affordable because it was a mess. The house needed major work. The yard was an over-chemicalized 02:06:07.082 --> 02:06:15.262 - 1950s landscaping disaster. But we saw the potential for development because we 02:06:15.714 --> 02:06:26.249 - wanted to develop this property. Only instead of developing it for profit, our intent was to develop 02:06:26.249 --> 02:06:36.680 - it to see how much natural life, particularly bird life, it could support. And to that end, we have 02:06:36.680 --> 02:06:44.190 - devoted 30 years to making improvements on this property. We have built 02:06:44.962 --> 02:06:56.747 - We have built homes for multiple species of birds, for many, many amphibians, and we have built denning 02:06:56.747 --> 02:07:08.305 - places and nesting places, and we have built connectivity for wildlife in our neighborhood. We've put 02:07:08.305 --> 02:07:12.158 - a lot of effort into planning it. 02:07:12.450 --> 02:07:22.181 - three decades we've been planting native plants and observing the results of planting those things. 02:07:22.181 --> 02:07:32.300 - And what I have come to ask is that you acknowledge that this investment and this development has value 02:07:32.300 --> 02:07:40.766 - to this city, to this neighborhood, to our community in general, and that your support 02:07:41.826 --> 02:07:51.890 - for the neighborhood that allows our investment to be successful is vital for us. That we know, and 02:07:51.890 --> 02:08:02.959 - we know from direct experience, when five mature trees were cut down in the lot next to us, we saw diminished 02:08:02.959 --> 02:08:11.614 - bird populations, we saw diminished reproductive success in the bird species we have, 02:08:11.842 --> 02:08:21.975 - And we saw and continue to see drastic changes in the flyways, the ways birds move through the neighborhood, 02:08:21.975 --> 02:08:31.363 - just five trees. And when our next door single family residential house turned into a group home, we 02:08:31.363 --> 02:08:41.310 - saw a dramatic increase in the traffic coming and going and coming and going and going. It was incredible. 02:08:41.986 --> 02:08:54.556 - was only seven or eight cars a day, whereas what you're planning is to dump 15 to 20 cars on. And when 02:08:54.556 --> 02:09:07.247 - our neighbors, two lots over to the north, built a house on a very slopey lot with a seasonal wet area, 02:09:07.247 --> 02:09:09.566 - we saw a reduction 02:09:10.018 --> 02:09:18.166 - in the numbers of copes, gray tree frogs. We had been very proud of our neighborhood's population of 02:09:18.166 --> 02:09:26.314 - copes, gray tree frogs. And that diminished population continues to today. So all I'm asking is that 02:09:26.314 --> 02:09:34.462 - you consider the value of different kinds of development, and you support those of us who have taken 02:09:34.462 --> 02:09:38.334 - the time and effort and spent the money to make 02:09:38.914 --> 02:09:43.710 - this kind of development. Thank you. 02:10:02.722 --> 02:10:09.678 - Good evening. Caleb Throckmorton. I'm the neighborhood association president for Matlock Heights. This 02:10:09.678 --> 02:10:16.905 - is more of a point of clarification. I keep hearing this property being referred to as a new neighborhood. 02:10:16.905 --> 02:10:23.794 - It is in fact part of the Matlock Heights neighborhood. It's part of the Matlock Heights neighborhood 02:10:23.794 --> 02:10:31.156 - association. It has been since May 15th, 1998, filed with the city and housing and neighborhood development. 02:10:31.156 --> 02:10:31.966 - So it's not 02:10:32.770 --> 02:10:42.491 - I don't understand if it is being called a new neighborhood or not, but it is part of our neighborhood, 02:10:42.491 --> 02:10:51.932 - just kind of a point of clarification. Thanks. Thank you. Any additional public comment? Eric, do we 02:10:51.932 --> 02:11:00.158 - have any online commenters? If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this 02:11:01.250 --> 02:11:12.897 - Please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing all right. Last call for 02:11:12.897 --> 02:11:24.776 - public comment. All right. We are back to the commission then for any additional questions or comments 02:11:24.776 --> 02:11:27.774 - or motion. Mr. Stossberg. 02:11:29.410 --> 02:11:37.435 - I have a question. I would just like to go over the wetland stuff again, because you guys provided that 02:11:37.435 --> 02:11:45.306 - with your memo for this. And I was hoping that one of you, especially since our environmental planner 02:11:45.306 --> 02:11:53.023 - is absent, and I see Jackie Scanlon coming to the mic, if one of you could speak to the report that 02:11:53.023 --> 02:11:58.270 - was made at the time by our environmental planner and that process. 02:11:58.594 --> 02:12:06.484 - Conclusions that were found there. Thanks. Sure. Thank you. I could do my best Jackie Scanlon assistant 02:12:06.484 --> 02:12:14.223 - director of planning and transportation Yes, our senior environmental Planner is out on leave But she 02:12:14.223 --> 02:12:21.961 - was able to assess the site on a site visit in early October and at that time she determined that the 02:12:21.961 --> 02:12:23.934 - Area on the property that 02:12:24.290 --> 02:12:30.715 - Many people are calling a wetland is in fact what we would classify as an intermittent stream meeting 02:12:30.715 --> 02:12:37.140 - our definition of intermittent stream and not meeting our definition of wetland So she described that 02:12:37.140 --> 02:12:43.502 - in an email to miss Kreindler at that time She had actually been to the site a previous time as well 02:12:43.502 --> 02:12:50.494 - to do the tree canopy assessment So has walked the site more than once this time. She was particularly looking 02:12:51.010 --> 02:12:57.154 - the details of the site to determine whether or not they meet our UDO definition of wetland Probably 02:12:57.154 --> 02:13:03.238 - in your report, but I'm just gonna read it out loud anyway Wetlands are those areas and in dated or 02:13:03.238 --> 02:13:09.443 - saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support and under normal 02:13:09.443 --> 02:13:15.526 - circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation specifically adapted for life in saturated soil 02:13:15.526 --> 02:13:18.750 - conditions wetlands generally include swamps marshes 02:13:18.850 --> 02:13:25.896 - Bogs and similar areas for the purpose of this definition a wetland must have one or more of the following 02:13:25.896 --> 02:13:33.008 - attributes which one of the members of the public spoke about the three are listed as at least periodically 02:13:33.008 --> 02:13:39.725 - the land supports hydro fights the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil and the substrate 02:13:39.725 --> 02:13:46.574 - is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at least some time during the year, 02:13:46.574 --> 02:13:48.286 - so Miss Johnson obviously 02:13:48.482 --> 02:13:58.293 - knows this definition. She used her professional experience to make the determination that none of these 02:13:58.293 --> 02:14:07.917 - three things are happening here. And so we did not require a wetland determination as a result of that 02:14:07.917 --> 02:14:16.606 - inspection. As has been stated, the neighbors have asked numerous times for that to be done. 02:14:17.410 --> 02:14:24.128 - Or what could we do to make that happen? And we suggested they could contact the state and see if there's 02:14:24.128 --> 02:14:29.958 - something the state could help them do but other than that we made a determination and that 02:14:29.958 --> 02:14:36.423 - is the determination of the Professional planner in the department whose job it is to visit sites and 02:14:36.423 --> 02:14:42.824 - make that determination So we are holding that determination as there has been no evidence submitted 02:14:42.824 --> 02:14:47.070 - that it's incorrect As a follow-up to that so one of the things on 02:14:47.874 --> 02:14:55.801 - I suppose number two and number three talk about what kind of soil it is. And so one thing it says is 02:14:55.801 --> 02:15:03.806 - the substrate is non-soil, or the substrate is predominantly undrained, hydric soil. Can you determine 02:15:03.806 --> 02:15:08.702 - if something is non-soil by looking at it, generally speaking? 02:15:09.026 --> 02:15:14.531 - That's a great question. It's a very technical sort of term, I think. Yes, it is. And I am 02:15:14.531 --> 02:15:20.700 - not an environmental person. I am walking in her shoes while she's gone. So I will say, actually, Mr. 02:15:20.700 --> 02:15:26.810 - Grulick may be able to answer this question better than I can. But I'll give it a try. I do not know 02:15:26.810 --> 02:15:33.343 - how much you can tell from observing. I know that she was on site for a while. I believe maybe Ms. Kreinler 02:15:33.343 --> 02:15:37.214 - was there as well. And so they may be able to speak to what she 02:15:38.114 --> 02:15:44.614 - Actually did at the site to make that determination. She very clearly in the determination emails states 02:15:44.614 --> 02:15:50.990 - I believe this is an intermittent stream and here's why and that she understood that That that was the 02:15:50.990 --> 02:15:57.428 - determination she was making Okay, thank you if any other staff could speak to that that would be great 02:15:57.428 --> 02:15:59.966 - I mean part of this I think is educating 02:16:00.258 --> 02:16:06.529 - Me and the rest of us and also the public know you can certainly though as the engineer as part of their 02:16:06.529 --> 02:16:12.801 - soil Analysis as part of their stormwater manual and the drainage calculations. They do do an assessment 02:16:12.801 --> 02:16:18.714 - of what the soils are I don't know if that's based on a map or if that's based on a site analysis, 02:16:18.714 --> 02:16:21.342 - but mr. Butler could possibly speak to that 02:16:24.034 --> 02:16:31.788 - Yeah, we don't as civil engineers. We don't do any type of soil testing So we relied upon her to do 02:16:31.788 --> 02:16:39.852 - that and I was also on site at one point With her too as she was looking around and did that assessment 02:16:39.852 --> 02:16:47.838 - I will add one thing if you if that's okay to this conversation We are protecting that area so whether 02:16:48.386 --> 02:16:56.384 - Wetland or not, which it's been deemed. It's not a wetland. It is being protected on the riparian buffer 02:16:56.384 --> 02:17:04.153 - standards and so Everyone's concerned with this area. It's not being touched. It's being preserved so 02:17:04.153 --> 02:17:12.531 - whether it's To me it feels like a little bit of a moot point Because it's being preserved as an intermittent 02:17:12.531 --> 02:17:17.406 - stream so that it's not being touched or messed with regardless 02:17:19.202 --> 02:17:26.009 - The and you know part of what you're hearing tonight is riparian buffer easement standards so that also 02:17:26.009 --> 02:17:32.815 - the drainage that you saw in some of the Concerned neighbors is also being protected and those drainage 02:17:32.815 --> 02:17:39.426 - ways go into it are also protected So that you know, it can remain as is and also the water from the 02:17:39.426 --> 02:17:45.971 - streets is being cleaned before it goes into it So I just want to add that also to the conversation 02:17:45.971 --> 02:17:47.934 - in terms of wetland or not or 02:17:50.402 --> 02:17:56.763 - as a help. As far as the site does, I can just confirm that I was there on site two with Rachel, 02:17:56.763 --> 02:18:03.387 - with Daniel, with the petitioners, Paul and Keith. So it was the five of us there. And I'd only been 02:18:03.387 --> 02:18:10.142 - in Bloomington for two months at that time, but we walked all around the site and Rachel was assessing 02:18:10.142 --> 02:18:16.700 - the water and I think she took photos and was looking at the trees. So we definitely went back into 02:18:16.700 --> 02:18:19.454 - the site so she could do that evaluation. 02:18:20.610 --> 02:18:30.661 - Thank you. Can I just ask a quick follow-up on that? Can you just outline for us if, at that time, it 02:18:30.661 --> 02:18:41.500 - went the other way? We had determined it was a wetland and went through the process of getting a delineation. 02:18:41.500 --> 02:18:50.270 - What would the practical impact be on the plan that's before us tonight? Great question. 02:18:54.018 --> 02:19:00.089 - or a wetland. And so they're very similar to what it says for a karst feature where it says you can't 02:19:00.089 --> 02:19:06.160 - do any disturbance within 25 feet of that wetland feature. So the first step is determining where the 02:19:06.160 --> 02:19:12.707 - boundaries of that feature are, and then there's a 25 foot buffer that is placed on that. So as we mentioned, 02:19:12.707 --> 02:19:18.659 - this is part of an intermittent stream. That is what it was defined as. So the intermittent stream, 02:19:18.659 --> 02:19:21.694 - the right bearing buffer, has three 25 foot zones. 02:19:21.890 --> 02:19:29.343 - So you've got 75 feet on either side of that stream. So this is protecting that 75 feet with the exception 02:19:29.343 --> 02:19:36.517 - of the detention area that is shown for a portion of it that is on the outer tier and I think a little 02:19:36.517 --> 02:19:43.621 - portion of it is the second tier. But the first tier, the 25 feet that runs through the center has no 02:19:43.621 --> 02:19:51.422 - disturbance within it and then probably another 10 or so feet beyond that as well for where the disturbance is. 02:19:51.714 --> 02:20:00.582 - So that would be the implications So you say that the lines may be Drawn a little bit differently if 02:20:00.582 --> 02:20:09.537 - they had been determined to be well Depending on what the boundaries are for the wetland if it's dead 02:20:09.537 --> 02:20:18.756 - center as it is now It's already being safe and having a 25 foot buffer on both sides with nothing Thank 02:20:18.756 --> 02:20:21.566 - you other questions or comments 02:20:22.178 --> 02:20:29.711 - Mr. Kinsey. I have one on the same issue. In addition to the question that I think I mean this is a 02:20:29.711 --> 02:20:37.471 - smart one of what's what's the the area that would be protected or not developable let's say that with 02:20:37.471 --> 02:20:45.004 - a boundary I think that is a great question and I'm glad you asked it because it was on my list too 02:20:45.004 --> 02:20:50.654 - and I wonder if you can speak at all to what what else would that mean for 02:20:51.810 --> 02:20:58.992 - non-developable. Would that prohibit anything nearby? So I'm asking for any expansion. I would love 02:20:58.992 --> 02:21:06.606 - to hear the petitioner talk about this more too. Anything else about the area? And then the second really 02:21:06.606 --> 02:21:13.931 - straightforward question is about if there were, one of the, I think it was the attorney actually who 02:21:13.931 --> 02:21:19.390 - indicated that the planned commission can require a wetland review. Is that 02:21:20.514 --> 02:21:27.152 - Is that correct? Is that statement correct? And how can we determine if that is correct? So one... So 02:21:27.152 --> 02:21:34.051 - to get to your first question, so the implications of that, like how we're gonna explain to Councilmember 02:21:34.051 --> 02:21:40.624 - Whistler, is that there would be a circle for what that wetland would be, and then there's a 25-foot 02:21:40.624 --> 02:21:47.523 - buffer that is drawn around that. So it just depends on where that circle is, whether it's a small circle 02:21:47.523 --> 02:21:49.150 - or a much larger circle. 