- Hello and good evening, let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission
- for Monday, July 13th We have quite a bit of business to get through this evening. Let me just give
- a brief overview of the agenda. We do have some internal housekeeping items to take care of including
- Appointment of a new planning director and some updates to our
- our rules and procedures that we looked at at the last meeting. We have one petition that remains continued,
- that's sub-2026-05-0010. There's no consent agenda tonight. And the petitions that we will hear tonight
- will start with sub-2025-12-0051. That is the property at 2511 North Dunn Street.
- We will then hear three more petitions that are Updates to the udl brought by the staff so With that
- let's begin by calling the roll to make sure we got quorum Burrell here Bishop here
- Rodkey here seabor homes here Kinsey here Smith here Stossburg here Whistler here Bishop Bishop here
- All right We do have a quorum so let's move on first up we have approval of minutes we have the minutes
- from the June 8th meeting
- Do we have any corrections or questions to those minutes or a motion to approve? I'll motion to approve
- the June 8th minutes. Second. All right. Any discussion. All right. Let's just do a voice vote on this
- one tonight since everybody's here in person all in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Any opposed.
- Okay those minutes are approved. We'll now move on to reports resolutions and communications. Do we
- have any reports or communications from commissioners tonight. All right we'll move on to our reports
- and resolutions from the staff.
- Yes, we have a few actually first important to note the agenda Description that is listed on the two
- entry doors into council chambers for the project description for Dunn Street is wrong It's actually
- listening listing the project description for the Hopewell The agenda in the packet is right and all
- the project descriptions in the packet are right It's just the agendas that were posted on the door
- the description for the Dunn Street petition was wrong So I just wanted to point that out
- And then obviously moving through what's on the agenda, we do have three things under reports, resolutions
- and communications from staff. The first on those is obviously appointment of a new director or interim
- director, Lynn Coyne. As many of the planning commission members know, our former director, Mr. Hiddle,
- moved on to a different occupation in Charlotte where he will be working in the planning field. So we
- wanted to thank him and recognize him for his time. And then tonight we are appointing a new interim director
- in his place and so that is Lynn coin and so there is a memo in the packet for that and I believe Mayor
- might be speaking to that as well Good evening commissioners, I'm proud to be not only Introducing Lynn
- coin as our perspective new and
- interim director, but also welcoming Chris Smith back to the plan commission. Thank you for serving
- after your brief sabbatical.
- LinCoin has served in many ways in our community. And as you all know, two of my priorities coming into
- office have been housing and economic development. And no single department is impacted, impacts those
- two areas more than our planning department.
- We are sad to see David Hittle go and I am extremely grateful to Lynn for stepping up to serve the city
- in this way Lynn has decades of experience in on the development side And the real estate side has been
- interacting with a planning department in the city for I believe most of his career and
- And and has acted as a trusted advisor to many of our affordable housing providers as well as market
- rate housing folks so I am deeply grateful to Lynn for coming out of retirement and serving in this
- interim role.
- He is ready to hit the ground running to implement the permitting audit that we just got back. And so
- I anticipate no gap in implementation. He's already been fully briefed and getting his feet wet with
- that audit and intros to staff. So. Thank you. Do you want to say anything?
- Mr. Coyne Well, thank you mayor and it's great to see everybody Some of you know me and My history it's
- been long but I have spent a great deal of time in my career in land use planning and regulation
- in one form or another and well as economic development over the years and it's because of that that
- I am honored and excited to have the opportunity to sort of take it to another level and work with with
- you with the planning staff with other departments of the city and the community and the City Council,
- so I'm really looking forward to that I Think what we'll do of course is continue the level of development
- services has been going on implement the
- Provisions of the American structure point audit so that we can take that to a completely different
- level As well as developing a communication strategy both internally Again with other developments with
- the City Council in the community at large. So everybody has a role So I'm very much looking to that
- forward to that. The end goal, of course is that we continue to provide for housing jobs and opportunities
- to invest in Bloomington and
- We're gonna do this, it's not gonna be easy because we are gonna do it within the confines of the Uniform
- Development Ordinance. Any other applicable laws or regulations, that stays the same, that won't change.
- So we have our marching orders, so to speak, are already there. I also believe if we implement these
- changes and take additional steps, that we will also help maintain control over our future.
- which is very important. So I look forward to working with you in this process and coming back here
- and updating you on our progress from time to time. So thank you. I appreciate this opportunity.
- Bye bye. Thank you. All right, so there is a memo with a resolution in the packet. Hopefully you've
- all had a chance to see that. And I think the requirement is that we vote on that
- Resolution as it's in the packet. Is there any any questions or comments from commissioners? Thank you.
- I'm just wondering if we know how long the interim Director position is gonna last I Think that I saw
- that the director position had been posted and then I was kind of surprised that we were then gonna
- have an interim for a while so we are we expecting a three month a six month nine month does
- Mayor Thompson, do you have any idea? We have posted the position but given where we are in the election
- cycle We are not sure anyone will commit until they know who the next mayor is And so we wanted to be
- sure that we don't put ourselves into a situation where we're understaffed and planning which already
- is overloaded and Lynn brings some
- Significant expertise and and systems management that can really advance us Okay, so probably into next
- year then In terms of election cycle again, we have posted it but we don't know what will come of it.
- Okay. Thanks Any other questions comments or emotion I'll motion
- Adopt the resolution for the the appointment of Lynn coin as interim director of the planning
- and transportation department All right, we have a motion and a second Any final discussion before we
- call the roll All right, let's call the roll on this one Bishop yes, Borel Seaborg
- Radke Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Smith. Yes Stossberg. Yes Whistler. Yes All right motion carries
- congratulations and welcome All right, we will move on then I think next we would is revised rules and
- procedures and
- Did you have anything else before we get to that? Nope that moving right along to the adoption of our
- rules and procedures So this has been on the agenda for the past two meetings or so We've been working
- to make it a little bit cleaner copy so that everyone can kind of see what's changed from before and
- after So a lot of the changes have just been removing old references changes to the UDO that have been amended
- And so just a lot of housekeeping. We haven't really done anything within the rules and procedures for
- several talks several years So the changes that we're proposing you can hopefully have had a chance
- to kind of scroll through And see what's changed to get an idea of what you're looking at tonight. So
- we're happy to answer any questions Yeah Are there any questions from commissioners about the updated
- administrative procedures? Mr. Sossberg
- At the last meeting one of the things that was mentioned was the idea of changing public comment time
- from five minutes to three minutes and that change was not made that I saw in here. Was there any more
- discussion given to that at the staff level. No I'm so sorry if that didn't get incorporated. Yeah that's
- certainly something that's playing commission would like to institute. You can make a motion for that
- and we can include that. I think there might be a couple other motions for a few changes that some commission
- members might have.
- But certainly we're able to incorporate that I apologize for not getting that in there I guess I'm kind
- of interested in that change and I would be interested in hearing from other commissioners what their
- thoughts on that are Sorry, can you repeat? I didn't catch what you were changing the public comment
- time from five minutes to three minutes and I guess one of the reasons why I am leading in that direction is
- Council recently changed or maybe not recently. It's it's been a few years at this point changed it
- from five minutes to three minutes. And I think that it's helpful to have consistency for that kind
- of thing across meetings. And yeah that's that's just why I would say that I would support that idea.
- But only if a majority of you also support that. Mr. Kinsey I have a question and a proposed
- Change the first I wonder if you could talk a little bit about shortening the notice from 21 to 10 days
- What informs that and and how do we know that that will appropriately notify people about anything?
- Yeah, so this was actually sinking it to a change that was made in the unified development ordinance
- about three years ago So with all the boards and commissions Except for the hearing officer. I believe
- everybody is a 10-day before the hearing notice deadline
- So this is just, again, syncing it with languages already in the UDO. So we've been practicing this
- for some time already. Yes. OK. All right. And so far, no concerns about it. OK. That sounds reasonable.
- And my proposed change was, as we're doing these modifications and edits to this document to sync it
- up and to do other things, I also would like to suggest that we consider the use of inclusive language
- throughout this.
- changing Article 1H, which still indicates himself to themselves and Article 2C from chairman to chair.
- And to me, that would be in sync with some other proposals and language that we have in other codes
- and administrative procedures. But to me, it just seems kind of archaic not to have this inclusive language
- in this document. And since we're making these edits already,
- I'd like to propose that we make those two rather modest edits to the document to make it more inclusive.
- So that's my suggestion. If we can make that edit at the same time. Are you offering that as a as an
- amendment.
- Yeah, I guess if that's an addition, I don't know if that could be how we should consider this. So ultimately
- you do have to vote on this. So what I would recommend is you adopt a motion to approve it with suggestions
- by Plaint Commission member Kinsey by Plaint Commission member Stossberg and then take your
- votes accordingly. Or you could vote to incorporate each amendment individually.
- 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.
- Certainly I support your edits Commissioner Kinsey. I don't know if everybody would support my proposal
- so I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to bundle them or not.
- I guess I would ask how the three minute rule has been going in city meetings then too if that has worked
- if we've had any concerns about it not providing the public sufficient time to comment if it is I do
- think there's an interest in making sure people are concise but I don't want to shortchange public comment
- for this. I can't think that we've had any any problems with it.
- sometimes, especially when people have written comments, if they don't get all the way through it, then
- they'll follow it up with an email later so then we see it all. But there hasn't been outrage that I
- have noted, you can say. And I mean, it's been two, three years maybe. I think that it was like in the
- very beginning of when my term started in 2024 that that change was
- Someone needs to make a motion. I would just add that I'm in support of both suggestions so far. And
- I'll just note that for the park commission public comment period is only two minutes. So it is consistent
- with other I mean somewhat consistent with other groups. I know in the past for some other meetings
- we have actually counted the number of
- people in the audience or people here online who wanted to make comments, and then we altered the time
- to assure that everyone would get a chance to say something and changed it. If I recollect this correctly,
- I don't know if somebody can pull the minutes, but I know we did this when we had an issue, and I think
- it may have been during the UDO adoption where we reduced it to three minutes.
- And I sure hope that that was allowable when we did it. But it seems like something that we could do
- if we had a substantial interest by the public and just say, let's give more people a chance to talk
- for three minutes versus really exhausting everybody in the room by letting everyone go for five minutes.
- So I'm a little bit torn because we could offer a shorter time
- frame through our own our own procedures. Does that am I completely miss remembering this Eric. No that's
- correct. Anybody else. We can of course suspend the rules by vote of the commission at any time which
- we frequently do to extend meetings or to modify the things like the public comment period. We have
- done that many times.
- an agenda we do three minutes and people have been more concise and to the point and they have been
- in their idea has come across. So all right. Any other comments while we're waiting on a motion. Any
- other questions. Anyone ready to make a motion.
- motion the proposed edits to the revised rules and procedures with the addition of the use of inclusive
- language in article 1h changing himself to themselves and an article to see chair man change it to chair
- and to In the public comment period allow
- For three minutes for public speakers for public discussion Can you reference that by that change by
- number? Let's see It is an article five hearings be One And two
- referenced in both of those All right, did you get that? Yeah article 5 b1 and 2 b1 and 2 yes and b1
- it states public comment five minutes per speaker and then in b2 it states it will be the responsibility
- of staff to keep time specifically a five-minute time clock must be displayed inside the meeting room
- Okay, does everybody understand the motion and the changes that are proposed I
- Second for that motion. I'll second it All right any final discussion It may be helpful I think just
- for maybe members in the audience tonight to know if that is something that you want to take effect
- tonight or effective say August 1st Yeah, my inclination would be to have this take effect at the next
- meeting and
- I presume that doesn't need to be included in the motion when it takes effect. I don't think so. I wouldn't
- vote. Okay. Great. All right. Do we need public comment on this motion? I'm not sure if we do.
- Yeah I'm not I don't know that we need the public comment is required on the fees schedule adjustment
- and a dean is here I think she could legal department might be able to advise typically on these types
- of internal rule changes. So I know we got a lot of other things people want to talk about tonight.
- So yeah unless there's any other discussion we'll go ahead and call the roll in motion. Good. OK let's
- call the roll.
- the motion to adopt the updated administrative manual See bore Co Rodkey Holmes Kinsey, yes Smith Stossberg.
- Yes Whistler. Yes Beryl yes Bishop yes
- All right motion carries and then we are on to the updated fee schedule, I believe Set the next thing
- Yes, so another housekeeping Chore for us tonight is with the recent adoption of the unified development
- ordinance. There was a new process that was instituted within there It's the payment in lieu of process
- that is replacing the determinant sidewalk variance
- process that did exist in the UDL.
- So for those of you that maybe aren't familiar with the determinate sidewalk variance in situations
- where somebody is Required to install some sort of a pedestrian facility whether that be a sidewalk
- or a multi-use path They can always seek relief from any requirement within the UDO And there was an
- allowance in the UDO for a determinate sidewalk variance to be approved Which means that a sidewalk
- was not or a side path or whatever Wasn't required at that time but could be required at a few
- future time when other situations might dictate that that would be necessary. And so we've seen a lot
- of these determinate sidewalk variances be approved over the past decades or so.
- You know, in reality, what's happening is very rarely, if ever, have these been called in. And so we
- have lots of situations where these determinate sidewalk waivers have been granted, but there's
- no improvements that happen on the ground. These determinate sidewalk variances can be very hard to
- track, but then also just as hard to call in at a future time
- You know if it's 10 years down the line and you're dealing with a new property owner who has no knowledge
- of this although they're required to be recorded you know a future owner would have no idea that this
- is happening and you know it's so far from when the activity was occurring on the property that it could
- be very challenging. And so these determinant sidewalk variances had existed on paper but like I said
- didn't really result in any improvements on the ground.
- And so there are other communities that do have a payment in lieu process within their zoning codes
- that allow for a different relief to be granted rather than a variance. There is a contribution that
- is made based on some dollar amount that then relieves them of the requirement of installing that feature.
- So with the incorporation of that process within the zoning code we also have to set an amount
- for that material. So this would be applicable to situations where there is a concrete sidewalk may
- be required, a bike lane, a multi-use path. And so we have to set an amount in the fee schedule that
- dictates what that amount would be for concrete or asphalt. So we did some research on this. As I mentioned,
- there are two communities in Indiana that do have this process. Indianapolis has it.
- And they have a dollar amount of $90 a linear foot the city of Valparaiso also has this allowance and
- they use the full value of that Improvement in their payment in lieu of contribution Process it's important
- to note, you know in these communities what triggers the sidewalk can be very different and
- In some of these communities The people may go put in that sidewalk somewhere else they may go put it
- on this property But every community has different standards in terms of what triggers sidewalks as
- you know And actually this will be something that we'll talk about later tonight with another round
- of amendments are some of the triggers within the unified development and said do require site improvements
- specifically sidewalks So we do have a lot more triggers in terms of when sidewalks are required so
- when we analyze the
- amount of value that should be assessed for these two things. We did look at it from an approach of,
- you know, we want to make sure that the amount that is associated, you know, is not so low that it really
- doesn't accomplish anything, but also at the same time we want to make sure that it's not so high that,
- you know, it's cost prohibitive and people that are unable to pay for it or afford it are then seeking
- permanent variances.
- So this was built into the unified development ordinance to go to the Transportation Commission for
- them to make an assessment of whether or not a project qualifies for it. The criteria that were used
- to analyze that decision were very similar to what the determinant sidewalk variance criteria were such
- that the topography of the lot may be unique that the adjacent lots are at presently developed or undeveloped.
- And there's no reasonable expectation of more sidewalks Uniformity of development an area might be best
- served by a different project So criteria like said they were very similar to
- The determinant sidewalk variance criteria and so with this as I mentioned we wanted to suggest a value
- that is somewhat Appropriate that does result in some real improvements in terms of other projects and
- this being a contribution But at the same time was not so high That it was it was kind of cost-prohibitive
- and really wouldn't be a viable option for individuals and so We are recommending that plank efficient
- Plan Commission approve an amount of $15 a square foot for concrete and $9 a square foot for asphalt
- And then in our staff know we kind of gave an example of what that might look like in the real world
- You know a six foot wide sidewalk that is being installed on a 100 foot long project Which is a very
- typical oftentimes project size. I'm certainly you're gonna see a wide range of that and
- That would result in a value of $9,000 as that contribution amount. So this is just simply what staff
- is coming forward to with the suggestion. You know, as I mentioned and kind of as we looked at it in
- the staff report, you know, when you look at what NDOT uses for estimation purposes, you know, you have
- a much higher number. It's $28 a square foot. But that's looking at what it costs to actually put that
- facility in.
- You know at $28 a square foot you're looking at a value of almost double that 9,000 which can be very
- cost prohibitive for small businesses or other situations where You know these these sidewalks aren't
- necessary based on the situation So that's that's what staff kind of looked at and evaluated as we came
- into this So certainly the Planning Commission can modify that number if they want if they if they feel
- that something different is appropriate but that is what
- Staff is recommending in terms of the value and kind of how we how we came up with that. So with that
- I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you any questions from commissioners Commissioner Smith good
- so There was a text amendment recently that allowed a payment in lieu for sidewalks Yes, what else?
- You said asphalt. Is that for a trail? Yes. So in situations where somebody had to install the bike.
- So the transportation plan calls out for a variety of improvements based on what a typology is for a
- road that could be a bike lane that could be a multi use path. It could be a sidewalk. It just depends
- on what the exact road typology is and what the improvement is. And so in situations where somebody
- is doing something on a property that triggers installation of that facility they can either install it
- Or as I said, you know, they can seek relief from that through the variance process. So, yeah. So, right,
- you can seek relief through the variance process. So, what precipitated this text change? What event
- occurred if we thought this was a good idea to amend text? So, what was happening is we were approving
- determinate sidewalk variances. You know, we would do a handful of these a year. And like I said, these
- would result in no improvements on the ground whatsoever.
- You know so it's just something that gets recorded that lives somewhere that doesn't have any improvement
- to the community as a whole. So we wanted to have something better than nothing. So having the payment
- in lieu process gives a pathway a contribution to be made that is less than the value of what it would
- cost to put in that thing that could then be used to install other improvements within the community.
- So is this going to change our interpretation when we go get a variance because we can force them to
- pay us in lieu of getting the variance.
