- All right, hello and good evening. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the City of Bloomington
- Plan Commission for Monday, August 10th. Let me start by giving an overview of our agenda this evening.
- We will have just a couple of housekeeping items and then we will get to our, we have a consent agenda
- tonight that has two items on the consent agenda and then we have
- Four petitions to be heard in full tonight. Those are sub-2020605-0010. This is the Redevelopment
- Commission's request for primary plat approval for Hopewell South and partial plat vacation. We will
- then have ZO2020606-0006.
- which is UDO text amendment related to the council resolution 2026-05. And we will then have ZO 2026-06-007,
- which is a request for UDO text amendment related to increasing housing attainability. And then finally,
- ZO 2026-06-0008 request for UDO text amendments.
- excuse me, related to change in use and limited compliance requirements. So, yeah, four petitions plus
- a consent agenda this evening. But let's begin just by calling the roll for attendance this evening.
- Bishop? Here. Burrell? Here. Seaborg? Here. Korodke? Here. Holmes? Here. Kinsey? Here. Smith?
- Stossberg here Whistler here All right, so we do have a quorum. Let's move on to Approval of minutes.
- We have the minutes from the July 13th meeting for approval this evening. Are there any questions? Comments
- or corrections to those minutes Do we have a motion to approve Plan Commission minutes
- All right, all in favor say aye Any opposed All right, the minutes are approved We'll move on now to
- reports resolutions and communications. Are there any reports from commissioners tonight? All right,
- how about from staff Planning transportation I'd mentioned to earlier that at some of these meetings
- I will have a little brief updates on
- Things that occurred law whatever and there were some questions about the federal housing act So I asked
- Anna Killian Hansen director of housing neighborhood development to take five minutes and update you
- on what the federal housing act Provided for so I will introduce It's Kelly and Hansen for you. She'll
- take it from there Thank you. Welcome. Good evening. Thank you so much for having me Anna Killian Hansen
- housing and neighborhood director
- There's a lot in this bill, so I'm gonna go as fast as I can and try to summarize as much as possible
- But please understand. There's a lot here
- So recently the 21st century Road to Housing Act was passed. It became law on July 11th. So pretty recently
- Considering the last time that you guys had met Building on earlier House and Senate proposals the final
- package included more than 50 provisions aimed at boosting housing supply reducing regulatory barriers
- modernizing existing federal housing programs and strengthening coordination across the housing system and
- The 21st Century Road to Housing Act made significant changes
- federal community development and affordable housing programs by expanding eligible uses of CDBG and
- home funds which we receive Reducing administrative barriers and creating new opportunities to support
- affordable housing supply It also directed HUD to advance reforms related to zoning land use environmental
- review housing construction and housing finance with the overall goal of helping communities increase
- the production and improve access to affordable housing
- The act includes provisions addressing housing construction methods and financing including Point access
- block buildings which are multifamily buildings with three or more stories served by a single staircase
- reforms intended to improve financing for modular and manufactured homes and provisions addressing barriers
- to small dollar mortgages and
- Made several significant changes to the CDBG grant program And one of those being that now we have to
- have transparency around publicly owned land. So beginning in funding year
- 30 which if you do not understand our funding years, we actually start them like we're just starting
- our 26 year So we're halfway through the year. So it gets a little squirrely but starting with the funding
- year 30 the potential amount of funding a community receives will be related to how easy it is to build
- housing in your community and
- So beginning in funding year 27, we must establish a publicly available searchable database identifying
- undeveloped land owned by the jurisdiction.
- Then in 27 we are allowed to use up to 20% of our annual CDBG funding for new affordable housing construction
- in 2030 the build now act creates a mechanism for adjusting our allocations Based on our improvement
- in our housing growth rate, which they are set to release in September So they're gonna actually do
- a study and tell us how good or bad we are at creating housing in the community It's also going to reduce the
- our regulatory burdens for environmental reviews, which if you've worked with our department in order
- to use the federal funding, it takes forever. If we have to go through these environmental reviews,
- it can be years before we can complete one and obtain all of the necessary information. It also goes
- into the Build Housing Act portion of it.
- Basically goes through the NEPA review process and tries to streamline that
- It goes through the revitalizing empty structures into desirable environments act which establishes
- a five-year home pilot program to convert vacant and abandoned commercial and industrial buildings into
- attainable housing or low and moderate income households Eligible activities can be acquisition demolition
- remediation and redevelopment with priority for distressed areas and communities undertaking regulatory reforms
- It revitalizes our home repair program and makes it easier to accomplish It goes into a quite a bit
- with the financing aspect and it actually expands opportunities With right of first refusals actually
- which is interesting and it further addresses manufactured and modular homes which
- the way that they're attached to buildings. So it talks about making it easier to make sure that we
- can get permanent financings, because if you haven't sold a modular home, you might not know that it
- has to be on a permanent foundation in order to qualify for financing. So that does help that. And then
- it also directs HUD to develop best practice frameworks for zoning and land use policies. And so that
- portion is interesting because it's basically telling us that
- Recommendations are centered around three different key areas cost land and time the report recommends
- reviewing local regulations and processes that increase construction costs limit land and
- Available for housing or length and time required to obtain approvals and construct homes And it includes
- reviewing permitting fees and other development costs avoiding requirements for unrelated off-site
- infrastructure increasing transparency around fees inspections permits and approvals and
- Allowing a broad range of construction methods including manufactured and modular housing making publicly
- owned land available for housing development Allowing by right residential developments were appropriate
- streamlining permitting and eliminating duplicative reviews establishing defined permitting timelines
- and using technology to modernize or develop
- the development process. And so, taking together the best practices from HUD and then also this new
- bill, it really establishes a framework for how they would like us to start moving forward.
- And then one of the things I think you guys might be interested in is the act also prohibits large for-profit
- institutional investors from purchasing certain single-family homes So that more homes are available
- for individual homebuyers The ban stops large corporations from purchasing extra single-family houses
- or duplexes this applies to firms that own all
- Control at least 350 single-family residential properties. This is not retroactive Companies do not
- have to sell the homes they already owned before the law started however violating the purchase ban
- can cost them up to a million or triple the home purchase price per violation and
- So there's a lot of really good stuff in this bill But it's very complicated and many of them are waiting
- on further guidance for implementation So it's not effective right away certain things will be rolling
- out slowly summer 27 summer 29 summer 2030 for compliance deadlines, but
- Implementation implementation plans should be coming out soon and we are keeping an eye on that but
- something for your guys's radar as well There's quite a bit out there if you want to do some research
- or I'm happy to share some Information that we have as well. Thank you Thank you Do we have any other
- reports? All right We will move on then to
- Our agenda our consent agenda As I mentioned there are two items on the consent agenda tonight Are there
- any commissioners who? Would like to see either of those removed for if to have a full hearing The questions
- about the consent agenda How do we do that
- You are allowed to ask questions, yes You can ask questions without pulling it off the consent agenda.
- Yes But now would be the time if you have questions, oh, we're that quick into it We're that quick into
- it. We're on the consent agenda here. So if you got questions, hope he's got a question I think that
- we would have to pull it off the consent agenda to talk about it at all or to get a presentation about
- it at all, isn't that
- I don't believe so we can have conversation about anything we want to hear So, yeah items on the consent
- agenda usually there is no presentation by staff in the past there have been occasional one or two questions,
- but I think if there's the intent of having a full dialogue on it should probably be pulled off and
- I just obviously don't know the extent of your questions if it's like I said one or two, you know, we've
- tried to answer that Expeditiously, otherwise if it feels like it's gonna be a more prolonged discussion
- that should be pulled for a full discussion How do you want to agree well how detailed are your questions
- Depends on the answers. Okay, why don't we why don't you start asking? Let's ask some questions and
- I'll we'll see how this goes If it gets too far
- You're asking to do a tiff overlay of the plan before it's a six point five acres roughly of Hopewell
- South Is that what we're asking for?
- Yes, Dana Kerr represent the RDC here. I'm the attorney from legal that deals with the RDC and 6.5 acres
- is the Hopewell South the entire Hopewell South area and that would be included in the entire TIF area
- and is this not already in the consolidated TIF? It's part of the Adams to it is in the consolidated
- TIF So it would be removed from the consolidated TIF and now it would start its own
- Hope well south tip. Why are we removing it? What's wrong with the tip as it sits? It would it will
- be a residential TIF Because it'll be primarily residential properties and so therefore it's a different
- type of TIF than the consolidated TIF and so it would be a New and different type of TIF and it also would
- Allow for a different time period Than the existing consolidated TIF right the clock could start again
- on the life of the TIF and it would be based on when the first obligation of the on that TIF started
- the RDC would be expending quite a bit of funds to put in the infrastructure and at some point in time
- Would Possibly need to get reimbursed or
- There are also other projects that inside that TIF The funds that generated from inside that TIF could
- pay for they're outside of the Hopewell TIF if it benefited the Hopewell TIF So there's a couple mechanisms
- that could be used to help the RDC funds with the other projects in the area or in reimbursing them
- for the the amount of funds that is going to be used
- Already ready in design but also in putting in infrastructure So will we bond against the revenue to
- pay for the infrastructure in the consent in the TIF area? It's right now there's not a plan to bond
- for Well, we are discussing bonding for the infrastructure but the TIF Hopewell South TIF will not have
- the funds to
- to pay for it right away. So in the future we're looking at, not too distant future, bonding
- with consolidated TIF, which would be allowed to used in the Hopewell South TIF because it supports
- what's going on in the consolidated TIF. Indiana Code 36725 allows you to use funds from
- a TIF area in other areas that support what's going on in that TIF, the economic development. So the
- housing development in Hopewell South, it helps what's going on in the consolidated TIF. Therefore,
- if there was bonding to put in the infrastructure of
- in Hopewell South, that would be okay to do with the consolidated TIF. If that was to happen, of course,
- that would take council approval before that would ever be done. And then later, when Hopewell South
- TIF is getting built out and is getting to the point where it's creating revenue, that revenue could
- be used to pay on that bond.
- That is from that the consolidated tiff So that's a benefit of The consolidated tiff there's bonds currently
- tied to the consolidated tiff, correct Sorry, there's there's bonds currently tied to the consolidated
- income, right? What's what's the monthly? What how much of that tiff is used to pay the the payments
- on those bonds? Is there any leftover money right now? I
- Do not have the bond information right now. What I do know is there is significant bonding capacity
- I also know that the funds on hand that the RDC has could Substantially pay for a lot of the infrastructure
- at Hopewell South But you know, there's a lot of projects that need to be
- that are in the works. Well, I'll tell you for any reason for the line of questioning is I was on this
- plan commission. We consolidate the tips and we were misled to where those funds were going to go and
- they're not used in the areas they were used in before. And I want to make sure that if we're going
- to do a tip for Hopewell the money goes into Hopewell for infrastructure and improvements to that area.
- Water sewers storm sidewalks street trees whatever that means. It seems like we've lost purpose on our
- tips a long time ago.
- And that's why that's where these questions come from if we're gonna bond a TIF for Hopewell. I hope
- it's used for Hopewell Yes, the the funds generated the revenues generated from the Hopewell TIF even
- though the bonds are being Supported by the consolidate dated tip where the money comes from that actually
- pays those is irrelevant and so
- we can use the funds generated from the Hopewell TIF to the extent that they can pay towards that bond,
- towards the bond, plus use the funds from the consolidated TIF where there's a deficiency to pay on
- those bonds. And to the extent that we've used consolidated fund bonds to pay our consolidated TIF funds
- to pay for those bonds, those could be, if the expenses were tracked,
- Could be paid back. Yeah to the consolidated to the second on the consent agenda. You're moving a bunch
- of parcels from the TIF This these are not these parcels I because I mapped them They're a bunch of
- just random. There's a lot of parcels that you're removing from the consolidated TIF Can you address
- that real quick of why we're doing that? Explain how that's hurts the funding the reason for removing
- those parcels I'm almost done. We're on the second one
- I just want to understand why remove the parcels. It didn't make sense. I'm very sorry. I have a thing
- where my mouth is dry. In removing the parcels from the consolidated to the residential parcels, up
- until last year, the way the software worked at the auditor's office per the guidance of the DLGF
- There was this balancing because these residential properties, you cannot capture that incremental increase
- in value. So there was this balancing that they were able to do with the properties that they could
- capture to have a net effect and balance that out.
- then the DLGF changed the guidance on how to use that software. So now, by leaving those parcels in,
- if we leave them in, it actually decreases the revenue by approximately $360,000 per year of RDC revenue.
- Now, the details of how that software works, I apologize, it's way, way beyond me.
- but our reading financial group has explained that this is a problem that everyone that has residential
- properties in TIF districts that are based on commercial TIFs is having to deal with and are taking
- these kind of steps to remove the residential properties from their TIF areas. It's a way to balance that
- Actually, it's a more correct way to do it since they're not supposed to be captured anyway This just
- takes them out of the system. Okay, last question. I promise last question I've had discussions about
- the commercial versus residential TIFFs in different communities What's impacting when you do a residential
- TIFF that increase in revenue? reduces income somewhere else What gets impacted by us capturing the?
- residential revenue because I assume is hopeful builds out we're gonna
- We're gonna add to this. So if we're gonna do a residential TIF over Hopewell, what's the what's the
- negative impact on other things? What gets hit by that? Yes, there is a tax impact Analysis that really
- financial just completed today That will be going out Let me see if I can find that
- And whenever you look at a TIF and estimated impacts, it's estimated based on the fact what would happen
- if you didn't put in the infrastructure, if you didn't put this in a TIF, it weren't able to develop
- this, and it would just grow in its condition as it was. And so the
- Impact to tax impact overlapping areas would be for the Bloomington Civil City $3,918 and for rate-driven
- funds impact $13,497 for for the city This is not actual loss of revenues
- But is a hypothetical impact of eliminating the allocation area After it wouldn't have generated Let
- me ask a question different way I was in a discussion where a school system fought back against a residential
- tip because it said it affected their revenue I don't know if that's true or not So my question really
- is is if you do a residential TIF overlay in this whole Hopewell area That revenue is captured by the
- city and used for whatever we want to use it for whatever the TIF says
- But that revenue would have gone somewhere else if this gets developed and there's no tip it would have
- gone somewhere else What's the impact? What is what is what is losing funds? Yes at the end of the TIFF
- period Then all of the funds the incremental funds would then go to the underlying area tax
- taxing authorities so at that point in time
- The increase that wouldn't have been there had it not been for the tip being created in the first place
- Will now have been created and will now go to the schools will now go to the city will now go to the
- county But the increase is happening. Anyway, I'm sorry. The increase is happening. Anyway, that's I'm
- just asking what's the impact? Anna Killian Hanson hand director also from RDC
- Last year we do we do an annual evaluation of this like what is the impact to the school systems and
- last year the consolidated TIF in gen like the entire consolidated TIF impacted MCCSE by $40,000 total
- compared to What it generated and it's the circuit breakers as well, right? Is there a difference in
- residential commercial? Yes
- We've met with the school system. They're supportive of Hopewell South. They really need students to
- live in Bloomington Yeah, so bringing in housing is a positive thing from their perspective. Yeah Okay,
- well this staff report was just limited and I was just curious about this question. So I'm good. I'm
- good I just want to I just want to be clear. Thank you. All right any other questions about the consent
- agenda Is there any public comment on the consent agenda I
- online comments All right, we're back to the Commission then for a any final comment or motion Both
- items on the consent agenda Forward with a Positive recommendation Second
- Yeah, just need a motion to approve the consent agenda Motion to approve the consent agenda both items.
- All right Let's call the roll on the motion to approve the consent agenda Braille. Yes Seabour yes,
- Korotky. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Smith. Yes Stossberg. Yes Whistler. Yes
- Yes All right consent agenda is approved we are now on to our petitions for the evening first position
- first petition is Related from the Redevelopment Commission. This is request for primary plat approval
- and some partial plat vacation and Eric Grulick is case manager take it away Eric
- Thank you. This is a request from the Redevelopment Commission for a property at 617 East First Street.
- This is in the same area that we were just discussing with the tip discussion. This is for the Hopewell
- PUD. This is a continuation of the development plan that was approved by the Planning Commission and
- City Council earlier this year.
- The petitioners are here tonight to request a primary plat approval for 65 lots within the 6.3 acres.
- Also requested is a partial plat vacation for three lots from the Dixie Highway subdivision and then
- also a request for a waiver from the required tree plot width along First Street. So as I mentioned,
- this is a request to subdivide the property in accordance with the PUD.
- The PUD, just for everybody's kind of refreshment, is shown on the screen here. It was predominantly
- a residential PUD with the east half of the site being used for possible reuse for possibly the police
- department. That use has still not been solidified, but that particular aspect is not before us tonight.
- We are simply looking at a subdivision plan to come forward and create the lots
- that were envisioned with this PUD. So with the primary plat approval, we look at right away to be dedicated
- lots that are shown on here to ensure that they are consistent with the preliminary plan, as well as
- all the infrastructure that was shown and approved with that development as well. There were several
- reasonable conditions that were associated with the PUD that the petitioner has addressed in
- their construction plans and reflected on the primary plat
- So this PUD had several unique cross-sections that were shown within it for all of the internal streets
- as well as for the new street typology shown within this PUD for the lanes. The lanes are the east-west
- streets that move through here that function very similar to alleys. However, they were shown to be
- platted within 20 feet of right of way. And so those are shown moving through the development.
- This site has frontage on several adjacent public streets first Street to the north Roger Street to
- the east Wiley Street to the south and also featured the construction and reconstruction of two internal
- roads Jackson and Fairview so both Jackson and fear we will have additional right of way platted.
- Again as I mentioned the petitioner has made the changes to the plan in accordance with the reasonable
- conditions which listed six foot sidewalks and five foot tree plots within the interior Jackson and
- Fairview streets. There is an internal corridor that moves through here for common space and green space
- as well as an eight foot sidewalk that moves through the site.
