WEBVTT 00:00:01.026 --> 00:00:09.062 - All right, hello and good evening. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the City of Bloomington 00:00:09.062 --> 00:00:17.336 - Plan Commission for Monday, August 10th. Let me start by giving an overview of our agenda this evening. 00:00:17.336 --> 00:00:25.531 - We will have just a couple of housekeeping items and then we will get to our, we have a consent agenda 00:00:25.531 --> 00:00:30.782 - tonight that has two items on the consent agenda and then we have 00:00:31.586 --> 00:00:43.013 - Four petitions to be heard in full tonight. Those are sub-2020605-0010. This is the Redevelopment 00:00:43.013 --> 00:00:54.790 - Commission's request for primary plat approval for Hopewell South and partial plat vacation. We will 00:00:54.790 --> 00:00:57.822 - then have ZO2020606-0006. 00:00:58.114 --> 00:01:09.651 - which is UDO text amendment related to the council resolution 2026-05. And we will then have ZO 2026-06-007, 00:01:09.651 --> 00:01:20.764 - which is a request for UDO text amendment related to increasing housing attainability. And then finally, 00:01:20.764 --> 00:01:25.950 - ZO 2026-06-0008 request for UDO text amendments. 00:01:26.434 --> 00:01:36.575 - excuse me, related to change in use and limited compliance requirements. So, yeah, four petitions plus 00:01:36.575 --> 00:01:46.519 - a consent agenda this evening. But let's begin just by calling the roll for attendance this evening. 00:01:46.519 --> 00:01:55.774 - Bishop? Here. Burrell? Here. Seaborg? Here. Korodke? Here. Holmes? Here. Kinsey? Here. Smith? 00:01:56.098 --> 00:02:05.636 - Stossberg here Whistler here All right, so we do have a quorum. Let's move on to Approval of minutes. 00:02:05.636 --> 00:02:15.735 - We have the minutes from the July 13th meeting for approval this evening. Are there any questions? Comments 00:02:15.735 --> 00:02:23.870 - or corrections to those minutes Do we have a motion to approve Plan Commission minutes 00:02:26.754 --> 00:02:35.624 - All right, all in favor say aye Any opposed All right, the minutes are approved We'll move on now to 00:02:35.624 --> 00:02:44.494 - reports resolutions and communications. Are there any reports from commissioners tonight? All right, 00:02:44.494 --> 00:02:53.365 - how about from staff Planning transportation I'd mentioned to earlier that at some of these meetings 00:02:53.365 --> 00:02:56.702 - I will have a little brief updates on 00:02:56.994 --> 00:03:03.353 - Things that occurred law whatever and there were some questions about the federal housing act So I asked 00:03:03.353 --> 00:03:09.470 - Anna Killian Hansen director of housing neighborhood development to take five minutes and update you 00:03:09.470 --> 00:03:15.708 - on what the federal housing act Provided for so I will introduce It's Kelly and Hansen for you. She'll 00:03:15.708 --> 00:03:22.067 - take it from there Thank you. Welcome. Good evening. Thank you so much for having me Anna Killian Hansen 00:03:22.067 --> 00:03:24.126 - housing and neighborhood director 00:03:25.154 --> 00:03:31.974 - 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 00:03:31.974 --> 00:03:34.782 - But please understand. There's a lot here 00:03:34.914 --> 00:03:41.392 - So recently the 21st century Road to Housing Act was passed. It became law on July 11th. So pretty recently 00:03:41.392 --> 00:03:47.690 - Considering the last time that you guys had met Building on earlier House and Senate proposals the final 00:03:47.690 --> 00:03:53.868 - package included more than 50 provisions aimed at boosting housing supply reducing regulatory barriers 00:03:53.868 --> 00:04:00.286 - modernizing existing federal housing programs and strengthening coordination across the housing system and 00:04:01.442 --> 00:04:05.310 - The 21st Century Road to Housing Act made significant changes 00:04:05.442 --> 00:04:11.895 - federal community development and affordable housing programs by expanding eligible uses of CDBG and 00:04:11.895 --> 00:04:18.476 - home funds which we receive Reducing administrative barriers and creating new opportunities to support 00:04:18.476 --> 00:04:25.313 - affordable housing supply It also directed HUD to advance reforms related to zoning land use environmental 00:04:25.313 --> 00:04:31.830 - review housing construction and housing finance with the overall goal of helping communities increase 00:04:31.830 --> 00:04:35.408 - the production and improve access to affordable housing 00:04:35.408 --> 00:04:42.074 - The act includes provisions addressing housing construction methods and financing including Point access 00:04:42.074 --> 00:04:48.677 - block buildings which are multifamily buildings with three or more stories served by a single staircase 00:04:48.677 --> 00:04:55.533 - reforms intended to improve financing for modular and manufactured homes and provisions addressing barriers 00:04:55.533 --> 00:04:57.438 - to small dollar mortgages and 00:04:57.538 --> 00:05:05.170 - Made several significant changes to the CDBG grant program And one of those being that now we have to 00:05:05.170 --> 00:05:10.782 - have transparency around publicly owned land. So beginning in funding year 00:05:10.946 --> 00:05:16.539 - 30 which if you do not understand our funding years, we actually start them like we're just starting 00:05:16.539 --> 00:05:22.465 - our 26 year So we're halfway through the year. So it gets a little squirrely but starting with the funding 00:05:22.465 --> 00:05:28.225 - year 30 the potential amount of funding a community receives will be related to how easy it is to build 00:05:28.225 --> 00:05:29.886 - housing in your community and 00:05:29.954 --> 00:05:39.058 - So beginning in funding year 27, we must establish a publicly available searchable database identifying 00:05:39.058 --> 00:05:42.910 - undeveloped land owned by the jurisdiction. 00:05:42.978 --> 00:05:50.808 - Then in 27 we are allowed to use up to 20% of our annual CDBG funding for new affordable housing construction 00:05:50.808 --> 00:05:57.997 - in 2030 the build now act creates a mechanism for adjusting our allocations Based on our improvement 00:05:57.997 --> 00:06:05.114 - in our housing growth rate, which they are set to release in September So they're gonna actually do 00:06:05.114 --> 00:06:12.944 - a study and tell us how good or bad we are at creating housing in the community It's also going to reduce the 00:06:12.944 --> 00:06:20.176 - our regulatory burdens for environmental reviews, which if you've worked with our department in order 00:06:20.176 --> 00:06:27.267 - to use the federal funding, it takes forever. If we have to go through these environmental reviews, 00:06:27.267 --> 00:06:34.428 - it can be years before we can complete one and obtain all of the necessary information. It also goes 00:06:34.428 --> 00:06:37.406 - into the Build Housing Act portion of it. 00:06:37.890 --> 00:06:43.422 - Basically goes through the NEPA review process and tries to streamline that 00:06:45.474 --> 00:06:51.480 - It goes through the revitalizing empty structures into desirable environments act which establishes 00:06:51.480 --> 00:06:57.726 - a five-year home pilot program to convert vacant and abandoned commercial and industrial buildings into 00:06:57.726 --> 00:07:04.152 - attainable housing or low and moderate income households Eligible activities can be acquisition demolition 00:07:04.152 --> 00:07:10.878 - remediation and redevelopment with priority for distressed areas and communities undertaking regulatory reforms 00:07:11.170 --> 00:07:18.467 - It revitalizes our home repair program and makes it easier to accomplish It goes into a quite a bit 00:07:18.467 --> 00:07:25.910 - with the financing aspect and it actually expands opportunities With right of first refusals actually 00:07:25.910 --> 00:07:31.966 - which is interesting and it further addresses manufactured and modular homes which 00:07:33.762 --> 00:07:40.120 - the way that they're attached to buildings. So it talks about making it easier to make sure that we 00:07:40.120 --> 00:07:46.542 - can get permanent financings, because if you haven't sold a modular home, you might not know that it 00:07:46.542 --> 00:07:53.155 - has to be on a permanent foundation in order to qualify for financing. So that does help that. And then 00:07:53.155 --> 00:07:59.640 - it also directs HUD to develop best practice frameworks for zoning and land use policies. And so that 00:07:59.640 --> 00:08:03.582 - portion is interesting because it's basically telling us that 00:08:04.290 --> 00:08:10.709 - Recommendations are centered around three different key areas cost land and time the report recommends 00:08:10.709 --> 00:08:16.318 - reviewing local regulations and processes that increase construction costs limit land and 00:08:16.482 --> 00:08:23.138 - Available for housing or length and time required to obtain approvals and construct homes And it includes 00:08:23.138 --> 00:08:29.354 - reviewing permitting fees and other development costs avoiding requirements for unrelated off-site 00:08:29.354 --> 00:08:34.942 - infrastructure increasing transparency around fees inspections permits and approvals and 00:08:35.106 --> 00:08:41.197 - Allowing a broad range of construction methods including manufactured and modular housing making publicly 00:08:41.197 --> 00:08:47.231 - owned land available for housing development Allowing by right residential developments were appropriate 00:08:47.231 --> 00:08:53.092 - streamlining permitting and eliminating duplicative reviews establishing defined permitting timelines 00:08:53.092 --> 00:08:55.678 - and using technology to modernize or develop 00:08:56.226 --> 00:09:04.341 - the development process. And so, taking together the best practices from HUD and then also this new 00:09:04.341 --> 00:09:11.806 - bill, it really establishes a framework for how they would like us to start moving forward. 00:09:11.938 --> 00:09:18.566 - And then one of the things I think you guys might be interested in is the act also prohibits large for-profit 00:09:18.566 --> 00:09:24.652 - institutional investors from purchasing certain single-family homes So that more homes are available 00:09:24.652 --> 00:09:30.798 - for individual homebuyers The ban stops large corporations from purchasing extra single-family houses 00:09:30.798 --> 00:09:33.630 - or duplexes this applies to firms that own all 00:09:33.698 --> 00:09:39.949 - Control at least 350 single-family residential properties. This is not retroactive Companies do not 00:09:39.949 --> 00:09:46.200 - have to sell the homes they already owned before the law started however violating the purchase ban 00:09:46.200 --> 00:09:51.326 - can cost them up to a million or triple the home purchase price per violation and 00:09:52.002 --> 00:09:59.121 - So there's a lot of really good stuff in this bill But it's very complicated and many of them are waiting 00:09:59.121 --> 00:10:06.039 - on further guidance for implementation So it's not effective right away certain things will be rolling 00:10:06.039 --> 00:10:10.942 - out slowly summer 27 summer 29 summer 2030 for compliance deadlines, but 00:10:11.042 --> 00:10:19.424 - Implementation implementation plans should be coming out soon and we are keeping an eye on that but 00:10:19.424 --> 00:10:27.973 - something for your guys's radar as well There's quite a bit out there if you want to do some research 00:10:27.973 --> 00:10:36.522 - or I'm happy to share some Information that we have as well. Thank you Thank you Do we have any other 00:10:36.522 --> 00:10:40.126 - reports? All right We will move on then to 00:10:40.386 --> 00:10:51.981 - Our agenda our consent agenda As I mentioned there are two items on the consent agenda tonight Are there 00:10:51.981 --> 00:11:04.018 - any commissioners who? Would like to see either of those removed for if to have a full hearing The questions 00:11:04.018 --> 00:11:08.766 - about the consent agenda How do we do that 00:11:09.026 --> 00:11:15.122 - You are allowed to ask questions, yes You can ask questions without pulling it off the consent agenda. 