02:21:49.346 --> 02:21:55.457 - But as I mentioned, our staff went out there and determined that it was not. It was just an interim 02:21:55.457 --> 02:22:01.812 - industry. And so that's how that was arrived at, as Ms. Scanlon pointed out. So as part of a, you know, 02:22:01.812 --> 02:22:08.045 - if the Planning Commission feels that they strongly disagree with staff, you know, they can certainly 02:22:08.045 --> 02:22:14.155 - request a wetland delineation study. You can also make the condition of approval. The petitioner is 02:22:14.155 --> 02:22:19.166 - here tonight to request a primary plan approval, so you could certainly condition 02:22:19.298 --> 02:22:27.467 - That would be the way to handle that the the question I think I'm trying to get with my first one is 02:22:27.467 --> 02:22:35.960 - that even if a boundary were indicated it wouldn't make the Would make it wouldn't make it undevelopable 02:22:35.960 --> 02:22:44.130 - the whole area would not be you know, I mean obviously there's already a home or there was a home on 02:22:44.130 --> 02:22:46.718 - it I'm just trying to determine 02:22:46.946 --> 02:22:55.003 - How far this can go and if the petitioner has anything to say about this whatsoever Yeah, so it just 02:22:55.003 --> 02:23:03.300 - draws that 25 foot buffer around there says no disturbance so you can't do anything within that 25 foot 02:23:03.300 --> 02:23:11.597 - no grading no structures nothing Yeah, I'm looking at the map now and we right right now there's a line 02:23:11.597 --> 02:23:16.862 - with a 25 foot buffer outside of that and then there's additional 02:23:16.994 --> 02:23:24.473 - 25 and then another 25 and some of the grading for the pond is within the second one So right now you're 02:23:24.473 --> 02:23:31.953 - getting a 25 foot Protection it would just matter how far if it was determined to be, you know a wetland 02:23:31.953 --> 02:23:39.076 - and how far out would that go? It's possible to push back the grading limits a little bit. But just 02:23:39.076 --> 02:23:46.270 - looking at now we're not It's we're not too snug up right against some of that 25 foot that it would 02:23:46.722 --> 02:23:53.944 - Make a big difference It would be possible that it might move back those grading limits just a little 02:23:53.944 --> 02:24:01.095 - bit, but I anticipate not much Yeah, I mean I suppose where I'm getting is it makes me want to see a 02:24:01.095 --> 02:24:08.246 - map with even the the suspected Wetland area I'm not going to get into calling in a wetland now that 02:24:08.246 --> 02:24:12.990 - I know the strict definitions but whatever the suspected area is I 02:24:13.538 --> 02:24:20.575 - On the on the plat what that looks like and then how much more that would eliminate From the proposed 02:24:20.575 --> 02:24:27.474 - development to me. That would be an interesting So you can see that on sheet five of the petitioner 02:24:27.474 --> 02:24:34.649 - site plan It's a enlarged kind of grading of the north or the northwest side of the site is it possible 02:24:34.649 --> 02:24:42.238 - to bring that up Yeah, we can certainly bring that up. I don't know if you'll be able to see it as clearly as 02:24:42.434 --> 02:24:49.641 - as if you were to look at it, but we can pull it up. So the feature area, so I'll just kind of zoom 02:24:49.641 --> 02:24:57.064 - out a little bit here. So this center line right here represents the center of the intermittent stream 02:24:57.064 --> 02:25:04.343 - as it moves through the site there. And then so the feature area, the low-lying area is down in this 02:25:04.343 --> 02:25:11.550 - area here. So there is a 25-foot buffer that is shown here that no disturbance is happening within. 02:25:11.682 --> 02:25:17.641 - And that is mr. Butler indicated, you know, depending on where you draw that circle You know some of 02:25:17.641 --> 02:25:23.778 - the grading for and the outlet for this might be close to that but those are the only real implications 02:25:23.778 --> 02:25:26.846 - or Improvements that are shown anywhere close to it 02:25:30.882 --> 02:25:38.524 - That's what I was describing is that you can see the grading is a little far off from that Still where 02:25:38.524 --> 02:25:46.018 - the bubble might come out and so you would still have a little bit of buffer room there But it would 02:25:46.018 --> 02:25:53.661 - just depend on where that actual would go It might push it back a little bit, but possibly not at all. 02:25:53.661 --> 02:25:58.558 - Okay. Thank you Any other questions from commissioners Mr. Bishop 02:26:02.722 --> 02:26:09.439 - Would have seen evidence that it were likely a wetland would they have elevated that to the state or 02:26:09.439 --> 02:26:16.157 - federal level because there are certain channels that you go through through either item or the Army 02:26:16.157 --> 02:26:22.940 - National Army Corps of Engineers Jackie Scanlon assistant director Yes, I think well Eric and correct 02:26:22.940 --> 02:26:29.658 - me where I'm wrong, but she doesn't elevate it to the state. It's just a separate process That could 02:26:29.658 --> 02:26:32.318 - be done. It's not on the national level 02:26:32.418 --> 02:26:38.523 - Register of potential wetland areas so they they aren't tracking it currently but yes, I think one of 02:26:38.523 --> 02:26:44.569 - the reasons we Besides the fact that she has a professional made the determination is that there has 02:26:44.569 --> 02:26:50.554 - been no evidence submitted that it's incorrect so Yes, I think we were open to if that existed It's 02:26:50.554 --> 02:26:56.720 - obviously the neighbors are in a weird situation because they don't own the property so they can't get 02:26:56.720 --> 02:27:00.670 - on there to present evidence but we based on the evidence that we 02:27:00.866 --> 02:27:07.878 - We found felt that that was an appropriate determination So if it if she felt there were evidence of 02:27:07.878 --> 02:27:14.959 - it being likely to be a wetland she would have made that yes We've done that She has done that before 02:27:14.959 --> 02:27:22.109 - we said my recently Had a project at st. Remy where they had a wetland determination that she was very 02:27:22.109 --> 02:27:26.622 - heavily involved in I have one more question, but it's not about 02:27:27.202 --> 02:27:34.680 - Next one's about the cul-de-sac hammerhead turnaround piece. So the idea is connectivity. My question 02:27:34.680 --> 02:27:42.012 - is it's not really connecting to anything except for a private commercial property. Is it customary 02:27:42.012 --> 02:27:49.490 - for us to require developers to provide a road to a private commercial property? Because that doesn't 02:27:49.490 --> 02:27:56.382 - provide connectivity in the sense that it would go to another road or another potential road. 02:27:56.706 --> 02:28:02.495 - Would be curious to see if that's normal Yep, so, you know connectivity is I know I say, you know a 02:28:02.495 --> 02:28:08.342 - two-way street, but it starts somewhere you know, you build the road and then it gets extended as as 02:28:08.342 --> 02:28:14.421 - Development happens along the corridor. So that would you know be exactly what we would be accomplishing 02:28:14.421 --> 02:28:20.326 - here is is stubbing to the property line It could be the West could be to the north, you know, either 02:28:20.326 --> 02:28:23.742 - of those are viable options to connect to you know, so the 02:28:24.130 --> 02:28:29.472 - Plan would be the sub to the west and then when property to the west develops, you know If it's subdivides 02:28:29.472 --> 02:28:34.664 - and it would have to install public road if it didn't it was just a redevelopment that we would connect 02:28:34.664 --> 02:28:39.706 - it with a private Drive and still connect though. So the connectivity would be accomplished and then 02:28:39.706 --> 02:28:45.098 - further when the properties to the west Developed and you know as we've talked about in several discussions 02:28:45.098 --> 02:28:50.190 - here at the Planning Commission, you know given this location, you know directly aligns with Tamarack 02:28:50.190 --> 02:28:51.838 - Trail, you know when you look at 02:28:51.938 --> 02:28:55.934 - this map and you zoom out a little bit. 02:28:56.322 --> 02:29:01.441 - What would be the reason why you can't stub to the West property line? You know, what are the factors 02:29:01.441 --> 02:29:06.561 - that prevent that? Yes, we certainly acknowledge that there are trees we acknowledge that there is an 02:29:06.561 --> 02:29:11.730 - intermittent stream that is present here But there are properties all over Bloomington that have roads 02:29:11.730 --> 02:29:16.799 - that move across streams, you know, you have culverts or bridges You know, they went to the Board of 02:29:16.799 --> 02:29:22.270 - Zoning Appeals They came up with a tree remediation plan to offset the removal of the trees. So there's just 02:29:22.402 --> 02:29:28.319 - You know from staff's perspective, you know We have not seen a peculiar condition about the property 02:29:28.319 --> 02:29:34.178 - that prevents the road from stubbing to the West property line You know, obviously this is a really 02:29:34.178 --> 02:29:40.037 - big issue as we made a purposeful change to the UDO a long time ago to prohibit cul-de-sacs And you 02:29:40.037 --> 02:29:46.189 - have to make a hard argument of why you cannot still do a property line In order for a cul-de-sac waiver 02:29:46.189 --> 02:29:49.470 - to be granted and so that's where we've we've struggled 02:29:50.082 --> 02:29:56.592 - OK, I know Bloomington spends quite a bit of time and money on traffic calming studies and implementations 02:29:56.592 --> 02:30:02.190 - a lot of times after the fact. This seems to invite an unnecessarily high amount of traffic 02:30:02.190 --> 02:30:08.883 - into a residential area if it were to be required to add a road onto it. So wouldn't that be counterintuitive 02:30:08.883 --> 02:30:15.028 - to the traffic calming activities that Bloomington typically engages in in residential neighborhoods 02:30:15.028 --> 02:30:19.774 - like this? No, not necessarily. In fact, I think it would really kind of help 02:30:19.938 --> 02:30:25.000 - In all of these situations, when you have these local roads that provide alternate connection paths 02:30:25.000 --> 02:30:30.264 - between major corridors, it takes the pressure off of those bigger roads. So in this case here, instead 02:30:30.264 --> 02:30:32.542 - of somebody having to go out to Dunn Street, 02:30:32.610 --> 02:30:37.810 - All the way down done down to bypass and then up walnut just to get to where they wanted to go in the 02:30:37.810 --> 02:30:42.909 - first place If there had been a shorter quicker path to get there, they would have taken that so it 02:30:42.909 --> 02:30:48.211 - takes that congestion off of there You know local streets when they're appropriately designed, you know 02:30:48.211 --> 02:30:53.462 - are calm in and of themselves You know, this will just serve for the most part these lots, but it will 02:30:53.462 --> 02:30:54.686 - also serve to provide a 02:30:54.818 --> 02:31:05.764 - Residents of this area the ability to get west whether it be walking Biking on a car the ability to 02:31:05.764 --> 02:31:16.710 - get west without having to go on a done street or the bypass And they were able to get a safer path 02:31:16.710 --> 02:31:23.934 - to where they're wanting to go Thank you If The Commission wanted 02:31:24.642 --> 02:31:34.950 - to grant that waiver, in other words, not require the stub all the way to the property line, but we 02:31:34.950 --> 02:31:45.362 - wanted the right of way to be dedicated. Would we have to specify that as a condition of approval or 02:31:45.362 --> 02:31:53.918 - what action would have to be taken in order for that right of way to be preserved? 02:31:55.266 --> 02:32:02.142 - So if if you wanted right away to be dedicated Then you would have a condition of approval that right 02:32:02.142 --> 02:32:09.018 - away would be dedicated according to the transportation plan as shown on their plaque If the Planning 02:32:09.018 --> 02:32:16.096 - Commission did not want the right away to be dedicated past where the line is that is shown Then I don't 02:32:16.096 --> 02:32:23.646 - you would just have a condition says no additional right away is dedicated past wherever that line is So so the 02:32:23.842 --> 02:32:31.469 - You're saying the default would be that it is dedicated Well, they've they've shown that you know, we 02:32:31.469 --> 02:32:39.170 - staff have said that we don't want that but that's what their proposal is So you would need to address 02:32:39.170 --> 02:32:46.871 - it You know, so I guess the default would be you would be accepting their proposal which has the right 02:32:46.871 --> 02:32:51.582 - of way dedicated Because we would essentially be accepting the 02:32:52.610 --> 02:33:01.130 - The plan that already shows the dedicated. Yeah, so their plan shows shows the right away going all 02:33:01.130 --> 02:33:09.906 - the way to the west and then a line of where the pavement would stop Got it. Okay. Thank you Any other 02:33:09.906 --> 02:33:18.426 - questions or comments or are we ready for a motion just as a as a reminder the staff recommendation 02:33:18.426 --> 02:33:22.430 - is that we adopt the proposed findings approve 02:33:23.042 --> 02:33:34.144 - the waiver waiver requests for less than 67 percent of lots to be served by allies and for the amendments 02:33:34.144 --> 02:33:44.617 - to the riparian buffer easement language but deny the waiver request to allow for a cul-de-sac with 02:33:44.617 --> 02:33:51.006 - to commit to conditions as listed in the packet. Mr. Kinsey. 02:33:52.418 --> 02:34:00.198 - I am interested in a consideration of a condition that would require a delineation report prior to a 02:34:00.198 --> 02:34:07.978 - secondary plan approval so that would be an additional condition. I'm interested in that and I would 02:34:07.978 --> 02:34:12.446 - like to hear if anybody else would be interested in that. 02:34:18.178 --> 02:34:24.433 - My concern with adding additional conditions like this would be that we start to question the professionals 02:34:24.433 --> 02:34:30.282 - that are hired to determine these things. And when we start to do that, it becomes a slippery slope. 02:34:30.282 --> 02:34:36.305 - Then it becomes, does CBU tell us exactly how much the storm water is going through? And can we believe 02:34:36.305 --> 02:34:42.155 - them? Can we believe the price of concrete or asphalt from our other professionals? So it calls into 02:34:42.155 --> 02:34:46.846 - question the very nature of why we even have these staff reports here to tell us 02:34:46.978 --> 02:34:55.482 - because they know these things in very intimate ways that us up here do not. And the general public 02:34:55.482 --> 02:35:04.241 - might not. And I'm not well versed enough in environmental studies and hydrogeology to be able to make 02:35:04.241 --> 02:35:12.915 - that determination on my own. Commissioner Stossberg. I have some general comments if we're ready for 02:35:12.915 --> 02:35:16.062 - those. Does that work? I'll address. 02:35:16.866 --> 02:35:23.525 - Commissioner Kenzie's as well. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. If you have a response to Commissioner Kenzie's 02:35:23.525 --> 02:35:30.119 - request, please. I'll start with Commissioner Kenzie's repress. I basically agree with Commissioner 02:35:30.119 --> 02:35:30.910 - Bishop that 02:35:31.554 --> 02:35:38.928 - I mean, my questions of staff about that were to clarify, both for ourselves and the public, that our 02:35:38.928 --> 02:35:46.230 - staff did the due diligence that we expect of them as professionals. And I think that they have done 02:35:46.230 --> 02:35:53.676 - that. I also, having done some environmental work in the past, some environmental education, including 02:35:53.676 --> 02:35:58.014 - in wetlands, those pictures don't look like wetlands to me. 02:35:58.306 --> 02:36:06.407 - and because there's not the vegetation that you would expect around the wetland growing and It's so 02:36:06.407 --> 02:36:14.590 - between those two things. I just have to trust our staff right now. So I don't think that additional 02:36:14.590 --> 02:36:20.990 - That additional condition is warranted with regard to the rest of the petition 02:36:21.538 --> 02:36:29.173 - I don't have any problems with the waiver related to amendment of riparian buffer language to ensure 02:36:29.173 --> 02:36:36.958 - compliance with CBU. I really generally don't like the alley waivers. I think that we should generally 02:36:36.958 --> 02:36:44.593 - have alleys in subdivisions. There was a commenter that said that in this situation. I do think that 02:36:44.593 --> 02:36:47.390 - it kind of meets those requirements. 