- So the petitioner has come forward as I mentioned with this plat Showing all of the lots and right away
- that are required to be dedicated the PUD was very unique in terms of no minimum lot size or lot area
- requirement The side yard setbacks were also shown at zero except along the edges of the PUD one of
- the other unique aspects of this petition also featured a
- somewhat of a shared parking situation where parking spaces straddle a property line, so there are parking
- easements that are shown on the plat as well just to show those being legitimized. A detention area,
- the majority of the detention will be handled in an underground detention in the northeast
- portion of the site so that is shown on a drainage easement as well to accomplish that The petitioner
- is still working through all of their stormwater calculations and approvals from City of Bloomington
- utilities However, CBU has indicated that there should not be any problems meeting all of their stormwater
- detention and water quality requirements but that will be verified with the secondary plan approval
- so you can see here on this exhibit the detention that's shown in the northeast corner of
- Of the overall site. This would be under an underground or under the parking area So this would be shown
- in a drainage easement As I mentioned there are several adjacent public roads First Street to the north
- First Street was recently constructed by the city With a tree plot and sidewalk after the PUD was approved
- there were a lot of concerns from within the community as well as the
- Department and city as a whole about being able to provide Parking for some of the uses on here. So
- the city is exploring or has shown the creation of a limited amount of on-street parking along the south
- side of first Street So one of the aspects to this request is a waiver From the required five-foot tree
- plot adjacent to some of those on-street spaces when the first Street project was installed There was
- a sidewalk
- that was installed, as well as a new water line that was laid along First Street. So the sidewalk was
- placed over that water line. There was a compliant tree plot installed with street trees. However, with
- the addition of the on-street spaces, the city was certainly very concerned about moving a brand new
- water line further to the south, which would then require the sidewalk to go even further south into
- these lots in order to get
- A tree plot with street trees in there. So the petitioner is requesting a waiver from that required
- tree plot with For the areas where those on-street spaces will be created The on-street spaces are are
- very limited along the west side of the site You can see those new spaces spaces that will be created
- And then along the Sorry, I'm sure I'm sure I'm getting feedback
- Sorry about that. So you can see that the on-street spaces are shown along just limited portions of
- those frontages along First Street. So the impacts from that reduced tree plot width adjacent to those
- on-street spaces will be very limited. The presence of the on-street spaces still provides the separation
- from vehicular traffic that would be accomplished by that tree plot. And the street trees would be placed
- on the south side
- Of that sidewalk in order to fulfill the street tree requirement, but they are requesting a waiver to
- not allow or not require that five foot tree plot adjacent to those on street spaces. So with that.
- Obviously, we review this for all of the standards of the PUD, as well as for any of the standards that
- the PUD didn't address. This is held to the traditional subdivision type that is outlined within the
- UDO. This meets all of the requirements of the PUD. It is dedicating the right of way along the adjacent
- street frontages.
- That is required per the preliminary plan and as modified with the reasonable conditions So with that
- we are recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed findings With the waiver request
- with the five conditions that are listed in staff's report and I'm happy to answer any questions Thank
- you. Are there any questions from commissioners? Mr. Stossberg Yeah, I've got a few first of all, how
- many parking spaces does that actually add?
- The on-street spaces, you know it with on-street spaces. We don't delineate those unless it's a metered
- zone So in this case here, I'm just ballparking the petition can correct me if wrong. I'm guessing maybe
- 20 And What about the trees that are have already been planted there? Yep. So there is a street tree
- plan There are a lot of those existing trees that would be preserved
- Especially for the ones that are on the east and the west side of the on-street spaces that are proposed
- The ones that are there that are current they do show I think some of those to be relocated So there
- will be an effort certainly we can ask a petitioner if I'm said anything incorrectly So One of the things
- that said in the staff memo was about the
- This parking space issue was that trees would be planted between on the other side of the sidewalk
- essentially Wouldn't that basically be in people's front yards? No, so you can see on this exhibit here.
- This is the the street tree exhibit So you've got the sidewalk and then there is I'd say probably six
- to seven feet between the edge of the sidewalk and the property line and what is going to differentiate
- the edge of the street and the property line for the normal person and
- who is in that space and using that space. If I'm gonna walk down there, how am I to know that the tree
- is in the right-of-way versus in somebody's front yard? Yeah, so there would still be a little bit of
- space between the tree and the right-of-way line if I'm understanding you're correct. No, I guess part
- of it is I'm looking 20, 30 years down the road and I'm going, oh, there's a tree in somebody's front yard.
- and it's technically a city tree, but would a homeowner who moved in there not realize that's a city
- tree and cut it down, for example? And I think that there's, you know, I mean, we're putting a tree
- plot essentially in somebody's front yard, and you know what, it's not that different, I don't think,
- from, I mean, my neighborhood that I'm in doesn't actually have sidewalks, but there is significant
- right of way
- For the city that most of my neighbors don't even realize exists. Yep, certainly I hear what you're
- saying and you know, it is close obviously it's in Important for the property owners to know where their
- property line is, but it would be right on that line or pretty close to it Okay I have another question
- that's unrelated to the tree thing Please continue. Yeah
- So under your in the staff memo under the PUD dimensional standards the Wiley setback is described as
- having a 12 foot setback, but at the council level because the council Had a reasonable condition to
- not have this sort of monolithic sidewalk along Wiley that I was just talking about and so we amended
- that setback on Wiley to
- Potentially decrease as is necessary to be able along Wiley to put in a proper tree plot between the
- parking spaces and the sidewalk and I don't see that reflected in your Memo and I'm not sure that I
- see that reflected on the platted image of
- Yep, so the the cross section that is shown for Wiley Street includes a five-foot tree plot in a six-foot
- sidewalk So the building setback line stayed with what they initially showed The exhibit you're talking
- about why we discuss it, thank you
- So here is the the Wiley Street cross section So the the left side of the screen here would be the north
- side of the street So it's showing the five foot tree plot and then six foot sidewalk beyond that So
- I can go to the Okay, and but where is it on the actual like image a couple slides before this? Yep
- Let me switch to a different view
- I guess I'm kind of confused about how That 12 foot setback on Wiley was managed to be maintained Given
- that we had to insert the tree plot because in the original petition there was no tree plot at all like
- all of those trees were going to be like that are currently they're existing we're going to be in somebody's
- property and so that was why there was the additional 12 foot setback along Wiley and
- So that then we would make sure that those Dwelling units were not flush right up against the sidewalk
- Yep, so this is kind of a zoomed-in exhibit of the the Wiley Street frontage So the the property line
- as you can see here runs along This north side of the sidewalk. So you've got a six foot sidewalk Five
- foot tree plot and then the 12 foot setback is here
- once again like so there was actually space in there all along to maintain that setback and So the PUD
- initially showed a 15-foot setback for Wiley Street Initially it was I think it was modified but it
- did show a 15-foot setback to keep all of those trees Because those are kind of a little bit further
- deeper into the lot so initially it did show a 15-foot setback and so I think that 12 foot was then
- modified with the reasonable condition you're talking about and
- Okay, so it so it so it did drop then from 15 to 12 Yeah, I believe that's what the reasonable condition
- address the reasonable condition just was really vague. It just said, you know Lessen it as is necessary
- to create the tree plot. Yeah, it was We didn't know at the time how much it might need to be reduced
- in order to create the tree plot Yep. So, you know the reasonable condition and this was reasonable
- condition number 10 B You know had four
- Aspects to it number one the PUD streets standards and street sections including Wiley Street and Jackson
- Street cross sections will be updated as necessary To reflect a tree plot minimum with the five feet
- located between the sidewalk and drive lane And then the last one is front setbacks along Wiley and
- block 9 may be decreased as necessary To accommodate the additional right-of-way dedication So as I
- mentioned they're dedicating approximately four feet of additional right-of-way on Wiley in order to
- place the tree plot and the sidewalk in the right-of-way
- Okay. I guess I'm still a little bit confused about how that is demarcated on this slide that I'm looking
- at because the section by the former convalescent center looks the exact same in terms of the markings
- as it does in front of the homes over there in terms of where the roadway is versus
- parking versus the tree plot versus the sidewalk and my understanding was that we can't That there are
- space issues down there because there's currently a monolithic sidewalk over there Yeah, and certainly
- the the petitioner's representative might be able to specifically address the most more detailed questions
- once they've had a chance to speak if you got additional questions
- I'd be happy to jump in there. I think you're correct. I think that this was a miss on the latest submission
- from the civil. I do believe that there is a larger setback that is still retained, but I think you're
- right, it's not 12 feet. So in the site plans here, you can see that there is a, the remaining roadway
- width is staying on Wiley. The tree plot and sidewalk have been adjusted
- heard the city council comments, but the setback in the front, the buildings are still sitting where
- they were before, but I think you're absolutely right. I think that that setback line is not currently
- shown at 12 feet, although the homes are shown or they were previously. So I think that's an administrative
- catch that needs to be caught up between civil submission and the way that the PD came back in.
- Answer your questions. Yeah kind of but if we consider that sort of like the equivalent of a typo on
- a primary plat like Can we approve a primer primary plat with essentially a typo like I don't know.
- That's a real question. I don't know Who should answer that? Depending on in the alley can weigh in
- on this depending on how much it affects you could add a condition that it needs to be corrected before secondary
- The majority of you want to move it forward this evening now Ali miss Quinlan may be able to speak to
- What that change would entail what the effect is? I Think that would be a really clean way to solve
- that is we can change that reference to the setback
- And coordinate with civil to see exactly where it is that they they've got it set right now. It's back
- of sidewalk I would be weary to give you an exact dimension not having that file able to measure to
- specifically but that I think that's a really reasonable way that can be fixed before secondary submission
- Thank you, I might have more questions in a minute but Let me just
- Pause for a second. I jumped right into questions Assuming that we had heard the whole presentation,
- but is there anyone from the petitioner that wants to? Has some additional presentation materials tonight
- Hello, good evening Kendall Kenoki engineering department I am representing the Redevelopment Commission
- as we start our as the petitioner we have several other folks here on the team as well tonight and
- But I can get us kicked off. I have a little presentation to share with you, but I can just start maybe
- with talking about Wiley Street, and we are showing a five-foot tree plot and a six-foot sidewalk. There
- is no setback shown on the plat. The line that everyone's kind of looking at is an existing feature
- on the site, an edge of pavement, something like that. It's not a setback line if you look at the plat.
- There's no setback line shown on Wiley. So there's nothing there to be changed or updated. We're just
- simply not showing the setback along Wiley Street. But anyway, I can get into my presentation and I'm
- happy to answer more questions on this. Let me go ahead and share my screen. So I just wanted to kind of
- Everyone know where we were at. So after the PUD was approved this Project kind of got handed over to
- the engineering department to handle the platting the detailed construction documents and then the bidding
- and construction phase of the project So I kind of right here just wanted to show you where we're at.
- So we're currently at primary plat still the upcoming is the PUD final plan approval the secondary plat
- approval and
- And then all of our permitting so there's a lot of conditions of approval that were a part of the original
- Plan Commission approval for the PUD as well as the City Council approval that you know talk about At
- the PUD final plan stage. This will be done at the primary plat stage. This will be done so I just kind
- of wanted to confirm that we are here at primary plat and We still have you know more steps upcoming
- after this so I've kind of given some approximate dates here, but I anticipate that
- August through October we'll go through permitting and then bidding and construction will happen in
- November so construction happening after that so just to give everyone kind of an idea of Where we're
- at and then I just briefly wanted to touch on maybe what's changed since the PUD came to you before
- You know at that point it was more of a zoning request and now we're here at the primary plat Phase
- so I just wanted to go through the plan Commission conditions of approval that
- We're a part of the PUD. There's really only two that apply to the primary plat the drainage plan and
- then the Phasing plan. So I just wanted to kind of very briefly give a high-level drain Eric kind of
- touched on this as well, but stormwater detention is handled on the 714 South Rogers property through
- a underground detention basin that's going to be installed as part of the infrastructure installation
- for this project and
- This is going to be sized to accommodate both watersheds from the property. So there's kind of an east
- and a west drainage basin Fairview's kind of the ridgeline CBU has approved and actually suggested a
- Set up where we are going to pump the west drainage basin over to the stormwater detention area so that
- that's kind of a cool feature of this project there's going to be a
- Storm water quality units for both the east and the west basins that I've kind of shown there So those
- will be sized to treat all of the required storm water quality runoff volumes for the project And typically
- when you do that you have to pay a payment in lieu the goal is in these two areas that I have indicated
- as green infrastructure to Install as much green infrastructure as we can fit to kind of reduce that
- payment in lieu amount we don't think that we can
- Provide all of what's typically required, but we're gonna try to fit as much in as we can So those are
- the two areas that have kind of been identified after extensive coordination with CBU as good locations
- where they will take over the maintenance of that So just kind of wanted to go over the drainage plan
- and then phasing plan, you know we looked at breaking this into different phases, but it's such a urban
- tight site everything kind of depends on everything else and
- Just wasn't really prudent to break it up into different phases So the phasing plan is that it's all
- going to be constructed in one phase all of the infrastructure so that includes all the Modifications
- to existing roadways all of the new roadways all of the sidewalks everything along the existing roadways
- including around the 714 building project site So everything you see here is going to get built at one
- time as part of one phase and
- And then just briefly the City Council conditions of approval That apply again a phasing plan, which
- I just described Eric kind of touched on this but the Sidewalks six foot sidewalks five foot tree plot.
- We've done that everywhere Internal sidewalks have been upsized to eight feet wide. We've done that
- everywhere as you can see here on the plan Let's see what else changed here
- Yeah, five foot tree plot was another one One of their reasonable conditions was about Traffic calming
- and a 10 mile per hour design speed for the lanes. So we were working through various options that we're
- going to present to the RDC but kind of our our recommended solution that we're going to talk to the
- RDC about is kind of a combination of race crosswalks accessible race speed tables and visually narrowing
- the travel lane, so
- The travel lane will kind of either be asphalt or stamped concrete and then flush concrete walks on
- either side, so it's still a 20 foot wide driveway for fire, but it kind of visually looks like a 12
- foot wide drive lane. And also understanding that this is an accessible lane, so ensuring that there's
- accessible routes on both sides of the street for wheelchair users.
- So, and hoping, depending on what the RDC would like to do, maybe making it a little bit more visually
- appealing than just an asphalt drive. But obviously, the economics of that will come into play. So,
- yeah, with that, I think that's the main thing. So what you see here is the primary plat and the associated
- construction drawings. I will stop sharing my screen here.
- Am happy to answer any questions. We also have others on the team who can answer questions and thank
- you very much Thank you back to the Commission any further questions either for staff or for the petitioner
- go ahead Commissioner Kinsey Yeah, my question is a little bit about the statement in the packet that
- indicates this decision about the tree plot removal was based on a
- To meet the parking needs of the area and I wonder if someone could elaborate a little bit on What the
- parking needs are how they were determined Whose needs are these just so we have a little bit
- more understanding of this because I do think that this is a large Shift so I'd like to know a little
- bit more about that Yeah, there may be others who want to speak to it, but I think the primary concern
- is the impacts to the existing neighborhood You know, there's been concerns about
- Those streets filling up with vehicles from this development. Of course, this is a great location. It's
- very walkable. It's very bikeable Transit and grocery store nearby. However, you know, they're just
- there are concerns about you know, the number of units that are being introduced in this development and so
- The idea and this was a priority of the RDC Which is why we looked at it was to kind of look at our
- options for parking So even though first Street was recently reconstructed, you know is there an opportunity
- there to provide a little bit more to help ease some of the Parking on the existing parking impacts
- on the existing neighborhood So it so it sounds just so I'm clarifying this it's the residents the presumed
- residents of Hopewell so that they are
- Not parking cars or having people park in the neighboring communities if that's correct That is correct.
- Sorry Anna Killian Hansen hand So when we were having neighborhood meetings with the adjacent neighborhood,
- this became a theme and
- that they were discussing how folks were already parking in their neighborhood and what would happen
- now that we have New residents and could we expand parking anyway in any way? And this was the easiest
- place to put it and especially next to the larger Buildings that we have though to Faulkner plans. So
- it was a request from the adjacent homeowner It was our our effort to try and accommodate their request.
- Okay. Yeah, I I
- And there's no I mean, you know, it's I'm looking at some of the Google map images and the You know,
- it certainly seems that where this is being specified There's not really any commercial although,
- you know, it's hard to know what's going to go on into some of that area to the I guess it's east Side,
- I don't know. It's so I was trying to determine if it was residential parking that we were talking about
- if it was more of the commercial structures that could be
- Also impacted but it sounds like it's neighborhood or residents parking Or in Hopewell, yes,
- that's correct. And if you look at the history of the site as the hospital Former hospital parking the
- neighborhood had struggled for a long time with a lot of people parking on their streets And so if you
- look at it right now, it's there's no one parking on the streets and I'm sure they're enjoying that
- So our goal is to not bring it back to that hospital style parking impact
- Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Is there someone that can answer that better? I don't have those numbers
- off the top of my head. Ali, if you're online, maybe that's good for you.
- In terms of parking account per unit. No, I think you just want to break down of. Yeah, like number
- of units and what how many of each style of unit? Yes, I I can pull that. I can pull that spreadsheet up.
- I don't have exact counts on the final number of parking spaces that Civil was able to add to the first
- street, but it does look like we have approximately half of our units are one-bedroom units, and then
- around a quarter of the units are two-bedroom or three-bedroom, and we are parking those at approximately
- a little over one space per bedroom, around 1.15 spaces per bedroom, so trying to accommodate both
- Parking for residents as well as some guest parking touched throughout the neighborhood Yeah, we're
- just trying to remind myself a housing mix Okay, one other question you mentioned a pump to pump stormwater
- over and you mentioned green green Infrastructure Who's gonna maintain that? CBU will maintain it. This
- was a surprise to me that they wanted to do this but when we looked at some of the other options for
- detention and
- For the west basin they were all very expensive very deep getting into bedrock and this kind of emerged
- as a really actually attractive option to pump stormwater over to the basin and the If the pump were
- it was not working for some reason the stormwater would just continue down first Street and flood route
- down first Street as it does now so
- This is actually what CBU suggested that we do CBU is gonna take over the stormwater maintenance CBU
- is gonna take over the detention for the entire subdivision all the green infrastructure and the pump
- and all of the piping for Hopewell But nowhere else Like throughout the city is that what you're asking?