00:11:15.122 --> 00:11:21.278 - Yes But now would be the time if you have questions, oh, we're that quick into it We're that quick into 00:11:21.278 --> 00:11:27.256 - it. We're on the consent agenda here. So if you got questions, hope he's got a question I think that 00:11:27.256 --> 00:11:33.352 - we would have to pull it off the consent agenda to talk about it at all or to get a presentation about 00:11:33.352 --> 00:11:34.654 - it at all, isn't that 00:11:37.602 --> 00:11:46.806 - I don't believe so we can have conversation about anything we want to hear So, yeah items on the consent 00:11:46.806 --> 00:11:56.448 - agenda usually there is no presentation by staff in the past there have been occasional one or two questions, 00:11:56.448 --> 00:12:05.214 - but I think if there's the intent of having a full dialogue on it should probably be pulled off and 00:12:05.314 --> 00:12:11.461 - I just obviously don't know the extent of your questions if it's like I said one or two, you know, we've 00:12:11.461 --> 00:12:17.608 - tried to answer that Expeditiously, otherwise if it feels like it's gonna be a more prolonged discussion 00:12:17.608 --> 00:12:23.814 - that should be pulled for a full discussion How do you want to agree well how detailed are your questions 00:12:23.814 --> 00:12:29.668 - Depends on the answers. Okay, why don't we why don't you start asking? Let's ask some questions and 00:12:29.668 --> 00:12:32.478 - I'll we'll see how this goes If it gets too far 00:12:32.610 --> 00:12:39.417 - You're asking to do a tiff overlay of the plan before it's a six point five acres roughly of Hopewell 00:12:39.417 --> 00:12:41.886 - South Is that what we're asking for? 00:12:46.274 --> 00:12:54.198 - Yes, Dana Kerr represent the RDC here. I'm the attorney from legal that deals with the RDC and 6.5 acres 00:12:54.198 --> 00:13:01.972 - is the Hopewell South the entire Hopewell South area and that would be included in the entire TIF area 00:13:01.972 --> 00:13:09.594 - and is this not already in the consolidated TIF? It's part of the Adams to it is in the consolidated 00:13:09.594 --> 00:13:15.934 - TIF So it would be removed from the consolidated TIF and now it would start its own 00:13:16.066 --> 00:13:25.265 - Hope well south tip. Why are we removing it? What's wrong with the tip as it sits? It would it will 00:13:25.265 --> 00:13:34.923 - be a residential TIF Because it'll be primarily residential properties and so therefore it's a different 00:13:34.923 --> 00:13:44.766 - type of TIF than the consolidated TIF and so it would be a New and different type of TIF and it also would 00:13:45.634 --> 00:13:54.470 - Allow for a different time period Than the existing consolidated TIF right the clock could start again 00:13:54.470 --> 00:14:03.133 - on the life of the TIF and it would be based on when the first obligation of the on that TIF started 00:14:03.133 --> 00:14:11.969 - the RDC would be expending quite a bit of funds to put in the infrastructure and at some point in time 00:14:11.969 --> 00:14:15.486 - Would Possibly need to get reimbursed or 00:14:15.618 --> 00:14:23.640 - There are also other projects that inside that TIF The funds that generated from inside that TIF could 00:14:23.640 --> 00:14:32.050 - pay for they're outside of the Hopewell TIF if it benefited the Hopewell TIF So there's a couple mechanisms 00:14:32.050 --> 00:14:39.838 - that could be used to help the RDC funds with the other projects in the area or in reimbursing them 00:14:39.838 --> 00:14:43.966 - for the the amount of funds that is going to be used 00:14:44.098 --> 00:14:53.489 - Already ready in design but also in putting in infrastructure So will we bond against the revenue to 00:14:53.489 --> 00:15:02.880 - pay for the infrastructure in the consent in the TIF area? It's right now there's not a plan to bond 00:15:02.880 --> 00:15:12.549 - for Well, we are discussing bonding for the infrastructure but the TIF Hopewell South TIF will not have 00:15:12.549 --> 00:15:13.758 - the funds to 00:15:13.986 --> 00:15:22.702 - to pay for it right away. So in the future we're looking at, not too distant future, bonding 00:15:22.702 --> 00:15:32.073 - with consolidated TIF, which would be allowed to used in the Hopewell South TIF because it supports 00:15:32.073 --> 00:15:40.414 - what's going on in the consolidated TIF. Indiana Code 36725 allows you to use funds from 00:15:40.674 --> 00:15:51.297 - a TIF area in other areas that support what's going on in that TIF, the economic development. So the 00:15:51.297 --> 00:16:01.815 - housing development in Hopewell South, it helps what's going on in the consolidated TIF. Therefore, 00:16:01.815 --> 00:16:07.390 - if there was bonding to put in the infrastructure of 00:16:07.522 --> 00:16:16.351 - in Hopewell South, that would be okay to do with the consolidated TIF. If that was to happen, of course, 00:16:16.351 --> 00:16:24.843 - that would take council approval before that would ever be done. And then later, when Hopewell South 00:16:24.843 --> 00:16:33.336 - TIF is getting built out and is getting to the point where it's creating revenue, that revenue could 00:16:33.336 --> 00:16:35.774 - be used to pay on that bond. 00:16:36.546 --> 00:16:45.086 - That is from that the consolidated tiff So that's a benefit of The consolidated tiff there's bonds currently 00:16:45.086 --> 00:16:53.155 - tied to the consolidated tiff, correct Sorry, there's there's bonds currently tied to the consolidated 00:16:53.155 --> 00:17:01.068 - income, right? What's what's the monthly? What how much of that tiff is used to pay the the payments 00:17:01.068 --> 00:17:05.534 - on those bonds? Is there any leftover money right now? I 00:17:05.666 --> 00:17:13.767 - Do not have the bond information right now. What I do know is there is significant bonding capacity 00:17:13.767 --> 00:17:22.515 - I also know that the funds on hand that the RDC has could Substantially pay for a lot of the infrastructure 00:17:22.515 --> 00:17:28.510 - at Hopewell South But you know, there's a lot of projects that need to be 00:17:29.762 --> 00:17:35.174 - that are in the works. Well, I'll tell you for any reason for the line of questioning is I was on this 00:17:35.174 --> 00:17:40.534 - plan commission. We consolidate the tips and we were misled to where those funds were going to go and 00:17:40.534 --> 00:17:45.789 - they're not used in the areas they were used in before. And I want to make sure that if we're going 00:17:45.789 --> 00:17:51.254 - to do a tip for Hopewell the money goes into Hopewell for infrastructure and improvements to that area. 00:17:51.254 --> 00:17:56.666 - Water sewers storm sidewalks street trees whatever that means. It seems like we've lost purpose on our 00:17:56.666 --> 00:17:57.822 - tips a long time ago. 00:17:58.434 --> 00:18:05.332 - And that's why that's where these questions come from if we're gonna bond a TIF for Hopewell. I hope 00:18:05.332 --> 00:18:12.297 - it's used for Hopewell Yes, the the funds generated the revenues generated from the Hopewell TIF even 00:18:12.297 --> 00:18:19.605 - though the bonds are being Supported by the consolidate dated tip where the money comes from that actually 00:18:19.605 --> 00:18:21.790 - pays those is irrelevant and so 00:18:21.954 --> 00:18:29.759 - we can use the funds generated from the Hopewell TIF to the extent that they can pay towards that bond, 00:18:29.759 --> 00:18:37.264 - towards the bond, plus use the funds from the consolidated TIF where there's a deficiency to pay on 00:18:37.264 --> 00:18:45.144 - those bonds. And to the extent that we've used consolidated fund bonds to pay our consolidated TIF funds 00:18:45.144 --> 00:18:50.398 - to pay for those bonds, those could be, if the expenses were tracked, 00:18:50.562 --> 00:18:56.763 - Could be paid back. Yeah to the consolidated to the second on the consent agenda. You're moving a bunch 00:18:56.763 --> 00:19:02.726 - of parcels from the TIF This these are not these parcels I because I mapped them They're a bunch of 00:19:02.726 --> 00:19:08.748 - just random. There's a lot of parcels that you're removing from the consolidated TIF Can you address 00:19:08.748 --> 00:19:14.830 - that real quick of why we're doing that? Explain how that's hurts the funding the reason for removing 00:19:14.830 --> 00:19:18.110 - those parcels I'm almost done. We're on the second one 00:19:18.946 --> 00:19:27.891 - I just want to understand why remove the parcels. It didn't make sense. I'm very sorry. I have a thing 00:19:27.891 --> 00:19:36.575 - where my mouth is dry. In removing the parcels from the consolidated to the residential parcels, up 00:19:36.575 --> 00:19:45.086 - until last year, the way the software worked at the auditor's office per the guidance of the DLGF 00:19:45.218 --> 00:19:53.823 - There was this balancing because these residential properties, you cannot capture that incremental increase 00:19:53.823 --> 00:20:01.791 - in value. So there was this balancing that they were able to do with the properties that they could 00:20:01.791 --> 00:20:05.854 - capture to have a net effect and balance that out. 00:20:06.050 --> 00:20:15.399 - then the DLGF changed the guidance on how to use that software. So now, by leaving those parcels in, 00:20:15.399 --> 00:20:25.211 - if we leave them in, it actually decreases the revenue by approximately $360,000 per year of RDC revenue. 