02:36:47.490 --> 02:36:55.413 - in terms of the narrowness of the lot. And there are not actually very many houses that are being planned 02:36:55.413 --> 02:37:03.336 - on here. This is not dense. This is in no way a high density development in terms of the number of houses 02:37:03.336 --> 02:37:11.110 - or how much property each of them would have on it. I've compared it in terms of acreage to other areas 02:37:11.110 --> 02:37:13.950 - of Bloomington. It is not that dense. 02:37:14.082 --> 02:37:21.149 - And it might feel dense, but it's not even actually that much more dense than what already exists over 02:37:21.149 --> 02:37:28.216 - there in some places. So I'm OK with the allies in this situation because I appreciate, or OK with not 02:37:28.216 --> 02:37:35.283 - requiring the allies in this situation because of that. However, I also really appreciate what another 02:37:35.283 --> 02:37:38.302 - public commenter said about the idea of the 02:37:38.530 --> 02:37:46.608 - Requiring the through street not being super compatible with not requiring the alleys, which also makes 02:37:46.608 --> 02:37:54.452 - me lean toward allowing the cul-de-sac Waiver and to put in that hammerhead Because those I do think 02:37:54.452 --> 02:38:01.598 - that there could potentially be a problem with with cut-through traffic there in a way that 02:38:03.682 --> 02:38:09.981 - would necessitate something in the future and considering we're not even sure exactly the timeline of 02:38:09.981 --> 02:38:16.218 - requiring that. I also think it's interesting there was a message that we got at some point from the 02:38:16.218 --> 02:38:21.406 - public who mentioned that the other side of Tamarack Trail there is a private road. 02:38:21.570 --> 02:38:27.834 - And so then that also kind of strikes me as a little bit funky is that we're kind of depending on this 02:38:27.834 --> 02:38:34.097 - through ness as part of this connectivity with a private road because that private road can be changed 02:38:34.097 --> 02:38:35.070 - in at any time. 02:38:35.394 --> 02:38:42.797 - then that would also change connectivity. And I do recognize there's a lot of delicateness over there 02:38:42.797 --> 02:38:50.200 - in that area because of the proximity to the IU sports complexes and traffic. And that gets dodgy. So 02:38:50.200 --> 02:38:57.457 - allowing the alley waiver and then also having the through street strikes me as a little bit wonky. 02:38:57.457 --> 02:39:01.086 - I am not in favor of the right of way dedication. 02:39:01.346 --> 02:39:08.943 - Because I and I really and this is sort of like a question too I don't feel like we as the Plan Commission 02:39:08.943 --> 02:39:10.718 - should be able to say to 02:39:11.042 --> 02:39:16.920 - The administration you have to take responsibility for this area of land. You have to maintain it You 02:39:16.920 --> 02:39:22.912 - have to do this that and the other thing with it. I That would be an interesting legal question I think 02:39:22.912 --> 02:39:28.790 - if we were actually allowed to demand that kind of right-of-way dedication as the Planning Commission 02:39:28.790 --> 02:39:32.766 - especially if staff are saying no and it does involve more than just 02:39:32.866 --> 02:39:40.830 - planning at that point. It involves public works. It involves our police department. It involves like 02:39:40.830 --> 02:39:48.638 - all of these other pieces of folks who maintain and keep our city safe. So yeah, I think that those 02:39:48.638 --> 02:39:50.590 - are my comments. Thanks. 02:39:54.594 --> 02:40:02.518 - I just have one more addition to hope he's acceptance of the waiver for alleys that Because this is 02:40:02.518 --> 02:40:10.600 - part of Matlock Heights and it doesn't look like any of the other parts of Matlock Heights or service 02:40:10.600 --> 02:40:18.762 - by alleyways This would be congruent with the rest of the neighborhood Any other questions or comments 02:40:18.762 --> 02:40:20.030 - or emotion good 02:40:23.362 --> 02:40:29.955 - support the proposed conditional approval of having the the wetlands study done not to Throw any aspersions 02:40:29.955 --> 02:40:36.425 - on staff But people don't always get things right and tonight we asked for an explanation of it We didn't 02:40:36.425 --> 02:40:42.590 - get a detailed explanation the person who made the finding wasn't actually here It sounds like there 02:40:42.590 --> 02:40:48.695 - are some technical things that could have been asked and we can't tell if they were astronauts So I 02:40:48.695 --> 02:40:50.526 - don't think it's crazy to say 02:40:50.850 --> 02:40:56.044 - Let's go ahead and require that study as one of the conditions of approval. The people who are opposing 02:40:56.044 --> 02:41:01.089 - the settlement are asking to pay for it. They've been forbidden from entering the property. It would 02:41:01.089 --> 02:41:06.134 - have been a trespass, so they would have been able to do this themselves. So when the evidence is in 02:41:06.134 --> 02:41:11.128 - one person's hands and they're saying, no, you can't look at it, it makes me want to know what that 02:41:11.128 --> 02:41:14.974 - evidence is. So I would support the additional condition for approval there. 02:41:15.266 --> 02:41:23.309 - As far as the waivers, I don't think any of them are justified. I think this land could be developed 02:41:23.309 --> 02:41:31.510 - without a subdivision I don't think we're allowed to grant any of these waivers and I'm not gonna vote 02:41:31.510 --> 02:41:39.951 - for them. So Thank you Mr. Seaborg I Didn't want to say too much, but I guess I want to talk specifically 02:41:39.951 --> 02:41:43.614 - a little bit about the call the sack idea and 02:41:43.938 --> 02:41:50.406 - A lot of what's being discussed and what we're hearing I can I appreciate and there's just there's really 02:41:50.406 --> 02:41:56.508 - just challenging issues. The idea of connectivity and just to speak a little bit about that is it's 02:41:56.508 --> 02:42:02.610 - really is a valuable thing to pursue. It's something that I've I serve and as a staff person to the 02:42:02.610 --> 02:42:06.942 - city transportation commission and the prior traffic commission and so 02:42:07.170 --> 02:42:13.710 - In that world, the idea of why would you ever not have an extra connection not happen would just be 02:42:13.710 --> 02:42:20.511 - mind blowing because every little extra connection you make decreases the pressure on other facilities. 02:42:20.511 --> 02:42:27.246 - So the idea of like a traffic calming consideration, like people might cut through this new road when, 02:42:27.246 --> 02:42:30.974 - if it connects, but that also will mean less people will 02:42:31.874 --> 02:42:39.157 - cut through Glendora and other streets too. So it just creates a more full network that relieves pressure 02:42:39.157 --> 02:42:46.233 - on any single street. I certainly expect people would use it in that way, but it would just distribute 02:42:46.233 --> 02:42:53.310 - it more between all the different facilities. And then if I was, or people were living on this street, 02:42:53.474 --> 02:42:59.680 - And that connects because it's being redeveloped against Walnut Street. That means there's probably 02:42:59.680 --> 02:43:05.948 - a nice commercial space There might be a restaurant a coffee shop that I want to walk to and I don't 02:43:05.948 --> 02:43:12.216 - want to have to drive all the way around too So I think the idea of connectivity is really desirable 02:43:12.216 --> 02:43:18.670 - It's not an easy thing, especially in this interim Time that we don't know how long it will be it might 02:43:18.670 --> 02:43:21.214 - feel awkward but in the long-term vision 02:43:21.410 --> 02:43:28.481 - 100 years from now, people will be appreciative of that connection. So just wanting to speak to that 02:43:28.481 --> 02:43:35.621 - specific element. Thank you. Yeah, I would just follow up on that. I agree with just about everything 02:43:35.621 --> 02:43:42.622 - you said there, with maybe the exception of cut through. I don't really think there is cut through. 02:43:42.622 --> 02:43:49.342 - When people drive on a public street, that's why it's there, right? When you drive down Walnut, 02:43:49.858 --> 02:43:56.709 - or college, you're not cutting through. That's why we have streets is for the public to utilize that. 02:43:56.709 --> 02:44:03.426 - But your point is a fair one. Like the reason we have congestion is because we haven't always taken 02:44:03.426 --> 02:44:10.210 - care to create this kind of connectivity. So I think there are two really important principles here. 02:44:10.210 --> 02:44:16.927 - One is let's try to preserve and create that connectivity. But also at the same time, let's not add 02:44:16.927 --> 02:44:19.614 - cost to housing where we don't have to. 02:44:19.778 --> 02:44:26.353 - And I think those are the two things that I'm struggling to hold in balance here tonight, which is why 02:44:26.353 --> 02:44:32.800 - I think, you know, does it make sense to require a road that doesn't go anywhere today, that's going 02:44:32.800 --> 02:44:39.247 - to create more impervious surface, that's going to add cost to the housing? That does not make sense 02:44:39.247 --> 02:44:45.694 - to me. But I do think the connectivity is important enough that, yes, somebody has to bear the cost. 02:44:46.274 --> 02:44:53.889 - of that. And if we as a city are going to say that's important then yeah we got to bear some of that 02:44:53.889 --> 02:45:01.579 - cost. That means we have to maintain a little strip of undeveloped land then I can live with that. We 02:45:01.579 --> 02:45:09.420 - have to put our money where our mouth is if we say that's something that's important to us. So I'm kind 02:45:09.420 --> 02:45:15.678 - of inclined to to support the the the waiver the cul-de-sac waiver on the issue of 02:45:16.002 --> 02:45:23.110 - The the wetlands delineation I don't I don't I'm not in a habit of opposing the professionals just To 02:45:23.110 --> 02:45:30.078 - be difficult, but I don't have any problem challenge them. They're humans. They do make mistakes my 02:45:30.078 --> 02:45:37.395 - issue with this is I think I don't think it's going to change anything I mean, I think we've we've heard 02:45:37.395 --> 02:45:44.990 - from staff that even if it were a wetland I think it it it changes nothing to the to the final site plan and 02:45:45.186 --> 02:45:57.531 - And so that's my challenge with adding more time and inevitably more money to the process. We heard 02:45:57.531 --> 02:46:10.246 - this was October that they visited this site. We're here now in July, still looking at an initial site 02:46:10.246 --> 02:46:14.814 - plan. This is another example of why 02:46:14.914 --> 02:46:21.118 - Everything is more expensive in Bloomington. We keep adding cost every step of the way. We keep dragging 02:46:21.118 --> 02:46:27.204 - things out every step of the way. And that's not to say these aren't real concerns. They obviously are 02:46:27.204 --> 02:46:33.232 - real concerns. But that's why we have these things in our UDO. We have a designation for intermittent 02:46:33.232 --> 02:46:39.377 - stream. We have a designation for wetlands. We have protections in place. And it's clear that that area 02:46:39.377 --> 02:46:44.222 - is going to be protected. Nothing is going to be built in there. So I'm not sure. 02:46:44.322 --> 02:46:53.194 - I understand why we would want to add more time to drag this out if it's not going to have any impact, 02:46:53.194 --> 02:47:01.894 - if it's not going to move one line on this plat. That's our job tonight, right, is to either approve 02:47:01.894 --> 02:47:10.507 - or deny the lines that are drawn in front of us. And I don't see how adding this is going to change 02:47:10.507 --> 02:47:13.694 - those lines in any way. So go ahead. 02:47:13.826 --> 02:47:22.005 - I'm in the same position. I think I can make a case for supporting the cul-de-sac and I can do it based 02:47:22.005 --> 02:47:29.949 - on some of the tree preservation that it allows and for the peculiarities of the site the thing that 02:47:29.949 --> 02:47:38.207 - is bothering me is the is the wetland delineation and by no means do I want my comment to be interpreted 02:47:38.207 --> 02:47:41.982 - as lack of confidence in staff expertise I have 02:47:42.146 --> 02:47:50.090 - absolute confidence in staff expertise. However, I just wonder if the question I was getting at earlier 02:47:50.090 --> 02:47:57.882 - about laying out the plans on the development. So if a wetland report is delineated, might that alter 02:47:57.882 --> 02:48:05.826 - things? And I think the petitioner was conceding. It might alter it a little bit. The lines might shift 02:48:05.826 --> 02:48:11.326 - a little bit. I'm willing to see if the lines might shift a little bit. 02:48:11.554 --> 02:48:19.257 - and maybe the disturbance area would be increased, or then the area that cannot be disturbed would be 02:48:19.257 --> 02:48:26.658 - increased. So that to me is a reasonable thing to do as a condition of a secondary plat approval. 02:48:26.658 --> 02:48:34.285 - To me, that seems reasonable given some of the evidence that's been presented and the concern that's 02:48:34.285 --> 02:48:40.478 - expressed. And I don't want to make this mistake. I don't want to make a mistake. 02:48:40.578 --> 02:48:48.259 - about the environment. And if we can do a better job and get a little bit, maybe it shifts north or 02:48:48.259 --> 02:48:56.170 - it shifts a little bit east, I'd rather know that now and be informed in my decision than not be fully 02:48:56.170 --> 02:49:03.850 - informed. And again, I don't mean to cast any aspersions or lack of confidence in the staff at all. 02:49:03.850 --> 02:49:09.534 - I greatly value their expertise. But I just think given what we've heard, 02:49:09.634 --> 02:49:16.340 - Given the willingness of the group that's interested in this matter, I think it behooves us to take 02:49:16.340 --> 02:49:23.315 - advantage of the concern that's been raised and to address it and make it a condition. If it comes back 02:49:23.315 --> 02:49:30.021 - and there's no wetland determination, delineation, then okay, great. I have much greater confidence 02:49:30.021 --> 02:49:31.966 - in this plan moving forward. 02:49:32.674 --> 02:49:39.610 - So to me, that's in some ways it satisfies the question. I know it can be a lot of money. It can be 02:49:39.610 --> 02:49:46.685 - a hassle for the petitioner to wait longer. But let's get this resolved so we can satisfy the wetland 02:49:46.685 --> 02:49:53.760 - delineation. So that's where I stand on it. But generally, I'm in favor of this. I think we need more 02:49:53.760 --> 02:50:00.350 - housing in this space. I think the petitioner has gone to great lengths to reduce the housing, 02:50:00.450 --> 02:50:11.236 - so that it's reasonable to preserve the the wetlands and the trees and it's It helps us with housing 02:50:11.236 --> 02:50:22.556 - needs. So to me that's there are some greater needs here being met Yeah, I don't need to belabor anyone's 02:50:22.556 --> 02:50:24.478 - points at all but 02:50:24.578 --> 02:50:32.638 - Yeah, I mean, I tend to agree with Commissioner Kinsey on the wetland delineation. I just don't see 02:50:32.638 --> 02:50:41.020 - why we wouldn't. I think it has a long term impact. Putting in this development has a long term impact. 02:50:41.020 --> 02:50:49.322 - And I also would not despair what the planning staff has evaluated in this with their own professional 02:50:49.322 --> 02:50:54.238 - opinions. And I think we all agree that they do a great job. 02:50:54.338 --> 02:51:03.564 - are the right people for the job. But yeah, it seems like a simple step to add that as a condition. 