- Well, yeah, there seems to be this whole movement where we pay a stormwater fee but they're going after
- neighborhoods to fix their stormwater enforcing on the HOA's and
- That's what my question was. I was hoping I was concerned at the HOA for hope I would have to maintain
- this green infrastructure in this this pump and you're saying No, we're making exception for the city
- project. I Can't speak to that. But yes, CBU is going to maintain all of the infrastructure. That isn't
- that is intriguing It's good for this but that's gonna raise questions about the rest of it. Okay Any
- other questions from commissioners Mr. Stossberg
- Thank you. This goes back to the to the waiver that y'all are requesting one of the So for Plain Commission's
- knowledge in case you didn't watch all of those council hearings there was extensive conversation around
- tree plots and sidewalks at those council hearings and and one of councilmember Flaherty's reasonable
- conditions was that
- The PD street standards and street sections will be updated to reflect a six foot minimum sidewalk width
- for all streets except Roger Street and lanes and I think and and then the other reasonable condition
- that's related to this is what Eric said about The the Wiley Street to update
- tree plots minimum width of five feet located between the sidewalk and drive lane for all portions of
- the right-of-way located within the PUD and I think that this seems this waiver seems like a major deviation
- from what council approved based on that What is the like legal? Basis that planning Commission has
- for say a major deviation in this way can
- Anybody from legal answer that and I see our counsel attorney over there right now and I'm not I would
- also welcome My counsel attorney's legal position on this. Thank you Dana Kerr, I also assist with the
- planning department and I'm not aware of this deviation so I
- I'm sorry I can't provide an answer to that tonight. I'll have to look at what the deviation is and
- what the reasonable condition was it was placed on there and see what the variation is. Our council
- attorney is making his way over for those online.
- If if staff needs a few minutes to confer we can move on to another question come back to this maybe
- It's that all right Promise we'll get back to do you have any other questions Commissioner Sasberg?
- Unrelated I probably do but let's let other all right any other commissioners that have Questions for
- the petitioner No
- I did remember the other one that I had. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Um, and this one actually is for I can't
- remember your last name Kendall. Okay On your slides. It's I Let me get back to it so that then I actually
- Say what it is that I mean you highlighted under the conditions of approval that the drainage plan
- Meets the requirements would need to be submitted with final plan or primary plot approval and this
- of course is the primary plot approval but I guess I got a little bit lost in there as to what I thought
- that I heard was that CBU hasn't actually approved it yet, but is like most of the way to approving
- it and I can't
- tell whether that condition has actually been met here, because you also said like, well, we're not
- really having phases, but that makes the entire thing phase one in my mind, as opposed to just not having
- phases. And so I guess I'm trying to understand whether that condition of approval has actually been
- met, because usually when we get petitions that involve CBU-related stuff, when that has been met, we
- get some kind of a document
- of cbus that cbu is like reviewed the stuff and it's one of those documents that I Understand about
- this much of But I usually see it. So can you speak to that? Sure, and maybe slower than the first time.
- Yeah, sir. Sorry So I asked cbu the question with the reasonable condition I are the condition of approval
- from Plain Commission said, you know, are we at a point where you're comfortable saying? Yes, you approve
- our drainage plan and they said yes, I do have that
- in an email if I mean in order to get the in writing but essentially we just need to go through the
- the detailed, you know calculations for the detention area and the kind of the finalized details for
- everything but Ultimately, they have given their their approval to our overall drainage plan Okay, I
- guess the question that I have and maybe not for you so I don't know this is a time for it but maybe
- it's to the rest of my commissioners and
- If this petition was a private developer, would we be assuming that this was all kosher if we didn't
- have something in writing from CBU within our packet? I don't know what the answer to that is necessarily,
- but it feels like we put that condition on. It's not that I don't believe you, but it's that I'm trying
- to treat this petition like every other petition that we would get from a private developer, and I'm
- not sure that we would accept that, thanks.
- Any other questions? All right, I'll tell you what, we're gonna go on to public comment and hopefully
- we'll come back to the pending question earlier once we've completed public comment. So if you are here
- to speak to this petition, make your way to the podium, state your name for the record. You'll have
- three minutes to speak.
- If you're joining us online, just click on the reactions button, click raise hand, and we'll recognize
- you when it is your turn to speak. Is there any public comment? Yeah, I think our meeting host is tied
- up, so I do see that we have a couple of online folks who've raised their hands, so bear with us. We'll
- unmute you.
- momentarily here. Ms. Rosenberger, you should be able to unmute. Hi, can you hear me? Yep, thank you.
- Hi, thank you. Kate Rosenberger here, City Council District 2. This is my district. Thanks for having me.
- Hey, I just wanted to try to make a lot of points in my three minutes. I don't see a timer. Do you guys
- not have a timer? We're putting it up right now. Okay. First, I wanna say council has had extensive
- public comment and debate on this and where we landed was this tree plot, this existing tree plot and
- this existing sidewalk and no parking on the street. The MPO recently,
- redesigned these blocks of First Street. It was a multi-million dollar project that got done and the
- petitioner is asking to tear that up to add parking places. These parking places will also come at about
- $18,000 per space and this is a project where the administration or the petitioner has asked repeatedly
- to keep costs down for the project.
- A tree plot on the other side of the sidewalk is not a tree plot. That is not a thing. It is just someone's
- front yard. There are multiple reasons that we have tree plots in our comprehensive plan and in our
- transportation plan and in our climate action plan. And those include keeping things cool for residents.
- And they also include another layer of safety between cars and people on the sidewalk.
- This PUD, I think you all know, was very contentious. And there were multiple reasonable conditions
- that were negotiated with the petitioner, the mayor, and the RDC, and city legal, to get this approved.
- It would not have been approved without those reasonable conditions. And the petitioner is asking you
- to violate a reasonable condition of this PUD. I do not think that's OK.
- I would also argue that this is not a minor change to the PUD, in which case you don't get to vote on
- it. So different, you know, city legal is going to say this is minor. Our legal will say this is major
- potentially. I mean, nobody knows. So I don't think that's okay.
- What we do in neighborhoods where we have any kind of parking problems or zone permits. I actually just
- got an email from a constituent today in the Elm Heights parking zone. We offer zone permits to people
- to park near their house right and that is a possibility but right now we have like
- At least potentially one person who lives nearby who is afraid of potential parking problems on a street
- that currently does not allow parking on this side And and like I don't think that's a reason to tear
- up a multi-million dollar project that is less than a year old I would also say I live in prospect hill
- along roger street. We have had parking there for decades between second And third no one parks there um so
- I do wanna say this was debated, hotly debated in our council meetings. It was approved with this reasonable
- condition. 10 seconds. And other bodies, what? Like the Commission on Sustainability approved it as
- is. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other online requests for comment?
- Yes. Hello. Ms. Piedmont-Smith. Yes, thank you. I got the request to unmute, so I figured it was my
- turn. My name is Isabel Piedmont-Smith. I serve on the City Council at District 1, and I agree with
- my colleague, Council Member Rosenberger, that the request to waive installation of a tree plot along
- 1st Street
- part of the first street frontage directly contradicts reasonable condition number 10B that was adopted
- by the common council to approve this PUD. Item one in that reasonable condition says the PUD street
- standards and street sections will be updated as necessary to reflect a tree plot minimum width of five
- feet located between the sidewalk and drive lane for all portions of right of way located within the PUD.
- I'm just baffled that the petitioner would ask to ask for this waiver when specifically it was a condition
- of our approval that we have the tree plot along First Street and the other streets in the development.
- The parking concerns that were mentioned as the reason for
- the parking to be added on the south side of First Street. Those parking concerns, I believe, came up
- before this went to the Common Council. I live in the McDowell Gardens neighborhood and I know one or
- two people in the neighborhood did express that before this PUD came to the council. So I don't know why that
- wasn't considered previously or brought to us. I mean, it should have been part of the plan that was
- brought to us. And since it was not, what we approved should stand. Furthermore, having lived in the
- neighborhood for quite some time, I don't really understand the concern that some neighbors may have
- expressed.
- And tree plots are very valuable to creating a walkable neighborhood and to acting as a carbon sink
- in our constantly warming climate. So I encourage you to vote against this petition and make sure that
- they remove the waiver of the tree plot before bringing it back before this body. Thank you. Thank you.
- Mr. Flaherty should be able to unmute. Thank you, hello. My name's Matt Flaherty. I serve on the Bloomington
- City Council. I'm an at-large representative. I'm going to echo some of the comments and share additional
- perspectives with respect to the proposal here from the petitioner to grant a waiver for the tree plot
- and yeah, the tree plot standards on First Street. I think it's an express violation of a reasonable
- condition passed by the City Council.
- And I request that the Planning Commission reject the proposal as stated and reject the proposed findings
- of staff unless you can amend them to change this particular portion. So the reasonable condition imposed
- by council is that the PUD street standards and street sections will be updated as necessary to reflect
- a tree plot minimum with the five feet located between the sidewalk and drive lane for all portions
- of right of way located within the PUD. I don't think this is even legally permissible.
- you're potentially inviting a legal challenge if you pass this. There is a process for land commission
- to grant subdivision waivers. And there's criteria for that, including request is based on unique criteria
- that are unique to the property. I don't think that's true here. We heard the rationale is that some
- surrounding nearby neighbors are concerned about parking ostensibly. So there's kind of a theoretical
- fear or concern that is not unique to this property. I would argue you don't meet the conditions imposed
- by the UDO for subdivision waivers. But in any case, I don't know if you can grant a waiver here because
- this isn't a standard waiver of code. It is a attempt to override and expressly violate a reasonable
- condition passed by the City Council as a condition of approval of the planned unit development in the
- first place. This was discussed extensively. I can assure you with extremely high confidence based on
- the many conversations we had,
- that if this design on First Street to get rid of the tree plot in favor of on street parking that would
- tear up a recently built city project with a waste of city dollars, if that had been proposed, we would
- not have accepted it. We would have changed it and we would not have approved the PUD if that wasn't
- changed. I also would invite you to consider whether you would be supporting this for any petitioner
- other than the city, an element of the city of Bloomington.
- I think the kind of self-dealing and special exceptions for how we're treating the city as a petitioner
- with this particular PUD has been part of the problem and contentiousness all along. It's sad to me
- to see that that is still continuing to be the case. I would also suggest that, again, this is a largely
- theoretical concern about parking. I believe we heard that 1.15 spaces per bedroom will already
- be incorporated into the site. That is very high. So I don't think the concern is well-founded.
- I would just say it's hard to overstate how much approval this proposal would further erode What little
- trust remains and mayor Thompson and some of her staff to engage with the City Council in good faith
- again? We debated all this already. We made a decision and encourage you to reject this part of the
- plan. Thanks. Thank you Are there any other any additional public comment? Sorry, just
- Scanlon do we have any other one more online? Okay Mr. Ammerman you should be able to unmute Hi, yes,
- I'm Zach Ammerman Bloomington resident. I just wanted to comment on this My understanding is that the
- street that this we're talking about here was redesigned and rebuilt like last year and Multi-million
- millions of dollars were spent on on this design and now we're gonna rip up a big part of it that sounds like
- the city's wanting, or at least the mayor's administration is wanting, in order to put parking spaces
- in. I think that is cuckoo bananas crazy, to put it shortly, to put it short. I have, I've been working
- on a project on Bloomington's canopy, urban canopy, and I independently kind of verify going back, looking
- at geo data, I make maps for a living, and I deal with data for a living, and I look back, I'm very
- interested in the canopy, and I found that Bloomington has lost about 200 acres of canopy over the past 25 years,
- the vast majority of it from development. Now, I'm not opposed to all development, but this is exactly
- the sort of decision right here that is crazy and is why we're losing acres of trees of urban canopy
- every year in a context of climate change that is crazy, especially if you're doing it to build parking
- spaces so that people can store their private property in public space.
- To take trees down for that. I think it is crazy And I think it's just another example the mayor seeming
- to go out of her way to pick fights with the City Council And I think make decisions that are contrary
- to the benefit of the whole city. So I urge you to oppose this. Thank you Thank you Last call for public
- comment Can I make a public comment heard? What who am I? Part of the petitioner but
- I can wait Yeah, give me just yeah, just one minute Were you wanting to speak to the the legal question
- or something? But I do want to speak to what has happened with this process, okay All right, if there's
- no more public comment Okay All right, we'll come right back to thank the mayor for I
- Allowing me to speak of my apologies since I'm not a staff member. I thought I was a member of the public
- So thank you for recognizing me for my three minutes I'm trying to clarify this issue just in talking
- about it one just as my understanding from staff And I maybe I'm just repeating what we already know
- here is that the tree plot itself is not actually being removed
- from that portion of First Street, that it is being, though, swapped behind the sidewalk. So the tree
- plot as a five-foot tree plot would be preserved. However, it would just be instead of being between
- the sidewalk and the street, it would go behind the sidewalk. So it would still be along First Street.
- We do acknowledge that the language of the reasonable condition includes that there shall be a five-foot
- tree plot that shall be between the sidewalk and the street. I've been
- We're conferring about the if there is a process even to allow for minor deviations from that or whether
- it needs to be an amendment I think everyone agrees that the what what is wanted is the trees to be
- preserved to the maximum extent possible for there to be a five-foot tree plot or
- Along this street. So I think that and staff I would like to clarify this to make sure I'm being accurate
- and what I've heard here That's my understanding of what this particular change is. It is not a full
- removal of the tree plot altogether It is more of a transposition of where those trees will go on the
- first street parking and I believe that in the original design There was some allowance for parking
- but that has been changed to allow a little bit of cut in on first Street since it was last finished. So that's
- I just wanted to preside that information for you in terms of what we gathered and gathering the legal
- mechanism behind the change, you know, if it is a substantive change to a reasonable condition, then
- that technically needs to go as an amendment. However, there are provisions in the UDO for minor deviations,
- but whether this qualifies or not is still an open question that I'm sure my colleagues in legal could
- happily guide you. Thank you.
- All right, if there's no more public comment, are we all done online? Jackie, thank you for pinch hitting
- there. Any more online commenters? All right, we're back to the commission then. For any additional
- questions or comments, I would like to ask a question of legal, if we have city legal staff,
- And I don't know if maybe we won't settle this tonight, but I guess the question is is whether or not
- we have the right to we have the authority as Planning Commission to Grant a waiver of something of
- this reasonable condition, right? We can grant a waiver of something that is Codified in the UDO right
- or we could grant a waiver of something that's codified in the district ordinance right and so I guess
- my question would be
- What about a reasonable condition rises to a higher standard than something that's codified in the UDO
- Does any one from legal staff want to take a crack at that They occur legal I was able to
- during the discussion to to look at the reasonable condition and to look at the request of the waiver
- and I believe that the waiver does specifically contradict the reasonable condition and I think it would
- be unadvisable for the Plan Commission to grant the waiver I think that you could you know
- with passing This forward, but I believe that it would be inadvisable for the Planning Commission to
- grant the waiver Okay Well follow up to that then how could we move this forward without the waiver
- if we're approving a plot that that that shows something that is in contradiction to the right they
- would need to
- Modify the that area to reflect pushing these sidewalk back to to allow for the Plot tree plot to be
- but in the right location. I understood from planning that that would be acceptable Yes, they wouldn't
- have to change anything tonight. You would just deny the waiver and then Whatever comes forward would
- be fully compliant with the transportation plan and the reasonable conditions
- Because and we would just it would be corrected before we do secondary plan approval. Yes, okay Well,
- this may make my next question move but it in what was proposed tonight with the tree plot being inside
- of the sidewalk Is that was that still proposed to be in city right-of-way? Yes
- Yes, the tree plot and the right away the tree plot and the sidewalk would be in right away as was shown
- here today Okay All right, so it's not in the front yards of individual Parcels that are going to be
- sold off it is in it's still proposed. Well, you propose it's still in city right away. Yes. Okay Yes
- in existing city right away. There's a five-foot minimum five-foot section with the street trees and
- I think the concern was it feels like it's your front yard, but it is legally in the city's public right
- of way. All right. Thank you any other questions Go ahead Yes, if you have more questions, go ahead
- So to to be clear, so the reason we're moving the trees is because there's a water line that
- Prevents them from being put where they would be put Yeah, we cannot plant street trees within five
- feet of the water main So if a tree plot was added there just wouldn't be street trees planted in it
- So in order to meet the requirement we would have to plant street trees on the private property That
- would not be city street trees. They would just be up to that property owner what to do with in the
- future so there's kind of the ideal situations you plant street trees in the tree plot if there's utilities and
- You plant them on the other side of the sidewalk hopefully still in the right-of-way if there's no more
- right-of-way Then you plant them in the private property. That's kind of the order of operations on
- how you meet that requirement We're not planning them in private property. I thought they just said
- we're planning them in the city's right-of-way still in this can in this case Yes, we are planting them
- in the city's right-of-way if we pulled that sidewalk back We couldn't plant them in the true plot that
- we just created So we'd have to plant them on the private property or eliminate the parking to meet
- that requirement But we're we're not doing that we're
- Planting it in still the right of way. Yes We're talking about that. I'm not sure why but we're not
- doing that But the reason we're not putting them where originally promises because there's a water main
- there So you can't plant is that not right? Am I incorrect on that? No, they are asking for a waiver
- so that they don't have to have a tree plot between the sidewalk and the street and in order to put
- the parking spots in they have to move the trees on the other side but city legal just agreed and
- That that violates the PUD and that would be open to a legal challenge So our best option right now
- is to deny the waiver buys us but we can make our own decision. Yes, correct Yes, let's try to keep
- the questions between I would think that a water main. I mean, that's not something that you can avoid
- that's inherent to the land, right and
- That I didn't see a free-for-all here you need to be recognized before you speak. Thank you. So we passed
- things before that Saying that oh we have to pass this waiver It's something inherent to the land in
- the last petition that we did. I didn't think those were this is a water main Right, we can't move that
- we can't that that's inherent to the land. That's something that's there. You can't plant trees on it
- So I think that is
- Is this correct? My original question was am I understanding this correctly, right? There's a water
- main where they want to put the trees so they want to move the trees Is that a question for staff that
- you would like to respond to question? Yes So if the parking that we're proposing to add on 1st Street
- was removed a 5-foot tree plot and a 6-foot sidewalk could be provided and trees could be planted in
- that tree plot, so that's the existing
- Condition for first Street we are proposing to add parking to the street and by doing that we've now
- shifted the tree plot You know seven or eight feet farther south which places it on top of the water
- main So that's why we're requesting to put the sidewalk on top of the water main and the street trees
- on the other side Does that answer the question? Conditions I know there were lots of conditions imposed
- as the parking itself is
- Not any of the consequences of it, but does the parking itself contradict any of the reasonable conditions
- imposed by council? My understanding is the pud on the cross section for first street has a statement
- that says parking may be added to either side of the street I'll weigh into support kendall. Yes the
- approved packet that went to city council and the final approved pud has a section for first street
- that says that if
- it is determined additional parking is needed, then parking may be added to First Street. And so we
- we were under the impression with with the waiver that this was within compliance of condition because
- the condition states that a tree plot is required between the sidewalk and the drive lane. It doesn't
- say between parking lane or between street or something in general. And so this was a
- problem solving, trying to make sure if we have the tree plot in between the sidewalk and parking lane,
- we won't have trees in it. This was the best problem solving around not needing to move the water main
- and preserving public funds. But yes, I think that's the tricky geometry here is we can get trees if
- the sidewalk is against the parking lane, we can't get trees within the city right of way if we have
- parking and tree plot and sidewalk. Thank you.