00:20:25.211 --> 00:20:32.894 - Now, the details of how that software works, I apologize, it's way, way beyond me. 00:20:32.994 --> 00:20:42.504 - but our reading financial group has explained that this is a problem that everyone that has residential 00:20:42.504 --> 00:20:51.649 - properties in TIF districts that are based on commercial TIFs is having to deal with and are taking 00:20:51.649 --> 00:21:01.342 - these kind of steps to remove the residential properties from their TIF areas. It's a way to balance that 00:21:02.402 --> 00:21:08.538 - Actually, it's a more correct way to do it since they're not supposed to be captured anyway This just 00:21:08.538 --> 00:21:14.674 - takes them out of the system. Okay, last question. I promise last question I've had discussions about 00:21:14.674 --> 00:21:21.171 - the commercial versus residential TIFFs in different communities What's impacting when you do a residential 00:21:21.171 --> 00:21:27.247 - TIFF that increase in revenue? reduces income somewhere else What gets impacted by us capturing the? 00:21:27.247 --> 00:21:31.518 - residential revenue because I assume is hopeful builds out we're gonna 00:21:31.682 --> 00:21:41.131 - We're gonna add to this. So if we're gonna do a residential TIF over Hopewell, what's the what's the 00:21:41.131 --> 00:21:50.860 - negative impact on other things? What gets hit by that? Yes, there is a tax impact Analysis that really 00:21:50.860 --> 00:21:58.718 - financial just completed today That will be going out Let me see if I can find that 00:22:22.818 --> 00:22:34.172 - And whenever you look at a TIF and estimated impacts, it's estimated based on the fact what would happen 00:22:34.172 --> 00:22:45.093 - if you didn't put in the infrastructure, if you didn't put this in a TIF, it weren't able to develop 00:22:45.093 --> 00:22:52.446 - this, and it would just grow in its condition as it was. And so the 00:22:53.186 --> 00:23:10.087 - Impact to tax impact overlapping areas would be for the Bloomington Civil City $3,918 and for rate-driven 00:23:10.087 --> 00:23:21.886 - funds impact $13,497 for for the city This is not actual loss of revenues 00:23:22.082 --> 00:23:28.280 - But is a hypothetical impact of eliminating the allocation area After it wouldn't have generated Let 00:23:28.280 --> 00:23:35.030 - me ask a question different way I was in a discussion where a school system fought back against a residential 00:23:35.030 --> 00:23:41.350 - tip because it said it affected their revenue I don't know if that's true or not So my question really 00:23:41.350 --> 00:23:47.609 - is is if you do a residential TIF overlay in this whole Hopewell area That revenue is captured by the 00:23:47.609 --> 00:23:51.966 - city and used for whatever we want to use it for whatever the TIF says 00:23:52.322 --> 00:24:00.080 - But that revenue would have gone somewhere else if this gets developed and there's no tip it would have 00:24:00.080 --> 00:24:07.837 - gone somewhere else What's the impact? What is what is what is losing funds? Yes at the end of the TIFF 00:24:07.837 --> 00:24:14.700 - period Then all of the funds the incremental funds would then go to the underlying area tax 00:24:14.700 --> 00:24:17.982 - taxing authorities so at that point in time 00:24:19.106 --> 00:24:26.234 - The increase that wouldn't have been there had it not been for the tip being created in the first place 00:24:26.234 --> 00:24:33.156 - Will now have been created and will now go to the schools will now go to the city will now go to the 00:24:33.156 --> 00:24:40.216 - county But the increase is happening. Anyway, I'm sorry. The increase is happening. Anyway, that's I'm 00:24:40.216 --> 00:24:45.630 - just asking what's the impact? Anna Killian Hanson hand director also from RDC 00:24:45.730 --> 00:24:53.105 - Last year we do we do an annual evaluation of this like what is the impact to the school systems and 00:24:53.105 --> 00:25:00.626 - last year the consolidated TIF in gen like the entire consolidated TIF impacted MCCSE by $40,000 total 00:25:00.626 --> 00:25:08.001 - compared to What it generated and it's the circuit breakers as well, right? Is there a difference in 00:25:08.001 --> 00:25:10.046 - residential commercial? Yes 00:25:11.458 --> 00:25:17.404 - We've met with the school system. They're supportive of Hopewell South. They really need students to 00:25:17.404 --> 00:25:23.527 - live in Bloomington Yeah, so bringing in housing is a positive thing from their perspective. Yeah Okay, 00:25:23.527 --> 00:25:29.474 - well this staff report was just limited and I was just curious about this question. So I'm good. I'm 00:25:29.474 --> 00:25:35.596 - good I just want to I just want to be clear. Thank you. All right any other questions about the consent 00:25:35.596 --> 00:25:39.070 - agenda Is there any public comment on the consent agenda I 00:25:45.826 --> 00:26:02.762 - online comments All right, we're back to the Commission then for a any final comment or motion Both 00:26:02.762 --> 00:26:15.294 - items on the consent agenda Forward with a Positive recommendation Second 00:26:16.226 --> 00:26:27.109 - Yeah, just need a motion to approve the consent agenda Motion to approve the consent agenda both items. 00:26:27.109 --> 00:26:37.573 - All right Let's call the roll on the motion to approve the consent agenda Braille. Yes Seabour yes, 00:26:37.573 --> 00:26:45.630 - Korotky. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Smith. Yes Stossberg. Yes Whistler. Yes 00:26:46.306 --> 00:26:54.888 - Yes All right consent agenda is approved we are now on to our petitions for the evening first position 00:26:54.888 --> 00:27:03.470 - first petition is Related from the Redevelopment Commission. This is request for primary plat approval 00:27:03.470 --> 00:27:10.302 - and some partial plat vacation and Eric Grulick is case manager take it away Eric 00:27:11.202 --> 00:27:17.847 - Thank you. This is a request from the Redevelopment Commission for a property at 617 East First Street. 00:27:17.847 --> 00:27:24.492 - This is in the same area that we were just discussing with the tip discussion. This is for the Hopewell 00:27:24.492 --> 00:27:30.945 - PUD. This is a continuation of the development plan that was approved by the Planning Commission and 00:27:30.945 --> 00:27:32.990 - City Council earlier this year. 00:27:33.154 --> 00:27:40.245 - The petitioners are here tonight to request a primary plat approval for 65 lots within the 6.3 acres. 00:27:40.245 --> 00:27:47.267 - Also requested is a partial plat vacation for three lots from the Dixie Highway subdivision and then 00:27:47.267 --> 00:27:54.288 - also a request for a waiver from the required tree plot width along First Street. So as I mentioned, 00:27:54.288 --> 00:27:59.294 - this is a request to subdivide the property in accordance with the PUD. 00:27:59.938 --> 00:28:07.282 - The PUD, just for everybody's kind of refreshment, is shown on the screen here. It was predominantly 00:28:07.282 --> 00:28:14.771 - a residential PUD with the east half of the site being used for possible reuse for possibly the police 00:28:14.771 --> 00:28:22.405 - department. That use has still not been solidified, but that particular aspect is not before us tonight. 00:28:22.405 --> 00:28:28.222 - We are simply looking at a subdivision plan to come forward and create the lots 00:28:28.354 --> 00:28:35.374 - that were envisioned with this PUD. So with the primary plat approval, we look at right away to be dedicated 00:28:35.374 --> 00:28:41.879 - lots that are shown on here to ensure that they are consistent with the preliminary plan, as well as 00:28:41.879 --> 00:28:48.384 - all the infrastructure that was shown and approved with that development as well. There were several 00:28:48.384 --> 00:28:54.374 - reasonable conditions that were associated with the PUD that the petitioner has addressed in 00:28:54.374 --> 00:28:58.174 - their construction plans and reflected on the primary plat 00:28:58.818 --> 00:29:05.704 - So this PUD had several unique cross-sections that were shown within it for all of the internal streets 00:29:05.704 --> 00:29:12.590 - as well as for the new street typology shown within this PUD for the lanes. The lanes are the east-west 00:29:12.590 --> 00:29:19.212 - streets that move through here that function very similar to alleys. However, they were shown to be 00:29:19.212 --> 00:29:25.502 - platted within 20 feet of right of way. And so those are shown moving through the development. 00:29:25.602 --> 00:29:32.127 - This site has frontage on several adjacent public streets first Street to the north Roger Street to 00:29:32.127 --> 00:29:38.979 - the east Wiley Street to the south and also featured the construction and reconstruction of two internal 00:29:38.979 --> 00:29:45.374 - roads Jackson and Fairview so both Jackson and fear we will have additional right of way platted. 00:29:45.634 --> 00:29:51.798 - Again as I mentioned the petitioner has made the changes to the plan in accordance with the reasonable 00:29:51.798 --> 00:29:57.783 - conditions which listed six foot sidewalks and five foot tree plots within the interior Jackson and 00:29:57.783 --> 00:30:04.068 - Fairview streets. There is an internal corridor that moves through here for common space and green space 00:30:04.068 --> 00:30:07.838 - as well as an eight foot sidewalk that moves through the site. 00:30:08.258 --> 00:30:15.635 - So the petitioner has come forward as I mentioned with this plat Showing all of the lots and right away 00:30:15.635 --> 00:30:22.870 - that are required to be dedicated the PUD was very unique in terms of no minimum lot size or lot area 00:30:22.870 --> 00:30:29.964 - requirement The side yard setbacks were also shown at zero except along the edges of the PUD one of 00:30:29.964 --> 00:30:34.078 - the other unique aspects of this petition also featured a 00:30:34.594 --> 00:30:41.372 - somewhat of a shared parking situation where parking spaces straddle a property line, so there are parking 00:30:41.372 --> 00:30:47.770 - easements that are shown on the plat as well just to show those being legitimized. A detention area, 00:30:47.770 --> 00:30:53.534 - the majority of the detention will be handled in an underground detention in the northeast 00:30:53.666 --> 00:30:59.717 - portion of the site so that is shown on a drainage easement as well to accomplish that The petitioner 00:30:59.717 --> 00:31:05.708 - is still working through all of their stormwater calculations and approvals from City of Bloomington 00:31:05.708 --> 00:31:12.055 - utilities However, CBU has indicated that there should not be any problems meeting all of their stormwater 00:31:12.055 --> 00:31:17.987 - detention and water quality requirements but that will be verified with the secondary plan approval 00:31:17.987 --> 00:31:23.326 - so you can see here on this exhibit the detention that's shown in the northeast corner of 00:31:23.426 --> 00:31:31.285 - Of the overall site. This would be under an underground or under the parking area So this would be shown 00:31:31.285 --> 00:31:39.070 - in a drainage easement As I mentioned there are several adjacent public roads First Street to the north 00:31:39.070 --> 00:31:47.079 - First Street was recently constructed by the city With a tree plot and sidewalk after the PUD was approved 00:31:47.079 --> 00:31:52.318 - there were a lot of concerns from within the community as well as the 00:31:52.418 --> 00:31:59.492 - Department and city as a whole about being able to provide Parking for some of the uses on here. So 00:31:59.492 --> 00:32:06.920 - the city is exploring or has shown the creation of a limited amount of on-street parking along the south 00:32:06.920 --> 00:32:14.276 - side of