- No, so somebody always has the right. So before you go through that variance process, you would go to
- the Transportation Commission to see if you could utilize the payment in lieu. The payment in lieu is
- advantageous because it's less than the cost of actually putting in the sidewalk. So the Transportation
- Commission would look at whether or not it's appropriate to grant the payment in lieu process for a
- site. If they say yes, then they can utilize the payment in lieu process. If they say no, then the petitioner
- either can choose to put in the facility
- Or they can seek a permanent variance. Does this mainly come about on vacant lots and existing subdivisions
- that don't have infrastructure where you file for building permit and it's triggered a sidewalk. I mean
- that's certainly when is this one. That's certainly one example is a subdivision you know an infill
- subdivision where you know it's mid block for instance and you know you don't have sidewalks on either side.
- But as part of the subdivision, you're required to put in sidewalks. So that's certainly one example
- that could be utilized. Where else has this occurred? So in situations when there's a change in use
- on a property and there is no sidewalk, then you would be required to install it. If you have
- new construction on a property and there is no sidewalk or there's a substandard facility, then you're
- required to bring it into compliance. There's a wide range of situations that could trigger this.
- So we made any changes to our use determinations. So that's later in the agenda today. You know what
- are the triggers for change in use. Yeah I understand that but if we made any discussions on actual
- categorizing use changes. No. So that is on the agenda tonight.
- The actual categorization the actual categorization of use I know I understand there's stuff in the
- gender for use changes for limiting But the actual when you say it's a change of use, right? Yes anymore.
- It seems like anything's a change of use. Have we Redefined what a change of use is to where like a
- doctor's office is no different than a veterinary clinic Yes, as I said that it's in there today. I
- just didn't read it. I didn't see it I read through that and see it. Okay All right. Okay. Thank you
- Any other questions from commissioners. All right. Do we. Yeah. I'm curious. Do you know how often the
- state updates their cost estimates. And is there any sense in like saying it's a percentage of the current
- State estimate so that like it doesn't have to then continually be reviewed and adjusted for inflation
- I think that happens every year and mr Seaborg can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but they they
- do that analysis every year They look at all the projects and look at what the cost was for them. So
- they come up with that number on an annual basis so we could certainly use that as a basis and say some
- percentage of that Do we do that in anything else in them?
- And then these we we don't within the planning department We don't have any fees that that are based
- on another entity's value of something That I have a good correlation for you. Okay A suggestion if
- it's worth entertaining I
- I mean for reference you know obviously our number that I'm suggesting is about 50 percent right of
- what in dots numbers uses for estimation purposes. So I guess that'd be a suggestion is instead of having
- to review it every year tied to the we just tie it to the state rate at 50 50 percent or 53 percent.
- You're a little closer to that at 15 of 28.
- Makes sense to me. I think you feel free to propose that if you like Mr. Stossberg I guess I'm wondering
- how you got the $15 a square foot number because that's feels significantly less than the true cost
- of the project and even less than Than Indianapolis's estimate and of course Valpo does the true cost
- of the project and I mean I appreciate your your argument there, but I mean
- We're also talking about sidewalk. If I remember right from when we changed the UDO to allow this, it
- was only in cases where it really didn't make practical sense for one reason or another. And so in those
- situations, often I would imagine that the cost of the actual project would actually be more than the
- average. And so I guess I just feel like
- You said you wanted it to be smaller, but something that's still sort of significant, and I'm not sure
- that $9,000 for a hundred foot long sidewalk is particularly significant. Yep, so that's a great point,
- and kind of where we're trying to figure out of, obviously the full value of a sidewalk doesn't really
- accomplish anything because somebody hasn't really sought any relief, but at the same time trying to
- make it such that
- It's not too much that people can't afford it and we're stuck listening dealt with a lot of variances
- that are being applied for that are just based on a financial hardships that aren't really benefiting
- the property owners and so we're trying to just balance out of you know right now determine a sidewalk
- variances result in nothing and.
- You know having them install something is X dollar amount and finding something between there that you
- know still resulted in improvement You know, it's a contribution to order fund, you know, it's not an
- expectation that this fully funds a sidewalk on another property It's just something else that helps
- contribute to the fund that can be utilized for the city in the hole as we do projects So it's just
- an improvement versus kind of the nothing that we are getting with the determinant sidewalk variances
- Commissioner Kinsey, go ahead. I appreciate the inclusion of comparison to Indianapolis and Valparaiso
- in here and wonder if you can add anything to what they've learned. What have they gained from these
- provisions? Do you have any evidence that there were improvements to the number of sidewalks or more
- sidewalks were available because of this? That's a great question and I and I did not get into that
- kind of depth with the individuals there that I that I spoke to I was just trying to
- Understand how they how they came up with their amount and you know, Indianapolis they don't have a
- change in use process So their triggers for sidewalks are much less and different So, you know that
- holler higher dollar amount, you know, that's going to be in the more extreme situations where you have
- to do a sidewalk So they weren't trying I think balance because they don't have as many triggers for
- Any other questions
- Are you ready for a motion. I'm interested in Commissioner Co Radke's idea of tying this to the end
- up rate as a way to make it something that we're not consistently revisiting unless we want to revisit
- it for other reasons like it's not working or it's not resulting in improvements. But I think tying
- it to a rate might be a more consistent way to handle this.
- Mean from a staff perspective, that's fine. I would certainly welcome a commission member seaboard
- perspective on the in dot Estimation values and whether or not he sees those changing or if that would
- be a fair way to to base it on
- I'll make a motion that we set a fee schedule
- for payment in lieu of the determinant sidewalk is that determinant sidewalk variance to be fifty four
- percent of the in dot posted average. I don't know if I said that very well but someone can words.
- All right, so we have a motion in a second That would currently be fifteen dollars and twelve cents
- is it worth it to Not do that simply because it's around like to make it a round number as opposed to
- pennies off like I don't know
- Well I think it only comes into play once the staff has been calculating the fee. So if they said oh
- it's going to be you know three thousand six hundred and forty five dollars then it would just be that.
- Does staff care about change at this point. I say do you care about the.
- You know having having pennies added on to things or no it doesn't obviously we're not counting out
- change and it's just you know a check that is written and it says based on the linear amount of her
- frontage so you know it does not have to be an even number by any means that doesn't change anything
- in us. All right. Any other discussion on this motion. Commissioner Smith good. What was the motion
- we just made which which.
- So the motion is that we that we set the amount for concrete and asphalt to be equal to 54% of the published
- in dot values rather than a Hard-coded amount as staff had previously explained the 54 percent. Is that
- where that 15 and 9 comes from? That's roughly So that just basically is saying that this will
- Update annually as in the updates their numbers our numbers will follow. Okay A final discussion Mr.
- Stossberg the 54% right now of the asphalt number takes it down to like 850 as opposed to the nine.
- Is it worth the
- separating those two things out like and I guess I have to look at staff right now and go like what's
- the significant difference in terms of the asphalt and the concrete in terms of like pricing or worth
- like Should should these things be tied in the same way to the percentage of the state number or should
- they be two different percentages? I Think it's fine to use the same percentage for each one. I
- Questions or comments. All right. Let's call the roll on the motion. Co Rodkey. Yes. Holmes. Yes. Kinsey.
- Yes. Smith. No. Stossberg. No. Whistler. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Bishop.
- No seabor. I lost count there. I believe that I believe that carried five to four. OK. Motion carries.
- All right. We are. Is there anything else under reports resolutions communications from staff or is that the.
- Nope, that is it. Well, we are ready to move on to the agenda now. All right. Now we're on to the fun
- stuff. We have our first petition as you be 2025-12-0051 and Jamie Kreindler, are you presenting or?
- Yeah. All right. Take it away, Jamie.
- All right, Jamie Kreindler, senior zoning planner. And this case was last before you last month on June
- 8th. And it's a request at 2511 North Dunn Street for primary plat approval for 14 lot subdivision of
- four acres with three common area lots and 11 residential lots. And this is in the residential medium
- lot R2 zoning district.
- And the petitioner is also requesting three waivers before you tonight. So the first waiver is to allow
- for a cul-de-sac, which is not permitted in the UDO. The second waiver is to not require 67% of the
- lots to be served by alleys. And the third request is to amend the repair and buffer easement language.
- So I'm going to try to go more quickly through some of the overarching information that we touched on
- last month and then get into more of the findings and also the new additions to the staff report dealing
- with the environmental commission, the wetland delineation, and some of the questions that were asked
- last month. So I came back with that information. But a brief overview, the petitioners are Paul Pruitt
- and Keith Klein. The consultants are Bynum, Fanyo, and Associates.
- And currently there's one single-family dwelling on this property that's proposed to be demolished for
- the creation of the new subdivision with single-family detached uses. This zoning map here shows the
- surrounding land uses. So there's R2 zoning to the north and the south of the subject property.
- To the east, there's a combination of R1 zoning and PUD zoning. And to the west, there's an office park
- with mixed use corridor zoning.
- So this quickly summarizes the hearings that have already taken place with the plan commission. This
- case was first before you in January of this year on January 12th. And at that time, 15 residential
- lots were proposed and two subdivision waivers were requested. So that's since been revised to reduce
- the overall number of lots and to modify some of the waiver requests. And now there are three subdivision waivers.
- This case was also at the Board of Zoning Appeals in February of this year on February 26th. And there
- were seven variance requests. Four of those variances were approved. Three of them were denied. The
- ones from minimum lot area, minimum lot width and minimum side building setback were denied. So the
- petitioner after that hearing revised their plan and that impacted the overall number of lots for the
- subdivision.
- I'll also share that on June 17th, there was a motion to stay and that motion was denied. So that's
- new information from the hearing last month. As far as the environmental commission's involvement in
- this project, the proposed development was presented to the environmental commission plan commission
- in December of last year. And then it was sent back to the environmental commission in January and February
- of this year.
- and the environmental commission declined to comment on the proposed development at that time. So we've
- not since then asked for additional feedback from them since in the past on multiple occasions, they've
- chosen to not provide comment. So the current plan has not been seen by the environmental commission,
- but what we've seen in the past is that when we've given them the chance to provide comment, they chose
- not to do so.
- As far as the wetland delineation, the UDO has a definition for a wetland, and I'm not going to read
- it out loud, but it's on the screen. It's also in the staff report. And there was a site visit with
- the senior environmental planner last fall. There's three conditions that have to be met to classify
- it as a wetland, and those conditions were not found to be met. So,
- the site has not been regulated as having a wetland. It has been regulated as having an intermittent
- stream and there's a definition for that in the UDO. So that's how the department has handled this case.
- We've not required there to be a wetland delineation report because we did not find that the definition
- of the wetland was met. There are other entities, state and federal,
- Agencies that have jurisdiction over wetlands so if they found that there was determined to be a wetland
- on the site their requirements would still have to be met and that would The local regulations would
- be applicable in that case, but this time we've not seen that to be the case As far as the repairing
- buffer easement language that is the the new
- waiver that's being requested. So on the left is what the UDO's language currently states for riparian
- buffer easements and on the right is how the petitioners requesting that the language is amended and
- this is really to resolve any conflicts that might exist between City of Bloomington's regulations when
- it comes to drainage allowances and drainage maintenance and the UDO's
- requirements when it comes to the environmental factors like the riparian buffer and tree preservation
- and those criteria. So this amendment would allow, would still prohibit land disturbing activity except
- in the cases when CBU needed to do maintenance on the property and that's for the purpose of drainage.
- So I just wanted to provide a little bit of clarity on that. The proposed plat is fairly similar to
- what you saw last month.
- Just a couple changes with the setbacks. Those have now been corrected on the plat before it was five
- feet, which was incorrect. That's been corrected to show the eight feet, which is the R2 standard. And
- that I think is actually the main change on the plat. This cul-de-sac exhibit was before you last month
- as well. And that has pretty much stayed the same. So the petitioner is requesting a waiver
- to allow for a cul-de-sac instead of extending the road all the way to the western boundary. And the
- site plan is largely the same as well. On the landscaping plan, they did make a few minor changes, adding
- some additional tree plantings and changing out some of the species, but those were pretty minor changes
- overall. As far as City of Bloomington's,
- Last month they did have some comments and some items that needed to be addressed. As far as we are
- aware at this time, there are no major issues that have been identified by CBU. So the sanitary sewer
- service is being provided through a connection to the south. So that is a change on the plan. The water
- service is provided through existing water lines on Dunn Street and prior storm water comments were
- were addressed in the most recent review and appear to be acceptable. CBU stated that they may have
- some minor comments as this project gets closer to construction, but none that would affect the planned
- commission hearing tonight. And Phil Peden from Engineering at CBU is here per your request, and he's
- available for helping to explain the CBU perspective and answer any questions.
- So I'll just briefly touch on some of the criteria that we evaluated in our staff report. The first
- is the general compliance criteria, and besides the waivers that are being requested, we found that
- all the UDO standards were met with this petition, this primary plat request, as modified by the variances
- that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved in February.
- There are additional criteria that are applicable to primary plots and we found that the plan is consistent
- with the comprehensive plan and it's including sidewalks, tree plots, adequate road systems, public
- services and public facilities are provided. For the review and decision criteria, it's mentioned that
- the stormwater detention on lot two is included in a common area lot
- and CBU has not identified any major issues with providing water and sewer services to this property.
- And then for the three subdivision waivers, there are certain criteria that have to be evaluated, so
- I'll just go through each of them pretty briefly. For the first one, the lot served by alleys, this
- waiver will allow for
- Mortuary preservation and a buffer between the adjoining properties, especially to the south. The unique
- condition with the property in this case is that it's long and narrow and overall there's a lower number
- of drive cuts. So it's accomplishing something similar to what the alleys intended to accomplish as
- well. And then for the subdivision waiver from the easement language, as I mentioned before, this is
- intended to accommodate both the drainage
- allowances and maintenance required by CBU and the environmental preservation requirements in the UDO.
- And the repairing buffer really is the unique condition in this case, taking up a fairly substantial
- portion of the northwest corner of the property. And that's why the easement is required. And then lastly,
- with the cul-de-sac, the planning department is not supportive of the cul-de-sac waiver
- The department is supportive of the road connection to the western boundary of the site to allow for
- potential connectivity in the future. And we did not find that there was a peculiar condition as to
- why the cul-de-sac needed to be installed in this case. So that is a summary of the staff report. The
- department is recommending that the plan commission adopt the proposed findings, approve the waiver
- request to not require 67% of the lots to be served by alleys.
- approve the waiver request to amend the riparian buffer easement language and deny the waiver request
- to allow the cul-de-sac. And there are two conditions in the recommendation. The first having to do
- with the board of zoning appeals approval. And then the second having to do with final acceptance from
- CBU, which is required prior to permitting. So with that, I'll turn it back to the plan commission and
- happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there a representative of the
- Petitioner who'd like to present tonight All right, good evening Daniel Butler by them fanning associates
- licensed civil engineer here in the state of Indiana
- With me tonight is Keith Klein and Paul Pruitt. They're representing ownership So if there's any questions
- that might be pertinent to them, they are here and able to answer any other questions I'll go through
- real quick. Just again the history of this project. I think everyone has heard and is aware of everything
- Regarding this but I'm happy to answer any questions we did start out with a denser project and this kind of
- Piece of land to see what it can could be useful for and providing a road connection of Tamarack Trail
- to go through it but also providing Lots that would be be able to Serve a single-family need here in
- Bloomington So at one point we were using most of the land and that's over gosh over a year now has been
- studies and meetings and neighborhood meeting and hearing feedback I I hope you Believe me when I say
- we really are trying to marry all the things together to make this functional and work for all parties
- And I hope the neighborhood
- Would also believe me when I say that that we're trying to make this a project that now is r2 zoning
- 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
- we could have in order to preserve trees to allow for drainage to preserve environmental features on
- the site to add a
- I think it's a hundred and eighty new trees to the property to to try to Make this work for everyone
- So we have 11 we've now come down to 11 single-family lots with three other common lots and to be able
- to preserve and in perpetuity keep the environmental trees everything on site as it is and
- It is a unique, it's another one of those kind of unique rectangular lots that you've seen in the past
- that it's hard to have a traditional neighborhood or what the UDO is calling a traditional neighborhood
- where you would have alleys behind the homes. I don't think anyone here would say that they want those,
- at least from probably the adjoining neighborhoods, and so I won't go through too much of why
- Why no alleys on the perimeter of the properties of the property? But we're also asking for the riparian
- buffer language waiver with this tonight and then of course I assume probably the most discussion will
- be around the cul-de-sac
- it's again a hammerhead turnaround that is good for police and fire and Delivery trucks in order to
- not have the extension of the road to go all the way to the west Everyone is probably aware remembers
- why? That this would be a good thing Again, we're not looking for this is a deal breaker by any means
- we're suggesting it in terms of another thing that we could maybe save and
- To make further tree preservation further less disturbance on the site Less cost to the project in order
- to provide a little more affordability for these 11 homes So again that one that is 160 feet of road
- on the west side There'd be you know approximate, you know $400,000 or something close to that in cost savings
- it would save 21 large specimen trees on that side to do this and Minimizes disturbance. Like I said
- again, I imagine there'll be most discussion around that particular waiver and so we're we're suggesting
- it but again, we we understand that there is a Desire also for Tamarack Trail to hit that West property
- line and have future connectivity I think everyone remembers that conversation from last month however
- I'll end there for now and feel free to answer or ask questions Thank you, are there any questions from
- commissioners either for staff or for the petitioner Go ahead Commissioner Stossberg Go first if they want to I
- I was gonna let the other end go first. Go ahead commissioners Smith. Oh, I Forgot my reading glasses
- when I zoom in it goes blurry explain the street cross-section to me. I can't see it It's two lanes
- 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
- 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
- at it, but otherwise I can grab my paperwork. I'm looking I just can't read it
- so she's bringing it up so I don't have to go back to my seat. Right there at the bottom. Travel lanes
- are, parking lanes are. Can anybody read it? Can you read that?
- Andrew do you know I think it's a neighborhood cross-section, isn't it like a neighborhood street? One
- foot gap between the property line and a sidewalk six foot wide sidewalk Looks like nine foot tree plot
- curb and gutter Ten foot travel lanes to ten foot travel lanes plus extra space for parking on both sides so
- Essentially four feet on each side, but because of the narrow nature of the road the transportation
- plan says I think that matches the transportation plan and that just Goes on to the other side with
- again curb and gutter Well, no, what's what are the travel lane widths and what are the parking lane
- widths? The travel lane widths are 10 feet and there's an extra Four feet beyond the traveling width
- to the face of curb on both sides of the road
- The cross-section is not to scale. So I thought they were quite of on-street parking now They are I
- Guess I'll keep answering the question The transportation plan suggests that for low volume local streets
- like this You can have on-street parking if you have on both sides if you have a 28 foot wide roadway
- surface So this is consistent with that section of for the transportation plan
- That's good. Okay. All right. With regard to the hammerhead turnaround versus the connecting roads I
- understand connectivity and I looked at what it was connecting to 160 feet of asphalt impervious surface
- 28 feet wide. That adds four thousand dollars the cost that's thirty six thirty five thousand a lot.