- Just mentioned that parking could be added if it was determined that it was necessary Is there a parking
- any sort of a study or any sort of performative data that led to that conclusion? I Can answer on behalf
- of the petitioner there's no parking study other than a Comparison of the number of units and the number
- of proposed parking spaces. So this isn't a necessary or required feature and
- That's correct. The project could move forward without parking on 1st Street. Yes. Thank you Is about
- the capacity to get the CBU approval and add it to this Packet I have some concerns about moving a proposal
- forward without that letter acknowledging CBU's
- Approval of this and I see it in writing and I presume that's enough but I Wonder if it can't be added
- We do have emails from Phil Peden and cat who both said that they were fine with the petitioners Proposal
- to give additional supplemental information prior to the secondary plat So we you know, we do have that
- correspondence from them directly and
- I just want to make sure that we're following procedures to the degree that we should be So to me that
- that is an important thing to either add now or add as a condition That it be a part of a secondary
- plat approval so that we can formalize this just to keep it straight And Edina Casamayan from city of
- Bloomington legal would like to
- Offer a short recess so that legal can deliberate and then come back and answer these questions How
- short maybe ten minutes five minutes All right It seems reasonable I'll move that we recess for ten minutes
- Reconvene here at let's call it 715 Thank you want to second that All right, all in favor of recessing
- for ten minutes aye aye any opposed All right reconvene in 715 All right It is 715 Let's call the meeting
- back to order
- I Was going to say we're gonna go back to The petitioner to use the rest of their time, but I don't
- think there's anyone from the petitioner back in the room yet So We'll just We'll just wait one more minute
- Chair, yeah Can I can I make a clarification while we're sitting here I'm sorry. Can I make a clarification
- while we're sitting here like a point of information? Yes that there is currently a long first street
- where we're talking about a Tree plot and the sidewalk that are compliant in all ways with what was
- there so part of what they're asking is to tear up a
- what just got installed last year in order to do something different. So in terms of the concern before
- about the water line that the trees are currently planted around the water line, the water line was
- installed based on where the trees were planted. All of those things went together and it was just last
- year that all of that was designed by
- I see representatives of the petitioner coming back into the room now. So what we're going to do is
- this. We're gonna give the petitioner back the remainder of their time to make any additional presentation,
- any additional comments they'd like to make and hopefully answer some of the legal questions that have
- been raised. But looks like we have Mayor Thompson. Take it away.
- Hi, I'm speaking on behalf of the petitioner Mayor Thompson Listen There was really no malicious intent
- here an attempt to save trees Understand that if this solution to saving trees Doesn't work and this
- is a solution they came up Which we believed was within the realm of the PUD and it was a solution provided
- by engineering
- I actually had no idea this was happening So definitely not the mayor playing chess here Anna can kill
- enhancer Hansen can explain how how the preservation of trees was anticipated for this area and If that
- doesn't work, we're happy to withdraw the waiver it's really important to us to get this affordable
- housing built and
- built as soon as possible and this really was just The intent to try to save trees, which I think we
- all agree with so Anna Can I get you to address these concerns?
- Absolutely, but I actually think that Kendall from engineering would be best suited to Explain to you
- how we got to this point. It was not an effort to bamboozle anyone It was simply trying to save the
- trees Hi Kendall from engineering Yeah, I mean really this originated with the art discussions with
- the RDC and talking about parking and where can we add more parking in so first Street and
- Came to light because there's no parking on it currently the PUD appeared to allow parking to be installed
- so we you know were Changed the plan to show parking we evaluated site distance We eliminated some of
- the parking spaces, and then we kind of came up with what's before you tonight. There was no Intention
- to you know go around any of the requirements, so you're you're welcome to deny this waiver tonight
- if you'd like I
- or withdraw. I'm sorry, I don't know the legal language, but... And yeah, I mean, I don't know if I
- can provide any additional details. Still going to plant the required street trees. We're going to attempt
- to move some of the trees that have already been planted out there that we just planted. They may be
- moveable. If not, we're gonna plant new ones. So we're gonna continue to maintain the same number of
- trees and all the trees that are required by planting in the PUDs.
- Thank you. I'm gonna ask a clarifying question just for staff. If we were to approve this petition without
- the waiver tonight, since this is preliminary Platt approval, you would be able to make changes before
- secondary Platt approval.
- There would not be any changes that would affect the plat unless there's an additional easement that
- needs to be secured For instance if a sidewalk is shown on the private property, that would be the only
- implication for this for the plat Okay, nothing would change on the plat itself But there would be changes
- to the the site plan essentially to
- Accommodate like I said, the only change would be an additional easement or the pedestrian access easement
- that would run along the front of those property lines If the sidewalk is pushed into the private property
- and is not able to be contained within the right-of-way You know, there's at least three different options
- here for solutions But you know nothing has to change on the primary plat as a result of denying the
- waiver All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners?
- I have a question I think there's still the outstanding question of the fact that we don't have any
- documentation in this packet that says that CBU has passed off on their drainage plan and that was a
- requirement by the primary plot and And I find that if this was a private petitioner We would not be
- trusting right now that they have that signed off on and and I am entirely sick of this petition getting
- special treatment of
- simply because they are An arm of the city and not a petition or like any other and this is like we're
- eight months into this right now And I'm honestly not interested in continuing to give them special
- treatment I We should have had that information from CBU in our packet that documented that they signed
- off on the drainage and the stormwater plan Any other questions
- Yes I Don't care about the semantics of this. I'm not worried about CBU. We need housing This whole
- process has been micromanaged and taken way too long. We have a great plan before us I'm not in favor
- of the waiver simply because I like the street cross-section the way it is We tear out too
- much infrastructure already to rebuild things and I think we need to approve this and get this thing
- moving because we need housing more than we need anything else and
- Like to on behalf of the RDC withdraw the request for waiver The whole point of this entire PUD is to
- try and show how we can build housing more easily and more cost-effective So let's not lose sight of
- that Thank you There are two waivers on our
- Agenda one is for the subdivision standards regarding tree plot with and the other waivers from a required
- second hearing I just want to clarify what we're asking This is the waiver from the subdivision standards
- regarding tree plot that you're withdrawing So so the waiver from the required hearing is directly related
- to the fact that there is a waiver request So with the waiver request being withdrawn, this no longer
- requires two hearings. Okay? Okay, so
- All right, so the Just as a Just as a reminder we You know the the staff recommendation in the packet
- was that we adopt the proposed findings and approve the prayer requests with five listed conditions
- Now that that waiver request has been withdrawn. I think it's safe to say the staff recommendation would
- be that we adopt the proposed findings and
- the preliminary plat with those same conditions Yes, and and so just for the the planning Commission's
- information You know, there are two very specific conditions in there that deal with CBU approval
- One this I'm sorry condition number two final acceptance and approval from CBU is required prior to
- the issuance of any permits This is standard language that we have on on every single petition and then
- condition number three prior to approval the secondary plat and
- Additional will show all easements and notes required by CBU for utility service connections So both
- of those conditions were something that we had coordinated with CBU to make sure that their concerns
- were addressed You know, I have an email from Phil Peden Assistant director from August 6th of this
- week saying that he has given his approval for this I have an email from Katherine the director from noon and
- I think today, again, also reiterating her acceptance and approval of this moving forward. So we have
- communicated with CBU. We've been in heavy communication with them. And so they are aware of everything
- here and have given their blessing for this to move forward and have not given any reservations about
- this project being able to meet their requirements. All right. Any other questions, comments? Are we
- ready for a motion?
- I will move myself. I'll make the motion. I move that we adopt the proposed findings and Approve the
- preliminary plat with the five conditions that are listed in the packet Any final discussion before
- we call the roll All right, please call the roll on the motion to approve Yes
- Homes yes, Kenzie. Yes Smith. Yes Stossburg. No Wish Whistler. Yes Bishop. Yes Braille. Yes Motion carries.
- Thank you. We are now on to our second petition of the evening Zio 2026-06-
- And again, we have Eric Grulick to present. Thank you, so this is the second hearing for this particular
- amendment. This was heard at the planning commission meeting last month as part of fulfilling a requirement
- for resolution that was passed by the common council directing the planning commission to look at several
- aspects for changes within the UDO.
- And so this was heard last month and briefly presented and requested to be continued to the required
- second hearing, which this is. So the Planning Commission was directed in this resolution to prepare
- changes to the UDO consistent with that resolution and hear that petition within 60 days, which happened
- last month. Then the Planning Commission has 60 days to vote on these changes within the resolution.
- to forward that on to the Common Council. So briefly, the resolution looked to address several issues
- within the Unified Development Ordinance, and I'll just briefly step through each of those particular
- sections. So section one of the resolution directs the Plain Commission to prepare a proposal to amend
- the text of the UDO to reduce minimum lot width in minimum lot areas.
- within the single family zoning districts. Also to reduce minimum lot widths and minimum lot areas in
- other zones. Section two of the resolution directed further changes for the planning commission to consider
- further changes to reduce setback requirements to look at making lot subdivision and small scale development
- more feasible.
- As part of this, we were also directed to look at impervious surface coverage maximums, lot frontage
- requirements, and subdivision standards. Section three of the resolution directed the planning commission
- to bring forward a new requirement for projects seeking to be eligible for the sustainable development
- incentives that they would be required to use either electricity or other onsite renewable energy sources
- for all significant energy needs and then section 4 Looked to establish a new qualifying standards for
- PUD that required PUDs coming forward to utilize those sustainable development incentives in their entirety
- And then section 5 of the resolution looked to address or eliminate minimum parking requirements So
- Real briefly and just to kind of forward or do a slight preface with this as well as the next series
- of UD amendments that we'll be discussing after this tonight. These do also serve to address
- Public hearings that are required as part of a house bill that was passed earlier this year That directs
- communities to look at changes within their unified development ordinance or zoning codes to address
- housing attainability You know to have a hearing on what changes are necessary in specifically accessory
- dwelling units duplexes minimum lot area a lot with a wide range of things so this
- hearing that we are having tonight to address this resolution does also meet that requirement. There's
- also a reporting requirement that is required at the end of the year to kind of summarize those changes
- as well as to address building permits and new lots and several other reporting aspects. So this hearing
- that we're having tonight does serve to address that, so I want to make sure that the Planning Commission
- is aware of that.
- So going back to the items of the resolution, as I mentioned, it specifically looked to address minimum
- lot width, minimum lot area, setbacks, and all of the things that deal with housing, creation of lots,
- and development on lots as a whole. So we looked at several standards within the UDO that relate to
- this. So minimum lot area, minimum lot width, setbacks. So what we are looking at
- proposing, and certainly this is what we are bringing to the Planning Commission so you can adjust these
- as you need, is reducing the minimum lot area kind of across the board and all of the zoning districts.
- So in the R1 district, we would be proposing to go from a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet to
- 7,200. In the R2 districts, we would go from 7,200 to 5,000.
- In the R3 and R4 zoning districts, we would go from 5,000 and 4,000 square feet respectively to a minimum
- lot size of 2,500 square feet. And then in the multifamily districts, RM and RH, we would go from a
- minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet to no minimum lot size. The lot width in the districts would also
- kind of go down substantially.
- The R1 would go from 100 foot minimum lot width to 50 feet. The R2 would go from a minimum lot width
- of 60 feet to 40. And then the R3 and R4 districts would go from a 50 and 35 foot minimum lot width
- to a 30 foot minimum lot width. And then there would be no minimum lot width requirement in the multifamily
- districts.
- So kind of extending some of these changes. We would also look to change the front build to range in
- some of these areas or front building setback to establish a build to range of five to 15 feet. That
- gives obviously a narrower depth that somebody can accomplish on a property giving more developable
- area on a site as well as giving more flexibility in terms of porches and incorporation of other units
- along the front.
- Side yard setbacks, we would be reducing or eliminating the additional side yard setback that is required
- for second stories and just have a base side yard setback across the board regardless of the number
- of stories. So in the R1, it would be eight foot side yard setback. The R2 would be going to six feet.
- The R3 would stay at four feet, but like I said, would not have any additional setback.
- for the second story, and then the R4 district would go down to zero foot. The RM and the RH would be
- proposing to stay the same. The rear yard setback in the R3 and R4 would go down to 15 feet. And then
- so to kind of further this goal of these changes to increase the likelihood, the potential
- for developability, we would be adjusting the impervious surface coverage.
- on these lots as well. So in the R2 district, the impervious surface coverage would go from 40% to 60%
- allowance. In the R3, we're proposing to go from a 45% to a 70%. And the R4, it would be going in the
- RM as well. We would be going from 50 and 60 to 80%. And the RH, we'd be going from 65 to 75%. And then
- adjusting the minimum landscape area numbers accordingly.
- So in the resolution, it directs us to look at two somewhat recent PUDs in terms of lot size and lot
- width to sort of look at and replicate. One of those is a PUD that's down on kind of the southwest side
- of town on the corner of Morton Dodds. So this PUD established lots that were 28 feet wide with a lot
- size of approximately 3,900 square feet.
- And then the other PUD was what was known as the Dunn Street PUD and has a lot within there of approximately
- 40 feet with lot sizes of about 4,500 square feet. One important thing to also kind of look at with
- the Dunn Street PUD is it did allow for also these half lots.
- That were created or allowed to be created on the corners So these half lots were about 40 feet wide
- and about 2,300 square feet So when we were proposing or are proposing the minimum lot sizes of about
- 2,500 square feet that was somewhat based on this example that you see And again this example of these
- kind of half lots is something that we see somewhat common within the community where you have lots
- That have been divided
- Obviously, historically, very long in the past before subdivision restrictions had minimum lot size
- and lot widths.
- But you see these along fronts where you have these half lots that have been developed with houses.
- So when we were looking at our impervious surface coverage and side yard setbacks and other things,
- this is the kind of housing that we were looking to try to allow for. So you'll see lots of examples
- as you scroll through areas within the community where you've got these half lots that are located along
- streets and corners. So allowing for this type of lot creation and this sort of lot size would not be
- out of character with a lot of our established areas and the lot sizes were consistent with what we
- were proposing and what we based it on. So, you know, just to kind of give you an example of what we
- would be looking to allow by right, this would be the example of what we're trying to accomplish.
- So one of one of the other key components to the changes and the lot establishment standards has been
- a long-standing provision within the unified development ordinance that all lots have to have frontage
- on a public street and More specifically that that frontage has to meet the minimum lot width requirement
- of that district So those two aspects create a lot of challenges with creating new lots within the city itself
- So as we worked through this particular change, one of the biggest challenges was making sure that we
- are creating lots that can be seen and accessed by emergency services. So we worked very closely with
- the fire department and their regulations to ensure that we were allowing lots to be created that could
- be served by public services, by emergency service facilities.
- So we are proposing to Include new language that allows for lots to be created that that don't meet
- the typical minimum lot width frontage So these would be the language is written to allow for lots to
- be created on existing lots of record that are less than 150 foot deep so the 150 foot number is significant
- because from fire department regulations that's kind of the length of hoses from where a parked truck is and
- So that's why that number is very significant and is used in two places here in this language to talk
- about these restrictions. So this would allow for lots to be created on lots that are less than 150
- foot deep provided that they provide a six foot no build easement from the lot to the street in order
- to give fire department access to that new lot. There is a note that would be placed on the plan that
- no part of any structure built on the new lot
- would be more than 150 feet from the street, or as approved by the fire department, and that the new
- lot shall not be wider than six feet along that frontage, and that only one lot can be accessed or created
- from this new provision. There's a second portion we are proposing, and this is a little bit more challenging
- in terms of it would allow for, again, a lot to be created that doesn't have frontage on the street,
- but would require a 20 foot access easement with a fire access road to get to that back lot. So this
- is something that probably due to that requirement wouldn't be utilized too much, but there are situations
- where it could, and so we are trying to build in as many allowances as possible. So I've tried to draw
- here on the screen just an example of what this might look like. So one of the other
- Aspects of the subdivision code that we are removing is a required four to one depth ratio to allow
- for these flag lots So this would allow for a lot to be created in the back as I mentioned would have
- a six foot no build easement and then you would have a new lot created in the back that somebody could
- subdivide and build a new house on
- So this was this is the scenario that we were writing to try to accomplish You know, we certainly went
- through a lot of different scenarios as we were trying to work on this language and again Making sure
- that the lots could be served by fire department and emergency access vehicles was very important so
- the third section of the resolution talks with
- talks about sustainable development incentives and adding a requirement that buildings utilizing the
- sustainable development incentives must be accessed or use electricity for all significant energy needs.
- And then a second directive related to that to add this qualifying standard for PUDs. So we did write
- language that was consistent with what that resolution
- specifically directed us to do. However, you also find in your packet a memo from the legal department
- advising that this would be noncompliant with an Indiana code that prohibits regulations that specifically
- deal with energy sources and restricting them to a specific one. So we do have a member of the legal
- department to speak to that directly, but also there is a memo in the packet
- Addressing that itself And then section 5 of the resolution dealt with eliminating minimum
- parking requirements in all zones So again, we have direct made changes made direct changes to the UDO
- Eliminating parking minimums in all zones throughout the city for all uses So again, this is consistent
- with the resolution Obviously it is within the Planning Commission's
- ability to modify this to some degree if they feel necessary, but Plaint Commission's ultimate role
- here is to forward this to the common council with either a positive or negative recommendation.