02:51:03.564 --> 02:51:12.791 - And so I would also be in favor of that. I mean, I will say I struggle with the cul-de-sac a lot. I 02:51:12.791 --> 02:51:22.110 - agree with a lot of the things that Commissioner Seabor shared. When you talk about connectivity, we 02:51:22.110 --> 02:51:23.678 - add a bike lane. 02:51:23.970 --> 02:51:32.499 - And then you think, oh, where did that go? Because it didn't continue on. Well, we can't put a bike 02:51:32.499 --> 02:51:41.198 - lane on every mile of every road at one time. So you've got to kind of just make progress as you can. 02:51:41.198 --> 02:51:50.580 - And I think that by creating the opportunity for connectivity, the cul-de-sac kind of denies that altogether. 02:51:50.580 --> 02:51:52.542 - So I have a hard time. 02:51:52.770 --> 02:52:00.863 - with the cul-de-sac. I mean, the alleys, you know, I think that there's a great point made that if you 02:52:00.863 --> 02:52:08.799 - can't accommodate the alleys, then there is maybe too much density. On the other hand, the point was 02:52:08.799 --> 02:52:16.736 - made that nothing else in that area has an alley. So, you know, I can go, I don't know, I'm a little 02:52:16.736 --> 02:52:20.350 - hung up on that one. So, I guess that's all I 02:52:20.674 --> 02:52:30.912 - I really have to contribute at this point Well, we need a motion of some sort Is anybody prepared to 02:52:30.912 --> 02:52:41.251 - make a motion? If you are planning to propose a waiver to allow cul-de-sac you do need an alternative 02:52:41.251 --> 02:52:42.974 - finding for that 02:53:05.890 --> 02:53:12.625 - Discussing whether we're having a second hearing is that this is a second. Okay, I thought that there 02:53:12.625 --> 02:53:19.228 - was this This is a second hearing well, so this is the yes So there is a required second hearing as 02:53:19.228 --> 02:53:23.454 - part of the waiver. So this is that there is following this and 02:53:23.746 --> 02:53:29.051 - Assuming there is a primary plat approved. There is a secondary plat approval that does have to happen 02:53:29.051 --> 02:53:34.561 - You know petitioner has not requested that to be delegated to the staff So that could come to the planning 02:53:34.561 --> 02:53:36.158 - commission or plaque committee 02:53:55.842 --> 02:54:07.504 - No one is going to make a motion. Crafting up a alternative finding is not easy on the fly here. I would 02:54:07.504 --> 02:54:19.166 - also ask that if Commissioner Kinsey does want to do the condition related to the wetland that we handle 02:54:19.166 --> 02:54:24.830 - that separately as a separate motion as opposed to 02:54:24.930 --> 02:54:33.015 - with the entire petition. So I feel like any of this that we handled separately might help in case there's 02:54:33.015 --> 02:54:40.797 - split votes on on any of these waivers. Yeah I think I think that's good. What we could do is we could 02:54:40.797 --> 02:54:48.428 - just get a motion on the table as the staff recommendation and then you could make a motion to amend 02:54:48.428 --> 02:54:53.566 - that motion to add another condition which we could have a separate 02:54:54.338 --> 02:55:04.964 - vote on Somebody does All right, I would like to make a motion actually though to My motion is about 02:55:04.964 --> 02:55:16.222 - the additional condition. That's the one I'm gonna set first. Does that make sense to set that? First well 02:55:19.074 --> 02:55:28.823 - You can't really amend something that doesn't exist yet. We got to have a motion All we have is the 02:55:28.823 --> 02:55:39.059 - staff recommendation so Commissioner seaborne I Recommend that the planned Commission adopt the proposed 02:55:39.059 --> 02:55:48.126 - findings approve the waiver requests and not require 67% of the lots be served by alleys and 02:55:48.674 --> 02:55:55.165 - Approve the waiver request to amend the riparian buffer easement language and deny the waiver request 02:55:55.165 --> 02:56:01.656 - to allow for a cul-de-sac with the following conditions. Number one approved per terms and conditions 02:56:01.656 --> 02:56:08.146 - of BZA appeals case number ZR 2 0 2 5 dash 12 dash 0 1 1 4 and final acceptance and approval from the 02:56:08.146 --> 02:56:14.574 - city of Bloomington utilities is required prior to the issuance of any permits. All right. We have a 02:56:14.574 --> 02:56:17.310 - motion. Is there a second for that motion. 02:56:19.330 --> 02:56:28.219 - I Think I read the staff report Yeah, so there's a motion on the table is is essentially exactly as 02:56:28.219 --> 02:56:37.374 - the staff recommendation. So now if If any commissioners would like to offer an amendment to that That 02:56:37.374 --> 02:56:46.618 - motion we would entertain that at this time All right, I would like to offer an amendment to the motion 02:56:46.618 --> 02:56:48.574 - that was just made to 02:56:48.866 --> 02:57:04.247 - for a additional condition that would require a wetland delineation report prior to a secondary plat 02:57:04.247 --> 02:57:16.126 - approval. Is that that's it. Just yes. OK. Is there a second for that motion. 02:57:22.178 --> 02:57:33.794 - Okay Staff we understand you got that sufficient language you got So mr. Seabor made a motion to approve 02:57:33.794 --> 02:57:45.188 - for the staff report and then commissioner Kinsey added a condition for the wetland and So that is the 02:57:45.188 --> 02:57:52.158 - motion approval with three conditions. Got it. Okay, so we any 02:57:53.346 --> 02:58:01.055 - Yes, yes, it's not the amendment has not been adopted yet right it's just been proposed most moved and 02:58:01.055 --> 02:58:05.246 - seconded is there any discussion on the motion to amend 02:58:10.466 --> 02:58:17.790 - the amendment based on the delineation was to require it to be completed within 45 days of primary plat 02:58:17.790 --> 02:58:24.832 - approval and I realized that there was no timeline provided in your amendment is that anything that 02:58:24.832 --> 02:58:32.015 - you would reconsider if you can I would consider a timeline but I thought the secondary plat approval 02:58:32.015 --> 02:58:39.550 - would be sufficient as an endpoint I don't know I mean please suggest something if there's a better way to 02:58:39.938 --> 02:58:46.661 - prescribe this. I mean you can certainly supplement your condition with that wording of prior to secondary 02:58:46.661 --> 02:58:53.069 - platter. But I mean and what would the timeline be then whenever they file for the secondary plan. Is 02:58:53.069 --> 02:58:59.981 - that enough for you. I just think that if we're going to add additional conditions there has to be timeliness 02:58:59.981 --> 02:59:06.264 - brought into this especially given the protected areas. There is normal. There is a normal schedule 02:59:06.264 --> 02:59:07.646 - for a secondary plan. 02:59:07.938 --> 02:59:16.427 - Yeah they have one year to file for the secondary plan so they have that time period before they file 02:59:16.427 --> 02:59:24.916 - for secondary plan to abide by your condition. Yeah. Is that I think extending it to a year seems too 02:59:24.916 --> 02:59:33.322 - long. I would be preferential to 45 days that are recommended by the neighborhood development. Yeah. 02:59:33.322 --> 02:59:36.734 - Would you accept that as a as a friendly 02:59:37.218 --> 02:59:45.192 - Amendment to your amendment. Well, I want to be accepting of friendly amendments I I'm not sure that 02:59:45.192 --> 02:59:53.086 - I want to to add additional timelines on things that are already have set timelines. That's my only 02:59:53.086 --> 03:00:01.533 - trepidation is Adding timelines that already have established timelines. Yes Leaving it as the established 03:00:01.533 --> 03:00:06.270 - timeline basically leaves it up to the petitioner to handle 03:00:06.914 --> 03:00:15.302 - Because that's part of what the condition is saying, do this delineation. And we don't necessarily know 03:00:15.302 --> 03:00:23.852 - exactly how long it will take. I don't know if the 45 days was researched. I don't know if it was random. 03:00:23.852 --> 03:00:29.982 - Yeah, but that will leave it up to the petitioner, I think, to get it done. 03:00:30.626 --> 03:00:37.850 - So clarifying point then if the petitioner goes for the next plat approval in under 45 days and the 03:00:37.850 --> 03:00:45.436 - study is not done in that time can they still seek that approval. I think the answer would be no because 03:00:45.436 --> 03:00:52.805 - it would be required prior to the secondary plat approval. OK. So where is the impetus to get it done 03:00:52.805 --> 03:00:57.790 - in a timely manner then on the side of the neighborhood development. 03:00:57.954 --> 03:01:05.240 - Because they could drag their feet in how long that takes and I mean, I think I think in this All that 03:01:05.240 --> 03:01:12.456 - we are according to the motion that's on the table right now. The only requirement is that it is done 03:01:12.456 --> 03:01:19.600 - prior to secondary plat approval there's no requirements in this motion as to There's no specificity 03:01:19.600 --> 03:01:26.674 - as to who's Who's paying for it who's hiring it how it's getting done. So by in essence, I think it 03:01:26.674 --> 03:01:27.806 - would be on the 03:01:28.674 --> 03:01:36.908 - The burden will be on the petitioner to make sure it's done before they come and seek that second air 03:01:36.908 --> 03:01:45.141 - path. All right. I appreciate that. I'm still not supportive but thank you. I also want to remind the 03:01:45.141 --> 03:01:53.456 - commission that the petitioner does have time left if they wanted to add anything or certainly address 03:01:53.456 --> 03:01:58.622 - any of the conditions. If the petitioner has a comment on this. 03:01:58.818 --> 03:02:06.252 - How to handle or what they feel would work. I would love to hear it Nothing additional I think you've 03:02:06.252 --> 03:02:13.613 - heard everything that the pros and cons of everything at this point and I think by the the time that 03:02:13.613 --> 03:02:21.120 - a secondary plot was if you choose to vote on that and have a secondary Wetland delineation study done 03:02:21.120 --> 03:02:28.190 - then that's fair and well, you know we do it by the time that we file for the secondary plot and 03:02:29.826 --> 03:02:42.092 - I don't think there's anything else to add. All right. Any other questions or comments on the motion 03:02:42.092 --> 03:02:54.843 - to amend the motion to add a third condition of approval. OK. Let's call the roll on the motion to amend 03:02:54.843 --> 03:02:57.758 - Kenzie. Yes. Smith. No. 03:02:59.298 --> 03:03:14.994 - Stossburg no Whistler no Burrell no Bishop no Korodke no seabor No All right that motion fails so we 03:03:14.994 --> 03:03:28.670 - now are back to the original motion unamended No, not everybody's voted yet technically 03:03:29.922 --> 03:03:40.273 - Oh, I'm sorry. Holmes. Yes. Sorry. Yes. But you're on the record. All right. Sorry about that. So that 03:03:40.273 --> 03:03:51.328 - we are back to the original motion which is exactly the staff recommendation. We can entertain any additional 03:03:51.328 --> 03:03:59.870 - motions at this time or I'm sorry. So any additional comment any additional motions. 03:04:02.850 --> 03:04:09.246 - Mr. Bishop Mr. Smith you know an impact the neighborhood they've they've made their case clear although 03:04:09.246 --> 03:04:15.518 - I just want to let you know from a density standpoint this is not a high density development I pulled 03:04:15.518 --> 03:04:21.914 - some numbers out of your neighborhood and you're in the point four to point six acres per lot that puts 03:04:21.914 --> 03:04:28.125 - this into eight to ten house range on this four acres if they could follow your design guidelines of 03:04:28.125 --> 03:04:29.662 - your neighborhood I mean 03:04:29.890 --> 03:04:35.861 - It'd be a completely different outcome and you're you're repairing buffer. No, that would be there because 03:04:35.861 --> 03:04:41.664 - it wasn't a requirement in the 50s With regard to the cul-de-sac in listening to neighbors, they really 03:04:41.664 --> 03:04:47.356 - Putting that road through this just adds more impact to them I Was first let's not build the road and 03:04:47.356 --> 03:04:53.103 - put the right away, but now I don't want that road bill at all Connecting through there. I don't think 03:04:53.103 --> 03:04:58.014 - it adds anything and if there's a commercial if that if that commercial property to the 03:04:58.114 --> 03:05:04.604 - West of them gets developed They're not gonna be happy at all if there's a road cut through there and 03:05:04.604 --> 03:05:11.095 - that's gonna be a high date Whatever it goes in there is gonna be high density and they have a ton of 03:05:11.095 --> 03:05:17.585 - frontage on old 37 and Right now two huge cuts and they got grading ingress. If anything, I'd like to 03:05:17.585 --> 03:05:24.139 - see a trail Dedicated through there from the other road So I don't know how to do an amendment to this 03:05:24.139 --> 03:05:26.430 - Request based on findings today and 03:05:26.754 --> 03:05:32.473 - So I just want to say, I'd love to see this hammerhead going as opposed to the trail being put through. 03:05:32.473 --> 03:05:37.972 - I don't think I'd agree with the right away being dedicated today, but I would like to see it trail 03:05:37.972 --> 03:05:43.636 - right away dedicated. Cause we talk about walkability and bike path. I think that'd be a much more use 03:05:43.636 --> 03:05:49.245 - cause I don't want crossing or praying buffer. I don't want cutting down more trees. That's the whole 03:05:49.245 --> 03:05:55.294 - point of tightening this thing up. Yeah. I think first of all, you certainly can make a motion to, to approve 03:05:55.522 --> 03:06:06.738 - The waiver request for the cul-de-sac I'll do that. I still not do the findings. I'll make a motion 03:06:06.738 --> 03:06:18.067 - to approve the waiver for the cul-de-sac All right, so we would have to add another finding in terms 03:06:18.067 --> 03:06:25.470 - of finding for Finding effects it's been stated by many people by 03:06:26.274 --> 03:06:36.468 - Everybody that has been there that there's a large canopy of trees with old trees in place. So finding 03:06:36.468 --> 03:06:46.760 - the fact is that this has old trees in place and a height riparian buffer. And we want to preserve this 03:06:46.760 --> 03:06:53.886 - particular area. And that is a peculiarity of this lot. Does that work. 03:06:56.098 --> 03:07:03.701 - I'm not sure that the old trees part works But the riparian buffer part, I think it works work. Okay, 03:07:03.701 --> 03:07:11.304 - so there we go That is the finding can you so are you are you? Are you proposing a motion? Yes, I can 03:07:11.304 --> 03:07:18.982 - propose the motion So the motion is we are going to approve the waiver request not require 67% of lots 03:07:18.982 --> 03:07:23.902 - served by alleys approve the waiver request to amend the riparian 03:07:24.194 --> 03:07:32.240 - buffer easement language and approve the waiver request to allow the call the SEC with the following 03:07:32.240 --> 03:07:40.366 - conditions specify the two conditions by staff as presented on a packet and our Effects of finding is 03:07:40.366 --> 03:07:48.492 - the riparian buffer that we want to preserve That it's peculiar. It's a peculiarity to this lot okay, 03:07:48.492 --> 03:07:51.838 - so to be clear the amendment is simply to 03:07:52.258 --> 03:08:03.234 - Change the original motion to now approve the waiver request for the cul-de-sac and to add the additional 03:08:03.234 --> 03:08:14.003 - finding that That will preserve the right in the riparian buffer Staff got that Feel that's sufficient. 03:08:14.003 --> 03:08:20.734 - All right, is there a second for that motion? We got there first 03:08:22.146 --> 03:08:28.556 - Sorry, hold on who seconded that Okay Yeah, mr. Bishop seconded it, but I have a question about where 03:08:28.556 --> 03:08:34.903 - that leaves us with the row dedication So staff, where does that leave us right now in terms of that 03:08:34.903 --> 03:08:41.313 - motion with the road dedication? Do we still have the road dedication or not? Yes, so the petitioners 03:08:41.313 --> 03:08:47.786 - shown that is right away So you would need to amend that somehow if you want to remove that additional 03:08:47.786 --> 03:08:51.934 - right away dedication Okay, should that be a second and separate? 