- We have an attainable housing problem in this community. Eleven lots on four acres is ridiculous. There
- should be more here. These are going to be expensive homes and it's not
- 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
- that we can't build attainable housing in this community and it's getting tiring. My daughter graduates
- from IU next year and she's going to leave this town because we don't have attainable housing. I wish
- there was more lots here. I wish I would have not dropped off Plan Commission but I had to.
- I think we should not build that road through. I think we should do a hammerhead turnaround. I think
- we should reduce the cost of this petitioner and try to get the cost of these houses down. Also, the
- climate action plan, all of our codes talk about maintaining our natural resources, using them equitably
- or reasonably or scarce resources, using them properly to pave this road and to put in these sidewalks
- all the way to the adjacent property line at a cost of $400,000 isn't assisting anybody and it's not
- using our resources that well.
- So that's just my comments. I think I don't think we should require the builder. I think we should give
- him the waiver for the call the second. All right. Let's try to keep it to questions at this at this
- phase and we'll have we'll have comment later. Any more questions on this end. To my left Mr. Stossberg.
- Thank you.
- I have a couple questions. So first off while we're talking about that that expansion of the road and
- whether or not to grant that variance on one of the the images that we were given the option if we Granted
- the variance and did not extend the road. It said like future row dedication and I think that we discussed
- that a little bit last time because the petitioners like willing to be like here like give this to the
- city and then if you all want to build a road later you can but I'm not
- I'm confused about whether that variance would actually come with that road dedication because there's
- an issue of maintenance and liability if we do have that road dedication so Can staff address that?
- Like if that variance is granted Would there be that road dedication that the city would have to deal
- with? Granted the waiver to allow for the cul-de-sac we would not want to have that right away dedicated
- for that those reasons that you just said
- And amongst other things, you know, I don't see a scenario where the city would be spending money To
- go in and put in a road or a facility in that area. Okay, so Does that road education come with that
- waiver right now then so no They're separate things. Yeah, they just show the right of way as you know,
- 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
- Okay, great and then for the petitioner on the same time one of the other things that we talked about
- last time in the Syria was the idea that you could you also wouldn't need that waiver if you had a road
- Attaching to the north property in the theory that that you know if that ever got developed was that
- something that you guys explored at all between the two hearings Yeah, we we looked at it again and
- it is something that's
- You know taking that road all the way to the north We just don't see a lot of connectivity over there
- to those backyards and there is a current kind of drainage area there are so there's a drainage way
- on the north side of the property and then there's another drainage way just to the property to the
- north and so for those reasons We didn't draw something up per se we did look at it and we felt that
- going to the west if anything would be the best solution if we chose to take a
- connectivity plus tamarack trail on the Kind of the future road plan. That's the direction that it went.
- Yeah. Okay. Great. Thanks. And I have one more question. That's about something different Unless anybody
- wants to carry on with that. Please continue. Okay So last time the other thing that was concerning
- it was the sewage access and and through that
- I guess there's a Glendora property that you all have to get rid of way in order to connect to the sewage
- and The it seems to say in here like all of that's fine But is that actually fine and do you have that
- those permissions to connect? Yeah, yes, we do because we went in a different direction there was a
- purchase of a property in on Glendora at the very
- East end that did not go the same route that it did before and so we decided to go that direction instead
- and have connectivity to Glendora public sewer there Rather than the original Directions and so now
- we are yes approved for that. Okay direction because it is not going through a Property that we don't
- have control of
- Okay great and then kind of on that note especially since we have a CBU person here there has been through
- this I'm not sure where the CBU person is but there's been lots of discussion with this petition with
- regard to challenges in
- That neighborhood with regard to their sewer and just the the volume and the the older infrastructure
- that's in there being able to support these New structures, so could you speak to that at all? Sure
- again Phil Peden CPU assistant director of engineering so I
- This has 11 lots, and so if you look at the existing system, it's an eight-inch petrified clay pipe.
- That running at minimum slope could handle over 300 homes. So what they're tying into has plenty of
- capacity there downstream. Okay, and what about the issues that, I mean, maybe you don't know about
- any of the issues that neighbors have brought up in terms of the leaks, the smell, all of that kind
- of, those sorts of issues. Are you familiar with
- I am familiar with some odor complaints and we've been pursuing that. We've put some some gauges out
- in the system there to try to determine where those smells are coming from. And we believe it's from
- some offsite lift stations where they discharge further upstream of Mount Long Heights. So we're pursuing
- that and working with those owners of those lift stations to try to correct that. OK. But but this new
- development shouldn't have continued negative effect on that issue.
- No, I don't believe they're going to contribute any more than any other home in that surrounding area.
- Those are from, again, long detention time in a lift station where it sits before it's pumped and then
- sits in the force main a long time and then finally discharges into the gravity system. Okay, thanks.
- I'd like to just follow up, Eric, on the question about the right of way here, because I'm not sure
- I understand what the
- city's position is on this you're saying correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're saying you would
- not want the right away dedicated if the road weren't built.
- Correct if the decision is made to stop the road at a certain location We would not want that right
- away dedicated beyond there because it just brings with us a responsibility and a liability for that
- land that is That's a city owns So if there are issues of trees that are coming down or maintenance
- problems, you know that would fall squarely on the city But how is that different if the road were built
- if the roads built the city's got to maintain it, right? I
- Sure, but it's got improvements within there that you know, we accept, you know So there are situations
- where folks dedicate right away and they build those required improvements within there But in terms
- of areas within the city where there's right away Dedicated and don't have any improvements in general
- in this situation. Like what would be the benefit? You know why benefit would be preserving the option
- to connect the road at some point which I think is the the first principle here right could the reason
- we have this in the first place is to be able to maintain
- connectivity and and I mean what I'm hearing is that the city's position is we'd rather See that option
- go away forever than have to maintain an unimproved Space, I guess, you know when when we have these
- conversations and and we've had a couple there have been a couple problems
- Projects where we've talked about the idea of dedicating right away But not building a road in there
- and at some point in the future somebody will come in and build it You know, we can't obviously make
- the current owner come and build it, you know, they're not bonding for it So to dedicate right away
- with the intention that at some point in the future the city or the taxpayers would fund that on their
- own You know, that's that's very taxing on city resources, you know, if we want the road to be built
- build it now and
- If not, then allow all of that to be in common area and owned by the owners there. Hold on. How is that
- policy codified or decided? Well, it's not codified in situations, and they're situational, certainly.
- when somebody wants to dedicate right away like this, we look at what are the advantages. So yes, we
- can certainly have them dedicate the right of way. There's no harm in that, but if we're looking at
- what is the reality of the city coming in, we can't make the adjacent property owner come into it. So
- it's just a, what would be the benefit of that? Certainly we can have them dedicate the right of way.
- It's highly unlikely the city is ever gonna spend the money to put in that road, though. How is that,
- I mean, is that just a staff level decision?
- whether we want to have that right away dedicated or not or is there something in written policy somewhere
- that I mean I would say it's a staff level from aggregation of comments from a lot of departments you
- know not not just planning but engineering public works you know the people that actually be designing
- the project putting in the money to build it you know their intention would be build it now or
- don't build it but don't put it out there with the belief that at some point the city's gonna come in
- and build it. If we wanted to do what we just did for sidewalks, it seems like the obvious answer here
- is allow for some payment in lieu. We're not gonna build it today. It doesn't make any sense to build
- it today. Nobody's gonna drive on it until the adjacent property is redeveloped. What would it take
- for us to have
- that as an option on the table for a situation like this? That's a great question. And I don't have
- an answer for a mechanism in the UDO that allows for that. The payment in lieu just talks about pedestrian
- improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes. To have that same thing for a road, we would need to build in,
- I guess, a similar process for the payment in lieu. So it doesn't exist now. Could we build in? Yeah,
- probably. But it would just take
- A U.D.O. amendment. Something yes. Build in a process for it and then set you know just as we just did
- you know a dollar amount for it. I would like to hear from other departments if there's any objection
- to that because it seems like something we just obviously should. I mean I think the challenge the inherent
- challenge with that is it is it defeats the connectivity purpose that we're trying to accomplish here.
- You know certainly you can have a
- transportation commissioner, somebody review whether or not that cul-de-sac, but that's the planning
- commission's job, you know, to decide when that connectivity is the most important. But we can certainly
- look into what a process might look like. I would argue it doesn't defeat the purpose. It achieves two
- purposes, right? It keeps costs down for now while keeping the option of that connectivity.
- Because we're not, even if we build it today, and I know I'm getting into comments now, but even if
- we build it today,
- We're not achieving connectivity because it's not connecting to anything. We only achieve connectivity
- when it connects to the next property. So I would rather see us keep that option open than see it disappear
- entirely. Anyway, thank you for indulging me. Any other questions? Commissioner Kinsey. I do have a
- question for Bill Peden again.
- Around the stormwater management. I know that was also an issue and I don't know if you could address
- that in some of your current What's your evaluation or sense of the stormwater management? Yeah, so
- we've completed our review of that. We have no further comments So it's gonna be approvable at this
- point for stormwater and I think I think a big part of that was for the folks that are concerned is
- The basin is 16 acres that goes through there. And so the responsibility of the developer and what's
- in our code is to is to provide detention for what's on site. So that that area of disturbance is about
- three acres. So they're going to reduce the flow off of their site only. That's what our requirement
- is. And still there's another 12 acres of offsite that's passing through there.
- They they have met that requirement and they've decreased what was four point six seven cubic feet per
- second in the pre-developed and they've reduced that to one point three five CFS It after they've put
- their detention upon it. Okay. I appreciate your technical explanation here help me translate that into
- the concerns that I heard from the neighbors about increasing runoff
- Can you explain it and yeah, so there's two parts to really what they've done to decrease what's going
- to affect the neighbors and that's a goal of our design standards so we look when we do a review we
- want to see how it's going to impact the neighbors and we want to reduce the impact as minimal as possible
- so what they did they added the roadway which is therefore intercepting some of the flow that was going
- to go south to the
- Five lots that are closest to Dunn Street and then they also added a rear yard swale So anything that
- comes off the back of the house is also being intercepted It travels west through that swale to an inlet
- that's piped to the detention pond So they've they've captured area that is was going off-site onto
- those lots from their development and they've routed it through the pond which is then detained by
- by close to 25 percent reduction from what was previously being released. So anything downstream of
- the pond as far as the development is concerned they've reduced that to 25 percent of what it was in
- the pre developed scenario. So they're they're reducing the runoff by at least 25 percent for their
- site. But again that's only three to four acres of a 16 acre drainage basin. Right. OK. Thank you.
- Any other questions. Thank you for coming back again. So we have rules on how we are supposed to answer
- these questions and we're asked to grant the waiver. So this is about the cul-de-sac waiver the conditions
- upon which the request for the waiver
- Is based are supposed to be unique to the property and in court cases of these things what that consistently
- means is it's not caused by the plan. It's unique to the property. You can't build on this property
- without getting the waiver. It's not because of my plan. It's because of the property. So what is it
- about the property that requires a cul-de-sac because the way I read it and it's the correct way frankly
- we can't grant a waiver for it unless there's something unique to the property that is distinct from the plan.
- That's a requiring a cul-de-sac. So what is it? great question the West side of this property and really
- a lot of the property has had a lot of mature trees and that's Understandably a concern from the neighbors
- that some of these would be taken down in order to put in a
- This new development and so we're trying to as best as we can reduce that as much as possible So one
- unique feature of this is there's a lot of tree canopy cover, which we achieved a variance at the BZA
- level already however to the west is a lot of environmental sensitive area and now we tried to Maneuver
- the road. So if we decide to build it, we already gave you a design that would work and
- That would maneuver around the low-line area in the northwest corner of the site so that can maintain
- as is and be undisturbed and then still Go around that however Just the environmental features that
- are on the west side of the site We would say that that is unique to this property that's not on every
- site that would in our suggestion would be
- You could build it later and that that would save some of the environmental tree and trees on that side
- of the property That's what I would say to that question Okay, is there no other plan for developing
- this site that wouldn't require the waiver? Yeah, you would
- As the further you get to the west, the more environmental and mature trees you get into. So the more
- that you get into that side of the site, then yes, there would be more of that need for that. But again,
- we married the functionality of having the turnaround. Where would that go in preserving the most amount
- of trees possible? But yeah, the environmentally sensitive areas
- more to the west But so to answer the question though, is there no other plan? Can you come up? I mean,
- I realize you're not going to submit a new plan like this But I mean could someone else come up with
- a plan that doesn't require a cul-de-sac And develop this property not 90% your plan and make a tweak
- to it But is it possible to develop this property without this waiver? If you want to do r2 zoning with
- the 7200 lot minimum and to
- This is the way to develop it No, I don't so there's no possibly it would be like geometrically impossible
- to develop the property you would you could get less slots You could put part of the plan with respect.
- 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
- allowed to do that. It has to be you can't build without it, right? So that's what I'm trying to get
- at constrained and when we can grant these waivers
- Struggling to see a staff doesn't see that there was anything unique to the land that required The cul-de-sac
- and so I'm just my opportunity like I'm giving you the opportunity. What is it? What is why is this
- required? Because we have to have that in order to say yes to the waiver, right? I think that that would
- be my answer to that still that In order to have an r2 zoning here now. We've talked about this in previous
- Plan Commission sessions that You you could you would only get?
- 123 lots at the most because of need for other waivers then in order to achieve, you know having Several
- connections to Dunn Street rather than having a central road that then connects You know the overall
- development. So when I say there is no other way there is Obviously other ways to design it, but this
- would be the way that lines up engineering wise to tamarack trail that's already there and then having a
- to avoid the most amount of environmentally sensitive areas on the site and avoid the most amount of
- trees. I think we achieved that. And that's why I say that this is the best design and why it was designed
- that way. Thank you. Just quick follow up on that. Is there any neighborhood there's no neighborhood
- configuration that wouldn't require the road to go all the way through. Is that correct.
- Well from the staff's perspective from the UTO UTO requires that all new single-family lots front on
- a public street So, you know based on how the lot is laid out now, you know The only way to accomplish
- new lots without a road going through the center of it is solely with frontage on the more curb cuts
- on Yeah, I mean in reality you well, you've got the depth of width ratio that would maybe probably not
- even allow any right, so then So I think that is
- There really is no other Yeah, so in order to in reality orders the only way to subdivide this property
- is to create a public road down the center of it Or in some capacity so that you can have lots of front
- off of that street Thanks without a waiver, of course, and that's what my point was with a depth to
- width ratio You could get a waiver from that but it would also require way of a different sort And then
- you'd have multiple drives fronting on done
- Any other questions? All right. We will then go to public comment on sub twenty twenty five dash twelve
- dash double oh five one. If you are here in the chambers and you would like to make comment just make
- your way up to the podium state your name for the record please before you start making your comment
- there is a little sign in sheet there as well. If you're joining us online and you'd like to make comment
- You can click on the reactions button and raise your hand or you can send a chat message to the meeting
- host and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak and we will Allow five minutes per speaker
- tonight And there will be a timer up on the screen so you can keep track of where where you stand and
- Go ahead take it away. Jason McCauley on behalf of many of the concerned north side neighbors many of
- whom reside in Matlock Heights. What I'm going to speak about is not about one of the requested waivers.
- I'll incorporate some comments about it. But this is fundamentally one issue that I want to talk about
- and it's about a wetland that everyone refers to as a wetland but nobody wants to figure out whether
- it's actually a wetland because no one wants to do a wetland delineation.
- Okay. There was one visit into that in October of 2025 by our environmental senior planner. And at that
- time she found that there was a substantial amount of water and wet soil and that the area was retaining
- water. There are three indicators that have to be found. Actually let me back up. There are three indicators
- of a wetland only one of which has to be found.
- it to be indicative of the UDO to require a wetland delineation one of those was found but instead of
- requiring a wetland delineation there was later on a determination based upon that one visit that no
- delineation was required okay so I also want to address there's a letter that was addressed to members
- of the Commission that stated that it's not your
- obligation and you're not empowered or have the authority to require a wetland delineation.
- That is incorrect. You have the authority under your general provisions under Section 2660 B3E. You
- approve with conditions or deny based on the general approval criteria and the flood standards.
- You're not required to do anything just because of the flood standards. This is under your general approval
- criteria. And those criteria require you to find that this plat minimizes adverse impacts to the natural
- environment, expressly including water, stormwater management and soils, and the stormwater facilities
- are adequate. Those findings must rest on competent material and substantial evidence. The record before
- you right now is devoid of that.
- There's a June 12th of this year, the applicant's own professional engineer described the feature that
- receives this project stormwater as a wetland. The environmental planner described this feature as a
- wetland. Now we discussed this at the prior hearing that a wetland, just because we call it is, there
- has to be a delineation to figure out if it's in fact a wetland. Everybody has turned their head away
- from this for one reason or another
- They don't want to ask the question. They don't want to do the report on behalf of my clients I reached
- out to counsel for the developers and we offered to hire at our cost a Wetland a certified soil scientist
- to do the what the wetland delineation We asked for access to do that within a 30-day time frame. They
- declined Why this matters is that the stormwater
- And the plan, the plat that's put before you is that the stormwater discharges into this wetland. Under
- the code, section 200430G says that stormwater discharge into a wetland may not be increased over or
- substantially reduced below its pre-existing rate. You don't have those numbers in front of you because
- we don't know that it's a wetland or not. But the UDO requires you to know that because we have different
- rules if it is a wetland. We're asking you to do one thing.
- You've got a condition that was placed in front of each of you. You have the authority to order a wetland
- delineation. We have offered to pay for it. That condition is very succinct, and it is in front of you,
- and we're asking you that if you do approve this plat, that you approve it conditioned to the petitioner
- performing a wetland delineation to make sure, because there's no going back. Once they start feeding
- water into this and they've ripped out the trees
- The detention facility is constructed. There is no going back. We can't do it after the fact There is
- this will not set them back in the in the sake of housing and having affordable housing This is not
- going to be a delay between now and their secondary plow approval This can be performed and it can be
- performed with no harm to the petitioner There will be no cost to the petitioner the the Northside neighbors
- have have willingly offered to pay for it and
- And so we would ask that if you do approve this plan, that you do so subject to the condition that's
- put before each of you tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment?