- So with that, we are recommending that the Plaint Commission forward this petition to the common council
- with a positive recommendation
- Except for section 3 and then section 4 that kind of are connected That those would be forward with
- a negative recommendation for the reasons that I kind of referenced in the legal department's memo So
- with that I'm happy to answer any questions Thank You Eric, I am Assuming again that You are representing
- the petitioner here tonight, but I don't want to make the same mistake twice. Is there anybody else? I
- From the petitioner that wouldn't speak. No, I mean other than my esteemed colleagues of the Planning
- Department And we do have Jeff with the fire department here to answer questions about you know any
- fire code implications But no, it's it's great. All right, we'll go to questions and any questions from
- commissioners. We'll start at the end down here The topic of removing minimum parking requirements I
- noticed that minimum bicycle parking requirements are still
- Left where they were Because the vehicular conveyance was not specified from the common council. It
- seems that it would be Necessary to remove the bicycle parking requirements as well I feel that does
- place an undue burden on businesses that have to put bicycle parking there where no bicycles may ever travel
- Yes, the the resolution, you know said eliminate minimum parking requirements while it certainly did
- not Specifically say vehicular parking requirements. I mean that that was our interpretation of it Yeah,
- so you're correct. We did not alter the bicycle parking minimums or anything related to bicycle parking
- But can we strike those because the the direction was to remove all? vehicular minimum parking requirements
- and we didn't do that and
- Yes, that would certainly be an interpretation. It did not say vehicular or bicycle It just said eliminate
- minimum parking requirements in all zones. So so you referred to the the section on parking the 2004
- 060 and that is specifically covered in that section and so to live up to the spirit of what we were
- charged with it would have to be a removal of the minimum parking requirements across the board for
- all within that section and
- Yes, I could certainly see so maybe you know, the recommendation would be to remove vehicular but keep
- bicycle parking minimums, I Think it all needs to go. But that's my opinion. Well, thank you If there's
- a question, I mean, you're certainly welcome to Propose an amendment Along the way here if that's that
- is your your prerogative Does that answer your question though? Okay. Let's keep going
- very large changes to the UDO or like reducing the lot sizes sometimes in half, increasing the impervious
- area, all these setbacks. I can see why I'm not talking about the merits of it, but these are major
- changes. There's nobody out here and I'm just wondering, I'm sure the statutory requirement of notice
- for people in the city was adhered to for this. I'm sure we did what we were supposed to do legally,
- but was any effort made beyond the statutory minimum to notify the public?
- of what we're doing here with this, because this is major. Did we do neighborhood meetings like we did
- for Hopewell? Were there social media campaigns? Did we do anything? Did we send out flyers? Did we
- do anything to tell people what's going on? Because it looks to me like nobody knows what we're doing.
- Well, so our previous planning director did go through to all of the neighborhood associations They
- spent pretty much the majority of last year going to all of the ones within the city Letting him know
- that we would be bringing forward Changes to the ud. Oh, I'm trying to gauge reaction and comments and
- concerns So we notified art as part of that and like I said, he went to all of the neighborhood associations
- We did not have any specific
- Programs at the library or town halls here to say hey, you know, these are changes that are coming forward
- These were noticed in the paper But you know beyond that, you know these public notifications and obviously
- the City Council resolution Was also publicly noticed and as a public meeting, you know there that has
- that resolution has been discussed several times so it's certainly been in the public eye that there's
- been a desire for us to change the UDO and
- Certainly in this case there was a specific resolution ordering us to Understand that so the public
- me that's good that they went around and did to talk to the neighborhood associations was the substance
- of what the changes were going to be Included or was it just we're gonna make changes to the UDO. What
- are your ideas? We didn't really have an idea at that time and obviously I was not all of those meetings
- or at any of those meetings to know You know what was kind of said or brought back, you know, most of
- it was Yeah, and I'm just
- Paraphrasing because I was not there, you know the gist of it. Like I said was you know, we will be
- bringing forward changes could involve You know, we weren't sure it could have been used table changes
- could have been dimensional standards like what you're looking at tonight So I know that we least prefaced
- it with neighborhood associations Okay Second one just to make sure I understand them and I think you
- answered it you may have done it in your initial opening statement there, but it's
- Is it correct that these requirements, if you own a plot of land, you could buy right, subdivide it
- into two, and as long as the two new plots adhere to the new standards, you essentially could do it
- buy right. You're not asking for a waiver. You have to come and go through the process, but there's
- no permission, no chance to deny it. It would be buy right. Yeah, so it would be subject to the regular
- subdivision process. Obviously, some of you would need to send public notification requirements to anybody
- All property adjacent property owners post a sign and go to a plaque committee meeting or plane commission
- meeting for any subdivision requests So there is a public notification and public approval process You
- know, I'll just say You know that the changes that we are proposing, you know, let's let's you know
- put the Impervious surface coverage and side yard setback standards the same and the subdivision standards are
- Looking at those, you know the subdivision creation standards that we're looking at We're written to
- try to accomplish this unfortunately, I think it'll be very difficult oftentimes for Those situations
- to be fully realized Given where existing houses might be on lots and having available backyard Certainly
- we want to see these utilized and we're hoping that there are situations but I'm not sure that
- You know, we're gonna see a widespread incorporation of those just given the built-out environment You
- know the reduction in minimum lot width and lot area requirements will probably more be more fully realized
- with vacant lots that are larger or situations where somebody has a really large yard and they're able
- to now sell off a portion of that yard And get one house in a in a neighborhood or maybe two or something
- like that But we're again trying to move the needle a little bit
- make it easier, reduce some of the burdens, some of the barriers to people achieving new housing within
- the community, whether it's adding onto their house, subdividing a portion of their backyard for an
- ADU. We're just trying to enable that a little bit more, but just to be honest, I'm not sure that we'll
- see widespread changes as a result of this. It'll be an incremental change here and there as situations
- can kind of allow. Thank you for all that.
- Wanted to make sure I understood it right the answer is yes, right they could do it. Okay. Thank you.
- Thank you Yeah Standard seven do we have minor subdivision capability anymore? Is that gone and all
- the subdivisions are the same two lot to 20 lot the same, right? Yes, all all subdivisions whether it's
- two lot or 20 have to have a public hearing. Okay I Love these changes, but I think we left some things out
- with these changes, you left out MM and MN zones, which are kind of the fringe zones around our core
- neighborhoods. Like in my neighborhood, we're all R3. And right now, the core neighborhood can be more
- dense than MM or MN. And I would think that the MM, MN should reflect the R3 changes because it is a,
- it should be more dense. It's on higher-trafficated streets. And I'd request, I'm gonna probably make
- a motion at the end to add that to this process.
- I think it really needs to happen now this yeah able to propose amendments and and add additional ones,
- you know, we did not Really dip into the mixed-use districts because that that wasn't really the area
- where we had encountered any challenges in terms of development of You know people like hey my impervious
- surface coverage or my setbacks are what's limiting me All right brought one to you and I got shut down.
- So that's why I'm bringing it up for a
- I had but anyway, I think it's something we need to address with this with these changes because they
- are the fringe They're the what's wrapped these neighborhoods They front these heavier traffic and streets
- and probably should be more dense than the neighborhood itself just in my opinion Is this where you're
- doing a tree canopy coverage chain an R3 and R4 is this this one? I
- I get confused which one yes, there there is a change in here that does that state that on our three
- and our four four lots less than 5000 existing lots of record less than 5000 and my request me to change
- that to 6000 I did some research and the 5000 really restricts most of those lots a lot of those lots
- are like 5600 feet and
- So that's where I want to I'm gonna make a comment on the size of the lot to change it from 5,000
- to 6,000 I'm just gonna say that out loud again. Certainly any plane commission member can People can
- comment that's why I'm bringing it up now. I'm gonna make that request I'm doing I'm trying Can I change
- that anyway With regard to the lot depth
- I had this discussion our meeting the hundred and fifty foot rule. I understand the rule I just don't
- like it tied to the lot depth. You have said I believe in yours What'd you what'd you say? No building
- can be built past 150 feet, right? Yes, so so the language in here is that no part of any structure
- built on the new lot can be more than 150 feet from the street or as approved in writing by the city
- of Bloomington Fire Department right but that starts with the lot has to be 150 feet or less and
- You do a lot depth restriction and then you do a building site restriction And my question is why do
- we have to have the lot depth restriction if we have the building depth restriction? Yep So it was it
- was looked at, you know, obviously what what's the maximum distance that something can be from the road?
- So the 150 foot was a good right that that was I agree and you know as you know, I remember the comment
- from the Plain Commission lunch session and so I did take a lot of time to look around and it's certainly
- very rare and
- To find any lots within our core neighborhoods or older neighborhoods that are deeper than 150 foot
- So again, you know, we're trying to work with the fire department's restrictions and Concerns and so
- the 150 foot would capture, you know, that's just from front to back That's the maximum that it would
- be but then we also added the section here that talks about You know the lot or where the house is built
- can't be any portion of that can't be more than 150 foot
- You know, we can certainly ask the fire department if they have I think that meets that's what I'm saying
- That feels like that meets the requirement and so if you go out there, are you gonna ask for a survey,
- right? What to do if we do a two lot so I have to do a survey, right? Yeah, and if that lots 150 point
- one feet, they can't do it Yeah, so if the if the lot is more than 150 foot deep then they would not
- be subject to it yes, they wouldn't be allowed to meet that they wouldn't be allowed to do this and
- So let's say the lot was 130 foot deep. Yes It's 151 feet deep then this is out the window. You can't
- you have to go to number two and you have to have a 20-foot side yard Right. Yes. Yes, which of course
- most these lots are 40 feet wide and the house in the middle of it So that's my so in order for the
- first one to work my comp my question is Why do we keep tying it to lot depth if we're restricting the
- building 150 feet?
- And if we're gonna restrict 150, let's do it 155 just in case in case somebody's 150 foot lot actually
- surveys out to 151 point two Yes, I hear what you're saying I don't think there'd be immediate problem
- I'd want to it just seems so hard. It seems like a hard If they had any concerns with removing 150 foot
- depth Yeah, I'd like to hear from that be great yeah
- City of Bloomington, so the hundred foot wouldn't necessarily we need this to the Lot line in our opinion.
- It's that structure. It's basically the hose has got there It's all about the fire hose and where the
- truck park so we have to get to all portions of that building within 150 feet so if that Will that's
- what the code says so if that is the build rule that
- That you're saying then it wouldn't necessarily have to be tied To that that death. Okay. Thank you.
- Thank you I want to go down the rule the the road of this electrification and that that legal Advice
- that was given by city legal and
- Part of the reason why I want to do this is that I've gotten varying advice over the last couple years
- about incentives and what can be in incentives and what cannot be in incentives because incentives are
- by their nature optional. We're not forcing anybody to do an incentive. So first of all, the legal opinion
- states it only talks about the PUD section, which is really section four, not section three. So I guess
- I'm interested in
- An opinion from city legal and I've been talking to council legal about this today as well And I don't
- know if he's allowed to speak right now in this in any way About simply the electrification part on
- section 3 not the PUD part because the sustainable development incentive is an incentive We're not forcing
- anybody to do it. So how does that violate? State law if we're not forcing anybody to do it and they're
- opting in Thank you Dana Kerr from legal
- It again is an ordinance that is regulating energy source Regulating utilities based on energy source.
- So It is still an ordinance whether it appears in the PUD section or in the incentive section It is
- still a requirement in order to receive certain benefits you have to forego
- certain energy sources, so therefore it is a regulating energy source well correct, but Correct me if
- I'm wrong in terms of affordability and in affordability incentives and in terms of state law We also
- are not allowed to require that developers build a certain amount of affordable housing when they build
- but if they take advantage of affordability Incentives then we can require that so why doesn't the supply
- in the same way? I
- That is a Question that I was hoping not to get My opinion is is that the affordability requirement
- is not allowed either by state law that it was I've been with the city for a little over a year that
- Determination when it came to affordability was made before I was here and I did not Look into that
- and but having looked into this situation I have now looked at the affordability statute as well and
- the affordability statute does not allow any exceptions based on whether it is mandatory or whether
- it is something
- That you can choose to do as part of an incentive. It simply says that you cannot have an ordinance
- that Regulates that requires a private private property owner owner to Have affordable housing based
- on Someone's income. So the same thing would apply to the affordability provisions of the UDO
- So the electrification portions that you see before you tonight would not be allowed per state law.
- And the affordability provisions that are in the UDO looking at them fresh would not be allowed either. Previous
- interpretations by the legal department I Cannot Count comment on that Do you have any case law that
- you want to cite that defends your position because right now your position on this? differs from every
- other attorney that I have encountered over the last three years and I made significant a
- Modifications to the affordability incentives last year and several attorneys looked at that including
- two I believe of our former counsel attorneys and our current counsel attorney and more than one city
- legal attorney So is there any case law that actually defends your opinion or is it just your opinion
- right now? There is no case law on the subject defending either side also if I look through numerous other
- City ordinances regarding affordability and none of them regulate in the way that regulate affordability
- And require the things that the city of Bloomington does Therefore to me that substantiates the fact
- they don't because it's not a permissible by state law. So simply because other Udo's and other towns
- don't have incentives like this you conclude that it must be against state law and
- No, I conclude it's against state law and I state that because others aren't doing doing it as well
- to me supports the fact that it is against state law or I would think that others would be doing it
- if they wanted to Address affordability the way that the city of Bloomington does but there's no actual
- case law There's no way this one way or the other there's no case wall that supports that
- It can be done if it's discretionary and not mandatory. There's no state law that says that Just the
- state law says you cannot have an ordinance that regulates the affordability component requiring
- affordability component of private property owners There is a state law that says you cannot regulate
- what utilities are available
- based on energy source. Those are two state laws that are in place that are very straightforward. So
- an ordinance may not require anybody do this. Where in the UDO is it required that a developer take
- advantage of sustainability incentives or affordability incentives? For instance, to have the incentive,
- you are required to do it.
- Can somebody build something without the incentive? You can choose to do it without the incentive, but
- to have the incentive, you're required to do it, and the UDO and ordinance is requiring you to do it.
- And it is an ordinance regulating energy source by requiring to do it, even if it's something you're
- accepting to do to receive that benefit. There's no way to receive that benefit without being required to do it.
- Benefit is still a benefit and an option that people don't have to use and they can still develop a
- piece of property without having to use an incentive I understand that but as I say the statute does
- not make any Allowance for it saying that it is okay as long as it's discretionary as long as
- The petition petitioner would choose to do it. It is fine. It does nothing states that it just says
- an ordinance cannot regulating it and an ordinance that says we will give you an incentive if you do
- it is regulating it I I Find it interesting that this is the sole legal Conclusion that goes against
- all other legal conclusions of the city having said that I also don't necessarily think
- The text as it is written in our ordinance actually does follow the resolution from councilmember Flaherty
- which says that it must only include buildings that Use either electricity or on-site renewable sources
- as opposed to what the proposed language says is that
- I'm gonna have to find it on my other screen now the proposed language says that it's Shall only be
- served by electricity and that's not actually what the resolution says the resolution says it must only
- include buildings it doesn't necessarily preclude the idea of Being served by things so in if in the
- original design it included everything being
- Served by electricity or on-site renewables. It doesn't in terms of the text I think of councilmember
- Flaherty's resolution doesn't mean that five or ten years down the road an individual Building owner
- might say well, I want to pay to get gas line installed in all of my things Because the building would
- have already been set up to be To utilize electric and so those are the I mean if we're talking about
- wordplay here, which I think that we are and
- I guess I'm proposing a slight amendment to the text or I will when we have that option, but I definitely
- am not sure that all attorneys would agree with this legal position and there's no case law on it and
- that it goes against what we've been doing in a way that is interesting.
- Any other questions on my left? All right, let's call for questions before we go to public comment here.
- All right, we'll now go to public comments on ZO 2026-06-0006.
- You're here in the chamber step right up to the podium state your name for the record you have three
- minutes to speak if you're on the zoom call just hit that Reactions button and raise your virtual hand
- and we'll recognize to you when it is your turn to speak
- Thank you Larry Allen interim counsel attorney and just sort of know I'm speaking of the public out
- of deference if the president if you all have any questions for me Afterwards and the president would
- like to recognize me. You're certainly able to do that under your rules Just just to pick up on the
- point that was just discussed I do have a different reading on this than than my colleague Dana Kerr
- One the statute doesn't just say any regulation based on fuel source. It actually says a regulation that
- Prohibits or would have the effect of prohibiting and so that's a key part of this language. These have
- to be read together They cannot be separated out and when we're talking about an incentive program If
- a development is possible without using that incentive program, then it cannot by definition Prohibit
- based on the use of natural gas or any other utility So I think I agree with councilmember Stossberg
- and Commissioner Stossberg in this case
- case that the wording should be changed because right now the wording focuses on the delivery mechanism
- and it looked like the intent was based on design to allow for designs who want to take part in the
- sustainability incentive program to create a design that has the ability
- to utilize all electric and renewable energy designs in that area. It does not necessarily preclude
- a developer, again, from installing natural gas infrastructure that runs up the street, that runs to
- each property, or anything like that. And it does not obviously preclude any customer from getting natural
- gas or from the natural gas provider from providing that natural gas to the customer, even if it was
- initially designed with an all-electric design.
- Really quickly, and this is tangential, so I do apologize. In terms of affordable housing, because I
- do think these are linked, the statute for affordable housing that we're discussing here, just to be
- helpful, is Indiana Code 36124.2. That's the chapter, generally. There is a restriction, generally,
- on affordable housing and for municipalities creating that affordable housing. However, Section 4 does
- explicitly state
- This chapter does not impair the right of an owner to voluntarily agree to a requirement that would
- have the effect of regulating affordable housing and requiring it of this chapter in exchange for incentives
- or grants provided by the county or municipality to the owner of the privately owned real property.
- It's explicitly in the statute. You don't need additional case law, and I think that that's consistent
- with the reading that we have based on the natural gas. I understand we have a different reading, and
- I respect my colleague a lot, but I just want to present that to you as a piece of information.