03:08:52.034 --> 03:09:02.567 - condition And one thing that I was can we vote on a friendly amendment well If it's friendly, you don't 03:09:02.567 --> 03:09:12.898 - have to vote on it. So this is up to mr. Burrell at this point It's her motion if she wants to accept 03:09:12.898 --> 03:09:21.406 - that change She can but it's up to her. I think we have Yes For a while from Andrew 03:09:21.602 --> 03:09:28.778 - For mr. Seymour and then this Kinsey or I mean and then mr. Holmes seconded it So that motion is just 03:09:28.778 --> 03:09:36.166 - to go with staff recommendation, right? So we did one amendment failed. So now we're trying for a second 03:09:36.166 --> 03:09:43.624 - amendment of miss Burrell's and mr. Smith is asking miss Burrell if if she would can add to her amendment 03:09:43.624 --> 03:09:49.182 - that the right-of-way does not need to be dedicated for help how far Mr. Smith 03:09:50.370 --> 03:09:57.594 - Say from the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line Okay, so just right-of-way enough for the cul-de-sac 03:09:57.594 --> 03:10:04.486 - Yeah, it ends with the end of the cul-de-sac or hammerhead whatever they're doing Yeah, he is proposing 03:10:04.486 --> 03:10:11.245 - so yeah, yeah, so there is there is an exhibit called no cul-de-sac exhibit that shows where You know 03:10:11.245 --> 03:10:18.270 - essence that line would stop so we're saying from that line West there would be no right-of-way dedicated 03:10:22.338 --> 03:10:29.545 - Is that where you're proposing Mr. Smith. Yes. Is that OK with you to add to yours or do you want him 03:10:29.545 --> 03:10:37.035 - to do it separately after. Can I can I can I propose another kind of similar to Mr. Smith but potentially 03:10:37.035 --> 03:10:44.242 - an alternate to leave the right of row dedication decision in the hands of the administration so that 03:10:44.242 --> 03:10:51.166 - then they can all decide whether or not they want the right like the city wants the right of way. 03:10:52.066 --> 03:10:58.441 - Do you know what I mean? So that we're kind of leaving it up to them to decide whether or not they want 03:10:58.441 --> 03:11:05.184 - I don't think we can do that So the primary plat has to include whatever right away is going to be dedicated. 03:11:05.184 --> 03:11:11.437 - So you all have to decide So we're to miss Burrell Do you want to take mr. Smith's friendly amendment 03:11:11.437 --> 03:11:17.567 - or do yours on your own and then he could do it his on his own Let's do him separate I want to take 03:11:17.567 --> 03:11:19.774 - care of that I want to take care of 03:11:20.162 --> 03:11:28.731 - This first and then enemy at any amendments can be voted separately Okay, so the amendment is to approve 03:11:28.731 --> 03:11:36.973 - the cul-de-sac waiver with additional findings of fact. Otherwise having it be the original Original 03:11:36.973 --> 03:11:45.134 - motion, right and we got a second for that, correct All right, so the motion on the table is to add 03:11:45.134 --> 03:11:49.214 - to it is to approve The cul-de-sac waiver and add 03:11:49.826 --> 03:11:57.227 - additional finding We have a second is there any Additional discussion before we vote on this man Mr. 03:11:57.227 --> 03:12:04.556 - Stossberg, I'll just say that this one in general was really really hard for me because I agree with 03:12:04.556 --> 03:12:11.957 - everything that mr Seabor said to about connectivity and I think connectivity is really important and 03:12:11.957 --> 03:12:14.206 - I love the idea of a trail and 03:12:14.882 --> 03:12:26.382 - Possibility through there as opposed to vehicles. I don't think that we get to decide that right now 03:12:26.382 --> 03:12:37.995 - But as I said earlier, I think ultimately it's a better decision to grant that waiver and Not disturb 03:12:37.995 --> 03:12:44.030 - that back area All right any additional comment I am 03:12:44.354 --> 03:12:52.417 - I'm still in favor of an additional condition on this and I don't know if that would kill it. All right. 03:12:52.417 --> 03:13:00.173 - But do I need to add it now or late. I don't know what I don't know what your condition is. The same 03:13:00.173 --> 03:13:07.928 - one as before the same one for a wetland delineation report prior to the secondary approval. I think 03:13:07.928 --> 03:13:14.302 - that's already been we've already. Can't we just answer. We already made a motion. 03:13:14.498 --> 03:13:23.756 - Debated it we voted on it All right, is there any the motion in front of us right now is whether to 03:13:23.756 --> 03:13:33.477 - amend I'm sorry commissioner It's just it's getting confusing what we're voting on. So what we're voting 03:13:33.477 --> 03:13:43.198 - on right now very clear the the motion that is on the table right now is to amend the original motion to 03:13:43.490 --> 03:13:53.938 - allow for approval of the cul-de-sac waiver and to add a finding to support that. So that's what that's 03:13:53.938 --> 03:14:04.085 - we're voting on right now unless there's any other discussion. All right. Let's call the roll on the 03:14:04.085 --> 03:14:12.926 - amendment to approve the cul-de-sac waiver and add the supporting findings. Smith. Yes. 03:14:14.050 --> 03:14:29.123 - Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Burrell yes Bishop. Yes Karate no seaboard no Holmes no Kinsey yes Okay, 03:14:29.123 --> 03:14:42.718 - I believe that was five yeses So that motion carries. Okay. So now the motion as amended is 03:14:43.522 --> 03:14:52.925 - So as I think I can do this as a member of somebody with that first vote Julian's Commissioner Kinsey's 03:14:52.925 --> 03:15:02.600 - first motion to add a condition I would like to redo that vote please because I don't think that everybody 03:15:02.600 --> 03:15:10.014 - knew what it was that we were voted on and since I am a member of the side that I 03:15:10.146 --> 03:15:18.982 - had the majority in that situation I think that I can move to redo that vote. So my when I my motion 03:15:18.982 --> 03:15:27.906 - was to approve the all three waivers correct. Yes. So that the other two were already included in the 03:15:27.906 --> 03:15:37.179 - original motion. OK. So you are just adding the third approval approval. Yeah I thought I was just making 03:15:37.179 --> 03:15:39.454 - a motion for it for that. 03:15:39.874 --> 03:15:49.514 - That mean we approved all three as it stands right now the motion on the table as amended approves all 03:15:49.514 --> 03:15:59.153 - three waivers. All right Now you asking Commissioner Stosselberg you're asking I want to redo the vote 03:15:59.153 --> 03:16:09.822 - on reconsider Kenzie's condition Okay Is there a second Okay, and Would you like to restate your original motion? 03:16:09.986 --> 03:16:19.136 - Just so we're clear here. Yes. My motion was to add a third condition that the wetland delineation be 03:16:19.136 --> 03:16:28.286 - done and conducted prior to a secondary plan approval or consideration. Is it an approval. I mean the 03:16:28.286 --> 03:16:37.616 - right language is it a review or a secondary plan approval. Yeah. Okay. We're going to get through this 03:16:37.616 --> 03:16:38.782 - one quickly. 03:16:39.074 --> 03:16:46.710 - I don't think we need it. Does everybody understand what we're voting on here. There was maybe some 03:16:46.710 --> 03:16:54.346 - confusion first time. All right. This is the motion to reconsider the earlier motion. So we're just 03:16:54.346 --> 03:17:02.059 - going to vote on this again. The vote here is whether you want to add a third condition to require a 03:17:02.059 --> 03:17:08.702 - wetland delineation prior to secondary plan approval. Please call the roll. Stossberg. 03:17:09.154 --> 03:17:26.252 - Whistler no Burrell no Bishop no Koraki. Yes seaboard No Holmes. Yes Kenzie. Yes, Smith. No Okay, so 03:17:26.252 --> 03:17:37.086 - I believe it it's failed again All right. So we are now back to 03:17:37.250 --> 03:17:46.747 - Motion on the table. We are getting dangerously close to nine o'clock But I think unless there are any 03:17:46.747 --> 03:17:55.968 - other Motions or amendments we have a motion we can We can vote on here are there any other motions 03:17:55.968 --> 03:18:06.110 - Mr. Stossberg Exactly how we need to phrase this but I want to move to not require the road dedication of the 03:18:07.586 --> 03:18:13.604 - the road dedication as depicted on I Don't know which page that can be a condition of approval, right? 03:18:13.604 --> 03:18:19.447 - And then you just have to say where you want the right-of-way to end which is on that exhibit So on 03:18:19.447 --> 03:18:25.231 - the exhibit that mr. Butler prepared where it shows the hammerhead turnaround. There's a suggested 03:18:25.231 --> 03:18:31.307 - right-of-way end This just loads really really slowly on my computer so I can't so you can see it there 03:18:31.307 --> 03:18:35.806 - like diagonal Yeah, so I don't like anything else, but that's so I'd like to 03:18:36.418 --> 03:18:48.605 - move that we add a condition of approval to not dedicate that future right of way as depicted in that 03:18:48.605 --> 03:18:59.358 - image on the screen and that the roadway will end where it is shown. Is that good enough? 03:19:12.098 --> 03:19:22.389 - Okay, we got a motion in a second to add a condition that would simply remove the required or the right 03:19:22.389 --> 03:19:32.384 - away dedication from the plat that that is Submitted Is there any can I ask a question on this Let's 03:19:32.384 --> 03:19:40.894 - say hypothetically city decides as Commissioner Smith suggested that we want to put a 03:19:41.250 --> 03:19:54.246 - There instead of the road If the right away were dedicated does that give the city optionality to do 03:19:54.246 --> 03:20:07.113 - anything but Build that road And theoretically if let's say the property to the west were developed 03:20:07.113 --> 03:20:11.230 - as PUD and we wanted to ask the 03:20:11.362 --> 03:20:18.099 - of that project to complete the road But we didn't have the right-of-way that option would be off the 03:20:18.099 --> 03:20:24.771 - table Correct. It wouldn't be off the table. It's gonna be a lot harder because they have to go back 03:20:24.771 --> 03:20:31.574 - wire the right-of-way from yeah. Yeah, okay All right, well that commissioner Stossberg I guess I have 03:20:31.574 --> 03:20:35.934 - a follow-up question on that because one of the reasons why I'm I 03:20:36.162 --> 03:20:42.814 - Proposing this condition is because staff doesn't want that right-of-way Does staff feel differently 03:20:42.814 --> 03:20:49.466 - about that right-of-way if it was the idea of being saved for a trail as opposed to a road? Or is it 03:20:49.466 --> 03:20:56.118 - basically like like the liability of it at all is just not a good risk And I would totally hear from 03:20:56.118 --> 03:21:02.046 - our city engineer. Yeah, I think I'd like to hear from mr. City engineer seaborne I guess 03:21:05.634 --> 03:21:14.233 - would be to maintain the right away preservation just to enable the ability to build a path or in some 03:21:14.233 --> 03:21:22.581 - reason that things redevelop and there is a rezone. It would be nice to have that. We have a lot of 03:21:22.581 --> 03:21:31.096 - public right aways that are unimproved. There are some maintenance needs that happen at times, but it 03:21:31.096 --> 03:21:32.766 - is relatively rare. 03:21:34.018 --> 03:21:40.823 - That's what I would suggest. But recognize it is some increased liability. But there's also a lot of 03:21:40.823 --> 03:21:47.628 - if it isn't preserved as right away, it just that's what it's going to be. And there's so many times 03:21:47.628 --> 03:21:54.635 - we're looking at a maps and we wish we had those options. So my suggestion would be to keep it as right 03:21:54.635 --> 03:22:02.046 - away. So your preference in this situation is to keep it even though earlier planning staff was like no. Yes. 03:22:06.146 --> 03:22:15.827 - Planning staff say to that Director coin, did you have something? You're technically I think are are 03:22:15.827 --> 03:22:26.083 - employed now Technically I am the discussion I'm having here is the concept of Just because it's dedicated 03:22:26.083 --> 03:22:29.342 - doesn't mean we have to accept it 03:22:31.170 --> 03:22:38.305 - We haven't cleared that. I think staff believes that we do. If it's dedicated on the plot, we accept 03:22:38.305 --> 03:22:45.439 - it. There is a known concept if you have streets and roads in a subdivision and they are built, then 03:22:45.439 --> 03:22:53.210 - we accept those. There's an act of acceptance. I think my understanding in the past is that is an affirmative 03:22:53.210 --> 03:23:00.062 - act by local government. Just because they dedicate something doesn't mean we have to accept it. 03:23:00.674 --> 03:23:06.796 - Eric and I, okay, first timer. So Eric has been around a lot longer and has a different view of that 03:23:06.796 --> 03:23:12.978 - if you want to go ahead and tell them what you think. I mean, unless somebody from legal or otherwise 03:23:12.978 --> 03:23:19.100 - knows differently, once something has been shown on a plat as right away and signed and recorded, it 03:23:19.100 --> 03:23:25.222 - is now city property. Sorry. Yeah, that's, that's not accurate, right? BPW has to take it in. It's a 03:23:25.222 --> 03:23:29.950 - two part process. This is the difference between a dedication and acceptance. 03:23:31.330 --> 03:23:37.141 - Think mr. Seabrook, I believe there's two things going on I'm not an attorney, but I think there's if 03:23:37.141 --> 03:23:43.123 - it is recorded as a secondary plat dedicating the right-of-way It is the public's right-of-way But there 03:23:43.123 --> 03:23:48.877 - is a separate effort that officially accepts some improvements into the city's maintenance inventory 03:23:48.877 --> 03:23:54.631 - So that's when we accept a street and then public works takes that in they maintain it. So there are 03:23:54.631 --> 03:23:55.486 - many different 03:23:55.714 --> 03:24:03.607 - Publicly dedicated right-of-ways that are the city's right-of-way, but we don't actively maintain like 03:24:03.607 --> 03:24:11.960 - we do public roads that show up in our maintenance inventory So that's That's what I'm saying the difference 03:24:11.960 --> 03:24:20.160 - between accepting the liability to maintain and operate You could have for example a plat that has streets 03:24:20.160 --> 03:24:23.838 - and roads in it and they could be dedicated and 03:24:24.162 --> 03:24:31.004 - but we could decide they weren't built to specifications. They had some fault in it. We don't accept 03:24:31.004 --> 03:24:37.981 - them. We're not going to maintain them or operate them. So that's I think fairly well known. Certainly 03:24:37.981 --> 03:24:44.959 - the county does it that way. I know about that. But all I'm saying is is that you believe you can have 03:24:44.959 --> 03:24:51.733 - an easement and have it dedicated but it does not automatically transfer an obligation or liability 03:24:51.733 --> 03:24:53.630 - on city government. I would 03:24:54.306 --> 03:25:02.288 - Leave that to city legal to back me up or not or work it out with Eric here, but that's the operating 03:25:02.288 --> 03:25:10.349 - concept that So I saw her representative from city little stand up and then sit back down again in the 03:25:10.349 --> 03:25:18.410 - back, I guess I would love to Have that kind of clarified in terms of like our like the city liability 03:25:18.410 --> 03:25:23.262 - because I'm totally willing to withdraw my condition if staff 03:25:23.522 --> 03:25:32.396 - kind of in Consensus around whether or not we want this row. I need to stop What real quick before we 03:25:32.396 --> 03:25:41.271 - go any further? We're three minutes away from nine o'clock now We don't necessarily adjourn until 930 03:25:41.271 --> 03:25:51.102 - but we can't introduce any new cases after nine o'clock so if we don't take any action in the next three minutes 03:25:51.458 --> 03:25:59.159 - The default is we're all coming back here within a week to do another hearing. So we can do two things 03:25:59.159 --> 03:26:06.785 - when we can spend the rules and just decide to stay and hear those three additional petitions tonight 03:26:06.785 --> 03:26:14.336 - or we could take a quick action to continue those petitions to the August meeting. Looks like Jackie 03:26:14.336 --> 03:26:20.766 - has something she wants to say. Well the resolution response I think has to be heard. 