- My name is Greg Grant.
- I live at the corner of East Lakewood and North Dunn Street in the Blue Ridge neighborhood just to the
- north of the proposed development in Matlock Heights. I will focus on the need to scientifically evaluate
- the possible wetland. However, I must also state that in my view, the developer's latest proposal still
- provides a very poor fit with the surrounding low to moderate density Matlock Heights neighborhood.
- Claims that this plan will expand the availability of affordable family-friendly housing have not been
- supported by the developer nor by any other evaluation reviewable by the public. My conclusion, therefore,
- is that the negative impacts from the plan's poor fit, especially impacts on the closest neighbors,
- traffic, noise, privacy loss, wildlife habitat loss are highly unlikely to be offset by benefits to
- the Bloomington community overall.
- Turning to the the need for a scientific evaluation You can go back slide This lot was deemed suitable
- originally for only a single house for reasons that had become more valid with time especially the lots
- central role in drainage of stormwater for the entire Griffey Creek watershed and
- Neighbors have experienced more flooding recently, likely due to, at least in part, the reported cutting
- of some trees by the current property owner, thus increasing runoff and sedimentation of the stormwater
- channels, including the pond area at the back of the lot. Typical of wetlands, this pond area has provided
- important values to the Matlock Heights neighborhood, but also to the entire city and beyond. Slowing
- stormwater flow to minimize erosion of land and related sedimentation.
- also reducing water pollution from chemicals in runoff from our streets and our yards, while simultaneously
- providing for wildlife habitat, especially for endangered species. Therefore, this pond area should
- be evaluated by qualified wetland scientists to determine if the level of protection consistent with
- the scientific definition of the wetland would be more appropriate, rather than basically allowing the
- developer to decide its degree of protection.
- And to give you a little better view of what we're really talking about You can see from this picture
- a Very visible pond but around that pond if you go to the next slide You'll see the next slide, please
- You can see the pond in the upper left-hand corner But this circle is drawn around the entire area that
- is water soaked behind the pond
- So, you know the area we're talking about is not just what's invisible. It's a much larger area Next
- slide skip the text. There you go Now this short video, can you run the video? Okay, it's running From
- the neighboring property immediately to the north shows a primary water flow toward the pond extends
- from the neighbor's yard
- Additionally, it appears a substantial channel exists in the neighbors property along the fence line
- Can you run it again? This channel could divert runoff from the 2511 lot directly into the pond bypassing
- the planned detention basin Therefore the riparian easement identified by the developers drawing appears
- incomplete Particularly if the easement is for access for maintenance or requires the neighbors approval
- as well has a riparian easement been identified and approved for the neighbors lot and
- Next slide, please This this video this short video shows the flow of water into the pond area from
- the ravine to the north which is basically Draining the lots six matlock Heights lots north
- of the development lot and four lots at the top of the ravine in the Blue Ridge neighborhood and
- For this reason, these lots to the north, like the lot at 2511 Dunn, was naturally limited to a couple
- hundred feet from Dunn Street, between one third and one half of the lot's total depths. As their backyards
- slope off into the ravine, this ravine forms a natural channel for the Griffey Creek watershed, flowing
- directly toward the pond area at the back of the 2511 Dunn Street lot. Next slide, please.
- And this video shows the natural, the overflow from the natural depression, forming the wetland-like
- pond area. And this overflow is being channeled with some berming, so the overflow goes mostly under
- the driveway created within the commercial lot to the west. That's awfully slow, sorry about that. And
- go to the, okay, well I have,
- More comments at all submit. Thank you Hello, my name is Julia Livingston and I live at 2641 North Dunn
- I am part of a group of neighbors that you see here tonight and
- who have come together in a very sustained effort to protect the character, beauty, and peace of our
- neighborhood, the value of our properties, and the environmentally sensitive land and native trees that
- make up what our neighbors like to call Sinclair Woods. Our persistence and the hundreds of hours of
- sustained effort is fueled by the belief that we live in a town in which our voices matter and that
- if we show up
- and speak out, we will be protected by its laws and historical norms. Our group is truly democracy in
- action. I would like to bring to the Commissioner's attention
- to the intermittent stream, again, that flows across the western ends of all of the five properties
- just to the north of 2511 North Dunn. Maybe go back to the first slide, thanks. As you can see in the
- overview, the water flows in a path, the blue dotted line from a high point, that's Blue Ridge up there
- at the beginning of the dotted line.
- and it flows from up there across our property as the next one, and then all the continuing four other
- properties down to the pond. As you can see, this is such a beautifully wooded area and is part of what
- makes Bloomington Bloomington and Matlock Heights, Matlock Heights. You can also see in the next image
- the streaming and pooling of water through our own wooded land at the west end of our property in photos
- taken last March. The soil in this area is remarkably moist with water soaked areas most of the year.
- This is also true of the west ends of our neighbor's properties. All of this water adds to the flow
- of the water onto the property of 2511 from other sources
- as it makes its way to the northwest corner, filling the pond and flooding the surrounding land. The
- developers have said that they will reduce the volume, the rate of flow, but not really in the past,
- the volume that will be passing through. And we living there know that this loss of trees who soak up
- hundreds of gallons of water and
- our actual lived experience in this area that this will increase our flooding. We've also taken note
- that the city's utilities engineer both called and the developers engineer both called the area including
- the surrounding pond at the northwest end of the property a wetland yet again no wetland delineation
- has been made in giving guidance to property owners and developers. The Indiana Department of Environmental
- and Management item advises you should not begin to plan or lay out your site or development until you
- have had a wetland delineation completed and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This guidance
- has not been followed.
- As we look at the basis on which the city planning department made as our lawyer said the decision not
- to require wetland delineation of the site that was made only after one visit by a city planner in which
- who reported that the three attributes of a wetland did not appear to be present.
- This prompted me to ask the city planners if the petitioners had conducted a wetland survey, a car survey,
- and if soil borings had been done. I was told no when I asked if the environmental commission had weighed
- in on the petitioners plans for this environmentally sensitive land. Strangely, no. When our group asked
- the petitioners through their lawyer for a one-time entrance to the property, we were told no so that
- we could have a wetland delineation report.
- Given the lack of actual fact on which to base such an important and required determination, we respectfully
- ask the plan commission members to allow a continuance of the case until an official wetland delineation
- has been made. Thank you. Thank you.
- Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jeannie Green, Jeannie Reem, and I'm a resident
- of Matlock neighborhood. I'm here tonight to voice my concern regarding the proposed development at
- 2511 North Dunn Street, specifically focusing on stormwater mitigation, public safety, and long-term
- developer accountability.
- First, we must address stormwater mitigation. As we have witnessed this year, flooding is a critical
- issue already impacting many Matlock Heights residents. While the developers have proposed a retention
- basin, it is not a comprehensive plan. We need concrete technical details. Specifically, who will manage
- this basin long term? Will there be training?
- and maintenance records. What is the inspection schedule to monitor the drainage and prevent algae growth.
- We've seen that in our nation's capital as a problem lately. Given this will sit here given that this
- will be near a residential area. What safety measures will be implemented to ensure that this basin
- does not pose a hazard to neighborhood children.
- My second point, second is vital infrastructure and emergency access questions remain unanswered. A
- four acre development introduces significant logistical demands. Has adequate space been allocated for
- essential sewer, water, and utility lines? Will utility providers have unhindered access to maintain
- their services?
- Will the site layout allow full immediate access for fire and emergency vehicles? Finally, we need to
- address developer accountability. Will the developers simply build on this lot, sell the units, and
- then move on to their next project? When infrastructure or drainage issues inevitably arise at 2511
- North Dunn, who steps in?
- who will finance and maintain the common grounds and infrastructure outside of individual homeowner
- lots. On these last two points if the developer moves on will the city assume responsibility for future
- problems of drainage algae control street upkeep and tree control. While Bloomington desires housing
- growth it must not come at the expense of established homeowners who have invested in
- maintained and sustained this community for years. I urge the commission to defer approval until more
- questions have been answered. Thank you very much for your time. Anybody have questions for him here.
- Thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment.
- I'm cutting in line. I'm sorry My name is Chris Branham. I'm a resident at two seven zero one North
- Dunn So I'm one of those houses that doesn't belong to the Blue Ridge or Matlock Heights neighborhood
- But just a few houses down from this area You know, I just wanted to speak on one of the proposals about
- running the road north and this idea I think a staffer may be alluded to last time that won a hundred
- years all that land
- be developed anyway. Well, God, I hope not. I invite any of you to come step into my backyard where
- my little kids play. I'm a six and four-year-old. Jenny and Thayer and Jim and Julia, my neighbors here
- have met both of them. You truly walk into our backyard, and it is a courtyard of just greenery everywhere.
- In fact, a couple years before I was born,
- You know, Bloomington was named one of Indiana's first tree city USAs, right? That was a big badge of
- honor. Probably growing up in Bloomington is part of the reason why I care so much about environmentalism.
- I remember my dad working as a custodian at Marlin Elementary, coming home and deciding we were going
- to start recycling from then on, because Marlin started. So I appreciate the commissioner's comment
- about, you know, the idea
- Just increasing this impermeable space And cutting down these trees the idea that we're we have a developer
- Wanting to save trees and we have people saying well, you know We've got to run this to the western
- edge because we want connectivity Is it just connectivity for connectivity sake? I live on the road.
- 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
- backyard and somehow I still managed to get there
- If this road is put through the way it'll function is the same way when I was at Bloomington South And
- we were coming up Henderson and it got backed up at that four-way stop by Frank Southern. What did we
- do? We cut through that neighborhood They're often rolling through stop signs driving way too fast so
- we could beat people to line to get the park a little bit closer You put this road in that's what Tamarack
- is gonna become. Okay? residential community filled with a lot of retirees and
- They're walking on that road and suddenly this will become a quick easy way to cut through all of that
- So what I'm largely speaking in support of is the idea of allowing a cul-de-sac If this proposal goes
- through Because one it's just a good thing to save trees when we're dealing with climate change and
- the heat waves and all the stuff we're going through and For another reason that we don't need this
- connectivity. I'm not sure what the purpose of it serves and
- Right. So like I said, I didn't have anything prepared, but I just wanted to speak on in support of
- allowing that cul-de-sac. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Robin helping young.
- I live at 331 East Glendora Drive. This is my third time I've stood before this commission. The first
- time I came believing that by appealing to the commission with firsthand knowledge of the situation,
- awareness of how strong and clear neighborhood opposition is, that I would be able to help convince
- the Commission that the high density development at 2511 North Dunn currently being considered is both
- unwelcome and unwise. I was shocked to realize that the Commission does not seem to care about the sentiments
- of the people living near or next to the development. Our concerns seem to be being ignored.
- For example, we are being told that steps will be taken to protect our properties from rampant surface
- water flooding. Yet we know for sure that the 100-year flood water marker, which is the top of the standard
- they are using, is no longer adequate. Logic tells us there will be increased flooding because 75% of
- the area will become impermeable. In addition,
- They are not accounting for water flowing onto the property off North Dunn and the property to the north,
- or that water is currently being taken up through the roots of mature trees. Why should we take comfort
- in any of this? It was in a meeting with our local group head with the CBU that we were told that they
- do not include the amount drawn up through the trees roots, that it is not part of their calculation.
- Yet, a simple Google search reveals that a mature tree can draw up to 100 gallons of water a day. Why
- not include that in their surface water calculation? The water will no longer be drawn up by a mature
- forest once the trees are cut down. Concerned Northside neighbors have requested information with a
- freedom of information request, hoping to better understand CBU and the Environmental Commission's actions.
- We have received huge sections of email records that have been entirely redacted. Why? And why has the
- Environmental Commission failed to provide an official assessment? The area was once considered one
- of the city's top conservation priorities. Why has this changed? It seems the whole project is moving
- along without a serious environmental assessment. Many neighbors and other people familiar with the property
- are of the mind that is the high probability that the property contains a wetland. I've lived next to
- the property for 23 years and have been on the property many times. I myself have observed a definite
- seasonal pond many times. In the spring, there are always peepers.
- If we have a long dry period, it may not appear to be a pond, but if an observer went after any rain
- at all, they would see a pond with water flowing in from many directions. We are petitioning here tonight
- that you include in any decision made that a stay on the development of 2511 North Dunn be put in until
- a wetland delineation may be conducted.
- the concerned northside neighbors have a wetland delineation professional lined up and are prepared
- to cover the cost of the delineation currently all we have to go on is the opinion of the environmental
- commission senior staff person that it is not a wetland that person is on leave now so we cannot hear
- how that opinion was formed we need more than an opinion the truth is
- If a delineation were to be conducted and if it is established that is in fact not opinion a wetland,
- all bets are off for the development as it currently stands. This is presumably why the developers have
- refused to grant us access to conduct the delineation. Wouldn't it be better to know for sure before
- we let them decimate Sinclair Woods?
- The members of the concerned Northside neighborhood believe this development is being rushed along before
- proper due diligence has been taken. We have a sense of betrayal. It seems that established zoning and
- planning ordinances are being ignored and protections conferred by the rule of law can no longer be
- counted on from Bloomington City Government. Our main concern, that is if you get this wrong,
- There's no turning back. Thank you. Hello again. This is my third time here also. You've heard again
- and again about our problems, the flooding,
- I want to speak to something that I haven't heard anyone talk about, and that is there is a larger problem
- here. And when we ask why this property deserves all these variances and waivers and why this ill fit
- has to be, why this high density urban development has to be crammed onto this
- Heavily wooded lot, which is not not appropriate at all Why does this have to have to happen?
- Why not just? Submit a plan that fits the lot so all these waivers aren't required The only reason that
- I've heard or inferred is that the mayor wants it And mainly that Bloomington needs more housing
- You know, that's what I keep hearing. But we need more housing. Well, I'm not sure we do, because everywhere
- I look, there's construction. There's apartment buildings popping up everywhere. So construction's happening.
- Housing is happening. What we need is affordable housing. I think we can all agree about that. Prices
- are out of control. But this project does nothing to address that.
- and all these homes crammed onto this environmentally sensitive property that we all have to bend over
- backwards to make work, it doesn't fit. And it's of no benefit to anyone other than the developer. The
- only reason there need to be so many houses is so he can make as much money as he needs to. And he's
- already said that if he doesn't get this many houses,
- 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,
- he'll just pass the cost on to the, they've said it more than once. The cost will be just passed on
- to the homeowners. It'll just increase the price of the homes. Why is there no possibility that maybe
- he just makes a little less money? You know, it seems a little backwards.
- the whole thing. There are many unanswered questions. And when we got the redacted emails after waiting
- three weeks, when we didn't get this plan for tonight's meeting until Saturday night, there's been some
- obstruction going on. There's been a real lack of communication and a general lack of transparency through
- all of this.
- You know, I think we really need to look at, especially as the mayor has her sights on the north side
- for development, the north side, which is ravines and streams. And is it just not suited to the kind
- of development that you can do on the south side or on the west side? It's not the same. We have steep
- hillsides. We have winding roads. We have wetlands, two watersheds, and this
- The property is right on the apex between those two watersheds, Griffey and Cascades. You can't just
- go in and bulldoze and throw up a bunch of little houses in a row. That's all. Thank you. Good evening.
- My name is Adam Will. I live at 211 East Gilbert Drive in Melak Heights. While I have broader concerns
- about the plans for North Grove, I'm speaking tonight specifically about the structural necessity of
- the alley access requirement. The staff report notes that because this property is over three acres
- in size, it is legally required to utilize the traditional subdivision design standard. This means at
- least 67% of the proposed lots must be served by alleys. The UDO triggers this mandate for a reason
- Traditional subdivisions introduce compressed layouts with narrow lot profiles. The alley network is
- required to pull parking, service vehicles, and utility access to the rear, preventing chaotic and hazardous
- front-facing drive cuts along a narrow neighborhood stream. This infrastructure becomes even more critical
- when we look at the city's long-term vision for the dense development of the north side. If the city's
- stated goal is to integrate this development into a larger, highly connected, more densely populated
- network to the west and north,
- It is short-sighted to strip away the safety infrastructure needed to support that long-term growth
- The petitioner is requesting a waiver from the alley requirement because this long narrow property Cannot
- physically accommodate both the standard public road and the required alley network While staff recommends
- approving this waiver doing so ignores two fundamental planning realities First if a development design
- triggers traditional density standards the land tract cannot physically support the safety infrastructure
- required for that density and
- then the proposed plan is simply overbuilt for the site. Second, if this area is designed for future
- urban connectivity, bypassing this alley requirement now creates a permanent unfixable infrastructure
- bottleneck. You cannot logically champion future neighborhood connectivity while simultaneously waving
- the safety mechanisms required to handle resulting traffic and surface loads. By waving the alley requirement
- entirely, the city isn't just making a minor design exception,
- It is granting the developer high density while removing the infrastructure mechanisms required to make
- that density safe for future residents and the surrounding area. If we're going to lay the groundwork
- for the city's future we must build it right from day one. Please hold the line on the UDO infrastructure
- mandates and deny the alley waiver. Thank you. Thank you.
- My name is Jessica will and I live at 211 East Gilbert Drive as well in Matlock Heights I'm here tonight
- regarding the proposed subdivision at 25 11 North Dunn Street While I still have overarching concerns
- about this development I'm speaking tonight specifically to urge the Commission to approve the petitioners
- waiver requests to allow a cul-de-sac as I understand it the staff report indicates that
- that denying the cul-de-sac and forcing a future street connection between Dunn Street and Walnut Street
- is necessary to advance the city's connectivity goals. However, I believe connectivity must never come
- at the expense of safety and common sense. If you look at the map, you can see the reality of what we
- face daily on the north side. Matlock Heights already struggles with speeding, commuter traffic, and
- drivers ignoring stop signs to use our residential streets as bypasses between Dunn and Walnut.
- I argue the last thing the North Side needs is another shortcut for daily commuters and football fans.
- Forcing this street, proposed as East Tamarack Trail, to stub out to the western property line sets
- the stage to funnel traffic directly past 11 new family homes. It seems to me local residential streets
- should handle local residential traffic, not act as a pressure valve for congestion.
- Under the unified development ordinance, I believe a waiver may be granted if it is not detrimental
- to public safety, health, or general welfare. While the staff argue that a cul-de-sac is detrimental
- because it prevents future connectivity, I argue the opposite. Forcing a future road here is what truly
- threatens public safety by introducing potentially high-volume traffic to a quiet residential area.
- If a subdivision must be built on this four acre tract, let it be a safe, self-contained neighborhood.