- Thank you We do have two members the public online after we hear from the member in the public Thanks
- Good evening Commission. This is Chris her energy from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce I
- am NOT a lawyer and will not be speaking any legal ease tonight. Good to see mr. Smith back on the Commission
- as well there's a lot to say there's a lot to support here this is a
- Strong ordinance, it reduces the minimum lot sizes, creates some flexibility for infill, eliminates
- minimum parking requirements, removes several dimensional requirements. Together, this is a meaningful
- package that I think some of the amendments that Mr. Bishop, Mr. Smith have, or Commissioner Smith and
- Commissioner Bishop put through would make it even stronger. And, you know, it makes buildable lots,
- there's not a parking,
- Minimum that it lets the market decide and I think we could do that with bicycles as well We understand
- that sustainability incentive provision the incentive is the key word there and if it developer ops
- in as we have now sustainability development center, it's fair to ask for something in return and Including
- the all-electric requirement, but we'd really caution that section 4. I don't know the legal Means about
- it, but I will tell you it's just not good policy
- the sustainability development compliance for qualifying PUDs does not belong in something that's Supposed
- to just work incrementally on increasing housing supply. I think it kind of goes against that a PUD
- is just not in a not a sustainability incentive. It's a tool for projects that don't conventionally
- meet our current UDO with site constraints housing types and some other things and
- Layering a new mandatory requirement onto that tool could cut against the flexibility that we're trying
- to create in this ordinance So this isn't about abandoning sustainability goals. It just doesn't belong
- particularly here It's about making sure we balance those goals with increasing housing is by improving
- affordability encouraging sustainability development and maintaining that flexibility
- for some good projects. So this is a strong package and I appreciate the work STAB has done to this
- council in sort of pushing it forward. We're simply asking the commission to preserve the flexibility
- that makes PUDs useful and make sure that the sustainability requirement doesn't inadvertently work
- against what we're trying to do. Affordability and housing goals in this ordinance is otherwise advancing.
- I thank you for your time tonight. Thank you.
- Zach Amerman, you should be able to speak. Yes, hi. So Zach Amerman again, Bloomington resident.
- First of all, I'm in favor of the vast majority of this. I think it's fantastic, particularly eliminating
- car parking minimums to be clear, not bike parking minimums, car parking minimums. I'm very in favor of that.
- Reducing lot sizes, loosening setback requirements, I think all those are long overdue and things that
- we should absolutely adopt. I actually live on one of the example streets you gave of some existing
- smaller lot sizes South Dunn Street, which is one of the best streets in Bloomington, I might add. So
- I encourage you to come visit, it's a very cute street. So it shows you that you can do a really well-done
- street with smaller lot sizes and I think it's perfectly possible. So I'm in favor of all of that. One
- thing though I don't really like,
- and that is the tree protection elimination for the smallest lot sizes. Basically, as far as I understand
- it reading it, you're basically proposing eliminating all tree protections across the board for the
- smallest lot. I'm very against that. I think there is already an exception for small parcels that allows
- some little bit more flexibility for tree protections that is already in the code.
- I don't think you need to further weaken the tree protections by completely eliminating all tree protections
- on the smallest lots. I'm a member of the Commission on Sustainability. I've been working on a tree
- resolution that's gonna be coming in the fall at some point. So I've been doing quite a bit of research
- looking at what other pier cities have in terms of tree protections. And Bloomington actually I found
- has pretty weak laws. We have no protection for heritage trees at all. We mentioned them in the code,
- but there is no protection anywhere.
- for heritage trees or the largest or oldest trees, there's no protection really at all for them. And
- so we're already taking what I think are relatively weak tree protections and proposing completely
- eliminating them for the smallest lot sizes. I understand the rationale behind that, but I nonetheless
- urge you to oppose that portion. The rest of it I'm very strongly in favor of, but that portion I'm
- opposed to because I think you're basically introducing the
- the sort of death by a thousand cuts to the tree canopy that we've been seeing. We've lost, I think,
- two to five percent, it depends on who you ask, but two to five percent of our tree canopy over the
- past 25 years. That's only gonna increase if we keep loosening our already, I think, fairly weak tree
- protection, so I urge you to reject that part. The rest of it, I think, is great and I think is long
- overdue. Thank you. Thank you. Dave Huber, you should be able to speak.
- Hi, thanks. I'm in favor of this. Thank you for walking through this and all the work that's gone into
- it. I'm a local resident, grew up here and left 10 years ago and came back during COVID and about to
- have my first baby. And we want to build a granny flat next door. We've actually spoken with the owner
- who owns next door, but with the current laws, we're not able to subdivide that lot. The owner would
- like to sell it to us. We'd like to build it back there.
- We'd have to buy the whole lot and we really just want, you know, four to five thousand square feet
- in the backyard. And so something like this that would allow us to build a granny flat and
- have my mother-in-law live next door would be amazing. And I think in general, the density and the infilling
- was a wonderful thing that I see a lot of other cities doing. So I just want to throw my hat in the
- ring here and say I'm in favor of this and thanks for all the work you guys put into it. Thank you.
- Is there any additional public comment?
- There is anybody else online, please use to raise hand function and we can recognize you Last call for
- public comment All right, we are back to the Commission then for any additional questions comments motions
- Myself at this point in the meeting. So, thank you. Thank you I have a question about the tree preservation
- Requirements that the commenter just made and I wonder if Eric you could talk through the staff response
- on section 2 where that's mentioned and
- Are you are you referring to our proposed language? Yes Department is proposing the following changes
- in response to this section Add an exemption from tree preservation requirements Yes, so so the
- Thought behind that was on the smaller lots, you know, these lots that are 5,000 square feet. Oftentimes,
- you know, just existing tree canopy coverage is going to completely infringe on the buildability of
- that lot. You know, but being so small and just the tree coverage realities that feels like you would
- be forcing somebody in a variance situation in all of those situations. So we propose to grant by right
- you know, relief from that with that language. Certainly this is just a recommendation. You know, the
- Planning Commission members can vote to remove that or modify that if they feel that that, you know,
- something is appropriate. Yeah, maybe you can help me see to where that appears in any of the presentation
- that you did earlier where you're looking at the sections
- Okay, yeah. Give me a second and I can... Yeah, I see it in the text, but I would like to be able to
- see it in... Sure. If you wanna give me a minute, come back. It'd be great. Yeah, okay. Is that all?
- Yeah. Any other questions?
- I have a question about making a motion. Can we break this up? I was thinking about making a motion
- on one two four and five Leaving three out because there's a very interesting discussion going on with
- that and then I was gonna make the motion with what I want to see change and if somebody wanted a Second
- vote on a friendly amendment. He wants to talk about bicycle parking down here. Can I structure it that
- way? Is that allowed? How do we
- What's the process for this? Yeah, give me just a second. I mean, I think They kind of lumped it all
- positive recommendation for all five Well, what we have what we're actually considering here is the
- whole package of of amendments, so what you would I think the appropriate motion would be to Make the
- motion and I mean you could you could you could make a motion that we approve
- With with certain exceptions, but I think it would probably be a little cleaner if you just Move to
- amend to remove the sections you want to remove because it sounds like there's gonna be some other Let
- me make a motion and then we'll see if there's a friendly a second first and if there is then they'll
- probably be a friendly amendment, right? I assume there's I'm gonna get throw something thrown at me.
- Is that how you do that? If somebody wants to modify the amendment, how's it work?
- Well, there's a couple ways you can go about it right you but I think first thing is we got to get a
- motion on The table so that I think the appropriate thing would be move Approval with the changes that
- you want To make okay, and then someone else could Could offer an amendment to your motion to modify
- that further Okay
- I'll recommend we forward this petition to common council with a positive recommendation Except for
- section 3 regarding incorporation of electrification The department recommends this pros language regarded
- like before to the negative recommendation with the following changes in section 1 and 2 I want to add
- MN and MM districts with the same change is reflected in the r3 zone and
- I want to remove the lot depth language the less than 150 feet but all Clean up the language course,
- but the 150 building depth has to stay and For the tree canopy are three are four. I think we should
- modify that to 6,000 feet instead of five Now recommend we modify from 6,000 from 5,000 feet to 6,000
- feet that's my motion I
- Bear with me one second. So when you say What when you're referring to these sections Well, we have
- section 1 2 3 4 5 right but those those those sections are really just in the already description of
- I'm just trying to make it clear. Yeah, I think I think to be clear we need to specifically reference
- The changes that you want to remove unless staff Feels Yeah, I don't know that I necessarily reference
- this section as a resolution but just the development standards themselves that Commission member might
- be wishing to change. Yeah. Okay, so can you
- Okay to clarify for MM and MN districts, I want to reflect our three for the front build to range I
- don't know front building facade. I don't know what all these all are Side Impervious surface coverage
- landscape area
- Yes, the front building facade at build to range Because you've changed it those the West what you've
- changed and then rear because you change that too So I'm gonna try this again so now that I see how
- to do this, okay The motion is to add MN and M
- districts MM and MN district with the same changes for our three zone as follows the lot area the lot
- width the front build to range the front building facade build to range the side The rear the impervious
- surface coverage and the landscape area minimum Just to be clear you're you're referring to
- The standards the table the table standards I Don't have the actual Page 105 is that dimensional standards
- table and the tree preservation standards on page 118? That's what I was looking for So if we're guarding
- tree preservation standards for our three and our four
- Modify language from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet Gonna get more specific on the 150 foot lot depth It's
- page 228 I believe it's c3 and you're just you're just proposing that we Do not adopt that section.
- No be it be no
- Be accessed from an existing lot of record With a six-foot no-build easement from the new lot So you're
- just striking that you're just striking the words that is less than 150 feet basically Yes, all other
- rules apply to meet the fire department fire 100 feet for the structure Okay Does staff understand the motion
- I'm sorry. Will you the the M M and M and yes be clear on You are changing which particular development
- standards specifically the same ones that you change for our three Side yard setbacks minimum lot area
- minimum lot with an impervious surface coverage. I'm sorry Assistant directors front build to front
- front building facade side rear impervious surface landscape area
- Well-known purpose surface area, I guess. Yeah, he said lot area width front build to range front facade
- build to range side rear impervious And then you're saying in the tree canopy section changing the lot
- size from 5,000 to 6,000. All right, and then in the Lot depth language removing that is less than 150
- feet. Yes, and then I'm sorry in the original motion moving
- Send to the Common Council with a positive recommendation except for section three. You were just reading
- from the motion, right? Sorry, were you just reading from the motion at the beginning of your motion?
- Yes. Yes, okay I just wanted to make sure No, no, I just didn't have it open. Thank you So the ones
- that I mentioned that's all you had right for the modified modification. Yes, I
- As a point of information the actual resolution from council states that The request to reduce minimum
- lot widths and lot areas and r1 r2 r3 and r4 and that is all so can we actually Have that amendment
- in terms of the fact that this UDO Modification is supposed to be in response to the council resolution
- We can propose
- No, but I can answer your question Section one ends with the plan commission may also consider a proposed
- reduced minimum lot widths and minimums lots in other zones and then Section two says impervious surface
- coverage max would like to request all the other things so you tied it all together The changes in the
- motion Commission this is accepting section three and four
- I'm saying so okay, so I see you but the things that that You asked us to do a negative recommendation
- for section three
- Yes, based on the language that was presented in the staff report if the Plain Commission feels there's
- better wording This is my motion and now I expect comments on two other things. Yeah, let me just let
- me just clarify though the the proposed Changes in section 3 Were included in The presentation or not
- I included them, yes, but I heard comments that maybe they were not worded correctly in line with what
- the resolution was expecting, and there might be amendments to that to address legal challenges. I mean,
- I don't know how we can have a single motion that has both a positive and a negative recommendation
- in the same motion.
- Could we potentially take all of these sections separately in terms of of motioning so instead of So
- I guess I'm asking you Commissioner Smith if you would withdraw your motion and there's no second right
- now anyway and then start with Section one and maybe section one and two should go together because
- they reflecting each other and then it's like all of the Modifications based on sections one and two
- and I also wonder if we should
- Proposed amendments first and then make recommendations to include as amended So then we're voting on
- amendments first and then we're voting on the whole the individual section packages Do you know what
- I mean? I'm an orange sections group. That's I was gonna leave out three in my first motion But then
- I was told I couldn't yeah, so I would love it if you would make a motion that just asks
- Motions to amend the changes to include what you want to include with with MN and MN and so then we
- can discuss and respond to that first
- Yeah, I think the smaller packages right now that we divide this into the better and then if Commissioner
- Bishop also has amendments Then we can deal with his amendment separately and I have an amendment about
- the electrification And I'm not sure if Commissioner Kinsey has an amendment about the tree coverage
- And if we deal with all of those separately That might be I know that'll be easier for my brain right
- now because I can't keep track of it Yeah, this is tricky because the way
- Let's present. We have to have something to amend. Give me just one second. Do we have a document? I'm
- looking at the presentation. I need to find the full text. Is that in the staff exhibits? No, I'm looking
- for the full text
- of the proposed amendments Yeah, this is this is pretty tricky is there is there not is there anywhere
- in the packet just a specific
- Listing of the of the proposed amendments other than what's on the slides I mean, I know you you've
- got the slides in the presentation that kind of show the changes am I missing the document that I Have
- a motion queued up for the one that I want to do could that perhaps serve as a model I can't I'm sorry
- I said I have a motion queued up for what it is that I want to do with the electrification. Can that
- perhaps serve as a model? Well, what I'm trying to get at here is we have to have something to amend.
- We can't just amend the staff report. We're not adopting the staff report here, right? So we have to
- have some basis for what it is that we're amending, right? And I don't see in the packet just specifically
- the list of
- I see screenshots in the PowerPoint, but maybe I'm just missing the document. Yes, so the dimensional
- standards table here, for instance, what I was just showing is on page 103 of the packet. Page 103 of?
- Of the exhibits. So in staff exhibits, when you open that document,
- Page 103 is that dimensional standards table. Yeah. Okay. I mean this is.
- So in the in the packet and all of the amendments is a redline version of the entirety of the UDO with
- the changes You know certainly apologize that the entire document is in there. But unfortunately given
- how things have to be Put together for accessibility and codifier purposes. We it has to stay one big
- document for now So yeah, I think the best way to do this and keep this clean would be that we move
- to forward
- These changes maybe one page at a time and that way you can Suggest the changes you want with with that
- page. I think it's going to get really dicey if we try to Do one motion and keep amending that so I
- think most of what you were what you were just proposing is on this page 103, right and
- And allow them to do individual motions Would would you then withdraw your motion because that motion
- is on the table right now I will I will withdraw it because had been seconded. I will withdraw it if
- I understand what we're gonna do I don't understand what we're doing yet you would Yeah, I think what
- I'm trying to do is I think what you originally proposed it would just kind of break this up Right and
- kind of consider these
- Changes one at a time, but we can't just consider these changes by referencing the section of the result
- We have to actually reference what it is. We're many here remaining the UDO So we need to specifically
- reference pages in the UD. I'll draw my motion Yeah, so if I may you are responding to a City Council
- resolution that had very specific Provisions to it and if you are going to alter that I think you should
- respond to the specific provisions of
- That's that because it is a city council resolution and I'll see if Eric can call them up on the screen
- So then you could make your changes to those actual sections Yes, if we had a if we had a mapping of
- those resolved sections in the resolutions we were to the specific So can you So let's let's do section one
- So do you have any changes to section one? The problem is in the UDO document, it doesn't reference
- section one. That's where I struggle with this whole thing. I'm just using that as a frame of reference.
- We'll give you the UDO sites. We're just going to associate pages. Yeah. Okay. You see what I'm saying?
- We got to get to page 103 or five.
- I'll ask again. Do you want me to use my motion as a sample? I'm sorry said I'll ask again. Would you
- like me to? Make my motion as a sample for what it is that we need to sure if you go ahead if you great
- Eric, are you listening? Yes
- I move that we amend the the redline text that we were given section 20.04 point one one one D to a
- V and that is on page 216 as it is listed in the packet link that we were given electrification to strike
- the words be served by a
- Instead insert the words include buildings designed to use either such that the section 2004 110 D to
- a V and that's a lowercase D and a capital a would then read electrification
- Developments shall only include buildings designed to use either electricity or on-site renewable energy
- sources for all significant energy needs Including for space heating water heating and non-commercial
- cooking the Plan Commission may consider proposed exceptions for specific uses based on best practices
- in all electric building codes Could you chat me that and then I can share it on the screen so that
- everybody at home and on the Commission can see that wording
- We're gonna do multiple motions. It's even the red line version. We're gonna have to do it, right, one
- piece at a time, right? There's no way we do this all at once. That's right. Okay. So if you could just
- type out in, like, in the, are you in the Zoom meeting? Yeah, I'm in here. I gotta go back to 105, though.
- No, are you in the Zoom meeting? No. Do I need to be? You don't need to be, but the Zoom, we're gonna
- get it up on the Zoom. Okay, well, let me get there. Or you could put it in an email to Eric. I'll try.
- I gotta get back up there.
- So on Flavia's page 216, it's not on page 216, which is one of the reasons why we need to actually have
- actual code citation. So it's 2.04.110, which is the incentive section down in the sustainability incentives.
- And I find it really, really difficult to read this version of the UDO.
- What page are we on in the UDO document page 216 16
- I don't know what link we're looking at. That's just bizarre.
- All right, we're referring here to Section two point oh four dot one one. Oh D to a five Assuming that
- I read that right but For For the yeah, there's definitely some
- some indentation and numbering out of the document we're looking at. That's how it comes up on my computer
- in terms of the sections. And none of those are indented, which means that it is really difficult for
- me to determine that. But I think that's right.
- staff clear on what this So hope Commission member Stossberg has made a motion to amend the electrification
- language based on what is on screen. Yes Is there a second for that motion? second All right, is there
- Are there any questions about this proposed amendment? so
- Is the intent if we agree to this to see what's happens legally Since we don't know Let it work it out
- to City Council level well My intent is I mean I had several discussions about it today with council
- attorney because of the legal advice that we were given in our packet and one of the things that got
- brought up was that the way that the language was written is it did not match the language of the resolution and
- Or the intent of the resolution in terms of that and so that that is the intent of the of the amendment
- The legal question is potentially still out there. Okay, and I think that this is better language in
- terms of it matching the intent I think that I'm more prone to go with the historic legal advice that
- we've gotten from multiple attorneys at this point and instead of forwarding it with a negative
- recommendation we could perhaps
- With no recommendation because that is kind of this third option that we have right in terms of the
- section But I think that either way this wording is better Any other questions Let's call the roll on
- What she's recommending are you recommending a no recommendation or I'm just recommending a change in
- the language Yes Yeah, so then I think what we'll need is after we amend What's what's been proposed
- here we'll need We'll need a motion then later to forward it with a positive recommendation or negative
- recommendation as amended
- So but for right now, we're just considering this first amendment to The proposed amendments All right
- Can I just do an administrative thing real quick somebody in this room bumped the panic button so everybody
- be careful They're under the dais and they're not covered. So if you're moving around And you guys too,
- I don't know they didn't say who it was but they somebody did so just be careful. Thank you
- We're not panicking yet. Okay, let's call the roll, please. Holmes? Yes. Kinsey? Yes. Smith? Yes. Stossberg?
- Yes. Whistler? Yes. Brischop? Yes. Burrell? Yes. Seaborg? Yes.