first Street So one of the aspects to this request is a waiver From the required five-foot tree 00:32:14.276 --> 00:32:21.492 - plot adjacent to some of those on-street spaces when the first Street project was installed There was 00:32:21.492 --> 00:32:22.270 - a sidewalk 00:32:23.074 --> 00:32:30.051 - that was installed, as well as a new water line that was laid along First Street. So the sidewalk was 00:32:30.051 --> 00:32:37.165 - placed over that water line. There was a compliant tree plot installed with street trees. However, with 00:32:37.165 --> 00:32:44.074 - the addition of the on-street spaces, the city was certainly very concerned about moving a brand new 00:32:44.074 --> 00:32:50.983 - water line further to the south, which would then require the sidewalk to go even further south into 00:32:50.983 --> 00:32:52.830 - these lots in order to get 00:32:52.930 --> 00:33:00.868 - A tree plot with street trees in there. So the petitioner is requesting a waiver from that required 00:33:00.868 --> 00:33:09.045 - tree plot with For the areas where those on-street spaces will be created The on-street spaces are are 00:33:09.045 --> 00:33:17.142 - very limited along the west side of the site You can see those new spaces spaces that will be created 00:33:17.142 --> 00:33:22.302 - And then along the Sorry, I'm sure I'm sure I'm getting feedback 00:33:31.010 --> 00:33:37.564 - Sorry about that. So you can see that the on-street spaces are shown along just limited portions of 00:33:37.564 --> 00:33:44.315 - those frontages along First Street. So the impacts from that reduced tree plot width adjacent to those 00:33:44.315 --> 00:33:51.263 - on-street spaces will be very limited. The presence of the on-street spaces still provides the separation 00:33:51.263 --> 00:33:58.210 - from vehicular traffic that would be accomplished by that tree plot. And the street trees would be placed 00:33:58.210 --> 00:33:59.390 - on the south side 00:33:59.618 --> 00:34:06.839 - Of that sidewalk in order to fulfill the street tree requirement, but they are requesting a waiver to 00:34:06.839 --> 00:34:13.918 - not allow or not require that five foot tree plot adjacent to those on street spaces. So with that. 00:34:14.018 --> 00:34:20.957 - Obviously, we review this for all of the standards of the PUD, as well as for any of the standards that 00:34:20.957 --> 00:34:27.695 - the PUD didn't address. This is held to the traditional subdivision type that is outlined within the 00:34:27.695 --> 00:34:34.701 - UDO. This meets all of the requirements of the PUD. It is dedicating the right of way along the adjacent 00:34:34.701 --> 00:34:35.902 - street frontages. 00:34:36.002 --> 00:34:42.753 - That is required per the preliminary plan and as modified with the reasonable conditions So with that 00:34:42.753 --> 00:34:49.438 - we are recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed findings With the waiver request 00:34:49.438 --> 00:34:56.255 - with the five conditions that are listed in staff's report and I'm happy to answer any questions Thank 00:34:56.255 --> 00:35:03.006 - you. Are there any questions from commissioners? Mr. Stossberg Yeah, I've got a few first of all, how 00:35:03.006 --> 00:35:05.918 - many parking spaces does that actually add? 00:35:08.066 --> 00:35:16.249 - The on-street spaces, you know it with on-street spaces. We don't delineate those unless it's a metered 00:35:16.249 --> 00:35:24.510 - zone So in this case here, I'm just ballparking the petition can correct me if wrong. I'm guessing maybe 00:35:24.510 --> 00:35:32.457 - 20 And What about the trees that are have already been planted there? Yep. So there is a street tree 00:35:32.457 --> 00:35:37.886 - plan There are a lot of those existing trees that would be preserved 00:35:38.018 --> 00:35:46.293 - Especially for the ones that are on the east and the west side of the on-street spaces that are proposed 00:35:46.293 --> 00:35:54.254 - The ones that are there that are current they do show I think some of those to be relocated So there 00:35:54.254 --> 00:36:02.608 - will be an effort certainly we can ask a petitioner if I'm said anything incorrectly So One of the things 00:36:02.608 --> 00:36:05.918 - that said in the staff memo was about the 00:36:06.050 --> 00:36:12.016 - This parking space issue was that trees would be planted between on the other side of the sidewalk 00:36:12.016 --> 00:36:18.344 - essentially Wouldn't that basically be in people's front yards? No, so you can see on this exhibit here. 00:36:18.344 --> 00:36:24.491 - This is the the street tree exhibit So you've got the sidewalk and then there is I'd say probably six 00:36:24.491 --> 00:36:30.759 - to seven feet between the edge of the sidewalk and the property line and what is going to differentiate 00:36:30.759 --> 00:36:35.038 - the edge of the street and the property line for the normal person and 00:36:35.842 --> 00:36:42.712 - who is in that space and using that space. If I'm gonna walk down there, how am I to know that the tree 00:36:42.712 --> 00:36:49.451 - is in the right-of-way versus in somebody's front yard? Yeah, so there would still be a little bit of 00:36:49.451 --> 00:36:56.255 - space between the tree and the right-of-way line if I'm understanding you're correct. No, I guess part 00:36:56.255 --> 00:37:03.390 - 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. 00:37:03.522 --> 00:37:10.513 - and it's technically a city tree, but would a homeowner who moved in there not realize that's a city 00:37:10.513 --> 00:37:17.435 - tree and cut it down, for example? And I think that there's, you know, I mean, we're putting a tree 00:37:17.435 --> 00:37:24.496 - plot essentially in somebody's front yard, and you know what, it's not that different, I don't think, 00:37:24.496 --> 00:37:31.418 - from, I mean, my neighborhood that I'm in doesn't actually have sidewalks, but there is significant 00:37:31.418 --> 00:37:32.318 - right of way 00:37:32.738 --> 00:37:39.801 - For the city that most of my neighbors don't even realize exists. Yep, certainly I hear what you're 00:37:39.801 --> 00:37:47.218 - saying and you know, it is close obviously it's in Important for the property owners to know where their 00:37:47.218 --> 00:37:54.564 - property line is, but it would be right on that line or pretty close to it Okay I have another question 00:37:54.564 --> 00:37:58.590 - that's unrelated to the tree thing Please continue. Yeah 00:37:58.946 --> 00:38:07.669 - So under your in the staff memo under the PUD dimensional standards the Wiley setback is described as 00:38:07.669 --> 00:38:16.306 - having a 12 foot setback, but at the council level because the council Had a reasonable condition to 00:38:16.306 --> 00:38:25.028 - not have this sort of monolithic sidewalk along Wiley that I was just talking about and so we amended 00:38:25.028 --> 00:38:27.166 - that setback on Wiley to 00:38:27.810 --> 00:38:36.233 - Potentially decrease as is necessary to be able along Wiley to put in a proper tree plot between the 00:38:36.233 --> 00:38:44.572 - parking spaces and the sidewalk and I don't see that reflected in your Memo and I'm not sure that I 00:38:44.572 --> 00:38:48.158 - see that reflected on the platted image of 00:38:51.778 --> 00:39:02.271 - Yep, so the the cross section that is shown for Wiley Street includes a five-foot tree plot in a six-foot 00:39:02.271 --> 00:39:12.565 - sidewalk So the building setback line stayed with what they initially showed The exhibit you're talking 00:39:12.565 --> 00:39:16.030 - about why we discuss it, thank you 00:39:22.914 --> 00:39:31.906 - So here is the the Wiley Street cross section So the the left side of the screen here would be the north 00:39:31.906 --> 00:39:40.555 - side of the street So it's showing the five foot tree plot and then six foot sidewalk beyond that So 00:39:40.555 --> 00:39:49.118 - I can go to the Okay, and but where is it on the actual like image a couple slides before this? Yep 00:39:49.118 --> 00:39:52.030 - Let me switch to a different view 00:40:01.666 --> 00:40:09.130 - I guess I'm kind of confused about how That 12 foot setback on Wiley was managed to be maintained Given 00:40:09.130 --> 00:40:16.595 - that we had to insert the tree plot because in the original petition there was no tree plot at all like 00:40:16.595 --> 00:40:24.418 - all of those trees were going to be like that are currently they're existing we're going to be in somebody's 00:40:24.418 --> 00:40:30.590 - property and so that was why there was the additional 12 foot setback along Wiley and 00:40:30.786 --> 00:40:38.466 - So that then we would make sure that those Dwelling units were not flush right up against the sidewalk 00:40:38.466 --> 00:40:46.072 - Yep, so this is kind of a zoomed-in exhibit of the the Wiley Street frontage So the the property line 00:40:46.072 --> 00:40:53.753 - as you can see here runs along This north side of the sidewalk. So you've got a six foot sidewalk Five 00:40:53.753 --> 00:40:57.630 - foot tree plot and then the 12 foot setback is here 00:41:00.066 --> 00:41:06.389 - once again like so there was actually space in there all along to maintain that setback and So the PUD 00:41:06.389 --> 00:41:12.529 - initially showed a 15-foot setback for Wiley Street Initially it was I think it was modified but it 00:41:12.529 --> 00:41:18.730 - did show a 15-foot setback to keep all of those trees Because those are kind of a little bit further 00:41:18.730 --> 00:41:24.869 - deeper into the lot so initially it did show a 15-foot setback and so I think that 12 foot was then 00:41:24.869 --> 00:41:28.798 - modified with the reasonable condition you're talking about and 00:41:29.090 --> 00:41:36.010 - Okay, so it so it so it did drop then from 15 to 12 Yeah, I believe that's what the reasonable condition 00:41:36.010 --> 00:41:42.930 - address the reasonable condition just was really vague. It just said, you know Lessen it as is necessary 00:41:42.930 --> 00:41:49.652 - to create the tree plot. Yeah, it was We didn't know at the time how much it might need to be reduced 00:41:49.652 --> 00:41:56.242 - in order to create the tree plot Yep. So, you know the reasonable condition and this was reasonable 00:41:56.242 --> 00:41:58.878 - condition number 10 B You know had four 00:41:59.074 --> 00:42:04.536 - Aspects to it number one the PUD streets standards and street sections including Wiley Street and Jackson 00:42:04.536 --> 00:42:09.741 - Street cross sections will be updated as necessary To reflect a tree plot minimum with the five feet 00:42:09.741 --> 00:42:14.895 - located between the sidewalk and drive lane And then the last one is front setbacks along Wiley and 00:42:14.895 --> 00:42:20.048 - block 9 may be decreased as necessary To accommodate the additional right-of-way dedication So as I 00:42:20.048 --> 00:42:25.253 - mentioned they're dedicating approximately four feet of additional right-of-way on Wiley in order to 00:42:25.253 --> 00:42:28.190 - place the tree plot and the sidewalk in the right-of-way 00:42:29.442 --> 00:42:40.103 - Okay. I guess I'm