- Please protect the integrity of the north side, prioritize pedestrian safety over commuter convenience,
- and approve the cul-de-sac waiver. Thanks. Thank you.
- Hello, I'm Stephanie Dickinson 2301 North Dunn Street, Matlock Heights. I wanted to also add a comment
- in support of the cul-de-sac To maintain the trees the natural resources and reduced costs While I understand
- and fully agree with the value of connectivity specified in the UDO As a general best practice in the
- city for promoting a grid system and increasing transportation option options I believe the benefits
- are reduced in this specific context if Jamie can show the
- visual just to remind us that we're talking about a connection between one specific lot that may in
- the future connect to a second lot on the west. I just want to mention for discussion that the west
- is then bounded by Walnut, a ravine, Cascades Park. There's not a lot of room for development to that
- side, maybe similarly to the east.
- Tamarack Trail and Meadowood, like was mentioned, is almost a semi-private road. They don't want the
- traffic. Either way, it's already developed. You have Griffey Lake to the north of that. So just food
- for thought that maybe the development around these areas for the future may be limited already such
- that the value of the connectivity between these may be limited. Additionally, I wanted to point out
- the considerations of public health that was mentioned in the staff report
- Certainly having a grid like system in principle provides more opportunities for biking and walking
- to different points in the city But I want to mention the trade-off and the public health benefits of
- green spaces the tree canopy And the natural spaces which are also shown in the science to be valuable
- for our public health. Thanks Thank you
- I forgot to sign in. Hi. My name's Jenny Ritchie. I sent you a letter. It's probably in your packet.
- I just want to comment on a few things I said. My husband and I live in the northernmost house of Matlock
- Heights. It was built in the early 50s and we bought it in 1916.
- 96, small problem with reversing numbers there. And like Professor Sinclair's property, when we bought
- it, it was affordable because it was a mess. The house needed major work. The yard was an over-chemicalized
- 1950s landscaping disaster. But we saw the potential for development because we
- wanted to develop this property. Only instead of developing it for profit, our intent was to develop
- it to see how much natural life, particularly bird life, it could support. And to that end, we have
- devoted 30 years to making improvements on this property. We have built
- We have built homes for multiple species of birds, for many, many amphibians, and we have built denning
- places and nesting places, and we have built connectivity for wildlife in our neighborhood. We've put
- a lot of effort into planning it.
- three decades we've been planting native plants and observing the results of planting those things.
- And what I have come to ask is that you acknowledge that this investment and this development has value
- to this city, to this neighborhood, to our community in general, and that your support
- for the neighborhood that allows our investment to be successful is vital for us. That we know, and
- we know from direct experience, when five mature trees were cut down in the lot next to us, we saw diminished
- bird populations, we saw diminished reproductive success in the bird species we have,
- And we saw and continue to see drastic changes in the flyways, the ways birds move through the neighborhood,
- just five trees. And when our next door single family residential house turned into a group home, we
- saw a dramatic increase in the traffic coming and going and coming and going and going. It was incredible.
- was only seven or eight cars a day, whereas what you're planning is to dump 15 to 20 cars on. And when
- our neighbors, two lots over to the north, built a house on a very slopey lot with a seasonal wet area,
- we saw a reduction
- in the numbers of copes, gray tree frogs. We had been very proud of our neighborhood's population of
- copes, gray tree frogs. And that diminished population continues to today. So all I'm asking is that
- you consider the value of different kinds of development, and you support those of us who have taken
- the time and effort and spent the money to make
- this kind of development. Thank you.
- Good evening. Caleb Throckmorton. I'm the neighborhood association president for Matlock Heights. This
- is more of a point of clarification. I keep hearing this property being referred to as a new neighborhood.
- It is in fact part of the Matlock Heights neighborhood. It's part of the Matlock Heights neighborhood
- association. It has been since May 15th, 1998, filed with the city and housing and neighborhood development.
- So it's not
- I don't understand if it is being called a new neighborhood or not, but it is part of our neighborhood,
- just kind of a point of clarification. Thanks. Thank you. Any additional public comment? Eric, do we
- have any online commenters? If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this
- Please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing all right. Last call for
- public comment. All right. We are back to the commission then for any additional questions or comments
- or motion. Mr. Stossberg.
- I have a question. I would just like to go over the wetland stuff again, because you guys provided that
- with your memo for this. And I was hoping that one of you, especially since our environmental planner
- is absent, and I see Jackie Scanlon coming to the mic, if one of you could speak to the report that
- was made at the time by our environmental planner and that process.
- Conclusions that were found there. Thanks. Sure. Thank you. I could do my best Jackie Scanlon assistant
- director of planning and transportation Yes, our senior environmental Planner is out on leave But she
- was able to assess the site on a site visit in early October and at that time she determined that the
- Area on the property that
- Many people are calling a wetland is in fact what we would classify as an intermittent stream meeting
- our definition of intermittent stream and not meeting our definition of wetland So she described that
- in an email to miss Kreindler at that time She had actually been to the site a previous time as well
- to do the tree canopy assessment So has walked the site more than once this time. She was particularly looking
- the details of the site to determine whether or not they meet our UDO definition of wetland Probably
- in your report, but I'm just gonna read it out loud anyway Wetlands are those areas and in dated or
- saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support and under normal
- circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation specifically adapted for life in saturated soil
- conditions wetlands generally include swamps marshes
- Bogs and similar areas for the purpose of this definition a wetland must have one or more of the following
- attributes which one of the members of the public spoke about the three are listed as at least periodically
- the land supports hydro fights the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil and the substrate
- is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at least some time during the year,
- so Miss Johnson obviously
- knows this definition. She used her professional experience to make the determination that none of these
- three things are happening here. And so we did not require a wetland determination as a result of that
- inspection. As has been stated, the neighbors have asked numerous times for that to be done.
- Or what could we do to make that happen? And we suggested they could contact the state and see if there's
- something the state could help them do but other than that we made a determination and that
- is the determination of the Professional planner in the department whose job it is to visit sites and
- make that determination So we are holding that determination as there has been no evidence submitted
- that it's incorrect As a follow-up to that so one of the things on
- I suppose number two and number three talk about what kind of soil it is. And so one thing it says is
- the substrate is non-soil, or the substrate is predominantly undrained, hydric soil. Can you determine
- if something is non-soil by looking at it, generally speaking?
- That's a great question. It's a very technical sort of term, I think. Yes, it is. And I am
- not an environmental person. I am walking in her shoes while she's gone. So I will say, actually, Mr.
- Grulick may be able to answer this question better than I can. But I'll give it a try. I do not know
- how much you can tell from observing. I know that she was on site for a while. I believe maybe Ms. Kreinler
- was there as well. And so they may be able to speak to what she
- Actually did at the site to make that determination. She very clearly in the determination emails states
- I believe this is an intermittent stream and here's why and that she understood that That that was the
- determination she was making Okay, thank you if any other staff could speak to that that would be great
- I mean part of this I think is educating
- Me and the rest of us and also the public know you can certainly though as the engineer as part of their
- soil Analysis as part of their stormwater manual and the drainage calculations. They do do an assessment
- 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,
- but mr. Butler could possibly speak to that
- Yeah, we don't as civil engineers. We don't do any type of soil testing So we relied upon her to do
- that and I was also on site at one point With her too as she was looking around and did that assessment
- I will add one thing if you if that's okay to this conversation We are protecting that area so whether
- Wetland or not, which it's been deemed. It's not a wetland. It is being protected on the riparian buffer
- standards and so Everyone's concerned with this area. It's not being touched. It's being preserved so
- whether it's To me it feels like a little bit of a moot point Because it's being preserved as an intermittent
- stream so that it's not being touched or messed with regardless
- The and you know part of what you're hearing tonight is riparian buffer easement standards so that also
- the drainage that you saw in some of the Concerned neighbors is also being protected and those drainage
- ways go into it are also protected So that you know, it can remain as is and also the water from the
- streets is being cleaned before it goes into it So I just want to add that also to the conversation
- in terms of wetland or not or
- as a help. As far as the site does, I can just confirm that I was there on site two with Rachel,
- with Daniel, with the petitioners, Paul and Keith. So it was the five of us there. And I'd only been
- in Bloomington for two months at that time, but we walked all around the site and Rachel was assessing
- the water and I think she took photos and was looking at the trees. So we definitely went back into
- the site so she could do that evaluation.
- Thank you. Can I just ask a quick follow-up on that? Can you just outline for us if, at that time, it
- went the other way? We had determined it was a wetland and went through the process of getting a delineation.
- What would the practical impact be on the plan that's before us tonight? Great question.
- or a wetland. And so they're very similar to what it says for a karst feature where it says you can't
- do any disturbance within 25 feet of that wetland feature. So the first step is determining where the
- boundaries of that feature are, and then there's a 25 foot buffer that is placed on that. So as we mentioned,
- this is part of an intermittent stream. That is what it was defined as. So the intermittent stream,
- the right bearing buffer, has three 25 foot zones.
- So you've got 75 feet on either side of that stream. So this is protecting that 75 feet with the exception
- of the detention area that is shown for a portion of it that is on the outer tier and I think a little
- portion of it is the second tier. But the first tier, the 25 feet that runs through the center has no
- disturbance within it and then probably another 10 or so feet beyond that as well for where the disturbance is.
- So that would be the implications So you say that the lines may be Drawn a little bit differently if
- they had been determined to be well Depending on what the boundaries are for the wetland if it's dead
- center as it is now It's already being safe and having a 25 foot buffer on both sides with nothing Thank
- you other questions or comments
- Mr. Kinsey. I have one on the same issue. In addition to the question that I think I mean this is a
- smart one of what's what's the the area that would be protected or not developable let's say that with
- a boundary I think that is a great question and I'm glad you asked it because it was on my list too
- and I wonder if you can speak at all to what what else would that mean for
- non-developable. Would that prohibit anything nearby? So I'm asking for any expansion. I would love
- to hear the petitioner talk about this more too. Anything else about the area? And then the second really
- straightforward question is about if there were, one of the, I think it was the attorney actually who
- indicated that the planned commission can require a wetland review. Is that
- Is that correct? Is that statement correct? And how can we determine if that is correct? So one... So
- to get to your first question, so the implications of that, like how we're gonna explain to Councilmember
- Whistler, is that there would be a circle for what that wetland would be, and then there's a 25-foot
- buffer that is drawn around that. So it just depends on where that circle is, whether it's a small circle
- or a much larger circle.
- But as I mentioned, our staff went out there and determined that it was not. It was just an interim
- industry. And so that's how that was arrived at, as Ms. Scanlon pointed out. So as part of a, you know,
- if the Planning Commission feels that they strongly disagree with staff, you know, they can certainly
- request a wetland delineation study. You can also make the condition of approval. The petitioner is
- here tonight to request a primary plan approval, so you could certainly condition
- That would be the way to handle that the the question I think I'm trying to get with my first one is
- that even if a boundary were indicated it wouldn't make the Would make it wouldn't make it undevelopable
- the whole area would not be you know, I mean obviously there's already a home or there was a home on
- it I'm just trying to determine
- How far this can go and if the petitioner has anything to say about this whatsoever Yeah, so it just
- draws that 25 foot buffer around there says no disturbance so you can't do anything within that 25 foot
- no grading no structures nothing Yeah, I'm looking at the map now and we right right now there's a line
- with a 25 foot buffer outside of that and then there's additional
- 25 and then another 25 and some of the grading for the pond is within the second one So right now you're
- getting a 25 foot Protection it would just matter how far if it was determined to be, you know a wetland
- and how far out would that go? It's possible to push back the grading limits a little bit. But just
- looking at now we're not It's we're not too snug up right against some of that 25 foot that it would
- Make a big difference It would be possible that it might move back those grading limits just a little
- bit, but I anticipate not much Yeah, I mean I suppose where I'm getting is it makes me want to see a
- map with even the the suspected Wetland area I'm not going to get into calling in a wetland now that
- I know the strict definitions but whatever the suspected area is I
- On the on the plat what that looks like and then how much more that would eliminate From the proposed
- development to me. That would be an interesting So you can see that on sheet five of the petitioner
- site plan It's a enlarged kind of grading of the north or the northwest side of the site is it possible
- 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
- 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
- out a little bit here. So this center line right here represents the center of the intermittent stream
- as it moves through the site there. And then so the feature area, the low-lying area is down in this
- area here. So there is a 25-foot buffer that is shown here that no disturbance is happening within.
- And that is mr. Butler indicated, you know, depending on where you draw that circle You know some of
- the grading for and the outlet for this might be close to that but those are the only real implications
- or Improvements that are shown anywhere close to it
- That's what I was describing is that you can see the grading is a little far off from that Still where
- the bubble might come out and so you would still have a little bit of buffer room there But it would
- just depend on where that actual would go It might push it back a little bit, but possibly not at all.
- Okay. Thank you Any other questions from commissioners Mr. Bishop
- Would have seen evidence that it were likely a wetland would they have elevated that to the state or
- federal level because there are certain channels that you go through through either item or the Army
- National Army Corps of Engineers Jackie Scanlon assistant director Yes, I think well Eric and correct
- me where I'm wrong, but she doesn't elevate it to the state. It's just a separate process That could
- be done. It's not on the national level
- Register of potential wetland areas so they they aren't tracking it currently but yes, I think one of
- the reasons we Besides the fact that she has a professional made the determination is that there has
- been no evidence submitted that it's incorrect so Yes, I think we were open to if that existed It's
- obviously the neighbors are in a weird situation because they don't own the property so they can't get
- on there to present evidence but we based on the evidence that we
- We found felt that that was an appropriate determination So if it if she felt there were evidence of
- it being likely to be a wetland she would have made that yes We've done that She has done that before
- we said my recently Had a project at st. Remy where they had a wetland determination that she was very
- heavily involved in I have one more question, but it's not about
- Next one's about the cul-de-sac hammerhead turnaround piece. So the idea is connectivity. My question
- is it's not really connecting to anything except for a private commercial property. Is it customary
- for us to require developers to provide a road to a private commercial property? Because that doesn't
- provide connectivity in the sense that it would go to another road or another potential road.
- Would be curious to see if that's normal Yep, so, you know connectivity is I know I say, you know a
- two-way street, but it starts somewhere you know, you build the road and then it gets extended as as
- Development happens along the corridor. So that would you know be exactly what we would be accomplishing
- here is is stubbing to the property line It could be the West could be to the north, you know, either
- of those are viable options to connect to you know, so the
- Plan would be the sub to the west and then when property to the west develops, you know If it's subdivides
- and it would have to install public road if it didn't it was just a redevelopment that we would connect
- it with a private Drive and still connect though. So the connectivity would be accomplished and then
- further when the properties to the west Developed and you know as we've talked about in several discussions
- here at the Planning Commission, you know given this location, you know directly aligns with Tamarack
- Trail, you know when you look at
- this map and you zoom out a little bit.
- What would be the reason why you can't stub to the West property line? You know, what are the factors
- that prevent that? Yes, we certainly acknowledge that there are trees we acknowledge that there is an
- intermittent stream that is present here But there are properties all over Bloomington that have roads
- that move across streams, you know, you have culverts or bridges You know, they went to the Board of
- Zoning Appeals They came up with a tree remediation plan to offset the removal of the trees. So there's just
- You know from staff's perspective, you know We have not seen a peculiar condition about the property
- that prevents the road from stubbing to the West property line You know, obviously this is a really
- big issue as we made a purposeful change to the UDO a long time ago to prohibit cul-de-sacs And you
- have to make a hard argument of why you cannot still do a property line In order for a cul-de-sac waiver
- to be granted and so that's where we've we've struggled
- OK, I know Bloomington spends quite a bit of time and money on traffic calming studies and implementations
- a lot of times after the fact. This seems to invite an unnecessarily high amount of traffic
- into a residential area if it were to be required to add a road onto it. So wouldn't that be counterintuitive
- to the traffic calming activities that Bloomington typically engages in in residential neighborhoods
- like this? No, not necessarily. In fact, I think it would really kind of help
- In all of these situations, when you have these local roads that provide alternate connection paths
- between major corridors, it takes the pressure off of those bigger roads. So in this case here, instead
- of somebody having to go out to Dunn Street,
- All the way down done down to bypass and then up walnut just to get to where they wanted to go in the
- first place If there had been a shorter quicker path to get there, they would have taken that so it
- takes that congestion off of there You know local streets when they're appropriately designed, you know
- are calm in and of themselves You know, this will just serve for the most part these lots, but it will
- also serve to provide a
- Residents of this area the ability to get west whether it be walking Biking on a car the ability to
- get west without having to go on a done street or the bypass And they were able to get a safer path
- to where they're wanting to go Thank you If The Commission wanted
- to grant that waiver, in other words, not require the stub all the way to the property line, but we
- wanted the right of way to be dedicated. Would we have to specify that as a condition of approval or
- what action would have to be taken in order for that right of way to be preserved?
- So if if you wanted right away to be dedicated Then you would have a condition of approval that right
- away would be dedicated according to the transportation plan as shown on their plaque If the Planning
- Commission did not want the right away to be dedicated past where the line is that is shown Then I don't
- you would just have a condition says no additional right away is dedicated past wherever that line is So so the
- You're saying the default would be that it is dedicated Well, they've they've shown that you know, we
- staff have said that we don't want that but that's what their proposal is So you would need to address
- it You know, so I guess the default would be you would be accepting their proposal which has the right
- of way dedicated Because we would essentially be accepting the
- The plan that already shows the dedicated. Yeah, so their plan shows shows the right away going all
- the way to the west and then a line of where the pavement would stop Got it. Okay. Thank you Any other
- questions or comments or are we ready for a motion just as a as a reminder the staff recommendation
- is that we adopt the proposed findings approve
- the waiver waiver requests for less than 67 percent of lots to be served by allies and for the amendments
- to the riparian buffer easement language but deny the waiver request to allow for a cul-de-sac with
- to commit to conditions as listed in the packet. Mr. Kinsey.
- I am interested in a consideration of a condition that would require a delineation report prior to a
- secondary plan approval so that would be an additional condition. I'm interested in that and I would
- like to hear if anybody else would be interested in that.
- My concern with adding additional conditions like this would be that we start to question the professionals
- that are hired to determine these things. And when we start to do that, it becomes a slippery slope.
