All right, we're gonna get started. Let me call, let me call to order this meeting of the City of Bloomington
Plan Commission for November 9th, 2026. We have a pretty light agenda this evening. Some minutes to
approve and one petition to hear. Should be a pretty brief meeting. Hopefully we'll get everybody home
in time for tip-off. But let's start by calling the roll for, let's make sure we got a quorum here.
Homes Kenzie here Smith yeah Whistler here All right, looks like we do have a quorum but a narrow one
so just Reminder any action we take tonight will need five votes not not just a majority of those here
but a majority of the the Commission so
First thing we've got to do is approve some minutes. We've got I think three Meetings worth of minutes
to approve. That's the October 10th meeting the September 14th meeting and the October 12th meeting
Are there any questions or corrections regarding those minutes? No, is there a motion to approve I
We can approve them all in a single motion if there's no Objections the August September and October
minutes. Is there a second? All in favor say aye aye any opposed All right minutes are approved We'll
move on to reports resolutions and communications. Are there any reports from commissioners tonight?
reports from staff All right, we have no Petitions continued we have no consent agenda. So we'll just
get right to our our petition this evening zeo 2026-10-0016 and Looks like Eric Rulick is the case manager
take away Eric. Yes. Thank you very much So this is a request for a site at 1237 West Allen Street
This is a request to amend the preliminary plan and district ordinance for the hilltop court planned
unit development The petitioner is also requesting a waiver of the second hearing as part of this petition
So this is for the hilltop court apartments that is on West Allen Street or just off of West Allen Street
This was approved as a planned unit development in 2019. It was a former mobile home park That was a
PUD for that mobile home park
The petitioner came forward in 2019 to amend that PUD to allow for the site to be redeveloped. To the
north of this you have, to the north and the west you have some multifamily residential dwelling units
and then to the east you have some office and manufacturing uses that are part of the Catalan PUD. So
the petitioner came forward to redevelop this site for a apartment complex and so the PUD was approved.
The petitioner removed all of the previous
dwellings on the site Final plan approval was issued site development permit was issued and a building
permit was issued For a majority of the buildings on the site The petitioner has been working on constructing
a lot of the buildings of this on the site I'd say probably about half of them have been constructed
and I believe two or three have been occupied for at least a year or two so the petitioner is moving
forward then and
with the final phases of the development. So on the screen here you can see the site plan. There were
11 buildings that were shown. These were all two and three story buildings. There was a central community
garden space that was part of the PUD as well as an internal parking area. So on the south side of the
site there were two buildings that were
These were proposed to be townhomes. These were shown to be established as condominiums. There would
be a driveway through the south side of the buildings with a garage underneath there. So these were
set aside to be platted and one of the commitments with the PUD was that one of the units would be sold
for owner-occupied workforce housing. There was also an affordable housing commitment with the PUD as
well. It's important to note, I think,
Framing this conversation. This was approved in 2019. So this was before the UDO kind of as we know
it today was approved in 2020. So some of the language that was in the UDO at the time is very different,
especially in terms of reviewing PDs and the PD criteria.
But because this is still an active PUD there are permits that are still in effect and being constructed
It is being reviewed by the standards that are in place or were in place in 2019 So with that initial
approval there was a phasing plan that was shown these two buildings on the south end were shown to
be in phase three So that's where the petitioner is today. They are working towards this
Last phase now and as they have come to these last two buildings this last phase they've kind of reevaluated
The project as a whole and have chosen to come forward with an amendment to you to the PUD to allow
for those two buildings To be combined into one building that would have 24 units that would all be
one bedrooms and
these units would all be used as rentals. So they are not proposing to utilize those as condos or establish
those as condos or sell those. They would be rentals as the rest of the development is as well.
So with that, the picture has also submitted a revised landscape plan. So the area that was the former
building, just to the west of this, they've shown with a heavy planting plant of trees,
to make up that green space area. Just to the west of that is a little bit is a detention pond that
is constructed. There wouldn't be any changes with that. So the only changes that would be happening
with this PUD amendment from just a physical standpoint are just rather than two buildings that would
each have five three bedroom units, there would be one building with 24 units of one bedrooms each.
So as I mentioned, or I'm sorry, here are the elevations. This is what was approved for that town home
building. The proposed elevation for the new building is very similar in a lot of regards in terms of
having a pitched roof. It would be a three-story building. It does fall within the height limit of the
PUD, so there wouldn't be any changes with the district ordinance. The only real change that is kind
of happening is with the preliminary plan itself.
So in that regard for the PUD, the preliminary plan outlines the general location and shape and number
of buildings. So with that, the preliminary plan for this would be changing from the number of buildings
shown to just the one. The district ordinance also incorporated the petitioner statement, which called
for this building to be condoized. So that would be changing. So it's shown on the screen here. And
also in your packet is the zoning commitment
that was associated with this. This outlines the rental commitment for the workforce housing. So within
the development, the petitioner committed to 10% or 15% of the units would be set aside for affordable
housing. 10% of those would be set aside for individuals earning up to 100% of the AMI and then 5% of
the bedrooms for anyone earning up to 120% of the AMI.
Rents for the affordable units would not be more than 80% of the AMI of the individual working there.
So the third part here regarding the condominium deals with the specific unit within these two townhome
buildings where it outlined that one of those would be offered for sale for somebody earning between
100 and 120 AMI.
So the petitioner has included similar language in the packet as well. I wanted to just kind of include
what the current language is in the UDO regarding affordable housing. Current language is in the UDO
uses a different AMI. Currently we use 90% to regulate affordable housing. As I mentioned, this is being
reviewed based on the criteria that was in place in the 2019 UDO.
So one of the key differences and one of the main points that the department wanted to bring to the
Planning Commission attention and specifically get comments from the Planning Commission tonight is
this change to in essence have all of the units within here be a rental unit so there would no longer
be a diverse provision of housing whereas before there were rentals and
owner occupied as well as units being sold. All of the units within here would be rentals. They are
proposing to then obviously get rid of the unit that would be sold. So one of the review criteria with
the 2019 UDO was a provision, one of the purpose statements of a PUD is that there is some public benefit
being provided that would not be otherwise provided by the UDO.
You know, so that was one of the common review criteria that we would often cite in the review of a
PUD of, you know, what is being accomplished here that couldn't be done within a regular zoning district.
So the provision of affordable housing as well as these owner occupied units were really kind of the
only essential ingredients or aspects of this that were really making this PUD very distinct and worth
of being a PUD.