still a little bit confused about how that is demarcated on this slide that I'm looking 00:42:40.103 --> 00:42:50.462 - at because the section by the former convalescent center looks the exact same in terms of the markings 00:42:50.462 --> 00:42:58.910 - as it does in front of the homes over there in terms of where the roadway is versus 00:42:59.586 --> 00:43:04.989 - parking versus the tree plot versus the sidewalk and my understanding was that we can't That there are 00:43:04.989 --> 00:43:10.391 - space issues down there because there's currently a monolithic sidewalk over there Yeah, and certainly 00:43:10.391 --> 00:43:16.004 - the the petitioner's representative might be able to specifically address the most more detailed questions 00:43:16.004 --> 00:43:19.518 - once they've had a chance to speak if you got additional questions 00:43:23.490 --> 00:43:30.492 - I'd be happy to jump in there. I think you're correct. I think that this was a miss on the latest submission 00:43:30.492 --> 00:43:37.108 - from the civil. I do believe that there is a larger setback that is still retained, but I think you're 00:43:37.108 --> 00:43:43.725 - right, it's not 12 feet. So in the site plans here, you can see that there is a, the remaining roadway 00:43:43.725 --> 00:43:48.414 - width is staying on Wiley. The tree plot and sidewalk have been adjusted 00:43:48.546 --> 00:43:54.153 - heard the city council comments, but the setback in the front, the buildings are still sitting where 00:43:54.153 --> 00:43:59.872 - they were before, but I think you're absolutely right. I think that that setback line is not currently 00:43:59.872 --> 00:44:05.868 - shown at 12 feet, although the homes are shown or they were previously. So I think that's an administrative 00:44:05.868 --> 00:44:11.198 - catch that needs to be caught up between civil submission and the way that the PD came back in. 00:44:19.618 --> 00:44:26.907 - Answer your questions. Yeah kind of but if we consider that sort of like the equivalent of a typo on 00:44:26.907 --> 00:44:34.123 - a primary plat like Can we approve a primer primary plat with essentially a typo like I don't know. 00:44:34.123 --> 00:44:41.339 - That's a real question. I don't know Who should answer that? Depending on in the alley can weigh in 00:44:41.339 --> 00:44:49.566 - on this depending on how much it affects you could add a condition that it needs to be corrected before secondary 00:44:51.714 --> 00:44:59.551 - The majority of you want to move it forward this evening now Ali miss Quinlan may be able to speak to 00:44:59.551 --> 00:45:07.235 - What that change would entail what the effect is? I Think that would be a really clean way to solve 00:45:07.235 --> 00:45:11.230 - that is we can change that reference to the setback 00:45:11.362 --> 00:45:18.635 - And coordinate with civil to see exactly where it is that they they've got it set right now. It's back 00:45:18.635 --> 00:45:25.696 - of sidewalk I would be weary to give you an exact dimension not having that file able to measure to 00:45:25.696 --> 00:45:33.251 - specifically but that I think that's a really reasonable way that can be fixed before secondary submission 00:45:33.251 --> 00:45:37.982 - Thank you, I might have more questions in a minute but Let me just 00:45:38.370 --> 00:45:45.266 - Pause for a second. I jumped right into questions Assuming that we had heard the whole presentation, 00:45:45.266 --> 00:45:52.502 - but is there anyone from the petitioner that wants to? Has some additional presentation materials tonight 00:45:52.502 --> 00:45:59.671 - Hello, good evening Kendall Kenoki engineering department I am representing the Redevelopment Commission 00:45:59.671 --> 00:46:06.430 - as we start our as the petitioner we have several other folks here on the team as well tonight and 00:46:06.882 --> 00:46:13.787 - But I can get us kicked off. I have a little presentation to share with you, but I can just start maybe 00:46:13.787 --> 00:46:20.758 - with talking about Wiley Street, and we are showing a five-foot tree plot and a six-foot sidewalk. There 00:46:20.758 --> 00:46:27.397 - is no setback shown on the plat. The line that everyone's kind of looking at is an existing feature 00:46:27.397 --> 00:46:34.302 - on the site, an edge of pavement, something like that. It's not a setback line if you look at the plat. 00:46:34.754 --> 00:46:44.112 - There's no setback line shown on Wiley. So there's nothing there to be changed or updated. We're just 00:46:44.112 --> 00:46:53.469 - simply not showing the setback along Wiley Street. But anyway, I can get into my presentation and I'm 00:46:53.469 --> 00:47:03.102 - happy to answer more questions on this. Let me go ahead and share my screen. So I just wanted to kind of 00:47:03.714 --> 00:47:09.967 - Everyone know where we were at. So after the PUD was approved this Project kind of got handed over to 00:47:09.967 --> 00:47:16.526 - the engineering department to handle the platting the detailed construction documents and then the bidding 00:47:16.526 --> 00:47:22.778 - and construction phase of the project So I kind of right here just wanted to show you where we're at. 00:47:22.778 --> 00:47:29.153 - So we're currently at primary plat still the upcoming is the PUD final plan approval the secondary plat 00:47:29.153 --> 00:47:29.950 - approval and 00:47:30.242 --> 00:47:35.968 - And then all of our permitting so there's a lot of conditions of approval that were a part of the original 00:47:35.968 --> 00:47:41.427 - Plan Commission approval for the PUD as well as the City Council approval that you know talk about At 00:47:41.427 --> 00:47:46.993 - the PUD final plan stage. This will be done at the primary plat stage. This will be done so I just kind 00:47:46.993 --> 00:47:52.398 - of wanted to confirm that we are here at primary plat and We still have you know more steps upcoming 00:47:52.398 --> 00:47:56.894 - after this so I've kind of given some approximate dates here, but I anticipate that 00:47:57.218 --> 00:48:02.885 - August through October we'll go through permitting and then bidding and construction will happen in 00:48:02.885 --> 00:48:08.666 - November so construction happening after that so just to give everyone kind of an idea of Where we're 00:48:08.666 --> 00:48:14.333 - at and then I just briefly wanted to touch on maybe what's changed since the PUD came to you before 00:48:14.333 --> 00:48:20.001 - You know at that point it was more of a zoning request and now we're here at the primary plat Phase 00:48:20.001 --> 00:48:24.478 - so I just wanted to go through the plan Commission conditions of approval that 00:48:24.962 --> 00:48:31.230 - We're a part of the PUD. There's really only two that apply to the primary plat the drainage plan and 00:48:31.230 --> 00:48:37.436 - then the Phasing plan. So I just wanted to kind of very briefly give a high-level drain Eric kind of 00:48:37.436 --> 00:48:43.704 - touched on this as well, but stormwater detention is handled on the 714 South Rogers property through 00:48:43.704 --> 00:48:49.972 - a underground detention basin that's going to be installed as part of the infrastructure installation 00:48:49.972 --> 00:48:51.262 - for this project and 00:48:51.714 --> 00:48:59.322 - This is going to be sized to accommodate both watersheds from the property. So there's kind of an east 00:48:59.322 --> 00:49:06.782 - and a west drainage basin Fairview's kind of the ridgeline CBU has approved and actually suggested a 00:49:06.782 --> 00:49:14.463 - Set up where we are going to pump the west drainage basin over to the stormwater detention area so that 00:49:14.463 --> 00:49:19.486 - that's kind of a cool feature of this project there's going to be a 00:49:19.810 --> 00:49:26.154 - Storm water quality units for both the east and the west basins that I've kind of shown there So those 00:49:26.154 --> 00:49:32.805 - will be sized to treat all of the required storm water quality runoff volumes for the project And typically 00:49:32.805 --> 00:49:39.210 - when you do that you have to pay a payment in lieu the goal is in these two areas that I have indicated 00:49:39.210 --> 00:49:45.431 - as green infrastructure to Install as much green infrastructure as we can fit to kind of reduce that 00:49:45.431 --> 00:49:48.510 - payment in lieu amount we don't think that we can 00:49:49.442 --> 00:49:55.484 - Provide all of what's typically required, but we're gonna try to fit as much in as we can So those are 00:49:55.484 --> 00:50:01.584 - the two areas that have kind of been identified after extensive coordination with CBU as good locations 00:50:01.584 --> 00:50:07.567 - where they will take over the maintenance of that So just kind of wanted to go over the drainage plan 00:50:07.567 --> 00:50:13.668 - and then phasing plan, you know we looked at breaking this into different phases, but it's such a urban 00:50:13.668 --> 00:50:17.246 - tight site everything kind of depends on everything else and 00:50:17.538 --> 00:50:23.569 - Just wasn't really prudent to break it up into different phases So the phasing plan is that it's all 00:50:23.569 --> 00:50:29.659 - going to be constructed in one phase all of the infrastructure so that includes all the Modifications 00:50:29.659 --> 00:50:35.929 - to existing roadways all of the new roadways all of the sidewalks everything along the existing roadways 00:50:35.929 --> 00:50:42.079 - including around the 714 building project site So everything you see here is going to get built at one 00:50:42.079 --> 00:50:43.870 - time as part of one phase and 00:50:45.666 --> 00:50:52.952 - And then just briefly the City Council conditions of approval That apply again a phasing plan, which 00:50:52.952 --> 00:51:00.454 - I just described Eric kind of touched on this but the Sidewalks six foot sidewalks five foot tree plot. 00:51:00.454 --> 00:51:07.668 - We've done that everywhere Internal sidewalks have been upsized to eight feet wide. We've done that 00:51:07.668 --> 00:51:13.150 - everywhere as you can see here on the plan Let's see what else changed here 00:51:17.698 --> 00:51:24.585 - Yeah, five foot tree plot was another one One of their reasonable conditions was about Traffic calming 00:51:24.585 --> 00:51:31.605 - and a 10 mile per hour design speed for the lanes. So we were working through various options that we're 00:51:31.605 --> 00:51:38.358 - going to present to the RDC but kind of our our recommended solution that we're going to talk to the 00:51:38.358 --> 00:51:45.445 - RDC about is kind of a combination of race crosswalks accessible race speed tables and visually narrowing 00:51:45.445 --> 00:51:46.782 - the travel lane, so 00:51:47.426 --> 00:51:53.550 - The travel lane will kind of either be asphalt or stamped concrete and then flush concrete walks on 00:51:53.550 --> 00:51:59.735 - either side, so it's still a 20 foot wide driveway for fire, but it kind of visually looks like a 12 00:51:59.735 --> 00:52:06.042 - foot wide drive lane. And also understanding that this is an accessible lane, so ensuring that there's 00:52:06.042 --> 00:52:10.206 - accessible routes on both sides of the street for wheelchair users. 