- Then it becomes, does CBU tell us exactly how much the storm water is going through? And can we believe
- them? Can we believe the price of concrete or asphalt from our other professionals? So it calls into
- question the very nature of why we even have these staff reports here to tell us
- because they know these things in very intimate ways that us up here do not. And the general public
- might not. And I'm not well versed enough in environmental studies and hydrogeology to be able to make
- that determination on my own. Commissioner Stossberg. I have some general comments if we're ready for
- those. Does that work? I'll address.
- Commissioner Kenzie's as well. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. If you have a response to Commissioner Kenzie's
- request, please. I'll start with Commissioner Kenzie's repress. I basically agree with Commissioner
- Bishop that
- I mean, my questions of staff about that were to clarify, both for ourselves and the public, that our
- staff did the due diligence that we expect of them as professionals. And I think that they have done
- that. I also, having done some environmental work in the past, some environmental education, including
- in wetlands, those pictures don't look like wetlands to me.
- and because there's not the vegetation that you would expect around the wetland growing and It's so
- between those two things. I just have to trust our staff right now. So I don't think that additional
- That additional condition is warranted with regard to the rest of the petition
- I don't have any problems with the waiver related to amendment of riparian buffer language to ensure
- compliance with CBU. I really generally don't like the alley waivers. I think that we should generally
- have alleys in subdivisions. There was a commenter that said that in this situation. I do think that
- it kind of meets those requirements.
- in terms of the narrowness of the lot. And there are not actually very many houses that are being planned
- on here. This is not dense. This is in no way a high density development in terms of the number of houses
- or how much property each of them would have on it. I've compared it in terms of acreage to other areas
- of Bloomington. It is not that dense.
- And it might feel dense, but it's not even actually that much more dense than what already exists over
- there in some places. So I'm OK with the allies in this situation because I appreciate, or OK with not
- requiring the allies in this situation because of that. However, I also really appreciate what another
- public commenter said about the idea of the
- Requiring the through street not being super compatible with not requiring the alleys, which also makes
- me lean toward allowing the cul-de-sac Waiver and to put in that hammerhead Because those I do think
- that there could potentially be a problem with with cut-through traffic there in a way that
- would necessitate something in the future and considering we're not even sure exactly the timeline of
- requiring that. I also think it's interesting there was a message that we got at some point from the
- public who mentioned that the other side of Tamarack Trail there is a private road.
- And so then that also kind of strikes me as a little bit funky is that we're kind of depending on this
- through ness as part of this connectivity with a private road because that private road can be changed
- in at any time.
- then that would also change connectivity. And I do recognize there's a lot of delicateness over there
- in that area because of the proximity to the IU sports complexes and traffic. And that gets dodgy. So
- allowing the alley waiver and then also having the through street strikes me as a little bit wonky.
- I am not in favor of the right of way dedication.
- Because I and I really and this is sort of like a question too I don't feel like we as the Plan Commission
- should be able to say to
- The administration you have to take responsibility for this area of land. You have to maintain it You
- have to do this that and the other thing with it. I That would be an interesting legal question I think
- if we were actually allowed to demand that kind of right-of-way dedication as the Planning Commission
- especially if staff are saying no and it does involve more than just
- planning at that point. It involves public works. It involves our police department. It involves like
- all of these other pieces of folks who maintain and keep our city safe. So yeah, I think that those
- are my comments. Thanks.
- I just have one more addition to hope he's acceptance of the waiver for alleys that Because this is
- part of Matlock Heights and it doesn't look like any of the other parts of Matlock Heights or service
- by alleyways This would be congruent with the rest of the neighborhood Any other questions or comments
- or emotion good
- support the proposed conditional approval of having the the wetlands study done not to Throw any aspersions
- on staff But people don't always get things right and tonight we asked for an explanation of it We didn't
- get a detailed explanation the person who made the finding wasn't actually here It sounds like there
- are some technical things that could have been asked and we can't tell if they were astronauts So I
- don't think it's crazy to say
- Let's go ahead and require that study as one of the conditions of approval. The people who are opposing
- the settlement are asking to pay for it. They've been forbidden from entering the property. It would
- have been a trespass, so they would have been able to do this themselves. So when the evidence is in
- one person's hands and they're saying, no, you can't look at it, it makes me want to know what that
- evidence is. So I would support the additional condition for approval there.
- As far as the waivers, I don't think any of them are justified. I think this land could be developed
- without a subdivision I don't think we're allowed to grant any of these waivers and I'm not gonna vote
- for them. So Thank you Mr. Seaborg I Didn't want to say too much, but I guess I want to talk specifically
- a little bit about the call the sack idea and
- A lot of what's being discussed and what we're hearing I can I appreciate and there's just there's really
- just challenging issues. The idea of connectivity and just to speak a little bit about that is it's
- really is a valuable thing to pursue. It's something that I've I serve and as a staff person to the
- city transportation commission and the prior traffic commission and so
- In that world, the idea of why would you ever not have an extra connection not happen would just be
- mind blowing because every little extra connection you make decreases the pressure on other facilities.
- So the idea of like a traffic calming consideration, like people might cut through this new road when,
- if it connects, but that also will mean less people will
- cut through Glendora and other streets too. So it just creates a more full network that relieves pressure
- on any single street. I certainly expect people would use it in that way, but it would just distribute
- it more between all the different facilities. And then if I was, or people were living on this street,
- And that connects because it's being redeveloped against Walnut Street. That means there's probably
- a nice commercial space There might be a restaurant a coffee shop that I want to walk to and I don't
- want to have to drive all the way around too So I think the idea of connectivity is really desirable
- It's not an easy thing, especially in this interim Time that we don't know how long it will be it might
- feel awkward but in the long-term vision
- 100 years from now, people will be appreciative of that connection. So just wanting to speak to that
- specific element. Thank you. Yeah, I would just follow up on that. I agree with just about everything
- you said there, with maybe the exception of cut through. I don't really think there is cut through.
- When people drive on a public street, that's why it's there, right? When you drive down Walnut,
- or college, you're not cutting through. That's why we have streets is for the public to utilize that.
- But your point is a fair one. Like the reason we have congestion is because we haven't always taken
- care to create this kind of connectivity. So I think there are two really important principles here.
- One is let's try to preserve and create that connectivity. But also at the same time, let's not add
- cost to housing where we don't have to.
- And I think those are the two things that I'm struggling to hold in balance here tonight, which is why
- I think, you know, does it make sense to require a road that doesn't go anywhere today, that's going
- to create more impervious surface, that's going to add cost to the housing? That does not make sense
- to me. But I do think the connectivity is important enough that, yes, somebody has to bear the cost.
- of that. And if we as a city are going to say that's important then yeah we got to bear some of that
- cost. That means we have to maintain a little strip of undeveloped land then I can live with that. We
- have to put our money where our mouth is if we say that's something that's important to us. So I'm kind
- of inclined to to support the the the waiver the cul-de-sac waiver on the issue of
- The the wetlands delineation I don't I don't I'm not in a habit of opposing the professionals just To
- be difficult, but I don't have any problem challenge them. They're humans. They do make mistakes my
- 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
- from staff that even if it were a wetland I think it it it changes nothing to the to the final site plan and
- And so that's my challenge with adding more time and inevitably more money to the process. We heard
- this was October that they visited this site. We're here now in July, still looking at an initial site
- plan. This is another example of why
- Everything is more expensive in Bloomington. We keep adding cost every step of the way. We keep dragging
- things out every step of the way. And that's not to say these aren't real concerns. They obviously are
- real concerns. But that's why we have these things in our UDO. We have a designation for intermittent
- stream. We have a designation for wetlands. We have protections in place. And it's clear that that area
- is going to be protected. Nothing is going to be built in there. So I'm not sure.
- I understand why we would want to add more time to drag this out if it's not going to have any impact,
- if it's not going to move one line on this plat. That's our job tonight, right, is to either approve
- or deny the lines that are drawn in front of us. And I don't see how adding this is going to change
- those lines in any way. So go ahead.
- 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
- on some of the tree preservation that it allows and for the peculiarities of the site the thing that
- is bothering me is the is the wetland delineation and by no means do I want my comment to be interpreted
- as lack of confidence in staff expertise I have
- absolute confidence in staff expertise. However, I just wonder if the question I was getting at earlier
- about laying out the plans on the development. So if a wetland report is delineated, might that alter
- things? And I think the petitioner was conceding. It might alter it a little bit. The lines might shift
- a little bit. I'm willing to see if the lines might shift a little bit.
- and maybe the disturbance area would be increased, or then the area that cannot be disturbed would be
- increased. So that to me is a reasonable thing to do as a condition of a secondary plat approval.
- To me, that seems reasonable given some of the evidence that's been presented and the concern that's
- expressed. And I don't want to make this mistake. I don't want to make a mistake.
- about the environment. And if we can do a better job and get a little bit, maybe it shifts north or
- it shifts a little bit east, I'd rather know that now and be informed in my decision than not be fully
- informed. And again, I don't mean to cast any aspersions or lack of confidence in the staff at all.
- I greatly value their expertise. But I just think given what we've heard,
- Given the willingness of the group that's interested in this matter, I think it behooves us to take
- advantage of the concern that's been raised and to address it and make it a condition. If it comes back
- and there's no wetland determination, delineation, then okay, great. I have much greater confidence
- in this plan moving forward.
- So to me, that's in some ways it satisfies the question. I know it can be a lot of money. It can be
- a hassle for the petitioner to wait longer. But let's get this resolved so we can satisfy the wetland
- delineation. So that's where I stand on it. But generally, I'm in favor of this. I think we need more
- housing in this space. I think the petitioner has gone to great lengths to reduce the housing,
- so that it's reasonable to preserve the the wetlands and the trees and it's It helps us with housing
- needs. So to me that's there are some greater needs here being met Yeah, I don't need to belabor anyone's
- points at all but
- Yeah, I mean, I tend to agree with Commissioner Kinsey on the wetland delineation. I just don't see
- why we wouldn't. I think it has a long term impact. Putting in this development has a long term impact.
- And I also would not despair what the planning staff has evaluated in this with their own professional
- opinions. And I think we all agree that they do a great job.
- are the right people for the job. But yeah, it seems like a simple step to add that as a condition.
- 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
- agree with a lot of the things that Commissioner Seabor shared. When you talk about connectivity, we
- add a bike lane.
- And then you think, oh, where did that go? Because it didn't continue on. Well, we can't put a bike
- lane on every mile of every road at one time. So you've got to kind of just make progress as you can.
- And I think that by creating the opportunity for connectivity, the cul-de-sac kind of denies that altogether.
- So I have a hard time.
- with the cul-de-sac. I mean, the alleys, you know, I think that there's a great point made that if you
- can't accommodate the alleys, then there is maybe too much density. On the other hand, the point was
- made that nothing else in that area has an alley. So, you know, I can go, I don't know, I'm a little
- hung up on that one. So, I guess that's all I
- I really have to contribute at this point Well, we need a motion of some sort Is anybody prepared to
- make a motion? If you are planning to propose a waiver to allow cul-de-sac you do need an alternative
- finding for that
- Discussing whether we're having a second hearing is that this is a second. Okay, I thought that there
- was this This is a second hearing well, so this is the yes So there is a required second hearing as
- part of the waiver. So this is that there is following this and
- Assuming there is a primary plat approved. There is a secondary plat approval that does have to happen
- You know petitioner has not requested that to be delegated to the staff So that could come to the planning
- commission or plaque committee
- No one is going to make a motion. Crafting up a alternative finding is not easy on the fly here. I would
- also ask that if Commissioner Kinsey does want to do the condition related to the wetland that we handle
- that separately as a separate motion as opposed to
- with the entire petition. So I feel like any of this that we handled separately might help in case there's
- split votes on on any of these waivers. Yeah I think I think that's good. What we could do is we could
- just get a motion on the table as the staff recommendation and then you could make a motion to amend
- that motion to add another condition which we could have a separate
- vote on Somebody does All right, I would like to make a motion actually though to My motion is about
- the additional condition. That's the one I'm gonna set first. Does that make sense to set that? First well
- You can't really amend something that doesn't exist yet. We got to have a motion All we have is the
- staff recommendation so Commissioner seaborne I Recommend that the planned Commission adopt the proposed
- findings approve the waiver requests and not require 67% of the lots be served by alleys and
- Approve the waiver request to amend the riparian buffer easement language and deny the waiver request
- to allow for a cul-de-sac with the following conditions. Number one approved per terms and conditions
- of BZA appeals case number ZR 2 0 2 5 dash 12 dash 0 1 1 4 and final acceptance and approval from the
- city of Bloomington utilities is required prior to the issuance of any permits. All right. We have a
- motion. Is there a second for that motion.
- I Think I read the staff report Yeah, so there's a motion on the table is is essentially exactly as
- the staff recommendation. So now if If any commissioners would like to offer an amendment to that That
- motion we would entertain that at this time All right, I would like to offer an amendment to the motion
- that was just made to
- for a additional condition that would require a wetland delineation report prior to a secondary plat
- approval. Is that that's it. Just yes. OK. Is there a second for that motion.
- Okay Staff we understand you got that sufficient language you got So mr. Seabor made a motion to approve
- for the staff report and then commissioner Kinsey added a condition for the wetland and So that is the
- motion approval with three conditions. Got it. Okay, so we any
- Yes, yes, it's not the amendment has not been adopted yet right it's just been proposed most moved and
- seconded is there any discussion on the motion to amend
- the amendment based on the delineation was to require it to be completed within 45 days of primary plat
- approval and I realized that there was no timeline provided in your amendment is that anything that
- you would reconsider if you can I would consider a timeline but I thought the secondary plat approval
- would be sufficient as an endpoint I don't know I mean please suggest something if there's a better way to
- prescribe this. I mean you can certainly supplement your condition with that wording of prior to secondary
- platter. But I mean and what would the timeline be then whenever they file for the secondary plan. Is
- that enough for you. I just think that if we're going to add additional conditions there has to be timeliness
- brought into this especially given the protected areas. There is normal. There is a normal schedule
- for a secondary plan.
- Yeah they have one year to file for the secondary plan so they have that time period before they file
- for secondary plan to abide by your condition. Yeah. Is that I think extending it to a year seems too
- long. I would be preferential to 45 days that are recommended by the neighborhood development. Yeah.
- Would you accept that as a as a friendly
- Amendment to your amendment. Well, I want to be accepting of friendly amendments I I'm not sure that
- I want to to add additional timelines on things that are already have set timelines. That's my only
- trepidation is Adding timelines that already have established timelines. Yes Leaving it as the established
- timeline basically leaves it up to the petitioner to handle
- Because that's part of what the condition is saying, do this delineation. And we don't necessarily know
- exactly how long it will take. I don't know if the 45 days was researched. I don't know if it was random.
- Yeah, but that will leave it up to the petitioner, I think, to get it done.
- So clarifying point then if the petitioner goes for the next plat approval in under 45 days and the
- study is not done in that time can they still seek that approval. I think the answer would be no because
- it would be required prior to the secondary plat approval. OK. So where is the impetus to get it done
- in a timely manner then on the side of the neighborhood development.
- Because they could drag their feet in how long that takes and I mean, I think I think in this All that
- we are according to the motion that's on the table right now. The only requirement is that it is done
- prior to secondary plat approval there's no requirements in this motion as to There's no specificity
- 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
- would be on the
- The burden will be on the petitioner to make sure it's done before they come and seek that second air
- path. All right. I appreciate that. I'm still not supportive but thank you. I also want to remind the
- commission that the petitioner does have time left if they wanted to add anything or certainly address
- any of the conditions. If the petitioner has a comment on this.
- How to handle or what they feel would work. I would love to hear it Nothing additional I think you've
- heard everything that the pros and cons of everything at this point and I think by the the time that
- a secondary plot was if you choose to vote on that and have a secondary Wetland delineation study done
- then that's fair and well, you know we do it by the time that we file for the secondary plot and
- I don't think there's anything else to add. All right. Any other questions or comments on the motion
- to amend the motion to add a third condition of approval. OK. Let's call the roll on the motion to amend
- Kenzie. Yes. Smith. No.
- Stossburg no Whistler no Burrell no Bishop no Korodke no seabor No All right that motion fails so we
- now are back to the original motion unamended No, not everybody's voted yet technically
- Oh, I'm sorry. Holmes. Yes. Sorry. Yes. But you're on the record. All right. Sorry about that. So that
- we are back to the original motion which is exactly the staff recommendation. We can entertain any additional
- motions at this time or I'm sorry. So any additional comment any additional motions.
- Mr. Bishop Mr. Smith you know an impact the neighborhood they've they've made their case clear although
- I just want to let you know from a density standpoint this is not a high density development I pulled
- some numbers out of your neighborhood and you're in the point four to point six acres per lot that puts
- this into eight to ten house range on this four acres if they could follow your design guidelines of
- your neighborhood I mean
- It'd be a completely different outcome and you're you're repairing buffer. No, that would be there because
- it wasn't a requirement in the 50s With regard to the cul-de-sac in listening to neighbors, they really
- Putting that road through this just adds more impact to them I Was first let's not build the road and
- put the right away, but now I don't want that road bill at all Connecting through there. I don't think
- it adds anything and if there's a commercial if that if that commercial property to the
- West of them gets developed They're not gonna be happy at all if there's a road cut through there and
- that's gonna be a high date Whatever it goes in there is gonna be high density and they have a ton of
- frontage on old 37 and Right now two huge cuts and they got grading ingress. If anything, I'd like to
- see a trail Dedicated through there from the other road So I don't know how to do an amendment to this
- Request based on findings today and
- So I just want to say, I'd love to see this hammerhead going as opposed to the trail being put through.
- I don't think I'd agree with the right away being dedicated today, but I would like to see it trail
- right away dedicated. Cause we talk about walkability and bike path. I think that'd be a much more use
- cause I don't want crossing or praying buffer. I don't want cutting down more trees. That's the whole
- point of tightening this thing up. Yeah. I think first of all, you certainly can make a motion to, to approve
- The waiver request for the cul-de-sac I'll do that. I still not do the findings. I'll make a motion
- to approve the waiver for the cul-de-sac All right, so we would have to add another finding in terms
- of finding for Finding effects it's been stated by many people by
- Everybody that has been there that there's a large canopy of trees with old trees in place. So finding
- the fact is that this has old trees in place and a height riparian buffer. And we want to preserve this
- particular area. And that is a peculiarity of this lot. Does that work.
