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.