00:52:10.434 --> 00:52:18.334 - So, and hoping, depending on what the RDC would like to do, maybe making it a little bit more visually 00:52:18.334 --> 00:52:26.005 - appealing than just an asphalt drive. But obviously, the economics of that will come into play. So, 00:52:26.005 --> 00:52:34.289 - yeah, with that, I think that's the main thing. So what you see here is the primary plat and the associated 00:52:34.289 --> 00:52:38.814 - construction drawings. I will stop sharing my screen here. 00:52:39.202 --> 00:52:46.246 - Am happy to answer any questions. We also have others on the team who can answer questions and thank 00:52:46.246 --> 00:52:53.779 - you very much Thank you back to the Commission any further questions either for staff or for the petitioner 00:52:53.779 --> 00:53:00.893 - go ahead Commissioner Kinsey Yeah, my question is a little bit about the statement in the packet that 00:53:00.893 --> 00:53:05.566 - indicates this decision about the tree plot removal was based on a 00:53:05.666 --> 00:53:12.039 - To meet the parking needs of the area and I wonder if someone could elaborate a little bit on What the 00:53:12.039 --> 00:53:17.856 - parking needs are how they were determined Whose needs are these just so we have a little bit 00:53:17.856 --> 00:53:24.167 - more understanding of this because I do think that this is a large Shift so I'd like to know a little 00:53:24.167 --> 00:53:30.540 - bit more about that Yeah, there may be others who want to speak to it, but I think the primary concern 00:53:30.540 --> 00:53:35.614 - is the impacts to the existing neighborhood You know, there's been concerns about 00:53:36.130 --> 00:53:42.486 - Those streets filling up with vehicles from this development. Of course, this is a great location. It's 00:53:42.486 --> 00:53:48.598 - very walkable. It's very bikeable Transit and grocery store nearby. However, you know, they're just 00:53:48.598 --> 00:53:55.198 - there are concerns about you know, the number of units that are being introduced in this development and so 00:53:55.426 --> 00:54:01.741 - The idea and this was a priority of the RDC Which is why we looked at it was to kind of look at our 00:54:01.741 --> 00:54:08.624 - options for parking So even though first Street was recently reconstructed, you know is there an opportunity 00:54:08.624 --> 00:54:14.939 - there to provide a little bit more to help ease some of the Parking on the existing parking impacts 00:54:14.939 --> 00:54:21.759 - on the existing neighborhood So it so it sounds just so I'm clarifying this it's the residents the presumed 00:54:21.759 --> 00:54:24.222 - residents of Hopewell so that they are 00:54:24.354 --> 00:54:33.270 - Not parking cars or having people park in the neighboring communities if that's correct That is correct. 00:54:33.270 --> 00:54:42.440 - Sorry Anna Killian Hansen hand So when we were having neighborhood meetings with the adjacent neighborhood, 00:54:42.440 --> 00:54:44.478 - this became a theme and 00:54:44.770 --> 00:54:51.278 - that they were discussing how folks were already parking in their neighborhood and what would happen 00:54:51.278 --> 00:54:57.916 - now that we have New residents and could we expand parking anyway in any way? And this was the easiest 00:54:57.916 --> 00:55:04.489 - place to put it and especially next to the larger Buildings that we have though to Faulkner plans. So 00:55:04.489 --> 00:55:11.255 - it was a request from the adjacent homeowner It was our our effort to try and accommodate their request. 00:55:11.255 --> 00:55:12.286 - Okay. Yeah, I I 00:55:12.898 --> 00:55:18.994 - And there's no I mean, you know, it's I'm looking at some of the Google map images and the You know, 00:55:18.994 --> 00:55:24.908 - it certainly seems that where this is being specified There's not really any commercial although, 00:55:24.908 --> 00:55:31.185 - 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, 00:55:31.185 --> 00:55:37.522 - I don't know. It's so I was trying to determine if it was residential parking that we were talking about 00:55:37.522 --> 00:55:41.022 - if it was more of the commercial structures that could be 00:55:41.378 --> 00:55:47.134 - Also impacted but it sounds like it's neighborhood or residents parking Or in Hopewell, yes, 00:55:47.134 --> 00:55:53.509 - that's correct. And if you look at the history of the site as the hospital Former hospital parking the 00:55:53.509 --> 00:55:59.884 - neighborhood had struggled for a long time with a lot of people parking on their streets And so if you 00:55:59.884 --> 00:56:06.074 - look at it right now, it's there's no one parking on the streets and I'm sure they're enjoying that 00:56:06.074 --> 00:56:10.654 - So our goal is to not bring it back to that hospital style parking impact 00:56:12.514 --> 00:56:26.646 - Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Is there someone that can answer that better? I don't have those numbers 00:56:26.646 --> 00:56:36.702 - off the top of my head. Ali, if you're online, maybe that's good for you. 00:56:40.706 --> 00:56:50.149 - In terms of parking account per unit. No, I think you just want to break down of. Yeah, like number 00:56:50.149 --> 00:57:00.158 - of units and what how many of each style of unit? Yes, I I can pull that. I can pull that spreadsheet up. 00:57:34.434 --> 00:57:41.348 - I don't have exact counts on the final number of parking spaces that Civil was able to add to the first 00:57:41.348 --> 00:57:48.129 - street, but it does look like we have approximately half of our units are one-bedroom units, and then 00:57:48.129 --> 00:57:55.176 - around a quarter of the units are two-bedroom or three-bedroom, and we are parking those at approximately 00:57:55.176 --> 00:58:01.758 - a little over one space per bedroom, around 1.15 spaces per bedroom, so trying to accommodate both 00:58:02.434 --> 00:58:09.283 - Parking for residents as well as some guest parking touched throughout the neighborhood Yeah, we're 00:58:09.283 --> 00:58:16.679 - just trying to remind myself a housing mix Okay, one other question you mentioned a pump to pump stormwater 00:58:16.679 --> 00:58:23.802 - over and you mentioned green green Infrastructure Who's gonna maintain that? CBU will maintain it. This 00:58:23.802 --> 00:58:30.719 - was a surprise to me that they wanted to do this but when we looked at some of the other options for 00:58:30.719 --> 00:58:31.678 - detention and 00:58:31.970 --> 00:58:39.310 - For the west basin they were all very expensive very deep getting into bedrock and this kind of emerged 00:58:39.310 --> 00:58:46.438 - as a really actually attractive option to pump stormwater over to the basin and the If the pump were 00:58:46.438 --> 00:58:53.777 - it was not working for some reason the stormwater would just continue down first Street and flood route 00:58:53.777 --> 00:58:56.318 - down first Street as it does now so 00:58:56.674 --> 00:59:02.792 - This is actually what CBU suggested that we do CBU is gonna take over the stormwater maintenance CBU 00:59:02.792 --> 00:59:08.970 - is gonna take over the detention for the entire subdivision all the green infrastructure and the pump 00:59:08.970 --> 00:59:15.330 - and all of the piping for Hopewell But nowhere else Like throughout the city is that what you're asking? 00:59:15.330 --> 00:59:21.629 - Well, yeah, there seems to be this whole movement where we pay a stormwater fee but they're going after 00:59:21.629 --> 00:59:25.566 - neighborhoods to fix their stormwater enforcing on the HOA's and 00:59:25.858 --> 00:59:32.370 - That's what my question was. I was hoping I was concerned at the HOA for hope I would have to maintain 00:59:32.370 --> 00:59:38.819 - this green infrastructure in this this pump and you're saying No, we're making exception for the city 00:59:38.819 --> 00:59:45.395 - project. I Can't speak to that. But yes, CBU is going to maintain all of the infrastructure. That isn't 00:59:45.395 --> 00:59:51.844 - that is intriguing It's good for this but that's gonna raise questions about the rest of it. Okay Any 00:59:51.844 --> 00:59:54.942 - other questions from commissioners Mr. Stossberg 00:59:56.610 --> 01:00:04.683 - Thank you. This goes back to the to the waiver that y'all are requesting one of the So for Plain Commission's 01:00:04.683 --> 01:00:12.389 - knowledge in case you didn't watch all of those council hearings there was extensive conversation around 01:00:12.389 --> 01:00:19.874 - tree plots and sidewalks at those council hearings and and one of councilmember Flaherty's reasonable 01:00:19.874 --> 01:00:21.342 - conditions was that 01:00:21.442 --> 01:00:30.742 - The PD street standards and street sections will be updated to reflect a six foot minimum sidewalk width 01:00:30.742 --> 01:00:39.777 - for all streets except Roger Street and lanes and I think and and then the other reasonable condition 01:00:39.777 --> 01:00:46.686 - that's related to this is what Eric said about The the Wiley Street to update 01:00:46.978 --> 01:00:55.419 - tree plots minimum width of five feet located between the sidewalk and drive lane for all portions of 01:00:55.419 --> 01:01:04.439 - the right-of-way located within the PUD and I think that this seems this waiver seems like a major deviation 01:01:04.439 --> 01:01:12.714 - from what council approved based on that What is the like legal? Basis that planning Commission has 01:01:12.714 --> 01:01:16.190 - for say a major deviation in this way can 01:01:16.354 --> 01:01:26.956 - Anybody from legal answer that and I see our counsel attorney over there right now and I'm not I would 01:01:26.956 --> 01:01:37.559 - also welcome My counsel attorney's legal position on this. Thank you Dana Kerr, I also assist with the 01:01:37.559 --> 01:01:43.838 - planning department and I'm not aware of this deviation so I 01:01:44.098 --> 01:01:51.738 - I'm sorry I can't provide an answer to that tonight. I'll have to look at what the deviation is and 01:01:51.738 --> 01:01:59.378 - what the reasonable condition was it was placed on there and see what the variation is. Our council 01:01:59.378 --> 01:02:03.198 - attorney is making his way over for those online. 01:02:40.290 --> 01:02:49.501 - If if staff needs a few minutes to confer we can move on to another question come back to this maybe 01:02:49.501 --> 01:02:58.622 - It's that all right Promise we'll get back to do you have any other questions Commissioner Sasberg? 01:02:58.622 --> 01:03:07.924 - Unrelated I probably do but let's let other all right any other commissioners that have Questions for 01:03:07.924 --> 01:03:09.566 - the petitioner No 01:03:14.082 --> 01:03:21.821 - I did remember the other one that I had. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Um, and this one actually is for I can't 01:03:21.821 --> 01:03:29.783 - remember your last name Kendall. Okay On your slides. It's I Let me get back to it so that then I actually 01:03:29.783 --> 01:03:37.150 - Say what it is that I mean you highlighted under the conditions of approval that the drainage plan 01:03:37.826 --> 01:03:44.335 - Meets the requirements would need to be submitted with final plan or primary plot approval and this 01:03:44.335 --> 01:03:51.169 - of course is the primary plot approval but I guess I got a little bit lost in there as to what I thought 01:03:51.169 --> 01:03:57.678 - that I heard was that CBU hasn't actually approved it yet, but is like most of the way to approving 01:03:57.678 --> 01:03:58.654 - it and I can't 01:03:59.298 --> 01:04:04.540 - tell whether that condition has actually been met here, because you also said like, well, we're not 01:04:04.540 --> 01:04:10.097 - really having phases, but that makes the entire thing phase one in my mind, as opposed to just not having 01:04:10.097 --> 01:04:15.391 - phases. And so I guess I'm trying to understand whether that condition of approval has actually been 01:04:15.391 --> 01:04:20.738 - met, because usually when we get petitions that involve CBU-related stuff, when that has been met, we 01:04:20.738 --> 01:04:22.206 - get some kind of a document 01:04:22.434 --> 01:04:28.792 - of cbus that cbu is like reviewed the stuff and it's one of those documents that I Understand about 01:04:28.792 --> 01:04:35.469 - this much of But I usually see it. So can you speak to that? Sure, and maybe slower than the first time. 01:04:35.469 --> 01:04:42.272 - Yeah, sir. Sorry So I asked cbu the question with the reasonable condition I are the condition of approval 01:04:42.272 --> 01:04:49.012 - from Plain Commission said, you know, are we at a point where you're comfortable saying? Yes, you approve 01:04:49.012 --> 01:04:52.318 - our drainage plan and they said yes, I do have that 01:04:52.546 --> 01:04:58.923 - in an email if I mean in order to get the in writing but essentially we just need to go through the 01:04:58.923 --> 01:05:05.365 - the detailed, you know calculations for the detention area and the kind of the finalized details for 01:05:05.365 --> 01:05:11.806 - everything but Ultimately, they have given their their approval to our overall drainage plan Okay, I 01:05:11.806 --> 01:05:18.247 - guess the question that I have and maybe not for you so I don't know this is a time for it but maybe 01:05:18.247 --> 01:05:20.862 - it's to the rest of my commissioners and 01:05:20.962 --> 01:05:27.453 - If this petition was a private developer, would we be assuming that this was all kosher if we didn't 01:05:27.453 --> 01:05:34.330 - have something in writing from CBU within our packet? I don't know what the answer to that is necessarily, 01:05:34.330 --> 01:05:41.015 - 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 01:05:41.015 --> 01:05:47.506 - to treat this petition like every other petition that we would get from a private developer, and I'm 01:05:47.506 --> 01:05:50.334 - not sure that we would accept that, thanks. 01:05:55.650 --> 01:06:04.481 - Any other questions? All right, I'll tell you what, we're gonna go on to public comment and hopefully 01:06:04.481 --> 01:06:13.486 - we'll come back to the pending question earlier once we've completed public comment. So if you are here 01:06:13.486 --> 01:06:22.144 - to speak to this petition, make your way to the podium, state your name for the record. You'll have 01:06:22.144 --> 01:06:24.222 - three minutes to speak. 01:06:24.514 --> 01:06:34.104 - If you're joining us online, just click on the reactions button, click raise hand, and we'll recognize 01:06:34.104 --> 01:06:43.694 - you when it is your turn to speak. Is there any public comment? Yeah, I think our meeting host is tied 01:06:43.694 --> 01:06:53.377 - up, so I do see that we have a couple of online folks who've raised their hands, so bear with us. We'll 01:06:53.377 --> 01:06:54.494 - unmute you. 01:06:54.626 --> 01:07:06.079 - momentarily here. Ms. Rosenberger, you should be able to unmute. Hi, can you hear me? Yep, thank you. 01:07:06.079 --> 01:07:17.982 - Hi, thank you. Kate Rosenberger here, City Council District 2. This is my district. Thanks for having me. 01:07:18.146 --> 01:07:25.128 - 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 01:07:25.128 --> 01:07:31.841 - not have a timer? We're putting it up right now. Okay. First, I wanna say council has had extensive 01:07:31.841 --> 01:07:38.688 - public comment and debate on this and where we landed was this tree plot, this existing tree plot and 01:07:38.688 --> 01:07:43.454 - this existing sidewalk and no parking on the street. The MPO recently, 01:07:43.618 --> 01:07:51.034 - redesigned these blocks of First Street. It was a multi-million dollar project that got done and the 01:07:51.034 --> 01:07:58.743 - petitioner is asking to tear that up to add parking places. These parking places will also come at about 01:07:58.743 --> 01:08:06.379 - $18,000 per space and this is a project where the administration or the petitioner has asked repeatedly 01:08:06.379 --> 01:08:09.022 - to keep costs down for the project. 01:08:10.082 --> 01:08:17.045 - 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 01:08:17.045 --> 01:08:23.492 - front yard. There are multiple reasons that we have tree plots in our comprehensive plan and in our 01:08:23.492 --> 01:08:30.261 - transportation plan and in our climate action plan. And those include keeping things cool for residents. 01:08:30.261 --> 01:08:35.870 - And they also include another layer of safety between cars and people on the sidewalk. 01:08:36.098 --> 01:08:43.468 - This PUD, I think you all know, was very contentious. And there were multiple reasonable conditions 01:08:43.468 --> 01:08:51.133 - that were negotiated with the petitioner, the mayor, and the RDC, and city legal, to get this approved. 01:08:51.133 --> 01:08:58.650 - It would not have been approved without those reasonable conditions. And the petitioner is asking you 01:08:58.650 --> 01:09:04.030 - to violate a reasonable condition of this PUD. I do not think that's OK. 01:09:04.418 --> 01:09:12.311 - I would also argue that this is not a minor change to the PUD, in which case you don't get to vote on 01:09:12.311 --> 01:09:20.280 - it. So different, you know, city legal is going to say this is minor. Our legal will say this is major 01:09:20.280 --> 01:09:25.310 - potentially. I mean, nobody knows. So I don't think that's okay. 01:09:26.338 --> 01:09:33.576 - What we do in neighborhoods where we have any kind of parking problems or zone permits. I actually just 01:09:33.576 --> 01:09:40.744 - got an email from a constituent today in the Elm Heights parking zone. We offer zone permits to people 01:09:40.744 --> 01:09:46.590 - to park near their house right and that is a possibility but right now we have like 01:09:47.842 --> 01:09:55.251 - At least potentially one person who lives nearby who is afraid of potential parking problems on a street 01:09:55.251 --> 01:10:02.448 - that currently does not allow parking on this side And and like I don't think that's a reason to tear 01:10:02.448 --> 01:10:09.786 - up a multi-million dollar project that is less than a year old I would also say I live in prospect hill 01:10:09.786 --> 01:10:17.406 - along roger street. We have had parking there for decades between second And third no one parks there um so 01:10:17.794 --> 01:10:27.167 - I do wanna say this was debated, hotly debated in our council meetings. It was approved with this reasonable 01:10:27.167 --> 01:10:35.767 - condition. 10 seconds. And other bodies, what? Like the Commission on Sustainability approved it as 01:10:35.767 --> 01:10:42.302 - is. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other online requests for comment? 01:10:48.322 --> 01:10:57.594 - Yes. Hello. Ms. Piedmont-Smith. Yes, thank you. I got the request to unmute, so I figured it was my 01:10:57.594 --> 01:11:06.865 - turn. My name is Isabel Piedmont-Smith. I serve on the City Council at District 1, and I agree with 01:11:06.865 --> 01:11:16.322 - my colleague, Council Member Rosenberger, that the request to waive installation of a tree plot along 01:11:16.322 --> 01:11:17.342 - 1st Street 01:11:17.506 --> 01:11:24.803 - part of the first street frontage directly contradicts reasonable condition number 10B that was adopted 01:11:24.803 --> 01:11:31.889 - by the common council to approve this PUD. Item one in that reasonable condition says the PUD street 01:11:31.889 --> 01:11:39.185 - standards and street sections will be updated as necessary to reflect a tree plot minimum width of five 01:11:39.185 --> 01:11:46.622 - feet located between the sidewalk and drive lane for all portions of right of way located within the PUD. 01:11:47.394 --> 01:11:58.958 - I'm just baffled that the petitioner would ask to ask for this waiver when specifically it was a condition 01:11:58.958 --> 01:12:10.198 - of our approval that we have the tree plot along First Street and the other streets in the development. 01:12:10.198 --> 01:12:16.574 - The parking concerns that were mentioned as the reason for 01:12:17.474 --> 01:12:26.818 - the parking to be added on the south side of First Street. Those parking concerns, I believe, came up 01:12:26.818 --> 01:12:36.161 - before this went to the Common Council. I live in the McDowell Gardens neighborhood and I know one or 01:12:36.161 --> 01:12:46.238 - two people in the neighborhood did express that before this PUD came to the council. So I don't know why that 01:12:46.498 --> 01:12:55.853 - wasn't considered previously or brought to us. I mean, it should have been part of the plan that was 01:12:55.853 --> 01:13:05.208 - brought to us. And since it was not, what we approved should stand. Furthermore, having lived in the 01:13:05.208 --> 01:13:14.563 - neighborhood for quite some time, I don't really understand the concern that some neighbors may have 01:13:14.563 --> 01:13:15.582 - expressed. 01:13:16.194 --> 01:13:25.668 - And tree plots are very valuable to creating a walkable neighborhood and to acting as a carbon sink 01:13:25.668 --> 01:13:35.425 - in our constantly warming climate. So I encourage you to vote against this petition and make sure that 01:13:35.425 --> 01:13:45.278 - they remove the waiver of the tree plot before bringing it back before this body. Thank you. Thank you. 01:13:48.034 --> 01:13:55.169 - Mr. Flaherty should be able to unmute. Thank you, hello. My name's Matt Flaherty. I serve on the Bloomington 01:13:55.169 --> 01:14:02.108 - City Council. I'm an at-large representative. I'm going to echo some of the comments and share additional 01:14:02.108 --> 01:14:08.851 - perspectives with respect to the proposal here from the petitioner to grant a waiver for the tree plot 01:14:08.851 --> 01:14:15.462 - and yeah, the tree plot standards on First Street. I think it's an express violation of a reasonable 01:14:15.462 --> 01:14:17.950 - condition passed by the City Council. 