- All right that Amendment passes Want to just pause for a second and call out that we are at 846 if we
- do nothing We we have until 930 to wrap up this This case no new cases shall be heard after 9 p.m. Which
- means there's two more
- On the agenda here tonight. So if we don't suspend the rules We will be back here Are the other two
- first reading? Both recommendation for second they were both continued from last time. So they have
- not been heard at all I moved to suspend to allow to be heard so we can move it to a second hearing
- Suspend our time so we can hear it and then we can make a recommendation for a second hearing. Okay,
- so you already bumped up and I
- Also to the being able to go past 930 as the second part, right? Yeah, so so if you want to stay here
- tonight and finish all of this We're gonna need to suspend two rules run. We're gonna have to suspend
- the rule to Overrule our adjournment time of 930 and we're gonna have to suspend the rule to allow New
- case to be heard after 9 p.m You want to spend both those rules
- Yes, only because the other two are Recommendation for second hearing and we I think we need to get
- first reading in and we can just kind of leave it at that Yes, we could certainly still take the action
- to continue those we don't have to take right finally get a big discussion we just continue after we
- hear staff report so your motion is to Suspend the rules to Allow the meeting to continue pass our
- 930 adjournment and to allow New cases to be introduced after 9 p.m. Uh-huh. Yes, is there a second
- for that motion? I'll second Just you are commission member Stossberg did step away and this does need
- a unanimous vote. I
- We got 12 minutes I'll withdraw and let's keep going with what we're doing All right, so we have a motion
- on the table to suspend the rules to allow us to continue past 930 and to allow additional
- Cases to be introduced after 9 p.m.. We need unanimous consent on this if we're going to continue Let's
- please call the roll Kinsey yes Smith yes Stossberg yes Whistler Yes Bishop
- Burrell yes seabor yes Holmes Those all yeses All right All right, let's keep going Okay. So now what
- we have one amendment in Would you like to go back and propose? I'm proposing amendment regarding section
- one and two, but I'll be specific I
- regarding table 04-3 mixed use district dimensional standards. I propose we include MN and MN in these
- changes regarding lot area, lot width, front build to range, front, side, rear. These are different.
- This is messing me up.
- impervious surface coverage landscape area To reflect the same changes in table 04-2 residential district
- specifically regarding r3 to reflect the r3 changes into the mm and mn section of table 04-3
- So I think that was clear. Can you remind us again what page that tables on? Page 105 and 106 Thank
- you So I'll just say real quick, you know from staff's perspective, you know the mm District and and
- men kind of as well a little bit, you know, it's a wide range of situations It is a mixed-use medium scale
- We see a lot of commercial development does allow for buildings that are four stories high So, you know
- having having a four foot setback to a side property line depending on what you're up against might
- be challenging so I just wanted to point out that Yeah, so, you know you're it sounded like you were
- proposing to change that to the to the r3 district standards and
- And so the r3 district has a four foot side yard setback requirement So a four foot side yard setback
- requirement for a four story building is 50 feet tall might might be out of context in some situations
- So that note six buildings abutting a property now one or two or three or four zoning districts I'll
- comply with the standards and section that doesn't cover that I'm saying there's a note six buildings
- abutting a property in the r1 r2 r3 r4 There's an exception if you're next to that
- Yeah, so that's that's doing for the transition that's assuming it's a different zone not a different
- use Point of clarification Commissioner Smith Yeah, do you mean?
- When you mean to add M and that's Mike November and mm Mike Mike that that would only apply to Residential
- structures in that district not all structures Apropos of what mr. Grillig said well, but I
- mean a residential structure. Are you talking about? Could be apartment buildings residential structure and
- Addressing was mr. Gurley said I mean, I'm gonna MN might include non-residential structures Which if
- you reduce the side yard and other standards for those might create problems I'll remove the side yard
- request or just Limit it to residential structures. You see what I'm saying? And what is so commercials
- and others would still have to comply with all the standards they already have we wouldn't be We might
- so you're saying if it's first floor commercial
- It wouldn't count So that's why I'd rather just I'll remove the side yard requests and keep the MN MM
- standards as they are Yeah, right right now in MM and M and you know We don't have the separate setbacks
- for a single family duplex triplex that you have in another district So we don't really differentiate
- it right now for I just take this to lot coverage in a purpose surface area and
- Landscape area. I was trying to be, I mean, I can just go with that. If that makes it easier. I just
- want to avoid a situation where we have someone building something we really don't want them to build,
- but a residential structure would work. Well, I was just trying to, so I'll withdraw the motion, make
- the motion to same motion, but just regarding impervious surface coverage area, the impervious surface
- area and the landscape area. How about that? Because that's what's stopping all the development of those
- two things. Yeah.
- So the motion is to In table oh four dash two Sorry oh four Four dash three. Yeah, oh four dash three
- to Have impervious surface coverage area and landscape approach reflect our three zone as proposed in
- table oh four dash two
- On the motion there is there a second All right any discussion Mr. Stossberg, I just want to note that
- in our three there's actually no landscaping requirements
- minimum landscape area is none and I'm not in favor of changing the MN and mm to no landscaping requirement
- Can I get a definition of what that even is? I Don't even know what it is Yep, so the the two terms
- the the difference between them is minimum landscaped area is just essentially raw grass on the property so
- There are no exceptions for permeable pavers or any permeable materials Some of that might come into
- play for impervious surface coverage for driveways for single-family But minimal landscaped areas in
- essence just no exceptions, you know graphs on the ground So we would be interpreting, you know, mr.
- Smith's recommendation that the impervious surface coverage reflect the 80% of the r3 and a converse of
- 20% landscape area required. That's I guess I don't understand why there's a land because it's gonna
- be 20% green space So is it in addition to because like in our in sorry question in RM You've changed
- sorry, yeah an RM you've changed this I gotta find it To 80 or 75% because there's no table and then
- 20% so is it
- 80 and 20 so it's 40 No, so the two are kind of the opposite, you know, they're the inverse of each
- other. So your maximum impervious surface coverage is 80% So your minimum landscape area requirement
- is 20% Okay, then I'll amend mine to allow the minimum landscape area to be 20% Because wait, wait,
- no, wait. No, wait. Hold on. What's our three? Yeah, so 70 70 and 30 Let's just be specific the impervious
- surface coverage change to 70 the landscape area change to 30
- Does that make sense? No, no, I'm gonna but I'm offering 30 because there's a concern about it So let's
- just make it what the RH zone is and what will because RH is 80 20 So let's just make it 70 30 even
- though I don't understand what the 30 does because it has to be there anyway But if it's concerned we
- can add it
- Reframed your motion to make sure I understand it. Yeah, so you're moving to Edit table. Oh five dash
- three to change. Oh four dash three. Oh four dash three. What did I say? Oh my gosh Anyway, oh four
- dash three to change the impervious surface coverage of MN and
- MM to 70% and the landscape area minimum to 30% for those two districts so moved All right, is there
- a second All right Any discussion All right, please call the roll on the motion to amend Smith yes
- Stossberg I'm not sure yet Come back to me at the end. I just come back to me at the end Whistler. Yes
- Bishop Yes, Borel. Yes seaboard Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes All right Stossberg
- I'll say yes, but yes, I guess yes. All right motion carries Udo section 2.0 4.0 6.0 Mark parking and
- minimums to specifically eliminate section L minimum bicycle parking required 180 of the current UDO
- second for the vote Okay It's 180 of the published PDF version of the UDO Can you Can you reference
- the I need the redline version the redline version?
- So this would be on page 157 of the redline version All right Mr. Bishop do you mind just restating
- your motion one more one more time?
- Yeah, I'd like to make an amendment to section 5 which first to 20 point oh four point. Oh six. Oh the
- UDO Specifically to remove section L minimum bicycle parking required
- second again. I'm not even... I don't even see a section L.
- I see got it. Okay Thank you, so Yeah, so your motion is to strike all of section L Correct. Yeah.
- All right, and what's our second? Yeah, Chris did Okay Any discussion Mr. Stossberg
- I appreciate what Commissioner Bishop was saying about the original resolution not specifying vehicular
- parking minimums but that was the intent of it and part of the in the whereas clauses of that one of
- the the reasons for it had to do with our climate action plan in terms of vehicular
- usage and so bicycles don't add to Emissions in the same way that vehicles do So that that's why this
- actually doesn't go along with that Resolution and the intent of council and in addition to that one
- of the other reasonings behind it is to be able to add affordable parking because or affordable housing because
- Creating parking is extremely expensive and so giving developers that option if they're developing in
- a space where parking is not necessarily
- going to be an issue Councilmember Flaherty cited I guess there's a development downtown they called
- it the bicycle development at the time that actually doesn't have any parking I don't actually know
- where it is but it doesn't have any parking with it it's right on the beeline and that's the kind of
- thing that he was trying to to use and promote in that idea so in my opinion it doesn't speak to the
- resolution and I'll be voting against it thanks
- Other comments I'm sorry Yes So much like the parking minimums, it doesn't preclude anyone from adding
- bicycle parking at all But it does remove the undue burden of forcing someone to put bicycle parking
- which becomes costly at a certain point especially when you have to have a minimum threshold and
- for businesses undergoing any sort of compliance for change of use or things like that, they would be
- forced to add in bicycle parking, which is an expense that most small businesses can't afford. So by
- removing that, you're taking away a financial burden for a developer and or small business. You're not
- removing the ability for bicycle parking to continue. Any other comments? Mr. Seaborg.
- I guess just a question if staff wouldn't mind weighing in on the proposed amendment. Well, you know,
- like I said, we did not interpret this to mean bicycle parking. You know, that was not part of what
- Mr. Councilmember Flaherty was trying to address. So that's why we didn't even address it in our proposed
- amendment to that. So that's where we did not think that this was what he was intending to do. Certainly
- also to reiterate what Councilmember Stossberg cited.
- In part of why they came forward with that Thank you Any other comments Let's call the roll on the proposed
- amendment the motion to amend No Yes Yes
- Yes No No Yes Yeah, I already already said yes, I think that's five
- Yes. Yes, that was fine. Just all right Motion carries. Okay Any other I do Okay, mr. Smith section
- 2005 050 page 228 subdivision development standards see III Where I do this one remove the less than
- I never got back to remove the less than 150 feet deep all that are well make sure it makes sense, but
- 150-foot deep lot depth None of the rest of it. Give me that page number one more time, please to 28
- 220 well, it's 2005 050 subdivision design standards. See III. Yeah, right. So in yes section CII you're
- proposing you're moving to strike the words that is less than 150 feet deep Correct
- second Second Any discussion I Want to make sure that this still addresses and Eric I want to get the
- staff's input on assuring that this still addresses the fire department concerns is that clear just
- by removing a
- Yeah, the the remainder of that where you know, no structure can be built on the lot That's more than
- 150 feet from the street seem to still address what the fire department's concerns are That honestly
- sounds really good but just to understand the process so a subdivision happens independent of the building
- Process are there processes in place to assure that somehow a building couldn't get approved that would
- What are the process just to assure that that was? The kind of second part of that talks about a note
- has to be placed on the plat regarding that effect So when we review the building permit and look at
- the plat and see the note that is on there Then that would be our clue our trigger to make sure that
- that additional standard is being met Thank you
- All right, let's call the roll on that amendment I don't know that you went to public comment For an
- amendment you are correct. I'm sorry All right, we have to start over no Here's what I don't think there's
- gonna be any but if there is there any common public comment on this amendment I
- There's anybody online that would like to give public comment on this proposed amendment, please use
- the raise hand function And if you'd like to make comment on the prior amendment I'll allow that at
- this time as well All right seeing none back to the Commission let's call the roll on the motion to men Yes
- Yes, yes, yes Yes, yes Okay motion carries Is there any other motions at this time I
- So we have this the document as amended as it is currently it includes the changes from all four sections
- so if If a commissioner would like to move this along with only Some of those sections again will need
- to be specific if there's something you want to exclude from the motion and
- Motion to move Z. Oh Let's ease to 20 20 26 0 6 0 0 0 6 For the positive recommendation based on the
- three including the three amendments that were voted on in the Tonight's meeting. All right for so for
- amendments You could just say
- Second arts the motion on the table is to forward As amended which includes all of the original changes
- is there any final discussion That is the that is the motion on the table Yeah, I just really
- Want to move this forward because it will be taken up by council and I'm sure they'll have additional
- Will change things. Yeah, they'll have additional comments and questions and changes But we've been
- asked to move on this by council. So I want to Mr. Seymour, I'll just echo what Commissioner Kinsey
- just said and just for for this group sake and maybe more for council sake to be thinking about the
- removal of minimum parking requirements and
- some land uses Or some streets, I guess don't allow certain land uses to park on those streets if it's
- in a certain permit zone So just wanting to raise that awareness to be thinking about If people aren't
- parked on the site and they're assuming they will park on the street that that's not always possible
- in certain areas So just keeping that other larger policy implication in mind as well
- I'll just say one more time for the record something I've said many times before which is I Don't like
- the way that we are doing this with our With our incentives I'll vote to forward this on and I do agree
- that I think I think probably I think probably it's legal I'm not a lawyer, but I do think that we kind
- of get around and
- Probably was the intent of the state law by making it an incentive, but I think it's completely disingenuous
- when the reward for Using the incentives is just to get things that we wanted you to do anyway, right
- more more density is also Going to help affordability right so it's like it makes so little sense to
- me that we'd say you can only make things
- You can only increase our housing supply if you do all these other things. Like if we want prices to
- come down, if we want things to be affordable, we should just make it easy to build more dense housing,
- not force you to jump through a bunch of hoops to do it. And so I think it's, I just don't like the
- way we do it and I think it's, although it's probably legal, I think it's just bad policy. But that
- being said,
- We know this was specifically requested by the council and They're you know, they're gonna do with it
- as they will so I'm happy to send it back their way Can I make a motion to amend the motion on the table
- You you can yes to Forward the petition as amended to council but with no recommendation instead of
- a positive
- I think that's a new motion. Yeah, I think We're gonna vote we're gonna vote twice on it either way
- so I Suppose if there if there's a second for your motion then second. All right, so The motion is to
- amend the motion to change the recommendation from positive to no recommendation
- He's moving to amend her motion that is allowed under Yeah, I think maybe legal is gonna come up and
- say that's just a separate motion because the three things you can do are all separate You can all of
- the things we've been doing are moving to amend other motions that is That is standard parliamentary procedure
- Would you like to weigh in and Edina from city of Bloomington legal I think that's just a new motion
- under the Roberts rules So if it's easier just propose a new motion Does that make sense It makes sense
- or vote on the motion. Yeah, that's before you I
- Under Roberts rules, we have to vote on the motion. That's before us right now If I mean city legal
- just said that that's an entirely new motion, but we have a motion on the table already So we have to
- vote on the motion that is on the table or the person who made the motion has to withdraw the motion
- Sorry, that's just not correct draw if this motion fails then we can make a second one. Thank you. All
- right If There's no further discussion the motion on the table is
- Is to forward as amended with a positive recommendation. Let's call the roll on that motion Yes No Yes No
- Yes Yes Yes Yes I lost count six to All right motion carries We are now on to Zio
- 2026-06-007 Thank you, so this is second amendment from staff Directed at three aspects within the unified
- development ordinance again working towards the goal of increasing housing attainability as I mentioned
- with the previous presentation this has also served a
- Fulfill our requirements with the latest house bill regarding reviewing the unified development ordinance
- in regards to Holding a public hearing for the purpose of increasing housing development So with this
- we are proposing to amend three sections of the UDO related to accessory dwelling units cottage developments
- and duplexes
- So with this we are proposing to amend the allowed size for attached ad use to be a thousand square
- feet and for detached ad use to be 1,000 square feet or 75% of the primary structure, whichever is less
- Part of the reason for the adjustment of the language for detached ad use and what you see relates to
- changes For this in this House bill 1001 of how those units are defined So this is syncing it with that
- With this as I mentioned we are proposing to change the standards
- for the use cottage develop cottage developments to increase the density that's allowed for those adjust
- some of the standards that go along with that for setbacks and height.
- and landscaping requirements and project size standards And then also adjusting some of the use specific
- standards for duplexes To remove the limitation on the number of duplexes allowed per calendar year
- the spatial limitation that applies to those as well Adjusting the use specific standards for triplex
- and fourplexes and then modifying the standard for duplexes related to the
- Review of roof orientation just to kind of clarify that a little bit So as I mentioned there were recent
- changes to the state definition of accessory dwelling unit So we are modifying our definition to sync
- with that. So this is just an excerpt from this Indiana code with that change
- With that, there were a few changes to the definition that I mentioned that we have to adjust. One of
- those would be to allow for a new definition for accessory dwelling units for the duplex, just to kind
- of make that specific to that use. And then a second one related to just a single family definition.
- Again, in essence, using that same language, just differentiating those two units or those two uses.