03:26:21.538 --> 03:26:31.207 - than the August meeting because we only have a certain number of days for you to hold a hearing on the 03:26:31.207 --> 03:26:40.876 - resolution response to From counsel. All right, so I need a motion then to suspend the rules and allow 03:26:40.876 --> 03:26:49.982 - additional cases to be Introduced after our nine o'clock deadline Okay, I'm gonna just motion to 03:26:50.082 --> 03:26:58.884 - Suspend the rules and allow us to consider additional action beyond the 9 o'clock second for that Second 03:26:58.884 --> 03:27:07.519 - all right all in favor of suspending the rules say aye aye any opposed All right. Very good now. Sorry 03:27:07.519 --> 03:27:11.710 - for that. We can get back to the issue at hand. I 03:27:18.402 --> 03:27:24.971 - Any Dean of Casa mania and city of Bloomington legal department. I'm just going to support what our 03:27:24.971 --> 03:27:31.671 - director is saying that dedication is different. It's not the same as an acceptance. Acceptance would 03:27:31.671 --> 03:27:38.306 - be formal agreement to take liability responsibility. Dedication is an offering. There is a case law 03:27:38.306 --> 03:27:45.007 - that talks a little bit about municipalities and dedications as a condition for approving development 03:27:45.007 --> 03:27:46.846 - permits such as rezoning or 03:27:47.394 --> 03:27:55.147 - Any kind of development. So the case that I'm pointing to is stolen versus city of Teegard and that 03:27:55.147 --> 03:28:03.444 - does that does explain that a dedication does not mean acceptance. I'll withdraw my condition then because 03:28:03.444 --> 03:28:11.352 - I think then my goal of not forcing the city to manage this is argument. Thanks. I agree. I think the 03:28:11.352 --> 03:28:16.702 - default that means that it is up to the city to take it or leave it. 03:28:17.378 --> 03:28:27.095 - Okay. All right. Well then that motion is withdrawn. So we are now back to the original motion which 03:28:27.095 --> 03:28:37.581 - as amended Which now as it stands is to approve all three waiver requests Is there any additional discussion 03:28:37.581 --> 03:28:45.278 - before we vote on that motion? All right, let's call the roll on the motion and 03:28:48.802 --> 03:29:04.836 - Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Seymour. Yes. Holmes. No. Kinsey. Yes. Smith. Yes. Stossburg. Yes. All right. The 03:29:04.836 --> 03:29:17.854 - motion carries. Thank you all for your patience as we work through that. It was a 03:29:18.082 --> 03:29:29.941 - A difficult one, appreciate that. We will now move on to our next petition, which is the first of three 03:29:29.941 --> 03:29:41.345 - UDO text amendments, ZO 2026-06-0006. Eric, are you presenting these together or individually? I am 03:29:41.345 --> 03:29:46.590 - going to present each of these independently. 03:29:46.882 --> 03:29:55.386 - So given the time, I will be brief, and as these are the first of two hearings, I will keep that in 03:29:55.386 --> 03:30:00.574 - mind, obviously, in my brevity with these things. Thank you. 03:30:00.834 --> 03:30:08.205 - The petition before us tonight is a response to a council resolution directing the Planning Commission 03:30:08.205 --> 03:30:15.432 - to come forward with certain legislative changes to the UDO. The resolution is in staff's report and 03:30:15.432 --> 03:30:22.946 - in the packet, but I will just briefly step through what those items were. So those were directing staff 03:30:22.946 --> 03:30:27.454 - to look at adjusting minimum lot widths and minimum lot length 03:30:27.650 --> 03:30:37.748 - areas in the R1 R2 R3 and R4 districts to better align those with existing lot sizes and lot area. So 03:30:37.748 --> 03:30:45.470 - this is I'll just kind of go through the resolution and then we'll talk about 03:30:45.762 --> 03:30:53.808 - each of the things independently. So the second section of the resolution also directed the department 03:30:53.808 --> 03:31:01.619 - and or the plan commission to bring forward a resolution to reduce minimum lot areas and lot widths 03:31:01.619 --> 03:31:09.587 - and in relation to subdivision standards in order to make the subdivision and creation of lots easier 03:31:09.587 --> 03:31:11.774 - to promote more housing and 03:31:12.034 --> 03:31:18.819 - You know creation of lots within the city so directed us to look at things such as impervious surface 03:31:18.819 --> 03:31:25.670 - coverage lot frontage requirements And just general subdivision standards in general There was a third 03:31:25.670 --> 03:31:31.390 - section that directed us to look at the sustainable development incentives to require 03:31:32.194 --> 03:31:41.348 - that come forward utilize the sustainable development incentives and to include a requirement that buildings 03:31:41.348 --> 03:31:49.831 - use either electricity or on-site renewable energy sources. And then, well, that was three and four. 03:31:49.831 --> 03:31:55.038 - And then the fifth was to eliminate parking minimums. And so, 03:31:55.298 --> 03:32:05.967 - We have brought forward several things to address each of those, and I will step through those. Give 03:32:05.967 --> 03:32:16.741 - me just a second while I pull this up. So I will just state that in your series of exhibits, we noted 03:32:16.741 --> 03:32:25.086 - that some of the standards in Chapter 2 and the district's elements themselves 03:32:25.186 --> 03:32:33.693 - It varied a little bit from the chapter four. So I'm just going to focus on the chapter four table. 03:32:33.693 --> 03:32:42.710 - I realize this is hard to see and I apologize. Let me see if I can get rid of the comments here if that's 03:32:42.710 --> 03:32:46.878 - okay. Maybe not. Yeah, it's a little bit better. 03:32:47.170 --> 03:32:53.475 - But in essence, in your packet, if you go to the dimensional standards table in Chapter 4, you'll see 03:32:53.475 --> 03:32:59.904 - the overview of the districts and what we're proposing. So real briefly, I'll just kind of step through 03:32:59.904 --> 03:33:06.086 - those. What we're looking at is just reducing the minimum lot area and the minimum lot width across 03:33:06.086 --> 03:33:08.126 - all the single family districts. 03:33:08.226 --> 03:33:15.327 - establishing a build to range in these districts, establishing a percentage of the building that has 03:33:15.327 --> 03:33:20.670 - to be in that area, reducing the side yard setbacks in all of the districts 03:33:20.770 --> 03:33:27.855 - getting rid of the additional setback requirement that is on all the districts for the second story. 03:33:27.855 --> 03:33:34.870 - So in the R1 and R2 districts, well, let me just step through each district, I guess. In the R1, we 03:33:34.870 --> 03:33:42.095 - are proposing to change the minimum lot size from 20,000 square feet to 7,200 square feet and changing 03:33:42.095 --> 03:33:48.478 - the lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet. We're proposing to modify this first floor setback 03:33:48.802 --> 03:33:55.379 - or leave that as is, but as I mentioned, reduce or get rid of the additional setback requirement for 03:33:55.379 --> 03:34:02.087 - the second story. In the R2 district, we're proposing to change the minimum lot size from 7,200 square 03:34:02.087 --> 03:34:08.729 - feet to 5,000 square feet and proposing to change the minimum lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet. Side 03:34:08.729 --> 03:34:15.567 - yard setback would be changing from eight feet to six feet. Again, getting rid of the additional setback 03:34:15.567 --> 03:34:18.302 - for the second story. In the R3 district, 03:34:18.498 --> 03:34:26.611 - We are proposing to reduce the minimum lot area from 5,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet and a minimum 03:34:26.611 --> 03:34:34.647 - lot width going from 50 feet to 30 feet. And then the R4 district, we're proposing to change the minimum 03:34:34.647 --> 03:34:42.377 - lot size from 4,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet and then changing the minimum lot width from 35 03:34:42.377 --> 03:34:43.678 - feet to 30 feet. 03:34:44.482 --> 03:34:50.674 - In the multi-family districts, RM and RH, we're proposing to get rid of minimum lot area and minimum 03:34:50.674 --> 03:34:57.112 - lot width altogether, establishing a build-to range, and then the side yard setback is staying the same. 03:34:57.112 --> 03:35:03.795 - So what we looked at and what the approach that we tried to come up with in all of these districts obviously 03:35:03.795 --> 03:35:09.374 - is to reduce the minimum lot size, to give greater opportunity, to look at properties that 03:35:09.506 --> 03:35:15.582 - are very large, and then in a little bit here we'll talk about some of the changes to the subdivision 03:35:15.582 --> 03:35:21.240 - standards that would allow for lots to be created in the back of a property, but then also to, 03:35:21.240 --> 03:35:27.256 - like I said, allow for situations where you have a really big property to be able to subdivide that, 03:35:27.256 --> 03:35:33.391 - cut it in half to have more infill development. So one of the things that was in the resolution guided 03:35:33.391 --> 03:35:37.918 - us to look at a few PUDs that had been established in the two distant past, 03:35:38.114 --> 03:35:45.123 - that did utilize a very small lot width, about 30 feet lot width, and lot sizes that were about 3,000 03:35:45.123 --> 03:35:52.270 - square feet. So we use that as somewhat of a guide as we went through these districts. One of the other 03:35:52.270 --> 03:35:59.211 - things that we're proposing is to increase the impervious surface coverage in the R3, R4, and the RM 03:35:59.211 --> 03:36:06.014 - and RH to substantially increase the impervious surface, again, to allow for greater buildability. 03:36:06.306 --> 03:36:13.008 - all these properties. So we're shrinking minimum lot size requirements, minimizing the side yard setback 03:36:13.008 --> 03:36:19.647 - requirements, and increasing the impervious surface coverage to give greater buildability opportunities 03:36:19.647 --> 03:36:26.540 - on these properties. So kind of moving along with this and the resolution, as I mentioned, it also directed 03:36:26.540 --> 03:36:31.902 - us to look at subdivision standards that might be problematic in creating new lots. 03:36:32.002 --> 03:36:39.474 - So we're proposing kind of two things to address that. One is to get rid of the minimum depth to width 03:36:39.474 --> 03:36:46.802 - ratio requirements of the four to one. So that would allow for loss that have a very small frontage, 03:36:46.802 --> 03:36:54.782 - but then kind of get bigger as you get in the back. And then the second one, which is kind of a bigger thing, 03:36:55.074 --> 03:37:01.047 - One of the things and certainly I think, you know, you recall we talked about this a little bit with 03:37:01.047 --> 03:37:06.960 - Hopewell, was allowing for lots to be created off of alleys or pedestrian trails or other features. 03:37:06.960 --> 03:37:13.287 - You know, the main challenge that we had with just incorporating that outright was fire department access. 03:37:13.287 --> 03:37:18.846 - Fire department trucks have to have a certain amount of area in order to set up their trucks. 03:37:19.042 --> 03:37:25.724 - And then their fire department hoses will only go a certain distance. So as we work through conversations 03:37:25.724 --> 03:37:32.281 - with the fire department, 150 feet, that's the length of their hose pole. That was kind of the greatest 03:37:32.281 --> 03:37:38.900 - that they felt comfortable allowing for some more flexibility. And so what we've put in here is allowing 03:37:38.900 --> 03:37:45.268 - for lots to be created that are less than 150 feet deep. So if your parent lot is less than 150 feet 03:37:45.268 --> 03:37:48.798 - deep, you can create a new lot on the backside of that. 03:37:48.962 --> 03:37:55.572 - as long as you've got at least a five foot strip and a 20 foot access easement to get to that that lot 03:37:55.572 --> 03:38:02.118 - in the back. So that is kind of the main standard there. So that would allow for lots some loss to be 03:38:02.118 --> 03:38:08.664 - created off of alleys you know if they're within a certain distance but kind of given the constraints 03:38:08.664 --> 03:38:10.718 - with the fire department that's 03:38:10.914 --> 03:38:17.276 - That's kind of how we fell with that one. The remainder of the issues in there in terms of addressing 03:38:17.276 --> 03:38:23.638 - the resolution for the electrification, we included language that said in the sustainable development 03:38:23.638 --> 03:38:29.937 - and incentives added intersection entitled electrification. So the developments shall only be served 03:38:29.937 --> 03:38:33.118 - by electricity or onsite renewable energy sources. 03:38:33.186 --> 03:38:41.261 - for water heating and non-commercial cooking, and then also added a section in the PUD qualifying standards 03:38:41.261 --> 03:38:49.261 - that referenced having to use these requirements as well. And then lastly, in relation to reducing parking 03:38:49.261 --> 03:38:56.738 - minimums, this was in essence just going through the UDO and striking out any and all references to 03:38:56.738 --> 03:39:02.046 - parking minimums. So this would apply to all uses throughout the city. 03:39:02.210 --> 03:39:08.743 - So there was a lot of language obviously that referenced parking minimums in various contexts. So we 03:39:08.743 --> 03:39:15.729 - looked through and remove those but we did bring forward a proposal that was consistent with the resolution 03:39:15.729 --> 03:39:22.198 - and so that's what we are presenting here tonight. Certainly happy to hear any thoughts or comments 03:39:22.198 --> 03:39:26.014 - on some of the changes that are being proposed in terms of 03:39:26.146 --> 03:39:33.453 - The reductions and standards but we are required to get this to the Plain Commission within 60 days 03:39:33.453 --> 03:39:40.980 - And then the Plain Commission has 60 days to act on this to get it to the council So it would be heard 03:39:40.980 --> 03:39:48.360 - tonight and then heard again in August in order to fulfill that So with that I'm happy to answer any 03:39:48.360 --> 03:39:53.694 - questions. Thank you any questions from commissioners Commissioner Smith 03:39:54.690 --> 03:40:02.132 - About 150 feet you're saying the lock behind 50 feet deep and you can have an accessory drilling in 03:40:02.132 --> 03:40:09.574 - the backyard with a 20-foot Ingress easement and a 5-foot what? So so the law would have at least 5 03:40:09.574 --> 03:40:17.015 - feet of frontage but then provide for a 20-foot access easement So the lot frontage helps give them 03:40:17.015 --> 03:40:24.606 - a definitive front So that they do have street frontage and then a 20-foot easement runs through that 03:40:24.866 --> 03:40:30.389 - What I'll just call parent property so that they've got full right of access to it And 150 feet is the 03:40:30.389 --> 03:40:35.911 - lot depth not pulled in the middle of the back house, which is how they usually So the the parent lot, 03:40:35.911 --> 03:40:41.595 - you know can't be more than 150 foot deep But they're not going to measure it from lot line to the middle 03:40:41.595 --> 03:40:46.957 - of the rear structure No, it has to be to the back of the structure They have to assume kind of the 03:40:46.957 --> 03:40:52.158 - worst case that they've got to get to the back side. I'm gonna ask Mike I'm gonna say this again 03:40:52.290 --> 03:40:58.263 - Normally for the fire department to pull 150 feet is measured from their closest right away To the furthest 03:40:58.263 --> 03:41:03.905 - point which is used at the center of the back of the house And they turn the corner and draw the line 03:41:03.905 --> 03:41:09.657 - over so as 150 feet to the back line There's 150 feet to the center of the back house to the back line. 03:41:09.657 --> 03:41:15.188 - Okay, so they're giving us about 165 feet They're giving us some extra sure there might be And then 03:41:15.188 --> 03:41:21.438 - so if your house is you have an existing house there that's in the middle of the lot with 10-foot side yards and 03:41:21.570 --> 03:41:27.844 - You can't build an accessory structure because you have the 20 foot easement That would be a challenge 03:41:27.844 --> 03:41:33.997 - for it. Yes So and this is the fire department making this one up How do we get how do we get the 20 03:41:33.997 --> 03:41:40.332 - feet reduced? Well, so that was what they needed in order for him to be able to get their trucks I mean 03:41:40.332 --> 03:41:46.485 - not not not their big trucks But for them to feel that they've got come because they didn't you know 03:41:46.485 --> 03:41:51.358 - a five foot easement, you know They want to drive where that they can walk down 03:41:51.682 --> 03:41:59.053 - You know, they don't want to be going through the side yard and fences in order to get a an ADU that's 03:41:59.053 --> 03:42:06.280 - in the back So they need a free and clear 20-foot route from the street to the back Okay But just to 03:42:06.280 --> 03:42:13.651 - follow up on that that that can be on either side yes of the structure not both sides of the structure 03:42:13.651 --> 03:42:21.022 - right not both sides just one side and then Where this the the the last two sentences of this proposed 03:42:21.218 --> 03:42:28.152 - Language here the parent lot with existing friends shall comply with driveway number standards per section 03:42:28.152 --> 03:42:35.280 - xxx Is is that just a That's just a reference to the entrance and drive standards that apply to single-family 03:42:35.280 --> 03:42:41.825 - Residences that say how wide they can be and how many number that you're allowed So we'll that'll be 03:42:41.825 --> 03:42:46.750 - filled in with the citation. Okay, and then the last sentence here. I'm I'm 03:42:48.578 --> 03:42:56.747 - I'm a little bit confused. Only one lot that does not have frontage on a public street can be created 03:42:56.747 --> 03:43:05.237 - through this section. One lot one one additional. So you're coming in for a subdivision request to create 03:43:05.237 --> 03:43:13.726 - a new lot. So this is saying that you can only create one additional that you can't piggyback three lots. 03:43:13.954 --> 03:43:21.398 - So that's that's something like can we just make that say one lot per subdivision request or something? 03:43:21.398 --> 03:43:28.699 - Yeah, see the way it reads at its face is Only one and then we're done with this Nobody else can ever 03:43:28.699 --> 03:43:35.999 - do it again after the first time somebody requests one of these so I want to make sure that's yeah We 03:43:35.999 --> 03:43:42.942 - can we can word that a little better Any other questions this is just for residential zones Well 03:43:43.042 --> 03:43:48.505 - So the so the requirement that new lots front on a public street is only applicable in the single family 03:43:48.505 --> 03:43:53.708 - districts. So in multifamily districts you don't have to have frontage on a public street to create 03:43:53.708 --> 03:43:58.962 - a new law. You're doing an impervious service reduction also right. I hear that. Yes. All right. And 03:43:58.962 --> 03:44:04.269 - but that that impervious service reduction does not apply to M.M. or M.N. right. It doesn't quite any 03:44:04.269 --> 03:44:05.726 - of the mixed use districts. 03:44:06.370 --> 03:44:15.642 - So there is maximum impervious surface coverage in the mixed-use districts. We are not changing that 03:44:15.642 --> 03:44:25.281 - with any amendments today No, we're just addressing the residential districts Hope you make that request 03:44:25.281 --> 03:44:34.736 - next time Do an impervious surface reduction on an MN and MN zones That actually relates to a question 03:44:34.736 --> 03:44:35.838 - that I have 03:44:38.082 --> 03:44:45.421 - Yeah, the resolution was you know, very specific to the single-family district, so that's why we were 03:44:45.421 --> 03:44:52.904 - there Mr. Stossberg, did you have a question? Yeah, I'm trying to find it. I actually have a whole list 03:44:52.904 --> 03:45:00.315 - of questions But it's also getting late and I don't want to deal with all of them So I'm gonna message 03:45:00.315 --> 03:45:07.870 - them to staff later. Yeah, we will have another opportunity Next month to yeah address these as well. Um 03:45:09.890 --> 03:45:19.562 - But one of them, I guess, was that, like, why are we retaining all the mixed use dimensional requirements? 03:45:19.562 --> 03:45:28.692 - But I also, in terms of the impervious surface maximums, that there's a huge jump between the R2 and 03:45:28.692 --> 03:45:37.821 - the R3, and I'm wondering how it makes sense to have a huge jump between those, as opposed to a more 03:45:37.821 --> 03:45:39.358 - gradual increase 03:45:39.874 --> 03:45:47.463 - the impervious surface Coverage like it goes from 40 to 70 percent. Whereas before it was like adding 03:45:47.463 --> 03:45:54.978 - 5 percent every time Yeah, I guess you know from our perspective we were looking at as you know, the 03:45:54.978 --> 03:46:02.567 - r3 and r4 districts are where we oftentimes see a lot more redevelopment our interest in creating new 03:46:02.567 --> 03:46:07.998 - lots we can certainly adjust the impervious surface coverage maximum and 03:46:08.290 --> 03:46:15.560 - For the are two those are two lots are typically pretty big though that you know we very rarely run 03:46:15.560 --> 03:46:23.121 - up against that 40 percent that's in there now in terms of what they can do but we can we can certainly 03:46:23.121 --> 03:46:28.574 - incrementally increase that as well to you know something like 55 percent. 03:46:29.634 --> 03:46:35.442 - I guess I'm kind of wondering if that makes sense because now our lot area is a little bit smaller. 03:46:35.442 --> 03:46:41.424 - So like there might be somebody in our two with a thousand square foot lot right now who then realizes 03:46:41.424 --> 03:46:47.348 - oh I can actually split that into two five thousand square foot lots and then they might want or need 03:46:47.348 --> 03:46:53.273 - higher than the 40 percent impervious surface. I don't know. I think that it should just be something 03:46:53.273 --> 03:46:58.558 - that gets considered I guess and thought about and that just seems like a really big jump. 03:47:05.922 --> 03:47:17.261 - Questions? So in some of the numbers for the lot width and areas that are proposed in the change, the 03:47:17.261 --> 03:47:28.821 - resolution says to try to bring these into conformity with existing lawful but non-conforming use. That 03:47:28.821 --> 03:47:31.934 - may not be the exact words. 03:47:32.386 --> 03:47:38.344 - how did you guys find the sizes for these? It looks like most of them got cut half or a little less 03:47:38.344 --> 03:47:44.302 - than half in size. Did you go out and find examples or was it just like we're gonna cut them all by 03:47:44.302 --> 03:47:50.439 - X amount and that's it? So we actually kind of went through this exercise already in 2019 when we were 03:47:50.439 --> 03:47:56.576 - converting from the old UDO to the current version and we updated the zoning code and the lot size and 03:47:56.576 --> 03:48:00.926 - lot width. We already went around to the neighborhoods and looked at the 03:48:00.994 --> 03:48:08.270 - lot sizes and lot widths. And that's how we came up with the 4,000 square feet for the R4 and the 5,000 03:48:08.270 --> 03:48:15.546 - square foot for the R3. We kind of right sized those for the lots that were there. So when we went back 03:48:15.546 --> 03:48:22.543 - through this exercise again, as I mentioned, the resolution specifically directed us to look at two 03:48:22.543 --> 03:48:27.230 - PUDs that had been done that did have lots that were 30 feet wide. 03:48:27.330 --> 03:48:34.148 - That the lot sizes were about 3,000 square feet ish, but we also looked at in neighborhoods very often 03:48:34.148 --> 03:48:40.767 - times You'll see especially in corner locations situations where lots had initially been subdivided 03:48:40.767 --> 03:48:47.585 - in one direction and then somebody owns a corner location and they they chose to reorient the lots and 03:48:47.585 --> 03:48:49.438 - go a different way and then 03:48:49.602 --> 03:48:56.237 - maybe during the course of action, you've now created these four separate smaller squares that were 03:48:56.237 --> 03:49:03.071 - about half the size of the existing ones. And so we did see that pattern in a lot of neighborhoods and 03:49:03.071 --> 03:49:09.905 - felt like that was something that we were trying to look to accomplish. And those lot sizes were about 03:49:09.905 --> 03:49:16.673 - 2,500, 3,000 square feet-ish. So that's how we kind of arrived at those numbers. Also looked at a lot 03:49:16.673 --> 03:49:18.398 - of lots that were created 03:49:18.530 --> 03:49:24.699 - were about 5,000 square feet when they were initially platted around there. So if we were looking to 03:49:24.699 --> 03:49:31.173 - allow people to cut up the backyards, having lot sizes that were much smaller would give them the ability 03:49:31.173 --> 03:49:37.402 - to cut up a lot in their backyard. Certainly you could go even further than this and say there are no 03:49:37.402 --> 03:49:43.510 - minimum lot sizes, but that wasn't quite what the resolution was directing us to, so we were trying 03:49:43.510 --> 03:49:45.342 - to find a happy place between 03:49:45.570 --> 03:49:53.966 - You know what we already did in 2019 and then what we kind of looked at what the goal was To allow for 03:49:53.966 --> 03:50:02.118 - lots to be created that were even smaller Than maybe what was there to allow for backyards or other 03:50:02.118 --> 03:50:10.515 - lots on corners to be created Okay. Thank you Just reflecting on I don't know a few months ago we were 03:50:10.515 --> 03:50:13.694 - reviewing a petition for the fell iron 03:50:13.954 --> 03:50:20.107 - site where parking was a really hot topic and there was almost a desire to have more part or just it 03:50:20.107 --> 03:50:26.321 - came into some of the calculations. This proposal would have required no parking for that development 03:50:26.321 --> 03:50:32.840 - and then potentially either development would still build some or it would just result in a lot of impacts 03:50:32.840 --> 03:50:38.932 - to the adjacent neighborhood. I'm just I guess just wanting more than anything. Is this how is this 03:50:38.932 --> 03:50:43.806 - advertised to the public because these are the decisions that have like the big 03:50:44.066 --> 03:50:49.983 - Like then we're going to have a project where 100 people are going to show up and we're going to say, 03:50:49.983 --> 03:50:56.074 - sorry, this is what the code says. And so there's just really big policy implications like this in here. 03:50:56.074 --> 03:51:01.874 - And I don't know how that is communicated to the public, or I guess this isn't what I'm saying is a 03:51:01.874 --> 03:51:07.849 - way to at least draw some attention to it. So in this regard, what we're bringing forward, this is not 03:51:07.849 --> 03:51:13.534 - a staff's interpretation. This was a verbatim. This is what the resolution told us to do exactly. 03:51:13.634 --> 03:51:19.799 - And so that's what we are bringing forward. I certainly acknowledge that this will be a huge implication 03:51:19.799 --> 03:51:25.905 - and the council was aware of that and there were members that obviously it felt like this was important 03:51:25.905 --> 03:51:31.777 - enough that they wanted this exact language brought to them so that they could review that and move 03:51:31.777 --> 03:51:37.883 - it forward if they've got the votes for it. And so this is something that's been obviously talked about 03:51:37.883 --> 03:51:41.758 - at council for a long time. So yeah, that's kind of where we are. 03:51:44.226 --> 03:51:51.461 - Council perspective one thing that I want to be sure to point out is that councilmember Flaherty who 03:51:51.461 --> 03:51:58.768 - authored this resolution because it did pass council unanimously to forward it to Plan Commission for 03:51:58.768 --> 03:52:06.074 - us as a body to figure out a recommendation But it was very much left open this idea that there could 03:52:06.074 --> 03:52:08.510 - be a negative recommendation that 03:52:08.674 --> 03:52:16.940 - on parts of it and individual council members were especially would say the parking minimums were wary 03:52:16.940 --> 03:52:25.207 - and several of them did kind of specifically say I'm not sure that I would support that in the end but 03:52:25.207 --> 03:52:33.554 - we're going to wait and see what Plan Commission thinks and what kind of recommendation comes from Plan 03:52:33.554 --> 03:52:37.406 - Commission around that. So any other questions. 03:52:39.874 --> 03:52:47.530 - Issue because I don't think there is a realization Among the public then, you know, perhaps by Evidence 03:52:47.530 --> 03:52:54.965 - of how much we've lost our audience here is or the hour I'm not quite sure but the idea that we have 03:52:54.965 --> 03:53:02.548 - just now eliminate, you know Or where there's a proposal here to eliminate any sort of minimum parking 03:53:02.548 --> 03:53:05.566 - is exactly what I was thinking about the 03:53:05.922 --> 03:53:12.974 - You know hundred people show up because of the concerns about the spill of parking into their neighborhoods. 03:53:12.974 --> 03:53:19.572 - So I have some concern that I wonder if there are other other considerations. Was there any other you 03:53:19.572 --> 03:53:26.041 - know this is this essentially eliminates all minimum. So it goes to the most extreme. Was there any 03:53:26.041 --> 03:53:32.446 - other provision considered or is that a direct interpretation of the resolution doing to eliminate 03:53:32.578 --> 03:53:39.179 - All part yeah that that is a direction. That's the directive. Yep. It says to eliminate all parking 03:53:39.179 --> 03:53:45.779 - eliminate all parking minimum. So this is in section five and it's very brief. It says to eliminate 03:53:45.779 --> 03:53:53.040 - minimum parking requirements in all zones and to make any additional parking related tax changes necessitated 03:53:53.040 --> 03:53:54.558 - by this policy change. 