So by removing at least the owner-occupied and the establishment of those units for sale, as I mentioned,
it really just kind of changes this into an apartment complex of rentals. So that is something that
staff certainly highlighted as a big difference and a big change that would really be kind of straying
away from what the purposes of the PUD were. So that is what we are kind of seeking comments from the
Planning Commission tonight.
As I mentioned, this is required to have two hearings. The petitioner did require or request a waiver
of the required second hearing, but we are recommending that that waiver be denied so that we can hear
comments from the Planning Commission regarding this crucial element of the preliminary plan in this
change to have conversations with the petitioner about possibly addressing any concerns from the Planning
Commission regarding this. So with that, we are recommending
that the Plain Commission denied the request for the second hearing and for this to the required second
hearing for the December meeting and we're happy to take any questions once the petitioner has spoken.
Thanks. Is there a representative of the petitioner who would like to speak tonight?
Good evening Daniel Butler with Biden Fannie and Associates also with me tonight is Mark Lockley with
dwellings here in the room as Eric kind of put together a pretty good review of what we've been talking
about over the last few months on this project There's really only a change on the south end and that'd
be phase three. So nothing else will be changing on the project in any aspect and
We tried to give a synopsis in our petitioner's statement there that you saw about what changed in the
commitments, but the only thing that changed in the commitments would be that number five. Nothing else
is changing in those commitments. It would only be a wording on one sentence on how that would change
to number five. Everything else from the PUD and the commitments we're still doing, and you can ask
more questions about
anything from the environmental aspects or the green aspects that have Occurred or will occur on the
property. So none of that we're asking you to Or not do any longer We went down with this new plan an
impervious area because we're taking away, you know building So it went down an impervious area and
the road that goes behind those buildings so and putting an additional
green and vegetation on the property CBU has already approved these changes So we've already presented
before them and they've changed it already approved from the utilities and the stormwater on that If
at all possible If you couldn't make a decision tonight, that would be helpful if you deem it no more
questions or discussion needs to be had make a decision and forward it on to City Council if you would and
I think mark would also like to come up and just kind of give a little Reason on why and maybe some
of the money aspects, but I'm here to answer any more questions Good evening mark Lockley the developer
and just to give you a little bit of quick history
We did take this PUD through in 2019 and had every intention of developing it exactly the way that it
was approved. COVID hit and it has taken a while for us, we're a local development company, to get the
first and the second phase. In fact, we're tying up the second phase right now and should be done sometime
in February or March.
The economics just have greatly changed that we were building at the time in 2019 a one-bedroom Condominium
development on the north west corner of the property. So we kind of knew what costs were as
far as condominiums And as you all know the world has changed quite drastically in the past six years,
especially in the past 14 months with tariffs and oil being what it is and so
Those units those condominium units which were nine of them were for rent one of them was for sale Right
now just to break even for me. I would have to lease those units at almost $4,000 for a three-bedroom
and that's not my market. I'm much more of a Affordable approachable kind of developer the one-bedroom
develop one-bedroom units that we're proposing right now we built
Of those buildings on the first phase and those are one bedrooms that are still renting for under a
thousand a month Currently as market rate right now And so to bring in a three-bedroom at almost four
thousand just isn't does not make any sense for me economically so that's why we decided well what is
would be better for Rentals, what would be better for the community? What makes more sense as far as
trying to bring?
an affordable block to Bloomington. I am not a student developer. I kind of, in my portfolio right now,
undergraduates are actually under 10% of our portfolio. I kind of develop for the rest of Bloomington.
And that's not a $4,000 unit. And that's why we decided to take one of those buildings that we did in
the first phase and bring it. So I'm actually going down in total beds
Up in units there were 30 beds that were approved and going down to 24, but because they're individual
units I'm going up in unit count in unit count, but down in bedroom count so that's the Sort of the
analysis and kind of the history of what it is As I said, we are finishing the second phase which includes
a green roof over our shop Underground rain barreling for our community garden. We built a net zero
building which is I think the first
Net zero leasing and workout community building in Bloomington. That was in the first phase And that
has been operational for the past three years So this would be the third and final phase to tie the
whole development together. So you know, we we are a local development company and Trying to finish
this development up and I'm here for any questions if you have any
Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners either for staff or for the petitioner? Just a
quick when you said only one of the town home you town home units was going to be sold and the others
were gonna be rented because I Correct. Yeah, and all this stuff. I thought it was gonna be
ten owner-occupied But then you're saying is only it was of the yeah, there were ten condiment
ten three-bedroom three bath condos one of them was gonna be put up for sale and
And so what we're doing is as we're saying, all right. Well, we have already on the site We have 20
affordable beds that were approved as part of the PUD that are current now in fact the one bedrooms
that have 41 bedrooms that are at market right now at all 48 are at affordable pricing already, even
though only 20 of them are actually part of the program and So what we're going to do is we're going
to throw in another 24 and
into that mix of which what three of those beds should have been units that were sold and in fact Going
back to the history of it. That was actually one of my ideas as we were coming for approval was I wanted
to bring one unit Of affordable for sale, I thought that'd be something really cool for the for the
community and for the development and it's just
You know, the world has just changed so much in the past six, seven years since it's been approved.
But yet, I'm still bringing in those 24 units are still, I mean, at market now, I mean, those, I don't
know when they're gonna be built, but if those came to market now, they would be under a thousand a
month for all those units. Okay. Is that staff? You read it that way too? You saw it the same way that
the 10 town homes, only one of them was gonna be sold initially? Yeah, only one of them was required
to be sold, yes. Okay.
You know, they were they were to be set up as condominiums with you know, obviously the greater possibility
You know that they could be platted and sold separately, but only one was required to be so acquired.