- So with this as I mentioned very simply we're proposing to allow to increase the size for an attached
- ADU to a thousand square feet again kind of sinking that with the state code definition of
- Use and then adjusting same thing for the detached ADU, you know We feel like this gives a greater Use
- for or a greater size for this use can increase the amount of bedrooms that are in there The number
- of bedrooms aren't being changed with this but it could increase the size of those bedrooms And the
- unit themselves create some more living space within there so we certainly see this as an advantage
- to that that might help increase the use of that and
- The next change here is in relation to cottage development So this is an excerpt of the use table just
- kind of showing where this is It's a conditional use and all of the single-family and multifamily districts
- Changing the allowed use table is not on the discussion for tonight. We can't change the use table,
- but I'm just showing this for reference for where the UDO treats this and
- So cottage developments just in case the Plaint Commission is not familiar because you don't see these
- They go to the Board of Zoning Appeals or the hearing officer It allows for units to be constructed
- on a site without subdividing a property and creating individual lots for this the typical arrangement
- that is envisioned is You know some cluster of homes with parking in the back That are oftentimes a
- smaller size unit but that is
- Not necessarily a restriction of this use itself so we are proposing to change the density and Minimum
- maximum project size to get rid of those minimum and maximum project size and increase the density that
- is could be allowed with this So you see in the proposed amendment those changes to the unit and the
- density count that is
- Proposed here. We've also proposed modifying the language regarding perimeter sidewalks and also Modifying
- the rear setback requirement for this Use as well. Again, we just have not seen this used utilized at
- all and really feel a lot of the development standards in the udr are the main reason that that just
- doesn't get utilized and
- So we're also removing the maximum size that's allowed for each unit and the depth the width just kind
- of governing how those Buildings are designed And then the last is changing the standards for duplexes
- as I mentioned to get rid of the maximum number that are allowed per year and getting rid of the buffer
- that is required the udio currently requires a 150 foot buffer
- Around a duplex that applies for two years that prevents any other duplexes from being approved within
- there And then also there was a cap of 15 duplexes that were allowed per calendar year One minor modification
- that we're making to the use specific standards. It's just clarifying roof pitch To include the words
- and orientation. That's how staff has applied this in the situations where these have come forward So
- we just wanted to clarify
- What exactly is is? Being reviewed when when we review those requests and then for the use triplex and
- fourplex there is a limitation of Or a maximum of only two exterior entrances for those uses it that
- does prevent a townhome arrangement where you create a townhome building with four units in there, but
- each unit you want to condo eyes it and
- Have its own entrance and you know having you know, a shared entrance does work against that goal So
- we're proposing to remove that and then also again including roof pitch and orientation and the use
- specific standard with that So this is required to have two hearings So we are simply recommending that
- the Planning Commission forward this to the required second hearing in September and I'm happy to answer
- any questions
- questions from commissioners Commissioner Kinsey. Yeah, I just wanted some clarification or I would
- like some clarification on the Duplex and the buffer and the removal of the cap. I mean, I remember
- really laboring over that when we created this in the UDO and I just wonder how much of that was ever
- needed or necessary in
- and how much it was actually either protective or if it was a problem for any? I would say the spatial
- limitation has certainly been more impactive than the maximum number of cap, the 15. However, we have
- seen that trend going up in terms of the number of duplexes that are reviewed and approved every year.
- As I kind of mentioned in the first presentation, a lot of this is just removing perceived barriers
- to folks coming forward for this certainly we'd love to explore a conversation of Allowing this as a
- permitted use in other districts and making it even more accessible But you know, as I mentioned, we're
- not amending the use table. That's not something that we can do at this time So we're just trying to
- remove some of the barriers that are in the code that that do seem to at least visually or mentally
- present obstacle to some folks and
- One of the goals as I mentioned with the house bill was look at hindrances in your zoning codes that
- are creating barriers for housing attainability and this is certainly one of those As I mentioned, we're
- not we're not hitting it. But you know, we certainly could and we would hope to you know see more of
- these utilized So this is something that that is encouraged with that house bill. And so we're recommending
- removing this
- So segue into the house bills just very briefly Does the house bill 101? Require these this language
- in these changes. It does not require You know it encourages communities to I mean one of the things
- in that language does talk about you know encouraging communities to make these permitted uses But it
- looks encourages communities to look at and remove barriers or housing through ad use through diversity
- of housing types
- Duplexes triplexes forplexes, you know reducing setbacks increasing impervious surface coverage, but
- you know But is it required is this no, it's not required. Okay, that's good. Thank you Any other questions
- Mr. Stossberg While we're on the duplex conversation, I have some kind of serious concerns about removing those
- barriers to size without also making them by right in terms of I mean every time I watch a BCA meeting
- there are is at least one often more Duplexes on their agenda that take up an awful lot of time So I
- guess I'm concerned that if we remove this barrier them then what we're doing is but but we keep the
- conditional use barrier then we're gonna overload the BCA in a way that's like really inappropriate
- in terms of that body and
- Yeah, so as I indicated, we would certainly love to have the more open conversation and path about amending
- the use table. Amending the use table requires notification to all affected property owners within the
- zoning district, so it has a much higher public notification requirement. It's a lot costlier. So we
- looked at doing some use table amendments, but that was not something that we were moving forward with
- at this time.
- That is something that maybe we can revisit very soon in the next year or two But we share your concerns
- and thoughts Other questions from commissioners Just just a statement that I agree With your proposal
- because I'm on the BZA and I yeah, you should be but right
- I'm also in the same view And I just wonder if the staff has thought more about what it would take I
- mean obviously their obligation is about noticing and you know public information but I just wonder
- if there's more of a case to be made and what that might be and maybe this is more of a comment than
- anything, but but I do think that there's a there's a larger issue here than just
- Noticing and making sure that the public has sufficient, you know and not living in all those zones
- have information if we would want to really live by the spirit of the housing that the attainability
- Incentive here that I mean, that's the idea here. I think we would need to perhaps report out on you
- know other the the number of
- Duplexes that were not permitted because of this conditional use or how much the BZA has been overwhelmed
- By having to think about these things So I just wonder about other things that we might need to assemble
- and if there's been any thought to that I guess that's how I could make it a question Yeah, like I said
- we we hear your thoughts and concerns and see the same thing Right now at this time. It's not something
- that the department has been directed to do yet
- So is the holdup the department being directed to do that At this time it's not something that we have
- been directed to bring forward Any other questions You had the floor I have a couple other topics Are
- we ready to move on to other topics?
- Okay, so the first question is about the cottage developments and I guess I The question that I wrote
- down now I wrote this down last month, okay It's hard to know what I was thinking then but in terms
- of the cottage developments Allowing for increased density and that I just want to understand how that
- increased density is different than multifamily housing being allowed in the are one through our four
- districts like
- more than just plexes, because if there's no minimum project size, then could someone in a standard
- type R2 lot, say, of about a quarter of an acre or a fifth of an acre, then create a cottage development
- with more than four little units by right. And I say more than four because of trying to amend for quad
- plexes, which would
- You know not otherwise be allowed and an r2 district like because they can suddenly have 24 or well,
- okay, so 24 divided by Say Yeah for for a quarter of an acre that would be six little little developments
- and an r2 kind of standard Size little lot. So how is it different? Well, so, you know one thing certainly
- is one of the use specific standards here that talks about no more than two units in a building and
- So that that separates it from just an apartment building with multiple units in it You know, it is
- a conditional use to certainly we evaluate for that use being appropriate in a particular area But you're
- right. There are certainly a lot of similarities between this and a multifamily development But there
- are restrictions here that do make it a little bit less in terms of the number of units that are out
- in building trying to steer it more towards you know a series of duplexes within a property and
- smaller tiny homes doesn't necessarily have to be a tiny home but you know it's just again something
- to try to move the needle to getting more housing within the community. Again there aren't a lot of
- empty lots in the single family zoning districts where you're going to get this happening at a very
- large scale. So it's probably something that's just really going to be more utilized on you know the
- rare lot that that might be available.
- Or a situation where somebody wants to have a couple more units in their backyard that has a single-family
- house up front and they want to have two or three units in the backyard or It's hard to really kind
- of envision it because there's just a mix of possibilities that would have to kind of come forward Well,
- how is it different from an ADU then? Well, so right now ADU is the owner has to live on the property.
- So this would not necessarily have that
- I have one more unrelated question. Should I go ahead? All right, so I'm trying to find it now. In the
- definition of, there's a change of definition. It's on my page 348. I just have to find page 348. So
- it is in the change of definition
- Dwelling accessory unit and in the struck-out language it strikes out and is connected to city utilities
- So is it not required anymore that the accessory that an ad you be? Connected to city utilities or did
- I just miss where it got rewritten somewhere else? Like am I just reading it wrong? No, they do still
- have to connect to city utilities The the previous I'm sorry. I'm gonna look at it here
- Think the language referred to or the challenge that we were running into were separate meters which
- utilities department wasn't doing So you're trying to eliminate the need for an ADU to have their own
- meter Yes, that that was the main problem that we were running into is utilities just wasn't doing that and
- We were changing this to reflect that policy that they have but in the end what you've done is struck
- out connected to city utilities So is it still somehow is there still a requirement in there that it
- has to have? utilities connected to our Because otherwise so I guess here's the question what's stopping
- somebody from putting in an ADU with a composting toilet So CB you doesn't well, I think the health
- department probably would step in there and
- More more than we would or CB you would Is that that's not captured in this? Where is that captured?
- I guess so part part of the change though that you see here though is this language is verbatim from
- the state definition So for instance in the
- Presentation here, you know I included yeah So some of those state codes that are cited in there require
- some connection to utilities Yeah, so it you know, it talks about includes its own cooking sleeping
- and sanitation facilities You know, I don't know if there's a state definition of sanitation facilities
- that you know gives more guidance on that or restrictions and
- We can certainly look into that and have an answer for you. I would appreciate that. Honestly, I mean
- this is coming from a kid who was born in a house with without and in indoor plumbing, so It wasn't
- that long ago that That sort of thing occurred so thanks those are all my questions All right, thank
- you any additional questions from commissioners I
- All right, is there any public comment on Zio 2026-06-0007? I don't see any here in the chambers. Anyone
- online? If you're online and you'd like to make comment, just click the reaction button and click the
- raise hand button and we will recognize you when it's your turn to speak. Last call for public comment.
- We are back to the Commission for any final discussion or a motion You can do a motion to forward this
- on for its of this petition Z o twenty twenty six zero six zero zero zero seven to a required second
- hearing Alright, let's call the roll on the motion to
- Continue Or forward I should say sir Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All right motion carries we
- are on to our final agenda item zeo 2026-06-0008 and we still have
- Eric Grulick for one more time, one night only. Last show. Thank you. So this is, again, a third series
- of amendments that staff has bring forward to try to decrease barriers to development and redevelopment
- opportunities kind of more specifically. So this amendment or series of amendments look to adjust
- the requirements within the unified development ordinance regarding to change in uses on a property
- that trigger compliance with certain aspects of the zoning code. So we have several changes that are
- proposed here. So one of those for the most part is adjusting what triggers change in use. And then
- the second component is what are the site improvements that are triggered or required when those activities happen?
- So we are looking to remove the requirement that a subdivision requires all properties to come into
- compliance Properties still cannot subdivide away anything that it is needed to meet a requirement But
- the subdivision act itself does not trigger compliance We're adjusting the comply or proposing to adjust
- the compliance threshold for new building construction on the site where there is an existing building and
- To allow for new buildings under a certain size to be constructed that without triggering full compliance
- Modifying the language for expansion of parking areas to allow for limited Expansion of parking areas
- without triggering compliance and then moving into What are the improvements required on a property?
- We're proposing to adjust
- one of the triggers or one of the implications of site improvements deals with Removal of parking spaces
- over parking maximum So we're proposing to add language that parking spaces With 14 or less spaces don't
- have to remove parking over the maximum we're proposing to address the threshold for building additions
- to allow building additions up to 25 percent and
- Currently 10% additions are allowed without triggering limited compliance. So we would be adjusting
- that to 25% and then going into the world of What triggers change in use requirements one of one of
- the big things that we have right now There are several things that trigger change in use requirements
- certainly expansion of buildings expansion of use on a property but also one of the triggers is moving
- from use categories and
- within the UDO. So the UDO has uses that are broken into specific subgroups, as they're called. So if
- you move from one subgroup to another, that is a change in use. So as you can see here, the change,
- excerpt for the change in use table, you know, if you are going from indoor recreation to an office,
- that is a change in use.
- One of the other change in use triggers is dealing with a property or a building that has been abandoned.
- So right now the UDO defines abandonment as a property or a building that the previous use has been
- removed or abandoned from 12 months. So we would be proposing to change that to 24 months.
- So with that, as I mentioned, I kind of gave an overview of what those actual triggers would be. So
- I've just got the actual citations in there that talk about allowing for new buildings to be constructed
- on a site that are less than 25% of existing buildings would be reviewed under limited compliance. And
- then talking about some of the building additions and expansions of parking areas that would be allowed.
- So all of these are intended to
- make it easier to reuse properties without having to do significant improvements. But I think it's certainly
- important to point out that these triggers are one of the main ways that we get improvements on properties.
- These change in use situations are what we see most of the time, not tear down everything that's on
- a property and start from scratch. So I just want to make sure to point out the advantages and disadvantages here.
- Certainly we do make these changes as written, make it easier to reuse certain buildings and decrease
- some of the things that somebody has to do on a property. But the opposite side of that is properties
- can sit in a state of non-compliance for much longer and we won't get those improvements. So I just,
- like I said, make sure I want to point out advantages and disadvantages to these things.
- So with that we are recommending that the plane commission for this to the required second hearing in
- September And I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions from commissioners? Mr. Stossberg,
- I didn't actually have any questions on this one until you started your presentation. So thanks for
- that So I've to now in terms of a change in use no longer triggering a
- a limited compliance What would happen if the new use really changed how the property interacted with
- the public or the street like wouldn't that kind of cause a problem potentially in terms of increased
- traffic or severely decreased traffic just in terms of that street level interaction and Then how much
- and I guess this speaks maybe to my second question or the second part of what you just said in terms
- of improvements that
- You know might be better in terms of the UDO To make depending on the usage. I guess I'm thinking about
- things like landscaping or Parking though. I guess one of the other things that we just did tonight
- was eliminate minimum parking requirements But we still have maximum parking requirements and so if
- suddenly there's you know a new use is not gonna require the same kind of parking as it would otherwise
- have and then we just have like a
- massive parking lot that's empty all the time like Yep, so those those are great examples of you know
- situations where depending on so Let me just back up a little bit So, you know one of our changes is
- proposed that parking lots with less than 14 parking spaces don't have to remove parking over the maximum
- So, you know what we have seen in situations where you have
- a very low amount of parking like 14 spaces or so. You know, removing five or six spaces while it certainly
- will be meeting the requirements of the UDO does have some real implications for properties and very
- small amount of spaces. You know, that's not necessarily the more severe situation that we're trying
- to work on where you've got
- 100 parking spaces that sit empty for the majority year. You know, that's not where the big impacts,
- those are the big impacts is those parking spaces that are 100 and they're sitting empty. You know,
- five parking spaces sitting on a property empty, that's not as impactive. And those are the situations
- where the small business owner feels a heavier impact because they've got to spend money, you know,
- it's very costly to remove asphalt and do that work. So, you know, when we have these change and use
- conversations
- You know go through the requirements the things that people feel are most impact of our removing parking
- spaces removing asphalt because that's very costly and When you've got a small business owner trying
- to move into a small space that that can feel very substantial to them So we're still requiring the
- large spaces to have to remove if yes So part, you know, so with what we've proposed right now 14 is
- where we'd say, you know if you're less than that you don't ever have to remove anything and
- You know obviously unless you completely tear everything down and build back then you're in a full compliance
- so that's just where we've kind of looked at looking at you know years of situations and You know two
- or three extra parking spaces it can mean a lot to a business You know as they ebb and flow between
- different uses and and really is not the the scenario that we were trying to address
- Okay and then the other thing that I was kind of wondering because you started talking about the pluses
- and the minuses in such a way that kind of made me go like oh it feels like there's as potentially as
- many like concerns about about eliminating these as keeping them and so I guess I'm wondering where
- the recommendations then came from in terms of your like matrix of best practices and and UDO changes
- and where did this sort of originate from?
- Yep. So looking at all these changes, and as I'm pointing out, there are two things that we're adjusting
- here. One is what are the triggers for a change in use? What are the things that trigger a change in
- use? And then what are the improvements that you have to do with those? You don't have to say we want
- to do all of these. The changes that we're proposing in this for the triggers, the removal of the subgroup,
- I think is probably the most impactive. That's the one that we see the most of. You're going from a
- restaurant to retail. Those are the big ones. And like I said, the site improvements that feel most
- substantial are most of the time removing parking. Very rarely do folks have a problem putting in a
- bike rack or adding street trees or landscaping. It's the removal of the asphalt. So that's where when
- we were adjusting the limited compliance or the site improvements,
- You know removing that parking or giving that allowance for spaces less than 14 You know seem to address
- a lot of the day-to-day concerns or in situations that we have with the small business owners and small
- sites So we just wanted to make sure to point out, you know, here's all the things that we're proposing
- You know as as we've seen with previous amendments tonight, you don't have to do all of these But these
- are what we're proposing to again kind of move the needle a little bit, you know, we can see how this
- feels if we see that it's having effect of more properties not getting any improvements over the years,
- maybe we go back. But this is what we felt was kind of a good starting point to move the needle a little
- bit. OK, thanks. Any other questions? I got a couple. Just the change of use triggers, just want to
- make sure I'm clear on this.
- Number three under the change in use any change from one residential land use to another So let me give
- you a scenario. I got an apartment building And I want to change it from rental To owner occupied so
- that is not a Rental is not a land use itself. It's still a dwelling unit
- So one residential land use to another would be multifamily to an opioid rehabilitation home Or condo
- in is that a sub use anywhere and now okay, what about? I've got a warehouse I'm sorry. I've got a warehouse
- and I want that now to be I want to put office in there not changing anything to the
- Structure nothing no change to the footprint just instead of stacking boxes in my warehouse. I want
- to put some desks in there and that Yep, so that would that would fall into the subgroup category that
- I was talking about where you're going from a warehouse to an office So warehousing is listed under
- employment That's kind of the the subgroup that that's listed in with just
- a few other things, you know, bottled gas, contractor's yard, distribution warehouse, outdoor storage,
- self-service storage, so that's it. So if you go to anything other than those five or six things, it's
- a change in use. Yeah, I think that's where my, that's a comment, I guess. That's where my concern is.
- I don't think it's fair to trigger change in use when you're not making any physical changes to the building.
- Try to dig a little deeper. Just for a little bit of context, prior to 2019 when the UDO came in,
- we had, I think, seven or eight lists of classes of uses. It was a lot broader. If you went from one
- class to another class, that was a change in use. When we updated the use table and had it broken down into
- these particular groups and subgroups, we wanted to look at how does that still function of going from
- this use to that use. There is a difference between an office and a restaurant in terms of what's happening
- on the site, traffic and impacts and things, so we can certainly look at revisiting maybe how these
- subgroups are done, but in the interim right now, like you said, that's probably one of the biggest
- triggers, and you're right, there might be very negligible
- difference between storing boxes and an office but some uses there are big differences in terms of what's
- happening there sure Yeah, okay. Thanks any other questions Any public comment If you would like to
- make comment if you're online click that reaction button Click the raise hand button or send a message
- to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak if you're here in the chambers
- just make your way to the podium and
- State your name for the record and you'll have three minutes to speak. Last call for public comment.
- All right, we are back to the commission for any final comments or a motion. A motion. A motion Z02026-06-0008.
- To move this forward Move this petition forward to the sec required second hearing second All right
- motion the second is there any final discussion? Let's call the roll on the motion to forward to the
- second hearing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
- Yes Yes Yes Motion carries. Thank you all for your patience this evening That's our final agenda item.
- We are adjourned