- I'm not sure that the old trees part works But the riparian buffer part, I think it works work. Okay,
- so there we go That is the finding can you so are you are you? Are you proposing a motion? Yes, I can
- propose the motion So the motion is we are going to approve the waiver request not require 67% of lots
- served by alleys approve the waiver request to amend the riparian
- buffer easement language and approve the waiver request to allow the call the SEC with the following
- conditions specify the two conditions by staff as presented on a packet and our Effects of finding is
- the riparian buffer that we want to preserve That it's peculiar. It's a peculiarity to this lot okay,
- so to be clear the amendment is simply to
- Change the original motion to now approve the waiver request for the cul-de-sac and to add the additional
- finding that That will preserve the right in the riparian buffer Staff got that Feel that's sufficient.
- All right, is there a second for that motion? We got there first
- Sorry, hold on who seconded that Okay Yeah, mr. Bishop seconded it, but I have a question about where
- that leaves us with the row dedication So staff, where does that leave us right now in terms of that
- motion with the road dedication? Do we still have the road dedication or not? Yes, so the petitioners
- shown that is right away So you would need to amend that somehow if you want to remove that additional
- right away dedication Okay, should that be a second and separate?
- condition And one thing that I was can we vote on a friendly amendment well If it's friendly, you don't
- have to vote on it. So this is up to mr. Burrell at this point It's her motion if she wants to accept
- that change She can but it's up to her. I think we have Yes For a while from Andrew
- For mr. Seymour and then this Kinsey or I mean and then mr. Holmes seconded it So that motion is just
- to go with staff recommendation, right? So we did one amendment failed. So now we're trying for a second
- amendment of miss Burrell's and mr. Smith is asking miss Burrell if if she would can add to her amendment
- that the right-of-way does not need to be dedicated for help how far Mr. Smith
- 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
- Yeah, it ends with the end of the cul-de-sac or hammerhead whatever they're doing Yeah, he is proposing
- so yeah, yeah, so there is there is an exhibit called no cul-de-sac exhibit that shows where You know
- essence that line would stop so we're saying from that line West there would be no right-of-way dedicated
- Is that where you're proposing Mr. Smith. Yes. Is that OK with you to add to yours or do you want him
- to do it separately after. Can I can I can I propose another kind of similar to Mr. Smith but potentially
- an alternate to leave the right of row dedication decision in the hands of the administration so that
- then they can all decide whether or not they want the right like the city wants the right of way.
- Do you know what I mean? So that we're kind of leaving it up to them to decide whether or not they want
- I don't think we can do that So the primary plat has to include whatever right away is going to be dedicated.
- So you all have to decide So we're to miss Burrell Do you want to take mr. Smith's friendly amendment
- 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
- care of that I want to take care of
- This first and then enemy at any amendments can be voted separately Okay, so the amendment is to approve
- the cul-de-sac waiver with additional findings of fact. Otherwise having it be the original Original
- motion, right and we got a second for that, correct All right, so the motion on the table is to add
- to it is to approve The cul-de-sac waiver and add
- additional finding We have a second is there any Additional discussion before we vote on this man Mr.
- Stossberg, I'll just say that this one in general was really really hard for me because I agree with
- everything that mr Seabor said to about connectivity and I think connectivity is really important and
- I love the idea of a trail and
- Possibility through there as opposed to vehicles. I don't think that we get to decide that right now
- But as I said earlier, I think ultimately it's a better decision to grant that waiver and Not disturb
- that back area All right any additional comment I am
- I'm still in favor of an additional condition on this and I don't know if that would kill it. All right.
- 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
- one as before the same one for a wetland delineation report prior to the secondary approval. I think
- that's already been we've already. Can't we just answer. We already made a motion.
- Debated it we voted on it All right, is there any the motion in front of us right now is whether to
- amend I'm sorry commissioner It's just it's getting confusing what we're voting on. So what we're voting
- on right now very clear the the motion that is on the table right now is to amend the original motion to
- allow for approval of the cul-de-sac waiver and to add a finding to support that. So that's what that's
- we're voting on right now unless there's any other discussion. All right. Let's call the roll on the
- amendment to approve the cul-de-sac waiver and add the supporting findings. Smith. Yes.
- Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Burrell yes Bishop. Yes Karate no seaboard no Holmes no Kinsey yes Okay,
- I believe that was five yeses So that motion carries. Okay. So now the motion as amended is
- So as I think I can do this as a member of somebody with that first vote Julian's Commissioner Kinsey's
- first motion to add a condition I would like to redo that vote please because I don't think that everybody
- knew what it was that we were voted on and since I am a member of the side that I
- had the majority in that situation I think that I can move to redo that vote. So my when I my motion
- was to approve the all three waivers correct. Yes. So that the other two were already included in the
- original motion. OK. So you are just adding the third approval approval. Yeah I thought I was just making
- a motion for it for that.
- That mean we approved all three as it stands right now the motion on the table as amended approves all
- three waivers. All right Now you asking Commissioner Stosselberg you're asking I want to redo the vote
- on reconsider Kenzie's condition Okay Is there a second Okay, and Would you like to restate your original motion?
- Just so we're clear here. Yes. My motion was to add a third condition that the wetland delineation be
- done and conducted prior to a secondary plan approval or consideration. Is it an approval. I mean the
- right language is it a review or a secondary plan approval. Yeah. Okay. We're going to get through this
- one quickly.
- I don't think we need it. Does everybody understand what we're voting on here. There was maybe some
- confusion first time. All right. This is the motion to reconsider the earlier motion. So we're just
- going to vote on this again. The vote here is whether you want to add a third condition to require a
- wetland delineation prior to secondary plan approval. Please call the roll. Stossberg.
- Whistler no Burrell no Bishop no Koraki. Yes seaboard No Holmes. Yes Kenzie. Yes, Smith. No Okay, so
- I believe it it's failed again All right. So we are now back to
- Motion on the table. We are getting dangerously close to nine o'clock But I think unless there are any
- other Motions or amendments we have a motion we can We can vote on here are there any other motions
- Mr. Stossberg Exactly how we need to phrase this but I want to move to not require the road dedication of the
- the road dedication as depicted on I Don't know which page that can be a condition of approval, right?
- And then you just have to say where you want the right-of-way to end which is on that exhibit So on
- the exhibit that mr. Butler prepared where it shows the hammerhead turnaround. There's a suggested
- right-of-way end This just loads really really slowly on my computer so I can't so you can see it there
- like diagonal Yeah, so I don't like anything else, but that's so I'd like to
- move that we add a condition of approval to not dedicate that future right of way as depicted in that
- image on the screen and that the roadway will end where it is shown. Is that good enough?
- Okay, we got a motion in a second to add a condition that would simply remove the required or the right
- away dedication from the plat that that is Submitted Is there any can I ask a question on this Let's
- say hypothetically city decides as Commissioner Smith suggested that we want to put a
- There instead of the road If the right away were dedicated does that give the city optionality to do
- anything but Build that road And theoretically if let's say the property to the west were developed
- as PUD and we wanted to ask the
- of that project to complete the road But we didn't have the right-of-way that option would be off the
- table Correct. It wouldn't be off the table. It's gonna be a lot harder because they have to go back
- wire the right-of-way from yeah. Yeah, okay All right, well that commissioner Stossberg I guess I have
- a follow-up question on that because one of the reasons why I'm I
- Proposing this condition is because staff doesn't want that right-of-way Does staff feel differently
- about that right-of-way if it was the idea of being saved for a trail as opposed to a road? Or is it
- basically like like the liability of it at all is just not a good risk And I would totally hear from
- our city engineer. Yeah, I think I'd like to hear from mr. City engineer seaborne I guess
- would be to maintain the right away preservation just to enable the ability to build a path or in some
- reason that things redevelop and there is a rezone. It would be nice to have that. We have a lot of
- public right aways that are unimproved. There are some maintenance needs that happen at times, but it
- is relatively rare.
- That's what I would suggest. But recognize it is some increased liability. But there's also a lot of
- if it isn't preserved as right away, it just that's what it's going to be. And there's so many times
- we're looking at a maps and we wish we had those options. So my suggestion would be to keep it as right
- away. So your preference in this situation is to keep it even though earlier planning staff was like no. Yes.
- Planning staff say to that Director coin, did you have something? You're technically I think are are
- employed now Technically I am the discussion I'm having here is the concept of Just because it's dedicated
- doesn't mean we have to accept it
- We haven't cleared that. I think staff believes that we do. If it's dedicated on the plot, we accept
- it. There is a known concept if you have streets and roads in a subdivision and they are built, then
- we accept those. There's an act of acceptance. I think my understanding in the past is that is an affirmative
- act by local government. Just because they dedicate something doesn't mean we have to accept it.
- Eric and I, okay, first timer. So Eric has been around a lot longer and has a different view of that
- if you want to go ahead and tell them what you think. I mean, unless somebody from legal or otherwise
- knows differently, once something has been shown on a plat as right away and signed and recorded, it
- is now city property. Sorry. Yeah, that's, that's not accurate, right? BPW has to take it in. It's a
- two part process. This is the difference between a dedication and acceptance.
- Think mr. Seabrook, I believe there's two things going on I'm not an attorney, but I think there's if
- it is recorded as a secondary plat dedicating the right-of-way It is the public's right-of-way But there
- is a separate effort that officially accepts some improvements into the city's maintenance inventory
- So that's when we accept a street and then public works takes that in they maintain it. So there are
- many different
- Publicly dedicated right-of-ways that are the city's right-of-way, but we don't actively maintain like
- we do public roads that show up in our maintenance inventory So that's That's what I'm saying the difference
- between accepting the liability to maintain and operate You could have for example a plat that has streets
- and roads in it and they could be dedicated and
- but we could decide they weren't built to specifications. They had some fault in it. We don't accept
- them. We're not going to maintain them or operate them. So that's I think fairly well known. Certainly
- the county does it that way. I know about that. But all I'm saying is is that you believe you can have
- an easement and have it dedicated but it does not automatically transfer an obligation or liability
- on city government. I would
- Leave that to city legal to back me up or not or work it out with Eric here, but that's the operating
- concept that So I saw her representative from city little stand up and then sit back down again in the
- back, I guess I would love to Have that kind of clarified in terms of like our like the city liability
- because I'm totally willing to withdraw my condition if staff
- kind of in Consensus around whether or not we want this row. I need to stop What real quick before we
- go any further? We're three minutes away from nine o'clock now We don't necessarily adjourn until 930
- 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
- The default is we're all coming back here within a week to do another hearing. So we can do two things
- when we can spend the rules and just decide to stay and hear those three additional petitions tonight
- or we could take a quick action to continue those petitions to the August meeting. Looks like Jackie
- has something she wants to say. Well the resolution response I think has to be heard.
- than the August meeting because we only have a certain number of days for you to hold a hearing on the
- resolution response to From counsel. All right, so I need a motion then to suspend the rules and allow
- additional cases to be Introduced after our nine o'clock deadline Okay, I'm gonna just motion to
- Suspend the rules and allow us to consider additional action beyond the 9 o'clock second for that Second
- all right all in favor of suspending the rules say aye aye any opposed All right. Very good now. Sorry
- for that. We can get back to the issue at hand. I
- Any Dean of Casa mania and city of Bloomington legal department. I'm just going to support what our
- director is saying that dedication is different. It's not the same as an acceptance. Acceptance would
- be formal agreement to take liability responsibility. Dedication is an offering. There is a case law
- that talks a little bit about municipalities and dedications as a condition for approving development
- permits such as rezoning or
- Any kind of development. So the case that I'm pointing to is stolen versus city of Teegard and that
- does that does explain that a dedication does not mean acceptance. I'll withdraw my condition then because
- I think then my goal of not forcing the city to manage this is argument. Thanks. I agree. I think the
- default that means that it is up to the city to take it or leave it.
- Okay. All right. Well then that motion is withdrawn. So we are now back to the original motion which
- as amended Which now as it stands is to approve all three waiver requests Is there any additional discussion
- before we vote on that motion? All right, let's call the roll on the motion and
- Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Seymour. Yes. Holmes. No. Kinsey. Yes. Smith. Yes. Stossburg. Yes. All right. The
- motion carries. Thank you all for your patience as we work through that. It was a
- A difficult one, appreciate that. We will now move on to our next petition, which is the first of three
- UDO text amendments, ZO 2026-06-0006. Eric, are you presenting these together or individually? I am
- going to present each of these independently.
- So given the time, I will be brief, and as these are the first of two hearings, I will keep that in
- mind, obviously, in my brevity with these things. Thank you.
- The petition before us tonight is a response to a council resolution directing the Planning Commission
- to come forward with certain legislative changes to the UDO. The resolution is in staff's report and
- in the packet, but I will just briefly step through what those items were. So those were directing staff
- to look at adjusting minimum lot widths and minimum lot length
- areas in the R1 R2 R3 and R4 districts to better align those with existing lot sizes and lot area. So
- this is I'll just kind of go through the resolution and then we'll talk about
- each of the things independently. So the second section of the resolution also directed the department
- and or the plan commission to bring forward a resolution to reduce minimum lot areas and lot widths
- and in relation to subdivision standards in order to make the subdivision and creation of lots easier
- to promote more housing and
- You know creation of lots within the city so directed us to look at things such as impervious surface
- coverage lot frontage requirements And just general subdivision standards in general There was a third
- section that directed us to look at the sustainable development incentives to require
- that come forward utilize the sustainable development incentives and to include a requirement that buildings
- use either electricity or on-site renewable energy sources. And then, well, that was three and four.
- And then the fifth was to eliminate parking minimums. And so,
- We have brought forward several things to address each of those, and I will step through those. Give
- me just a second while I pull this up. So I will just state that in your series of exhibits, we noted
- that some of the standards in Chapter 2 and the district's elements themselves
- It varied a little bit from the chapter four. So I'm just going to focus on the chapter four table.
- 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
- okay. Maybe not. Yeah, it's a little bit better.
- But in essence, in your packet, if you go to the dimensional standards table in Chapter 4, you'll see
- the overview of the districts and what we're proposing. So real briefly, I'll just kind of step through
- those. What we're looking at is just reducing the minimum lot area and the minimum lot width across
- all the single family districts.
- establishing a build to range in these districts, establishing a percentage of the building that has
- to be in that area, reducing the side yard setbacks in all of the districts
- getting rid of the additional setback requirement that is on all the districts for the second story.
- So in the R1 and R2 districts, well, let me just step through each district, I guess. In the R1, we
- are proposing to change the minimum lot size from 20,000 square feet to 7,200 square feet and changing
- the lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet. We're proposing to modify this first floor setback
- or leave that as is, but as I mentioned, reduce or get rid of the additional setback requirement for
- the second story. In the R2 district, we're proposing to change the minimum lot size from 7,200 square
- feet to 5,000 square feet and proposing to change the minimum lot width from 60 feet to 40 feet. Side
- yard setback would be changing from eight feet to six feet. Again, getting rid of the additional setback
- for the second story. In the R3 district,
- We are proposing to reduce the minimum lot area from 5,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet and a minimum
- lot width going from 50 feet to 30 feet. And then the R4 district, we're proposing to change the minimum
- lot size from 4,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet and then changing the minimum lot width from 35
- feet to 30 feet.
- In the multi-family districts, RM and RH, we're proposing to get rid of minimum lot area and minimum
- lot width altogether, establishing a build-to range, and then the side yard setback is staying the same.
- So what we looked at and what the approach that we tried to come up with in all of these districts obviously
- is to reduce the minimum lot size, to give greater opportunity, to look at properties that
- are very large, and then in a little bit here we'll talk about some of the changes to the subdivision
- standards that would allow for lots to be created in the back of a property, but then also to,
- like I said, allow for situations where you have a really big property to be able to subdivide that,
- cut it in half to have more infill development. So one of the things that was in the resolution guided
- us to look at a few PUDs that had been established in the two distant past,
- that did utilize a very small lot width, about 30 feet lot width, and lot sizes that were about 3,000
- square feet. So we use that as somewhat of a guide as we went through these districts. One of the other
- things that we're proposing is to increase the impervious surface coverage in the R3, R4, and the RM
- and RH to substantially increase the impervious surface, again, to allow for greater buildability.
- all these properties. So we're shrinking minimum lot size requirements, minimizing the side yard setback
- requirements, and increasing the impervious surface coverage to give greater buildability opportunities
- on these properties. So kind of moving along with this and the resolution, as I mentioned, it also directed
- us to look at subdivision standards that might be problematic in creating new lots.
- So we're proposing kind of two things to address that. One is to get rid of the minimum depth to width
- ratio requirements of the four to one. So that would allow for loss that have a very small frontage,
- but then kind of get bigger as you get in the back. And then the second one, which is kind of a bigger thing,
- One of the things and certainly I think, you know, you recall we talked about this a little bit with
- Hopewell, was allowing for lots to be created off of alleys or pedestrian trails or other features.
- You know, the main challenge that we had with just incorporating that outright was fire department access.
- Fire department trucks have to have a certain amount of area in order to set up their trucks.
- And then their fire department hoses will only go a certain distance. So as we work through conversations
- with the fire department, 150 feet, that's the length of their hose pole. That was kind of the greatest
- that they felt comfortable allowing for some more flexibility. And so what we've put in here is allowing
- for lots to be created that are less than 150 feet deep. So if your parent lot is less than 150 feet
- deep, you can create a new lot on the backside of that.
- as long as you've got at least a five foot strip and a 20 foot access easement to get to that that lot
- in the back. So that is kind of the main standard there. So that would allow for lots some loss to be
- created off of alleys you know if they're within a certain distance but kind of given the constraints
- with the fire department that's
- That's kind of how we fell with that one. The remainder of the issues in there in terms of addressing
- the resolution for the electrification, we included language that said in the sustainable development
- and incentives added intersection entitled electrification. So the developments shall only be served
- by electricity or onsite renewable energy sources.
- for water heating and non-commercial cooking, and then also added a section in the PUD qualifying standards
- that referenced having to use these requirements as well. And then lastly, in relation to reducing parking
- minimums, this was in essence just going through the UDO and striking out any and all references to
- parking minimums. So this would apply to all uses throughout the city.