Okay. Thank you Additional questions Commissioner Stossberg good I just want to follow up on that for
just a second because I'm reading the that information on slide 11 where it says owner agrees to offer
one condominium for sale to no fewer than three eligible individuals and
And so that's where I thought, okay, are we talking about one? To no fewer than three, so that means
more than three eligible people can buy one condominium, and that's where I thought, oh, that's actually
three of those five condos were gonna be affordable. So I just wanna double check the understanding
of that language. Well, from my perspective, it was one unit
One unit three-bedroom three bath that was for sale and three people could go in and buy that one unit
But it was one out of the ten. So there are two buildings of five And then one of those buildings with
five one of the units one of the three bedrooms was designated for sale, right? Mr. Kulik, what do you
think about that language? Because I mean that language to me I mean and maybe at some point, you know
that language was like oh maybe that language was a little messed up because it sounds like
at least three individuals earning those AMIs must get together to buy one of those condos and like
a one a single person would say children couldn't like buy it by themselves. Yeah. So like I said, keep,
keep in mind when this was approved, we were, we were just kind of dipping our toes into the affordable
housing commitments. Um, and so oftentimes there was language in some of these where, uh, there was
wording where, you know,
Units would be offered for rent or for sale and then if they couldn't find anybody, you know They could
come to the city and say well, we couldn't find somebody we're gonna rent this to just market rate And
so I think this is kind of what that language was indicative of that time where you know They would
try folks would try to sell it, you know If they couldn't then you know, it could be left open that
it could be sold to anybody or used as a rental. Oh Okay, so they have to
At least three times then that that's how you think this language. Yeah, that's how I would read it
Okay, okay Thank you. That's very interesting language. I I Probably have unrelated questions, but I
will pass to somebody else for now Any other questions from commissioners
Thanks for coming out today You had mentioned that you have your units at market rents, but then you
also said they're affordable grants Are those two figures separately different or is it the same figure
you're referring to and could you disclose? I mean those those two figures are separate but yet so our
market rent right now is a
And again, I've got a number of units, so it's hard for me to remember exact, but right now,
market is $9.95 and $9.85 for the two different floor plans on that development. That is actually a
little bit cheaper at 120% AMI than what we could charge for a one-bedroom. Same thing at 100% of AMI.
80% it's it's I think it's Keith Keith. They're the same so I have what's market rent and then we have
what's affordable But right now it's you know, we're a local family business I grew up in this town
It's our way of trying to Help fix a problem
We own the land since the 90s. We develop it ourselves. We build it ourselves We're our own GC and we
try and help pass that cost Down downstream to the to the resident Thanks So as far as the condos the
reason you're moving away from those you said they were they become very expensive and
To build you said you'd have to charge 4,000 or more, right? I mean when they were approved they were
large condominiums. There were 2,400 square feet with two-car garages and there were three stories and
Again, you know we because we're finishing the second phase right now We kind of know exactly what what
things are costing and when we do You know when we look at the sheer economics of building a 2,400 square
foot two-bedroom condo
I'm at like 39 and change to break even and That's there are condominiums that are that and more so
especially up and down Sarah Road But that's a developer that does that market very well and that's
not my market, you know, my range is from I have units we have 300 units under ownership and management and
We have units that range from 895 to a little under 2000 for a one to two bedroom And then we have some
houses that are in the 20 in the $2,000 range I have nothing in my portfolio in the $3,000 range at
all. It's just not it's it's not a market that I serve I try and do things that are just a little bit,
you know most of our
Are one in two bedrooms. We have retirees that live with us. We have professors. We have postdocs graduate
students People that work here in the city live with us. It's a very it's it's it's not That would be
more of a luxury kind of market and it's just not me. Okay, how big are the single bedroom? Those are
in the five those are in the 500 square foot range those twerking rather, but it's a true. It's a true
one bedroom. It's got a
You know a separate bedroom, you know bath kitchen area. It's not a You know, it's not a micro suite
Ultimately was why is it so much cheaper to build these single-bedroom units as opposed to There be
a lot of duplicative things every one of them needs a kitchen whereas a condo you don't need three kitchens
right need three bathrooms, right? It's three stories. It's one roof and
You know, it's a minimal amount of siding. It's a minimal, either smaller units, they actually cost
more per square foot, but we're giving also less square footage per person. You're talking about a 2,400
square foot unit for three units versus a 535 square foot for one person. So that's kind of the economics
there. So overall, you're building less square footage. Correct.
and that's how you're getting your savings. It's honestly not more efficient to build the smaller units.
You're just building fewer of them altogether. I'm building smaller units under one roof, under one
foundation. Being one building makes it a lot more. Unfortunately, those also have, because it's a three
story building, it has two common areas that need to be heated and cooled and cleaned and all that.
That adds to it. But when you still throw in When you look at the overall picture, it's still a better
I mean like There's no money to be made in a condo in my opinion right now or has in the past two three
for almost four years When we did the first we started the first phase in 21 It still made sense, but
by the end of 22 it made no sense and that was four years ago and
because in the pre so have you done research on like the the market for Rental units for one bedroom
went rental units and the location of it. It doesn't maybe I don't know if it would be student housing
or not It's not ideally situated doesn't look to me to be student housing. Yeah again, so we have Again
this building that we're proposing we have two of them right now, which were built in the first phase
so and those literally they take 48 hours to lease when one comes up and
It gets leased because it's under a thousand. It's a new unit at under a thousand dollars And most of
those people that I think the average age of those Units is in the high 20s. They're like the 28 29
30 somewhere in there. They're professionals that you know, we're Nova Nordisk is our next-door neighbor.
We share two property lines with them. We have a lot of people not a lot We have a number of people
that live there and walk to work we have a number of people that live there and and
Commute to crane because it's close to 69 That that's kind of you know, I think in those 48 one bedrooms.
We have one undergrad if I remember correctly Maybe two but I know definitively of one so that's kind
of And you know with fair housing you can't we can't discriminate
But what we can but what we do is we market and we what we do is we try and market to what we call a
more professional a professional crowd versus you know an undergrad crowd Okay, I have one separate
question I don't know if this would be better for you or for staff, but there's something about an unrecorded
affordability commitment Can somebody talk about that is that was in the?
Packet I believe right? Yes, so there was a zoning commitment that was required. Typically those are
recorded So the petitioner did sign one it was prepared, but it wasn't officially recorded So obviously
that would be a loose end that we would want to tie up inevitably You know whenever the PUD amendment
gets resolved. Okay, and whose responsibility will that be? Ultimately, it's the petitioner's responsibility
to record it, you know, obviously staff can't record something on somebody else's property Okay. Okay.
And is there I mean
So petitioner didn't record it initially when they were supposed to is that correct? All I can say is
it wasn't you know, it was drawn up. It was signed by all parties involved So it should have been recorded,
but it just wasn't Okay, okay, and are you aware of that were you yeah, I was made aware of it I had
signed it and sent it through and thought it had been recorded and It wasn't so but it will be obviously
Moving forward. Okay. Okay. Thank you
Commissioner kids I guess this is a question for both staff and the petitioner You know I remember when
this project came through and we were excited about the diversity of housing and particularly the owner
occupancy Aspects of the condominium in addition to the affordability dimensions So I remember being
excited about what this project would permit in diverse housing and I wonder if You know, how how do
we talk about that now? What what are the options?