03:53:56.482 --> 03:54:04.911 - Yeah, I understand. I mean, I listened to a couple of those council meetings and I understand the concerns, 03:54:04.911 --> 03:54:12.715 - but boy, this just gets a little, it's pretty worrisome. But then again, I don't know how you would 03:54:12.715 --> 03:54:21.144 - go about determining, well, okay. And this, you know, for this, whatever particular use our zoning district 03:54:21.144 --> 03:54:24.734 - and not for that. So, yeah, I'm not sure. Mr. 03:54:25.026 --> 03:54:33.928 - I'm curious at what staff think about the eliminating all parking minimums. I think you know from I 03:54:33.928 --> 03:54:42.830 - mean from a staff perspective for the most part I don't see any issues, you know, and I'll just say 03:54:42.830 --> 03:54:51.999 - from Most of the developments we see we are never in a situation where there is a parking minimum that 03:54:51.999 --> 03:54:54.046 - somebody's not meeting 03:54:54.306 --> 03:55:00.055 - For any multifamily development, you know, the only time that this comes up is for duplexes You know 03:55:00.055 --> 03:55:05.747 - in any multifamily or I mean that's the only situation where parking minimums really come into play 03:55:05.747 --> 03:55:11.439 - are You know in the downtown or student housing and in neither of those situations have we run into 03:55:11.439 --> 03:55:13.374 - you know, you're not at a minimum 03:55:13.730 --> 03:55:20.467 - They want to provide parking and we're never up against maximums either. Obviously they recognize that 03:55:20.467 --> 03:55:27.596 - there is a need to park some people, but obviously we recognize the philosophical problem of we're requiring 03:55:27.596 --> 03:55:34.332 - parking and asphalt. If somebody doesn't want to do it, why make them do it? Let them decide if that's 03:55:34.332 --> 03:55:40.873 - something that they want to do. From the legislative perspective, we don't want somebody to have to 03:55:40.873 --> 03:55:43.358 - put in parking if they don't want to. 03:55:47.906 --> 03:55:56.985 - Mr. Smith petitioner coming in and asking for parking and then being told well there's no no requirements 03:55:56.985 --> 03:56:05.636 - we don't want you to have it. Well we can't deny a site plan that doesn't have parking if there's no 03:56:05.636 --> 03:56:14.201 - parking. I'm saying you want parking in an area that doesn't require it. What's how's that going to 03:56:14.201 --> 03:56:15.486 - get looked on. 03:56:16.898 --> 03:56:24.908 - Well, I mean, like I said, we can't deny it. Is there, is there a limit? I guess impervious surfaces. 03:56:24.908 --> 03:56:33.076 - Yeah. So you, I mean, you have things that strains hit the limits. So there's no parking control. Well, 03:56:33.076 --> 03:56:40.222 - there's parking maximums and those aren't changing. Those are not changing. Mr. Stossberg. 03:56:42.370 --> 03:56:49.229 - I have a question about the sustainability requirement change. There was a letter in our packet from 03:56:49.229 --> 03:56:56.020 - Habitat for Humanity referring to adding the requirement that PUDs meet the sustainable development 03:56:56.020 --> 03:57:02.812 - incentive requirements. And would it be better to write in specific sustainability requirements for 03:57:02.812 --> 03:57:07.294 - PUDs instead of just asking them to meet a different requirement? 03:57:08.610 --> 03:57:16.120 - Do you know what I mean? Because I think the letter didn't necessarily say, oh, we don't want to meet 03:57:16.120 --> 03:57:23.925 - sustainability requirements. It was more like, why are we being asked to meet this thing that's connected 03:57:23.925 --> 03:57:31.362 - to an incentive, as opposed to having to meet some other set of guidelines around sustainability? So 03:57:31.362 --> 03:57:37.694 - as I think I maybe understand the context of that, there are sustainable development. 03:57:38.210 --> 03:57:44.152 - So you have the sustainable development incentives, and then you have lead requirements or other agencies 03:57:44.152 --> 03:57:49.589 - that govern kind of the same thing. And there are different standards. Single family residential 03:57:49.589 --> 03:57:55.306 - subdivisions, each house may not meet that, but there are other ways that your development as a whole 03:57:55.306 --> 03:58:01.192 - might be able to accomplish that. So the sustainable development, you have two paths. One, do the things 03:58:01.192 --> 03:58:06.909 - that are listed there, or two, you get the certification from a different body. So I think that there 03:58:06.909 --> 03:58:08.030 - is a different path 03:58:08.322 --> 03:58:15.623 - for a single family if they wanted to come in with a PUD. But obviously the purpose behind this was 03:58:15.623 --> 03:58:23.289 - we want to discourage PUDs, so we're making those things harder. In the few situations where a PUD comes 03:58:23.289 --> 03:58:30.590 - in, they're going to know they're being held to a higher standard. So you look at this and you say, 03:58:30.914 --> 03:58:37.668 - Maybe there's just something to come in that that can't meet the current law. We're looking at changing 03:58:37.668 --> 03:58:44.226 - a lot of the things in the current law that might be problematic for some of the folks that would be 03:58:44.226 --> 03:58:51.240 - coming in for a single family residential PD that they want to do smaller lots or reduce side yard setbacks 03:58:51.240 --> 03:58:58.058 - or whatever. We've enabled that hopefully from the onset that they don't need to go down the PD process. 03:58:58.058 --> 03:58:59.422 - Any other questions. 03:59:02.274 --> 03:59:12.074 - Minimums is this for any vehicular conveyance or is it specific to automobile? It is I mean it was intended 03:59:12.074 --> 03:59:21.148 - it just says parking minimums I obviously the intent was not bicycles But it did say that specified 03:59:21.148 --> 03:59:31.038 - and we do require bike racks, which are a minimum parking requirement so I take that as a carte blanche that 03:59:31.330 --> 03:59:39.901 - That's also a removal, right? I hear what you're saying. I don't obviously don't think that was the 03:59:39.901 --> 03:59:48.557 - intent of that but It is would be a strict reading but we did not propose getting rid of the bicycle 03:59:48.557 --> 03:59:57.214 - parking minimums Okay. Thank you Nice call for questions All right, we're gonna go to public comment 03:59:57.410 --> 04:00:07.590 - I notice we have at least one online commenter if you're here in the room and would like to make comment 04:00:07.590 --> 04:00:17.577 - come on up to the podium state your name for the record please sign in and you have up to five minutes 04:00:17.577 --> 04:00:23.006 - to make your comments. Hi my name is Kathy Barry and I. 04:00:24.098 --> 04:00:31.373 - I am the public that's here tonight and I very much appreciate Mr Seaborne and counts as councillor 04:00:31.373 --> 04:00:38.648 - seaborne councillor Stossberg for mentioning that how does the public know about this. I'm speaking 04:00:38.648 --> 04:00:46.142 - extemporaneously which I normally don't do but I will add I found out about this resolution when I was 04:00:46.658 --> 04:00:54.968 - listening to the Hopewell commentary so it was completely I was nothing I would have ever known about 04:00:54.968 --> 04:01:02.789 - to be here at 930 at night addressing these things. Just a couple I'm going to do just a couple 04:01:02.789 --> 04:01:11.098 - of impressions about why I don't like this. First of all I think that having the city search maps and 04:01:11.098 --> 04:01:15.742 - look for lots that are going to now be excessive in size 04:01:15.842 --> 04:01:24.750 - is going to encourage tearing down older houses which are affordable because a smaller house on a larger 04:01:24.750 --> 04:01:33.827 - lot that has gone into poor repair will be a target for people who want to do these developments. Removing 04:01:33.827 --> 04:01:42.735 - second story setbacks to families in a two story house have twice the stuff the trash cans the bicycles. 04:01:42.735 --> 04:01:43.838 - It begins to 04:01:44.354 --> 04:01:53.018 - create a less desirable kind of housing. I think in some cases going back somebody mentioned 2019 when 04:01:53.018 --> 04:02:01.850 - we had the eliminating single family zoning which I was very against stormwater problems were constantly 04:02:01.850 --> 04:02:10.345 - brought up when you increase density and I and I at this point I'm not going to say much more except 04:02:10.345 --> 04:02:14.046 - yes I think we need more housing and I like 04:02:14.338 --> 04:02:22.062 - the co-housing development that's in my neighborhood, the Maxwell Street co-housing, the Hillside Drive, 04:02:22.062 --> 04:02:29.933 - this denser compact urban form. I have no objection to that kind of thing, but it is a kind of a lifestyle 04:02:29.933 --> 04:02:37.437 - choice. And I don't think that when we talk about building more housing, we need a variety of housing 04:02:37.437 --> 04:02:40.894 - because it has to be housing that people want. 04:02:41.026 --> 04:02:49.512 - Otherwise they move to Ellisville, Morgan County, Lawrence County, Green County, Brown County, maybe 04:02:49.512 --> 04:02:58.335 - to a lesser extent. But, you know, I know people who commute from Orleans and Martinsville all the time. 04:02:58.335 --> 04:03:07.074 - And I just think we need to go very slowly with these huge changes to allow, just let's let people that 04:03:07.074 --> 04:03:08.670 - we want, you know, 04:03:08.962 --> 04:03:17.410 - people's children that want to live here, let's let Bloomington kind of develop at a slower pace. And 04:03:17.410 --> 04:03:25.941 - I'm sorry, that's the best I can do for now. Thank you. Thank you. We do have one person online. Kari, 04:03:25.941 --> 04:03:32.318 - you should be able to speak. Thank you. I want to make sure you can hear me. 04:03:38.754 --> 04:03:49.338 - Can you hear me? We can barely, barely hear you. All right, I'm going to try to get close to my microphone. 04:03:49.338 --> 04:03:59.138 - Is that better? Hold on. Can you check the volume in the room? Kari, hold on a second. We're having 04:03:59.138 --> 04:04:02.078 - a real hard time hearing you. 04:04:26.626 --> 04:04:36.004 - Kari, go ahead and try again. Hi, can you hear me now? We got you now, yes. All right, wonderful. Kari 04:04:36.004 --> 04:04:45.108 - Bennett, Operations Director, Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County. I am gonna briefly address the 04:04:45.108 --> 04:04:51.390 - sustainable development requirements and in particular making that a 04:04:51.490 --> 04:05:01.332 - condition of being able to do a planned unit development. We do believe that planned unit developments 04:05:01.332 --> 04:05:10.888 - are particularly helpful tools for affordable housing projects. And I will be specific. Habitat for 04:05:10.888 --> 04:05:19.870 - Humanity only works with residents in Monroe County who are low income defined as at or below 04:05:20.322 --> 04:05:29.934 - 80% of the area median income. We're the only builder in Monroe County that is building and selling 04:05:29.934 --> 04:05:40.123 - single-family homes to residents who are in that income bracket. PUDs provide a great degree of certainty 04:05:40.123 --> 04:05:42.334 - so that we know how to 04:05:42.530 --> 04:05:50.984 - plan a development and importantly, we know how much it is going to cost and therefore how much we need 04:05:50.984 --> 04:05:59.193 - to fundraise or and get and grant funding. So we are very concerned that the sustainable development 04:05:59.193 --> 04:06:07.485 - requirement, taking that incentive and making it a requirement for PUDs would keep us from being able 04:06:07.485 --> 04:06:09.598 - to do a PUD neighborhood. 04:06:09.730 --> 04:06:18.323 - in Bloomington in the future, keeping in mind that the only two neighborhoods that we have developed 04:06:18.323 --> 04:06:26.916 - in Bloomington have both been planned unit developments. I submitted the comment letter before I was 04:06:26.916 --> 04:06:35.509 - able to look at the specific proposal to amend the UDO. So I do have a couple of other comments that 04:06:35.509 --> 04:06:39.678 - I'd like to make about the rest of the proposal. 04:06:39.842 --> 04:06:49.546 - First of all, the overall nature of this package, we do think is an improvement to the benefit of building 04:06:49.546 --> 04:06:59.431 - more housing in our community. Folks have mentioned tonight, minimum lot sizes, setbacks. We also especially 04:06:59.431 --> 04:07:05.598 - appreciate the tree canopy exemption for the residential R3 and R4. 04:07:06.338 --> 04:07:19.135 - zoning classifications. It can be very hard to maintain tree canopy on lots that are already very small. 04:07:19.135 --> 04:07:31.932 - A couple of suggestions. First of all, on the subdivision design standards in 20.05.050, that was talked 04:07:31.932 --> 04:07:35.710 - about earlier in this hearing, 04:07:35.810 --> 04:07:46.068 - The language right now is unclear. And in particular, I was not sure whether this would allow for homes 04:07:46.068 --> 04:07:56.129 - to front on a public alley. So that might be something that would be good to clarify the language and 04:07:56.129 --> 04:08:05.598 - that I'll also follow up with the planning department staff to make sure that I'm understanding 04:08:05.890 --> 04:08:17.169 - what that language is intended to do. The last suggestion for consideration is the RMH zoning classification, 04:08:17.169 --> 04:08:28.038 - which is residential manufactured housing. It has a different minimum lot size and a different impervious 04:08:28.038 --> 04:08:31.934 - surface maximum than either R3 or R4. 04:08:32.066 --> 04:08:41.081 - but that particular type of housing seems to be very much akin to an R3 or R4. So potentially taking 04:08:41.081 --> 04:08:50.096 - a look at whether the RMH minimum lot size and impervious service percentage should mirror either R4 04:08:50.096 --> 04:08:59.111 - or R3. Those are my comments for this evening. I do appreciate the planning staff and the commission 04:08:59.111 --> 04:09:01.342 - taking up this important 04:09:01.506 --> 04:09:12.417 - legislation Thank you Any other public comment Just as a reminder if you're online and you'd like to 04:09:12.417 --> 04:09:23.221 - make comment Please click the reactions button and click the raise hand button or send a message to 04:09:23.221 --> 04:09:28.190 - the meeting host Last call for public comment 04:09:32.034 --> 04:09:42.514 - Then we are back to the Commission for any final discussion or a motion As a reminder the staff 04:09:42.514 --> 04:09:53.539 - recommendation is simply that we forward this petition to the required second hearing Forbid this to 04:09:53.539 --> 04:10:01.726 - the required second hearing is there a second All right Any final comments 04:10:02.850 --> 04:10:16.967 - Let's call the roll on the motion to forward Yes Koraki, yes seaboard. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Smith. 04:10:16.967 --> 04:10:29.086 - Yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Burrell yes All right motion carries we are now on to the 04:10:32.866 --> 04:10:41.477 - I would like to move that we continue our final two petitions co 20 26 0 6 0 0 0 7 and co 20 26 0 6 04:10:41.477 --> 04:10:50.345 - 0 0 0 8 that we continue them to our August meeting All right, the motion is to continue our remaining 04:10:50.345 --> 04:10:59.214 - two petitions to the August meeting is there a second Second Any discussion Are we allowed to do that? 04:10:59.214 --> 04:11:02.142 - He said some comment about timing 04:11:02.914 --> 04:11:12.032 - Yes, these two are not in response to our resolution So we are allowed to do that with these two and 04:11:12.032 --> 04:11:21.421 - I also want to note that it's after 930 and we did not actually Suspend the rules to go past 930 anyway 04:11:21.421 --> 04:11:31.262 - Okay Staff to have it any response on that your is there any you see any reason why we cannot continue these 04:11:31.426 --> 04:11:38.389 - And have the first hearing in August. Yeah, I think you can continue them. That's my only comment. And 04:11:38.389 --> 04:11:45.218 - we didn't specifically do the 930, but I just was kind of like a broad blanket situation. Yes, I was 04:11:45.218 --> 04:11:52.316 - under the motion was to suspend the rules and to allow introduction of all three remaining. Yes, I think 04:11:52.316 --> 04:11:59.550 - you can continue them. I assume that meant we would go past 930. My bad for not being more specific there. 04:12:00.930 --> 04:12:14.510 - Any other comment before we call the roll on this motion. Okay. The motion is to continue the remaining 04:12:14.510 --> 04:12:27.959 - two petitions to August. Let's call the roll please. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 04:12:27.959 --> 04:12:29.918 - Yes. Yes. Yes. 04:12:31.586 --> 04:12:37.762 - All right, so that motion carries. So just a reminder, that means next month when we come back, the 04:12:37.762 --> 04:12:44.000 - first one is gonna be a second hearing, the other two are gonna be a first hearing, so that may be a 04:12:44.000 --> 04:12:50.237 - little bit tricky. But that is the end of our agenda then for the evening, and we're adjourned. Have 04:12:50.237 --> 04:12:51.102 - a good night.