- So there was a lot of language obviously that referenced parking minimums in various contexts. So we
- looked through and remove those but we did bring forward a proposal that was consistent with the resolution
- and so that's what we are presenting here tonight. Certainly happy to hear any thoughts or comments
- on some of the changes that are being proposed in terms of
- The reductions and standards but we are required to get this to the Plain Commission within 60 days
- And then the Plain Commission has 60 days to act on this to get it to the council So it would be heard
- tonight and then heard again in August in order to fulfill that So with that I'm happy to answer any
- questions. Thank you any questions from commissioners Commissioner Smith
- About 150 feet you're saying the lock behind 50 feet deep and you can have an accessory drilling in
- the backyard with a 20-foot Ingress easement and a 5-foot what? So so the law would have at least 5
- feet of frontage but then provide for a 20-foot access easement So the lot frontage helps give them
- a definitive front So that they do have street frontage and then a 20-foot easement runs through that
- What I'll just call parent property so that they've got full right of access to it And 150 feet is the
- lot depth not pulled in the middle of the back house, which is how they usually So the the parent lot,
- you know can't be more than 150 foot deep But they're not going to measure it from lot line to the middle
- of the rear structure No, it has to be to the back of the structure They have to assume kind of the
- worst case that they've got to get to the back side. I'm gonna ask Mike I'm gonna say this again
- Normally for the fire department to pull 150 feet is measured from their closest right away To the furthest
- point which is used at the center of the back of the house And they turn the corner and draw the line
- over so as 150 feet to the back line There's 150 feet to the center of the back house to the back line.
- Okay, so they're giving us about 165 feet They're giving us some extra sure there might be And then
- 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
- You can't build an accessory structure because you have the 20 foot easement That would be a challenge
- for it. Yes So and this is the fire department making this one up How do we get how do we get the 20
- feet reduced? Well, so that was what they needed in order for him to be able to get their trucks I mean
- not not not their big trucks But for them to feel that they've got come because they didn't you know
- a five foot easement, you know They want to drive where that they can walk down
- You know, they don't want to be going through the side yard and fences in order to get a an ADU that's
- in the back So they need a free and clear 20-foot route from the street to the back Okay But just to
- follow up on that that that can be on either side yes of the structure not both sides of the structure
- right not both sides just one side and then Where this the the the last two sentences of this proposed
- Language here the parent lot with existing friends shall comply with driveway number standards per section
- xxx Is is that just a That's just a reference to the entrance and drive standards that apply to single-family
- Residences that say how wide they can be and how many number that you're allowed So we'll that'll be
- filled in with the citation. Okay, and then the last sentence here. I'm I'm
- I'm a little bit confused. Only one lot that does not have frontage on a public street can be created
- through this section. One lot one one additional. So you're coming in for a subdivision request to create
- a new lot. So this is saying that you can only create one additional that you can't piggyback three lots.
- So that's that's something like can we just make that say one lot per subdivision request or something?
- Yeah, see the way it reads at its face is Only one and then we're done with this Nobody else can ever
- do it again after the first time somebody requests one of these so I want to make sure that's yeah We
- can we can word that a little better Any other questions this is just for residential zones Well
- So the so the requirement that new lots front on a public street is only applicable in the single family
- districts. So in multifamily districts you don't have to have frontage on a public street to create
- a new law. You're doing an impervious service reduction also right. I hear that. Yes. All right. And
- but that that impervious service reduction does not apply to M.M. or M.N. right. It doesn't quite any
- of the mixed use districts.
- So there is maximum impervious surface coverage in the mixed-use districts. We are not changing that
- with any amendments today No, we're just addressing the residential districts Hope you make that request
- next time Do an impervious surface reduction on an MN and MN zones That actually relates to a question
- that I have
- Yeah, the resolution was you know, very specific to the single-family district, so that's why we were
- there Mr. Stossberg, did you have a question? Yeah, I'm trying to find it. I actually have a whole list
- of questions But it's also getting late and I don't want to deal with all of them So I'm gonna message
- them to staff later. Yeah, we will have another opportunity Next month to yeah address these as well. Um
- But one of them, I guess, was that, like, why are we retaining all the mixed use dimensional requirements?
- But I also, in terms of the impervious surface maximums, that there's a huge jump between the R2 and
- the R3, and I'm wondering how it makes sense to have a huge jump between those, as opposed to a more
- gradual increase
- the impervious surface Coverage like it goes from 40 to 70 percent. Whereas before it was like adding
- 5 percent every time Yeah, I guess you know from our perspective we were looking at as you know, the
- r3 and r4 districts are where we oftentimes see a lot more redevelopment our interest in creating new
- lots we can certainly adjust the impervious surface coverage maximum and
- For the are two those are two lots are typically pretty big though that you know we very rarely run
- up against that 40 percent that's in there now in terms of what they can do but we can we can certainly
- incrementally increase that as well to you know something like 55 percent.
- I guess I'm kind of wondering if that makes sense because now our lot area is a little bit smaller.
- So like there might be somebody in our two with a thousand square foot lot right now who then realizes
- oh I can actually split that into two five thousand square foot lots and then they might want or need
- higher than the 40 percent impervious surface. I don't know. I think that it should just be something
- that gets considered I guess and thought about and that just seems like a really big jump.
- Questions? So in some of the numbers for the lot width and areas that are proposed in the change, the
- resolution says to try to bring these into conformity with existing lawful but non-conforming use. That
- may not be the exact words.
- how did you guys find the sizes for these? It looks like most of them got cut half or a little less
- than half in size. Did you go out and find examples or was it just like we're gonna cut them all by
- X amount and that's it? So we actually kind of went through this exercise already in 2019 when we were
- converting from the old UDO to the current version and we updated the zoning code and the lot size and
- lot width. We already went around to the neighborhoods and looked at the
- 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
- square foot for the R3. We kind of right sized those for the lots that were there. So when we went back
- through this exercise again, as I mentioned, the resolution specifically directed us to look at two
- PUDs that had been done that did have lots that were 30 feet wide.
- That the lot sizes were about 3,000 square feet ish, but we also looked at in neighborhoods very often
- times You'll see especially in corner locations situations where lots had initially been subdivided
- in one direction and then somebody owns a corner location and they they chose to reorient the lots and
- go a different way and then
- maybe during the course of action, you've now created these four separate smaller squares that were
- about half the size of the existing ones. And so we did see that pattern in a lot of neighborhoods and
- felt like that was something that we were trying to look to accomplish. And those lot sizes were about
- 2,500, 3,000 square feet-ish. So that's how we kind of arrived at those numbers. Also looked at a lot
- of lots that were created
- were about 5,000 square feet when they were initially platted around there. So if we were looking to
- allow people to cut up the backyards, having lot sizes that were much smaller would give them the ability
- to cut up a lot in their backyard. Certainly you could go even further than this and say there are no
- minimum lot sizes, but that wasn't quite what the resolution was directing us to, so we were trying
- to find a happy place between
- You know what we already did in 2019 and then what we kind of looked at what the goal was To allow for
- lots to be created that were even smaller Than maybe what was there to allow for backyards or other
- lots on corners to be created Okay. Thank you Just reflecting on I don't know a few months ago we were
- reviewing a petition for the fell iron
- site where parking was a really hot topic and there was almost a desire to have more part or just it
- came into some of the calculations. This proposal would have required no parking for that development
- and then potentially either development would still build some or it would just result in a lot of impacts
- to the adjacent neighborhood. I'm just I guess just wanting more than anything. Is this how is this
- advertised to the public because these are the decisions that have like the big
- Like then we're going to have a project where 100 people are going to show up and we're going to say,
- sorry, this is what the code says. And so there's just really big policy implications like this in here.
- And I don't know how that is communicated to the public, or I guess this isn't what I'm saying is a
- way to at least draw some attention to it. So in this regard, what we're bringing forward, this is not
- a staff's interpretation. This was a verbatim. This is what the resolution told us to do exactly.
- And so that's what we are bringing forward. I certainly acknowledge that this will be a huge implication
- and the council was aware of that and there were members that obviously it felt like this was important
- enough that they wanted this exact language brought to them so that they could review that and move
- it forward if they've got the votes for it. And so this is something that's been obviously talked about
- at council for a long time. So yeah, that's kind of where we are.
- Council perspective one thing that I want to be sure to point out is that councilmember Flaherty who
- authored this resolution because it did pass council unanimously to forward it to Plan Commission for
- us as a body to figure out a recommendation But it was very much left open this idea that there could
- be a negative recommendation that
- on parts of it and individual council members were especially would say the parking minimums were wary
- and several of them did kind of specifically say I'm not sure that I would support that in the end but
- we're going to wait and see what Plan Commission thinks and what kind of recommendation comes from Plan
- Commission around that. So any other questions.
- Issue because I don't think there is a realization Among the public then, you know, perhaps by Evidence
- of how much we've lost our audience here is or the hour I'm not quite sure but the idea that we have
- just now eliminate, you know Or where there's a proposal here to eliminate any sort of minimum parking
- is exactly what I was thinking about the
- You know hundred people show up because of the concerns about the spill of parking into their neighborhoods.
- So I have some concern that I wonder if there are other other considerations. Was there any other you
- know this is this essentially eliminates all minimum. So it goes to the most extreme. Was there any
- other provision considered or is that a direct interpretation of the resolution doing to eliminate
- All part yeah that that is a direction. That's the directive. Yep. It says to eliminate all parking
- eliminate all parking minimum. So this is in section five and it's very brief. It says to eliminate
- minimum parking requirements in all zones and to make any additional parking related tax changes necessitated
- by this policy change.
- Yeah, I understand. I mean, I listened to a couple of those council meetings and I understand the concerns,
- but boy, this just gets a little, it's pretty worrisome. But then again, I don't know how you would
- go about determining, well, okay. And this, you know, for this, whatever particular use our zoning district
- and not for that. So, yeah, I'm not sure. Mr.
- I'm curious at what staff think about the eliminating all parking minimums. I think you know from I
- mean from a staff perspective for the most part I don't see any issues, you know, and I'll just say
- from Most of the developments we see we are never in a situation where there is a parking minimum that
- somebody's not meeting
- For any multifamily development, you know, the only time that this comes up is for duplexes You know
- in any multifamily or I mean that's the only situation where parking minimums really come into play
- are You know in the downtown or student housing and in neither of those situations have we run into
- you know, you're not at a minimum
- They want to provide parking and we're never up against maximums either. Obviously they recognize that
- there is a need to park some people, but obviously we recognize the philosophical problem of we're requiring
- parking and asphalt. If somebody doesn't want to do it, why make them do it? Let them decide if that's
- something that they want to do. From the legislative perspective, we don't want somebody to have to
- put in parking if they don't want to.
- Mr. Smith petitioner coming in and asking for parking and then being told well there's no no requirements
- 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
- parking. I'm saying you want parking in an area that doesn't require it. What's how's that going to
- get looked on.
- Well, I mean, like I said, we can't deny it. Is there, is there a limit? I guess impervious surfaces.
- Yeah. So you, I mean, you have things that strains hit the limits. So there's no parking control. Well,
- there's parking maximums and those aren't changing. Those are not changing. Mr. Stossberg.
- I have a question about the sustainability requirement change. There was a letter in our packet from
- Habitat for Humanity referring to adding the requirement that PUDs meet the sustainable development
- incentive requirements. And would it be better to write in specific sustainability requirements for
- PUDs instead of just asking them to meet a different requirement?
- Do you know what I mean? Because I think the letter didn't necessarily say, oh, we don't want to meet
- sustainability requirements. It was more like, why are we being asked to meet this thing that's connected
- to an incentive, as opposed to having to meet some other set of guidelines around sustainability? So
- as I think I maybe understand the context of that, there are sustainable development.
- So you have the sustainable development incentives, and then you have lead requirements or other agencies
- that govern kind of the same thing. And there are different standards. Single family residential
- subdivisions, each house may not meet that, but there are other ways that your development as a whole
- might be able to accomplish that. So the sustainable development, you have two paths. One, do the things
- that are listed there, or two, you get the certification from a different body. So I think that there
- is a different path
- for a single family if they wanted to come in with a PUD. But obviously the purpose behind this was
- we want to discourage PUDs, so we're making those things harder. In the few situations where a PUD comes
- in, they're going to know they're being held to a higher standard. So you look at this and you say,
- Maybe there's just something to come in that that can't meet the current law. We're looking at changing
- a lot of the things in the current law that might be problematic for some of the folks that would be
- coming in for a single family residential PD that they want to do smaller lots or reduce side yard setbacks
- or whatever. We've enabled that hopefully from the onset that they don't need to go down the PD process.
- Any other questions.
- Minimums is this for any vehicular conveyance or is it specific to automobile? It is I mean it was intended
- it just says parking minimums I obviously the intent was not bicycles But it did say that specified
- and we do require bike racks, which are a minimum parking requirement so I take that as a carte blanche that
- That's also a removal, right? I hear what you're saying. I don't obviously don't think that was the
- intent of that but It is would be a strict reading but we did not propose getting rid of the bicycle
- parking minimums Okay. Thank you Nice call for questions All right, we're gonna go to public comment
- I notice we have at least one online commenter if you're here in the room and would like to make comment
- come on up to the podium state your name for the record please sign in and you have up to five minutes
- to make your comments. Hi my name is Kathy Barry and I.
- I am the public that's here tonight and I very much appreciate Mr Seaborne and counts as councillor
- seaborne councillor Stossberg for mentioning that how does the public know about this. I'm speaking
- extemporaneously which I normally don't do but I will add I found out about this resolution when I was
- listening to the Hopewell commentary so it was completely I was nothing I would have ever known about
- to be here at 930 at night addressing these things. Just a couple I'm going to do just a couple
- of impressions about why I don't like this. First of all I think that having the city search maps and
- look for lots that are going to now be excessive in size
- is going to encourage tearing down older houses which are affordable because a smaller house on a larger
- lot that has gone into poor repair will be a target for people who want to do these developments. Removing
- second story setbacks to families in a two story house have twice the stuff the trash cans the bicycles.
- It begins to
- create a less desirable kind of housing. I think in some cases going back somebody mentioned 2019 when
- we had the eliminating single family zoning which I was very against stormwater problems were constantly
- brought up when you increase density and I and I at this point I'm not going to say much more except
- yes I think we need more housing and I like
- the co-housing development that's in my neighborhood, the Maxwell Street co-housing, the Hillside Drive,
- this denser compact urban form. I have no objection to that kind of thing, but it is a kind of a lifestyle
- choice. And I don't think that when we talk about building more housing, we need a variety of housing
- because it has to be housing that people want.
- Otherwise they move to Ellisville, Morgan County, Lawrence County, Green County, Brown County, maybe
- to a lesser extent. But, you know, I know people who commute from Orleans and Martinsville all the time.
- And I just think we need to go very slowly with these huge changes to allow, just let's let people that
- we want, you know,
- people's children that want to live here, let's let Bloomington kind of develop at a slower pace. And
- I'm sorry, that's the best I can do for now. Thank you. Thank you. We do have one person online. Kari,
- you should be able to speak. Thank you. I want to make sure you can hear me.
- Can you hear me? We can barely, barely hear you. All right, I'm going to try to get close to my microphone.
- Is that better? Hold on. Can you check the volume in the room? Kari, hold on a second. We're having
- a real hard time hearing you.
- Kari, go ahead and try again. Hi, can you hear me now? We got you now, yes. All right, wonderful. Kari
- Bennett, Operations Director, Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County. I am gonna briefly address the
- sustainable development requirements and in particular making that a
- condition of being able to do a planned unit development. We do believe that planned unit developments
- are particularly helpful tools for affordable housing projects. And I will be specific. Habitat for
- Humanity only works with residents in Monroe County who are low income defined as at or below
- 80% of the area median income. We're the only builder in Monroe County that is building and selling
- single-family homes to residents who are in that income bracket. PUDs provide a great degree of certainty
- so that we know how to
- plan a development and importantly, we know how much it is going to cost and therefore how much we need
- to fundraise or and get and grant funding. So we are very concerned that the sustainable development
- requirement, taking that incentive and making it a requirement for PUDs would keep us from being able
- to do a PUD neighborhood.
- in Bloomington in the future, keeping in mind that the only two neighborhoods that we have developed
- in Bloomington have both been planned unit developments. I submitted the comment letter before I was
- able to look at the specific proposal to amend the UDO. So I do have a couple of other comments that
- I'd like to make about the rest of the proposal.
- First of all, the overall nature of this package, we do think is an improvement to the benefit of building
- more housing in our community. Folks have mentioned tonight, minimum lot sizes, setbacks. We also especially
- appreciate the tree canopy exemption for the residential R3 and R4.
- zoning classifications. It can be very hard to maintain tree canopy on lots that are already very small.
- A couple of suggestions. First of all, on the subdivision design standards in 20.05.050, that was talked
- about earlier in this hearing,
- The language right now is unclear. And in particular, I was not sure whether this would allow for homes
- to front on a public alley. So that might be something that would be good to clarify the language and
- that I'll also follow up with the planning department staff to make sure that I'm understanding
- what that language is intended to do. The last suggestion for consideration is the RMH zoning classification,
- which is residential manufactured housing. It has a different minimum lot size and a different impervious
- surface maximum than either R3 or R4.
- but that particular type of housing seems to be very much akin to an R3 or R4. So potentially taking
- a look at whether the RMH minimum lot size and impervious service percentage should mirror either R4
- or R3. Those are my comments for this evening. I do appreciate the planning staff and the commission
- taking up this important
- legislation Thank you Any other public comment Just as a reminder if you're online and you'd like to
- make comment Please click the reactions button and click the raise hand button or send a message to
- the meeting host Last call for public comment
- Then we are back to the Commission for any final discussion or a motion As a reminder the staff
- recommendation is simply that we forward this petition to the required second hearing Forbid this to
- the required second hearing is there a second All right Any final comments
- Let's call the roll on the motion to forward Yes Koraki, yes seaboard. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Smith.
- Yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Burrell yes All right motion carries we are now on to the
- 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
- 0 0 0 8 that we continue them to our August meeting All right, the motion is to continue our remaining
- two petitions to the August meeting is there a second Second Any discussion Are we allowed to do that?
- He said some comment about timing
- Yes, these two are not in response to our resolution So we are allowed to do that with these two and
- I also want to note that it's after 930 and we did not actually Suspend the rules to go past 930 anyway
- Okay Staff to have it any response on that your is there any you see any reason why we cannot continue these
- And have the first hearing in August. Yeah, I think you can continue them. That's my only comment. And
- we didn't specifically do the 930, but I just was kind of like a broad blanket situation. Yes, I was
- under the motion was to suspend the rules and to allow introduction of all three remaining. Yes, I think
- you can continue them. I assume that meant we would go past 930. My bad for not being more specific there.
- Any other comment before we call the roll on this motion. Okay. The motion is to continue the remaining
- two petitions to August. Let's call the roll please. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
- Yes. Yes. Yes.
- All right, so that motion carries. So just a reminder, that means next month when we come back, the
- first one is gonna be a second hearing, the other two are gonna be a first hearing, so that may be a
- little bit tricky. But that is the end of our agenda then for the evening, and we're adjourned. Have
- a good night.