That you see to get us closer to what we originally thought this was going to be more affordable Diverse
housing options, you know, what what other ideas are there? Other than what you know, the petitioner
has presented or brought forward to us Is there anything else that we could possibly do here? I mean
We need to grab a cup of coffee and this is a longer discussion I Think there's a fair amount that you
can do, you know, is there the political will to do it? That's you know, that's one of the things comments
that I have, you know it is I
Bloomington so I've been building in Monroe County since 1997 have been real estate here since 1992
So I have built pretty consistently through that time period in my six hundred six hundredth unit somewhere
in there It has become painful to develop here in Monroe County financially time wise It has
been unbelievable unbelievably bad and I've built in
Indianapolis, I've done projects in Dubai, I've done projects in Fort Worth, I've done projects in Morocco,
built literally all over the world, and it is painful here. And it's incredibly expensive and incredibly
laborious, and that just adds to the bottom line. And a lot of people don't wanna hear that, but that's
just the truth of it. When you look at the site, so what we proposed
plethora of different products. We had small one bedrooms, regular size one bedrooms, two bedrooms,
and condos. That's what we were trying to do. We were trying to bring a diversified portfolio for different
people within a pretty small framework of pricing. COVID and what's happened economically has just wrecked
that. But what we're trying to do is do something that
works long-term for the people that For regular Bloomington people to live and work live work and so
yeah, it's You know, we're over when we first started in 21 our building costs without land we're right
at $160 we're well over 210 now without land So with land you're pushing, you know closer to 250
That's really hard to do to do an affordable unit at that kind of pricing and that pricing is cheap
compared to the rest of the rest of the US and Cheap compared to some places here in Indiana, which
is shocking Yeah, I would love to hear from staff about this are there some other ideas for what could go beyond
Yes certainly there are a lot of ideas there are lots of developments that have come forward with that
diverse housing you know a mix of mixed use or apartments and owner occupied or attaching a family or
you know some some mix of those and so that was you know certainly what the Plain Commission evaluated.
when this came forward was, you know, here is a project that had a good mix of rentals as well as other
buildings that would be condoized with the hope that some of them or a lot of them could be sold with
the requirement that at least one of them be sold. So you could certainly still pursue something along
that avenue where, you know, a certain percentage of these can still be, still would have to be condoized,
you know, certainly pursue, you know, a different number other than
or I'm sorry, require a unit to be sold or two units or three units. You know, that's lots of options.
Certainly, you know, what the Planning Commission can do is react to what the petitioner is bringing
forward. So this is what they have brought forward. And so it's, you know, on the Planning Commission
to then evaluate if we feel like this is, you know, this amendment is still in keeping with what we
want to accomplish within PUDs. You know, again, going back to the language that is, was in the,
UDO at that time is, you know, is there a demonstrated public benefit that is unique to this PUD that
is being accomplished by the granting of the PUD? You know, that's the hard evaluation. You know, if
it came forward today, there would be different standards, certainly a lot higher standards in terms
of expectations for buildings and diversity and, you know, a single-use PUD would not be approved today.
Yep, okay, thank you.
The other comment I wanted to make clear is that even though I am asking to drop the sale of those of
that one unit three beds Those three beds aren't lost those three beds will be affordable It's just
the for sale component is gone because there's it makes no sense for me to break out three in apartment
units in this three-story building to sell they're just it's it's
I mean, I understand that the business sense that changed economic conditions, but that the part that
I'm wrestling with is what's the What is the equal public benefit here when we first can when we first
made this agreement it was under very different conditions and I don't want to I'm not willing to just
renege on the commitment for the owner-occupied and other things I understand that predicament
You're in and what you've described, but I don't want to lose those dimensions so easily I mean, I know
it hasn't been easy for you. So no I respect that we really wanted to be done with this development
in 2023 and now we're Two-thirds not even quite two-thirds done in 20 at the end of 2026. It's been
incredibly frustrating and expensive so Any additional questions for commissioners
Why why is it important for you guys to have a decision tonight specifically Because I'm finishing up
The second phase and I would like to start planning the third and sort of get it over with I've delayed
now two different developments one of them is
My wife's wedding venue in Nashville now we've been delayed two years because of this develop actually
more than two years because of this development and I need to get it done to be honest and I mean I
Would love for it to be to be handled in this meeting if we have to go to a second we have to go to
a second it is it's not an all-or-nothing for me, but I have as an example it took the city a year and
a half to give me a permit for my second phase and
a year and a half So I have been waiting it took seven months to get the permit for the first phase
so I've gone literally more than two years waiting for permits and I'm like I'm kind of over it to be
honest, and I just need to get this development done So I can go off and do other commitments that I've
had So yeah, ideally I'd love for it to hand to be handled in this in this meeting and
Did you just say it took 18 months? It took it took almost exactly 400 days from application to when
I got the permit I applied for the permit the 4th of January 2024 and I know I did that because I had
to fly to fill to the Philippines to say goodbye to my 97 year old grandmother and then I got the permit
in August of last year so
Of course this body can't really control permitting in any way, but I know that that has been a big
topic of conversation
House for staff. So I guess this is a question for staff and because in terms of like like I don't want
to be rushed about this I actually reached out to the council members who are still currently serving
who were also serving in 2019 and I want to be able to give them a chance to Give some feedback on this
because of course this has to go to council to you, right? But I certainly don't want you to have to
wait excessive amounts of time for permitting if that's like part of your calculus here so can staff speak to
What has been done to hopefully ease some of those permitting issues that he has had over the last couple
of years so that Whatever decision gets made about this that will not be Such an issue moving forward.
I can cross my fingers and hope
Yeah, so one of the lengthier aspects that was involved in that time period was just the discussion
and resolution about a possible phasing plan that was referenced with the petition. There was a phasing
plan that was referenced in the petitioner statement, but there was no actual exhibit. So when it came
time to have temporary occupancy given for some of the buildings,
There was only a portion of the development that was done and we didn't have an exhibit for our enforcement
folks to look at and say, okay, you know, this is what was supposed to be done with phase one. This
is what was supposed to be done with phase two. So there was a lot of.
conversation and then eventually an exhibit was submitted by the petitioner that we approved in order
to allow for some of those occupancies to move forward. At this point, all of the site development permits
have been issued. There just need to be a small revision if this amendment was approved to reflect going
from two buildings to one building. But for the most part, the major bulk of the permit review has been
done other than obviously the two building permits or one building permit
Depending on the resolution of this amendment. Okay, so you wouldn't anticipate a Delay like that. I
would certainly hope not. I don't see any reason that there would be a significant significant delay
of any sort Okay, and so is that like that's like your general concern back to the petitioner in terms
of handling this tonight to be able to get through City Council to Because you're you're looking at
it as starting a permit clock that's gonna right at minimum take seven months and
Well, I mean if you do the average it's gonna be a year, right? Well, that's why I said and that's why
I wanted to I wanted to get moving with it because Yeah, I've literally had to delay two developments
one of which is my wife's For more than two years to get this development done. Okay Thank you. I appreciate
that information
Other questions to you should I keep going because they're if you got more please continue I Guess I
want to understand a little bit about this Original PUD and why it was a PUD in terms of and so this
is maybe more of a staff question in terms of like what made it unable to be developed as it was at
the time in terms of
Udo stuff and so, you know like right now I kind of think of a PUD is like, you know They that the petitioner
gets extra stuff and in return the city gets extra stuff So if right now the city was supposed to get
this owner occupancy some affordability What did the petitioner get for that that was extra? Yep, so
this so when this was initially established as a mobile home park I think in the late 70s mid 70s it was
rezoned as a planned Development at that time. So when the petitioner bought the property, it was already
zoned as a PD So they amended that PD the list of uses in order to allow in order to allow for this
With the PD amendment. They had a district ordinance that approved some additional parking spaces as
well as some additional impervious surface coverage and
But so that was you know, I guess really in essence obviously at that time they could have chose to
rezone it to a current zoning district at that time they would have still I think had a challenge with
the impervious surface and the maximum number of parking spaces or actually it's probably a minimum
number of parking spaces at that time and so
You know in today's world they could probably rezone it to a multifamily district and none of these
things would Be an issue. Obviously they would still have to release the PUD so they would still be
in a situation of The current PUD standards whether they amend it or they rezone it to a current district
Okay, so the petitioner probably got at the time less impervious surface Requirements
Okay, that's very interesting Oh, I know the other thing I was well I need a minute so somebody else
can go So that's all your questions I just need a minute so somebody else can go because I need to like
so I have like 12 notes on here
All right, I'll ask just a follow-up. So the neighboring parcels are zoned RM today. Is that correct?
Yeah, the parcel to the west is zoned RM. I think the parcel to the north is zoned RH. Give me just
a second. I can verify that. Yeah, no, that's correct. That's what I'm seeing on the map. And obviously
there's PUD for the
The cattle impede. Yeah, the Novo Nord is to the east and south is the neighbor the neighboring there's
RM. I mean to if If this weren't a PUD probably would be RM. Yeah RM or RH. Yes, and if this were RM
what's being proposed here would be allowed by right and
Most likely I'd have to look at the height of the buildings I think it's three stories or 40 feet so
they might be close on that but more or less it'd be very similar So why wouldn't we just rezone this
to RM Well again, so, you know the petitioner brought forward an amendment They could have obviously
brought forward an amendment to just rezone it to RM or RH But you know again, we're just reacting to
what has been brought forward
Would the petitioner like to respond to that? Is there some advantage to keeping it as a PUD as opposed
to rezoning to RM? I think that we wanted to also show you that all of the commitments and everything
in the PUD were still being committed to We're not interested in changing the entirety of the project
and some of the interesting unique
You got with this PD not only what we got but what the community got including things green features
and a community garden that At that time we wanted to show everyone that we're committing to something
and not just Apartments and I think we'd still like to show everybody that that's what we would like
to do with the exception of what we talked about with getting rid of certain units and adding them and
Changing that one piece in the commitment number five. So if it were a rezoned RM those commitments
would Would go away. You wouldn't have to maintain that community garden anymore potentially It would
matter. I guess how City Council would word that but potentially Yeah, okay. Thanks Commissioner Stossberg.
Thank you. I figured it out. Um, I just want to talk about that
affordability requirements again for a minute because and this is another one of these like This was
under an entirely different UDO. So I feel like I have to learn a lot about that So and so this is probably
a question for staff in terms of how was affordability kind of guaranteed And then
Can you just go over what this change or potential change would do to the affordability? Like I mean,
I understand the owner occupancy change piece but in terms of you know, we're Gonna then guarantee that
how many of these are gonna be affordable and I appreciate what the petitioner said about like it already like
It's not market rate, but it's the rate that you plan to rent it at in terms of your costs already fall
into the affordability with the AMI but it's more a question for staff of how we document that or if
we document that and Yeah, so it would be certainly a condition of approval and then a zoning commitment
that would be written up signed and recorded And is that the way it was before like I mean right now
it's kind of one of those easy like 15% of units have to be you know, the
For the tier one have to you know meet certain requirements. So is it something like that? Like can
you just yes, and it was 90% there before it just did not get recorded. Okay, so it was It was a condition
of approval that the petitioner continued to work with staff to come up with a Affordable housing commitment
for this project. They did that they came up with the zoning commitment They signed it, but it just
never got okay. Tell me what that actual zoning commitment was like what percentage below what am I's I
It was here and let me go back and I can put it on the screen off the top of your head It was 15 while
I'm working on that. I'll just kind of go from memory. It was 15% of the units 10% of the units would
be My memories wonderful, but not perfect It's like I think I kind of read this somewhere but I don't
know where it is anymore
So the owner agrees to designate 15% of the bedrooms for workforce housing 10% of the bedroom shall
be offered and rented to anyone earning up to 100% of the AMI 5% of the bedroom shall be offered to
anyone earning up to 120 AMI Rents for the affordable housing units shall be no more than 25% of the
income of an individual earning 80% of the AMI I'm sorry say the last one again
Rents for the affordable housing units shall be no more than 25% of the income of an individual earning
80% of AMI Yeah, and that's what we've operated it since day one on the first phase So the zoning commitment
is in the packet just for everyone's awareness Okay, so
And so then I'm assuming these these additional 24 units would fall under the same Guidelines correct
And so one of the arguments to not doing the condos is because like in theory you could build those
but you would you like not be able to
Meet this affordability standard with them or the way that it's phrased Eric would he be able to say
like make other things? Affordable and then these not affordable in terms of shifting like which 10%
or 5% or whatever Served those so the zoning commitment initially just covered all of the units within the
Development as a whole so where those are located would be up to the petitioner, you know this amendment
directed specifically the one bedrooms that at least I believe three of those would be Within the affordable
housing workforce housing requirement and a petitioner can correct me if I know that's correct. That's
correct Okay, and so what would happen with this kind of like it's the affordable housing units must
be no more than 25% of the incomes of the individuals part that is like because that that's different than
what we do now doesn't talk about that specifically. And so one of the things I'm remembering is, I
don't know, a year ago when I was messing with the AMI stuff and changing those in the UDO and I was
looking at some of the charts and there were some folks renting affordable apartments, but their actual
incomes were, say, the 33rd percentile, but they were still getting charged at the 120% AMI. So that
would make their
Income far exceed or sorry their rent far exceed the 25% of their income. So in terms of like your policies
and procedures so like you actually like like manage I have affordable. Yeah, I do we we manage only
what we own and I already have an affordability component and other developments that we've done since
2017 okay, so
Do you do kind of like when you're assessing say a tenant is that kind of like a rent-blind? Assessment
like you're looking at their application and going yeah, they sound great And then they're gonna fall
into this but you know, they make 50% of AMI which means that their rents would be even less than right,
so when they call in the leasing consultants will
we'll tell them, hey, we have an affordability component in this development, and this is the range,
and if you want us to email to you what the ranges are so that you know where you fall, then they send
that. Hand does an annual check through all of our current affordable
Units and checks, you know spot checks leases versus and applications versus what what? What income
they have? Okay. I guess I'm I'm just kind of checking that you're not Say doing affordability discrimination
in terms of that 25% of their you know that you're not saying like oh well, I better not you know rent
to somebody whose income is not high enough, you know, they also have to pass a a credit check
And that's you know, if you pass a pass a credit check I trust then you are interested in keeping it
keeping it up and you're going to pay the rent that is Required by the agreement that we have between
us the city and the and the resident And in fact to be honest, I don't think we've ever had an issue
with with our affordable units and someone
Not paying and we're have we've had to go to To small claims. I don't think it's happened And do you
yet section eight vouchers to I'm sorry. Do you accept section eight? No, we don't do that program I'm
sorry. Well, no, we don't do that program as of yet. Okay. Okay. Thanks All right, I think I'm following
here when the petitioner said that number that number five the rental commitment was being maintained is that
That's correct. The only thing that's changing is number seven. Okay, so and and I guess Yeah to me
that's a substantial commitment. It's you know, I guess if I'm adding the percentage is 30% Commitment
to some sort of affordable Unit between the 15% at at workforce housing 10% at 100% of the AMI and then
five more percent offered
to rent to anyone up to 120% of the AMI. So that 30% commitment to some level of affordability will
be applied and extended to all. Well, I was just adding all up. There's some level of affordability.
So I mean, in total, I think, and there
with this change, there are like 160 total beds in that development. 24 of them will be affordable.
Somebody, now I need to do a percentage, don't I? All right. You can check my math. When I looked at
it last time. I'm just trying to make sure that we're maintaining the percentage. 100%. Affordable in
the new extension. Right.
So, you know there were 30 beds before with the condos I'm going down to 24 and of those 24 3 are going
to be affordable So in fact There are more if you want to do if you're looking at ratios, there'd be
a slightly higher ratio of affordable Now versus what was approved in those condos because there were
30 beds and not 24. Yeah, but I mean it's not a huge difference
I would like to clarify that 15% versus 30% because the way that I was reading it was that the 15% is
broken up into 10% as this category and 5% is this category and they total to be 13 15 not that there's
30% affordable 15% affordable. Okay. I just wanted to make sure mark we
Yes, correct. I mean it's 15% is the total and then of that 15% it's broken down into those Categories,
you know 80 100 120 percent, right? Right, but it's only it's 15% of total correct. Like so like I said,
I'd like the whole development I think is 160 beds. It's 15% of that which I think is 24. Yeah I got
a finance degree not a math degree, but
Last call for questions from commissioners. All right, we will then go to public comment. Doesn't look
like there's anyone here to make public comment in the chambers, but if you are joining us online and
you would like to make comment, just click on that reaction button, click raise hand or send a message
to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak.
Seeing any hands online Okay last call for public comment All right, then we are back to the Commission
for any final comments or a motion as a reminder the Staff Recommendation is that we deny the waiver
of a second hearing and forward this to a second hearing at our December meeting
Personally be inclined to Grant the waiver of the second hearing and go ahead and vote on this tonight
I don't know that I have any more questions or I'm gonna gain anything by waiting another month on it
But this the required recording that it's a small thing, but it's it's bothersome. That's that's an
issue I realize it's still binding on you guys. It's a contract if you sell it and
Good-faith purchaser very likely is not bound by it So all those affordability requirements everything
and it would go away if it's not recorded Is there something why isn't it recorded or some reason you
can't record it now? I mean how quickly could you have it recorded and binding? No, honestly I signed
it and I blasted it off to people in the city and to my team and I thought I had been I Didn't realize
that it had not been recorded until we were doing this and it came back to us but there's an email with
me with it and
Being sent to everyone in the city and also my legal and and our engineer. It was just an oversight
I mean I've I agree with you I agree with you, you know You can I could sell it and it would be very
difficult to for the city to claw it back And it needs to happen and it will certainly happen. I also
have never I haven't sold anything since 2007 I had a plan to have my daughters fight over All of this
and let them figure it out, but I agree it has to be done
And it will be done. I guess point is if we were to vote on it, can we attach that? I mean, it's already
a requirement that you record it You were supposed to do it already and it didn't happen. So attaching
another requirement that you recorded We would want to have a new zoning commitment that encompasses
what has been stated by the petitioner tonight so that there is one unified zoning commitment for the
property rather than two separate ones because the zoning commitment that is in the packet now obviously
doesn't include
The language that has been suggested tonight. Okay, so it'd be something different to be recorded.
Yeah Okay, so you're gonna get a second chance to Yeah, yeah, so we would have a new one draw up and
then that would be recorded to synopsize everything Okay, that's my comment. Thank you any other comments
or emotion Mr. Smith Dwellings has been around Bloomington for a long time
I probably first met mark in 1993 as a civil engineer They they are probably the only local developer
that did not go after the student market They build really high quality projects. I drove through here
today because I've not been up there probably five years These buildings even at these price points
look better than anything were thrown up on 10th Street right now and
Even having a lead, you know community building. It's it's a nice building I'm I agree with earlier
comments that the only change this is one Probably at minimum half million dollar condo that's not going
to go up for sale today 2400 square feet three store. That's an expensive structure That is the only
change so I think we should send this with a positive recommendation with the waiver of second reading
and and and then and then add that
zoning commitment to be a revised sign and recorded similar to what was written with just the one for
sale taken out based on this statement, so These are these guys are a great asset to our community.
I've done a great job here for a long long time and I think we be respectful to move along in a timely
manner Mr. Stossberg
I agree in large part, but I'm a little concerned because the staff report doesn't have any proposed
findings. So could staff like comment on Like how we would do this or whether we can do this without
proposed Findings because usually the staff report kind of provides those proposed findings for us very
specifically in these different categories So what would need to happen? Yep, so you have
Two choices. One, you can obviously continue this to December. We can put forward a staff report that
has findings. Second choice is you can take the findings that were done with the initial approval in
2019, and we would need to modify some of those to just address the specific language within this amendment,
depending on Plaint Commission's
appetite for either of those two. I have made some chicken scratchings on my paper to address which
amendments or which criteria would need to be amended, so it's kind of up to Plaint Commission of which
path you would like to go. Certainly this would be a prime candidate for consent agenda in December,
so I have no doubt that we'd be able to get this through really expeditiously.
Three ish Are you comfortable presenting them? I'm sorry. Are you comfortable presenting them to us?
Yes, sure certainly love to hear it so if you want and so what I would urge you to do then is go to
the the ordinance and
That is in your packet that came from council that had the entirety of the initial Playing Commission
report in it And I can just kind of read through the findings that I have written So in the first one
criteria first criteria the extent to which the proposed preliminary plan meets the requirements standards
and stated purpose and
The findings would read this petition meets the requirements for planned unit development and Accomplishes
the purposes of a PUD by providing an affordable housing component not otherwise accomplished The proposed
amendment to this PD would allow for residential uses a higher density in an area immediately adjacent
to major area employers the second one the extent to which the proposed
Preliminary plan departs from the unified development ordinance for finding proposed findings would
read the current PUD Limits the site to 35 unit mobile home park the proposed amendment would not significant
would not depart significantly from the original PUD remainder language to all stay as is Criteria 10
The proposal is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on the PUD site.
In essence, striking sentences two and three that say the current PUD allows for a maximum of 35 mobile
homes and does not offer additional amenities. Striking the second sentence, the petitioner is proposing
to amend the existing PUD to allow for 114 units.
which includes 10 single family units, which will be sold individually. I did not identify that any
of the remaining language would be problematic. And then conditions of approval would stay, yeah, would
stay as is in a condition of approval six.
Revised zoning commitments that to staff satisfaction will be submitted So these would be things that
would be amended prior to the memo going to the council And then probably striking then in can criteria six is
Revising the number of units to reflect the current unit count. I believe petitioner said 120 or 124
Yes, 120 for you Yep, so that would be amending criteria 1 criteria 2 criteria 6 and criteria 10
With the language that I decided or obviously I can write up a cleaner version and prepare that next
time How long would it take you to write that up tonight, yeah It would probably 15 or 20 minutes. Oh,
okay Mr. Stossberg good
I just want to ask kind of a general question of understanding in terms of the proposed findings. So
when For the say new proposed findings They're being based on 2019 right current not on current So when
it says things like would allow for residential uses at a higher density in an area immediately It's
like well, I don't think that they're actually allowing for uses at a higher density anymore
But they were then and so that's still the language that needs to stay No in in a perfect world the
word density would probably be removed from this since we no longer regulate density Yeah, and in a
perfect world and perfect findings I would remove references to density. Okay, so it's still not wrong
right Right. Okay. Okay, so they're so I
There could be some updates maybe in terms of language usage, but not necessarily in what is being considered
like the underlying underlying like zoning Concepts and UDO and all of those pieces. Yes in a perfect
world with better findings for December I would I would clean up a lot of those if we were just trying
to ad hoc things tonight to a bare minimum You know, it'd be those
Four sections that I reference as the council representative I I would much prefer to have better findings
in December than something ad hoc right now because Council would probably receive it a whole lot better
if it was More updated Well, wouldn't he write it before he came to common council? I
I would write it only and I would only write in what I've presented tonight, you know, I can't change
the fine I hear you be hearing tonight that goes to council So it would only be amending the things
that I've referenced specifically tonight, right? Well, we what we would be voting on here tonight would
be you know adopt findings that we are not looking at in writing and I as much as I want to move this
thing along I I've never liked trying to author these things on the fly and
I would I Think the appropriate thing to do here is is forward it take the time write those findings
Get it on the consent agenda. So it's cruising through the next meeting that seems like the Appropriate
thing to do here. I just want to say they're making one change They're taking one for sale unit out
of the PD. That's all they're doing nothing else being done
And so to delay this a month Because we got to modify finding from 2019 to adjust for one for sale P,
you know unit All right. Well, I just I think we should try it. I think there's two I think there's
two Ways forward then we can take a little recess and try to write these up so we can actually see what
we're voting on Or we can forward it to the next meeting I'm not comfortable taking a vote on something
that we haven't even You know looked at in writing
Maybe we give them the 20 minutes Mr. Sossberg I'll make a motion and then we can just vote on it and
that'll help decide whether or not the majority of people want to do the 20 minutes or not, so I will
move To deny the request for the waiver and send this to a required second hearing So that is I'm talking
about KCO 2026 dash 10 dash 0 0 1 6 and
Sending that to its second hearing at our December plan commission meeting All right. So the motion
is to deny the waiver of the second hearing to forward this to a second hearing at the December meeting
Is there a second for that motion? Second all right any final discussion on this motion before we call
the roll All right, let's call the roll on the motion Seymour
Holmes no Can see yes Smith no Stossburg. Yes Whistler No Bishop yes What was that it was four three
but it's not four three in favor, yeah
But that fails because we needed five. All right. Well We can Make a motion. I'd like to make a motion.
Go ahead regarding zio twenty twenty six ten dash zero zero one six based on findings of the original
PD recommendations with amended criteria presented by staff in this meeting I move to send this petition
to common council the positive recommendation with waiver of second hearing
In addition petition to work with staff to modify the affordable housing commitment Removing the one-for-sale
unit sign it and this time record it Is there a second for that motion Do we feel what what maybe I
would might recommend is Plaint Commission vote on a 15-minute recess So that I can prepare that
So that you have clean findings that's simply a suggestion Well, I did say that earlier the motion was
to Have it rewritten based on what staff already presented to us and so it can only be rewritten based
on what staff already said
You're withdrawing your motion. I'll withdraw and make a motion to give staff All right. The motion
is to take a 15-minute recess so that staff can write up the proposed findings Is there a second for
that motion? All in favor aye any opposed All right motion carries we are recessed for 15 minutes Are
ready to reconvene Like to call the order back and call the meeting back to order We
were recessed so we could get some new findings. It looks like staff has put those up on the screen.
So I'm gonna turn it over to staff to present the findings that they are now proposing. Would you like
to run through it, Eric? I'll just read through each of those just to make this hopefully as easy as
possible. So criteria one, the extent to which the proposed
preliminary plan meets the requirements, standards, and stated purpose of chapter four planned unit
development. This petition meets the, oops, sorry, got a problem there. This petition meets the requirements
for a planned unit development and accomplishes the purposes of a PUD by providing an affordable housing
component that would not otherwise be accomplished. The extent to which the proposed preliminary plan
departs from the unified development ordinance provisions
findings would be the proposed amendment would not depart significantly from the original PUD and would
not otherwise be allowed without amending the original PUD. The proposed deviations from the current
PUD are very minimal and still require an affordable housing component consistent with the objectives of the
growth policies plan. Criteria three, the extent to which the PUD meets the purposes of the unified
development ordinance. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the standards of the current
PUD and are similar to the current RH district and will meet the district's intent. This proposal also
provides for non-student centric multifamily housing away from Indiana University. The property is serviced
by public transportation. The proposed scale of the buildings within the PUD including this amendment
will range from one to three stories and are within the comprehensive plans guideline for the area.
Remaining language was unchanged. The petitioner has expressed their desire to include support for affordable
housing and has submitted a proposal with this amendment that is consistent with the amended PUD. Condition
four did not change or findings four did not change. Finding five.
the relationship and compatibility of the proposed preliminary plan to the adjacent properties
and neighborhood would not substantially interfere. The approved use within the PUD is a multifamily
development and is similar in use to the adjacent properties to the north and west. Remaining findings
did not change. Amended condition criteria six simply updated the number of units.
Finding seven did not change, finding eight did not change, finding nine, the department finds that
the proposal will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. The current
PUD allowed for a multifamily residential use and the site with this amendment will continue to allow
to provide for, sorry, I should wordsmith that. Yeah, I'll fix that one.
And then 10 your proposal is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on
the PD site. The amendments to the PD allow for a minor adjustment to the development. The PD included
in a included in urban agricultural garden. A similar proposal could be designed on a property within the R.H.
district. However an affordable housing provision would not be required or provided with by
right development. So sorry. Delete that one. Hold on. What's happening.
There's supposed to be conditions there. Give me a second. Oh, yeah, there we go. So two conditions
of approval then. Oh, I'm sorry. Two conditions of approval as read. PUD final plan approval is delegated
to the planning and transportation department. Condition two.
petitioner shall prepare and record a zoning commitment consistent with the submitted petitioner statement
and the original PD PD 27-19 So I've amended those criteria I can admit I can certainly email those
to folks But I wanted to figure the fastest way is just to have them on the screen so that anybody at
home could also see those All right, everyone Seen these now any questions Commissioner Stossberg
you just say that you needed a wordsmith up there? Because I was, it's too small for me to read on that
screen and then my neck was craned up here and this is just horrible. Could you like put that? Yeah,
hold on a second.
While he's doing that, let me add with regard to the timely processing, any petitioner who submits the
required documentation and drawings to the Planning and Transportation Department, we process those
in a timely manner. As long as there are no changes or alterations, there shouldn't be any delay in
issuing the necessary permits.
Sorry, so the the word smithing was on finding nine So it just needs to say so the criteria the evaluation
criteria is that the proposal will not be injurious to the public health safety morals public health
safety in general welfare the findings are the department finds that the
Proposal will not be injurious to the public health safety or general welfare the current PUD allowed
for a multifamily Residential use and the site with this amendment will continue to provide for residential
use I Can put that on the screen if you would that would be great. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, hang on a second
So as finding number nine, the proposal will not be interest. So the revised findings as shown on the
screen, the department finds that the proposal will not be interest to the public health, safety or
general welfare. The current PUD allowed for a multifamily residential use and the site with this amendment
will continue to provide for residential use.
certainly any of these findings of staff is is certainly open to any additional comments or additions
or wordsmithing and I can email this if this is Desired yeah, give me a second All right any other questions
or suggestions regarding these proposed findings All right, then I think we are ready for a motion to
adopt the proposed findings and for this
petition I have a question because Proposed finding number 10 was something that got significantly shifted
from the beginning and one of the things about the original number 10 talked about parking spaces per
bedroom and It and that got taken out entirely with the new 10 So, can you I guess talk a little bit
more about
That and about the parking. Yeah, I like why did that get taken out? Yeah, I took a lot of that out
since the amendment wasn't dealing with that That you know, I tried to tailor these specific findings
to just what was involved with this amendment and not the language and the assessment that was with
the initial PD So that's why I struck a lot of that language since it seemed to be confusing Like I
said, I was just tailoring this specifically to the amendment itself. Give me a
Just a second. I can figure out the best way to Well, can you just add this to the like staff report
folder or the? Presentation folder or something. Yeah, I
So it should be in the public folder that is on the agenda under staff exhibits.
Need just a minute to read that. I'm so certainly is it is a you know shared docs if anybody wants to
look at that and propose any amendments. You can certainly suggest those and read those out loud so
that we can all see and hear them but welcome to make adjustments.
Any questions about the proposed findings? If not, then I think we are ready for a motion Commissioner
Smith, go ahead Regarding co 20 26-10-0 0 1 6 1
Based on findings presented by staff. I move to send This petition to the Common Council positive
recommendation with waiver of second hearing with the two conditions as stated by staff All right, so
the motion is to adopt the proposed findings and forward to come counsel with a positive recommendation
With the two conditions as proposed by staff. Is there a second for that motion? Any final discussion
Let's please call the roll on the motion Holmes yes, Kenzie. Yes Smith. Yes Stossburg Yes Whistler,
yes Bishop yes seabor yes all right motion carries and that is our final petition for the evening and
unless there are other any other announcements and
We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.