01:14:18.242 --> 01:14:24.345 - And I request that the Planning Commission reject the proposal as stated and reject the proposed findings 01:14:24.345 --> 01:14:30.449 - of staff unless you can amend them to change this particular portion. So the reasonable condition imposed 01:14:30.449 --> 01:14:36.437 - by council is that the PUD street standards and street sections will be updated as necessary to reflect 01:14:36.437 --> 01:14:42.195 - a tree plot minimum with the five feet located between the sidewalk and drive lane for all portions 01:14:42.195 --> 01:14:47.262 - of right of way located within the PUD. I don't think this is even legally permissible. 01:14:47.394 --> 01:14:53.817 - you're potentially inviting a legal challenge if you pass this. There is a process for land commission 01:14:53.817 --> 01:15:00.490 - to grant subdivision waivers. And there's criteria for that, including request is based on unique criteria 01:15:00.490 --> 01:15:06.789 - that are unique to the property. I don't think that's true here. We heard the rationale is that some 01:15:06.789 --> 01:15:13.150 - surrounding nearby neighbors are concerned about parking ostensibly. So there's kind of a theoretical 01:15:13.378 --> 01:15:18.955 - fear or concern that is not unique to this property. I would argue you don't meet the conditions imposed 01:15:18.955 --> 01:15:24.531 - by the UDO for subdivision waivers. But in any case, I don't know if you can grant a waiver here because 01:15:24.531 --> 01:15:29.896 - this isn't a standard waiver of code. It is a attempt to override and expressly violate a reasonable 01:15:29.896 --> 01:15:35.366 - condition passed by the City Council as a condition of approval of the planned unit development in the 01:15:35.366 --> 01:15:40.784 - first place. This was discussed extensively. I can assure you with extremely high confidence based on 01:15:40.784 --> 01:15:42.430 - the many conversations we had, 01:15:42.754 --> 01:15:48.617 - that if this design on First Street to get rid of the tree plot in favor of on street parking that would 01:15:48.617 --> 01:15:54.424 - tear up a recently built city project with a waste of city dollars, if that had been proposed, we would 01:15:54.424 --> 01:16:00.064 - not have accepted it. We would have changed it and we would not have approved the PUD if that wasn't 01:16:00.064 --> 01:16:05.704 - changed. I also would invite you to consider whether you would be supporting this for any petitioner 01:16:05.704 --> 01:16:09.054 - other than the city, an element of the city of Bloomington. 01:16:09.154 --> 01:16:15.371 - I think the kind of self-dealing and special exceptions for how we're treating the city as a petitioner 01:16:15.371 --> 01:16:21.348 - with this particular PUD has been part of the problem and contentiousness all along. It's sad to me 01:16:21.348 --> 01:16:27.625 - to see that that is still continuing to be the case. I would also suggest that, again, this is a largely 01:16:27.625 --> 01:16:33.363 - theoretical concern about parking. I believe we heard that 1.15 spaces per bedroom will already 01:16:33.363 --> 01:16:39.102 - be incorporated into the site. That is very high. So I don't think the concern is well-founded. 01:16:39.618 --> 01:16:46.621 - I would just say it's hard to overstate how much approval this proposal would further erode What little 01:16:46.621 --> 01:16:53.422 - trust remains and mayor Thompson and some of her staff to engage with the City Council in good faith 01:16:53.422 --> 01:17:00.156 - again? We debated all this already. We made a decision and encourage you to reject this part of the 01:17:00.156 --> 01:17:06.014 - plan. Thanks. Thank you Are there any other any additional public comment? Sorry, just 01:17:06.914 --> 01:17:13.669 - Scanlon do we have any other one more online? Okay Mr. Ammerman you should be able to unmute Hi, yes, 01:17:13.669 --> 01:17:20.423 - I'm Zach Ammerman Bloomington resident. I just wanted to comment on this My understanding is that the 01:17:20.423 --> 01:17:27.178 - street that this we're talking about here was redesigned and rebuilt like last year and Multi-million 01:17:27.178 --> 01:17:34.462 - millions of dollars were spent on on this design and now we're gonna rip up a big part of it that sounds like 01:17:34.690 --> 01:17:40.455 - the city's wanting, or at least the mayor's administration is wanting, in order to put parking spaces 01:17:40.455 --> 01:17:46.334 - in. I think that is cuckoo bananas crazy, to put it shortly, to put it short. I have, I've been working 01:17:46.334 --> 01:17:52.382 - on a project on Bloomington's canopy, urban canopy, and I independently kind of verify going back, looking 01:17:52.382 --> 01:17:58.034 - at geo data, I make maps for a living, and I deal with data for a living, and I look back, I'm very 01:17:58.034 --> 01:18:04.478 - interested in the canopy, and I found that Bloomington has lost about 200 acres of canopy over the past 25 years, 01:18:04.898 --> 01:18:11.766 - the vast majority of it from development. Now, I'm not opposed to all development, but this is exactly 01:18:11.766 --> 01:18:18.502 - the sort of decision right here that is crazy and is why we're losing acres of trees of urban canopy 01:18:18.502 --> 01:18:25.437 - every year in a context of climate change that is crazy, especially if you're doing it to build parking 01:18:25.437 --> 01:18:30.238 - spaces so that people can store their private property in public space. 01:18:30.914 --> 01:18:38.671 - To take trees down for that. I think it is crazy And I think it's just another example the mayor seeming 01:18:38.671 --> 01:18:46.281 - to go out of her way to pick fights with the City Council And I think make decisions that are contrary 01:18:46.281 --> 01:18:54.038 - to the benefit of the whole city. So I urge you to oppose this. Thank you Thank you Last call for public 01:18:54.038 --> 01:19:00.318 - comment Can I make a public comment heard? What who am I? Part of the petitioner but 01:19:00.482 --> 01:19:10.114 - I can wait Yeah, give me just yeah, just one minute Were you wanting to speak to the the legal question 01:19:10.114 --> 01:19:19.745 - or something? But I do want to speak to what has happened with this process, okay All right, if there's 01:19:19.745 --> 01:19:27.710 - no more public comment Okay All right, we'll come right back to thank the mayor for I 01:19:28.066 --> 01:19:33.376 - Allowing me to speak of my apologies since I'm not a staff member. I thought I was a member of the public 01:19:33.376 --> 01:19:38.485 - So thank you for recognizing me for my three minutes I'm trying to clarify this issue just in talking 01:19:38.485 --> 01:19:43.544 - about it one just as my understanding from staff And I maybe I'm just repeating what we already know 01:19:43.544 --> 01:19:46.750 - here is that the tree plot itself is not actually being removed 01:19:46.818 --> 01:19:52.729 - from that portion of First Street, that it is being, though, swapped behind the sidewalk. So the tree 01:19:52.729 --> 01:19:58.582 - plot as a five-foot tree plot would be preserved. However, it would just be instead of being between 01:19:58.582 --> 01:20:04.551 - the sidewalk and the street, it would go behind the sidewalk. So it would still be along First Street. 01:20:04.551 --> 01:20:10.636 - We do acknowledge that the language of the reasonable condition includes that there shall be a five-foot 01:20:10.636 --> 01:20:14.750 - tree plot that shall be between the sidewalk and the street. I've been 01:20:14.946 --> 01:20:21.618 - We're conferring about the if there is a process even to allow for minor deviations from that or whether 01:20:21.618 --> 01:20:27.972 - it needs to be an amendment I think everyone agrees that the what what is wanted is the trees to be 01:20:27.972 --> 01:20:33.182 - preserved to the maximum extent possible for there to be a five-foot tree plot or 01:20:33.282 --> 01:20:38.704 - Along this street. So I think that and staff I would like to clarify this to make sure I'm being accurate 01:20:38.704 --> 01:20:43.871 - and what I've heard here That's my understanding of what this particular change is. It is not a full 01:20:43.871 --> 01:20:49.089 - removal of the tree plot altogether It is more of a transposition of where those trees will go on the 01:20:49.089 --> 01:20:54.205 - first street parking and I believe that in the original design There was some allowance for parking 01:20:54.205 --> 01:20:59.934 - but that has been changed to allow a little bit of cut in on first Street since it was last finished. So that's 01:21:00.002 --> 01:21:06.726 - I just wanted to preside that information for you in terms of what we gathered and gathering the legal 01:21:06.726 --> 01:21:13.320 - mechanism behind the change, you know, if it is a substantive change to a reasonable condition, then 01:21:13.320 --> 01:21:20.435 - that technically needs to go as an amendment. However, there are provisions in the UDO for minor deviations, 01:21:20.435 --> 01:21:27.160 - but whether this qualifies or not is still an open question that I'm sure my colleagues in legal could 01:21:27.160 --> 01:21:29.118 - happily guide you. Thank you. 01:21:30.018 --> 01:21:40.204 - All right, if there's no more public comment, are we all done online? Jackie, thank you for pinch hitting 01:21:40.204 --> 01:21:49.813 - there. Any more online commenters? All right, we're back to the commission then. For any additional 01:21:49.813 --> 01:21:58.750 - questions or comments, I would like to ask a question of legal, if we have city legal staff, 01:21:59.394 --> 01:22:06.248 - And I don't know if maybe we won't settle this tonight, but I guess the question is is whether or not 01:22:06.248 --> 01:22:12.968 - we have the right to we have the authority as Planning Commission to Grant a waiver of something of 01:22:12.968 --> 01:22:19.889 - this reasonable condition, right? We can grant a waiver of something that is Codified in the UDO right 01:22:19.889 --> 01:22:26.811 - or we could grant a waiver of something that's codified in the district ordinance right and so I guess 01:22:26.811 --> 01:22:28.222 - my question would be 01:22:29.250 --> 01:22:42.978 - What about a reasonable condition rises to a higher standard than something that's codified in the UDO 01:22:42.978 --> 01:22:54.974 - Does any one from legal staff want to take a crack at that They occur legal I was able to 01:22:55.362 --> 01:23:03.115 - during the discussion to to look at the reasonable condition and to look at the request of the waiver 01:23:03.115 --> 01:23:11.097 - and I believe that the waiver does specifically contradict the reasonable condition and I think it would 01:23:11.097 --> 01:23:18.014 - be unadvisable for the Plan Commission to grant the waiver I think that you could you know 01:23:18.242 --> 01:23:27.516 - with passing This forward, but I believe that it would be inadvisable for the Planning Commission to 01:23:27.516 --> 01:23:36.698 - grant the waiver Okay Well follow up to that then how could we move this forward without the waiver 01:23:36.698 --> 01:23:45.880 - if we're approving a plot that that that shows something that is in contradiction to the right they 01:23:45.880 --> 01:23:47.166 - would need to 01:23:47.490 --> 01:23:55.266 - Modify the that area to reflect pushing these sidewalk back to to allow for the Plot tree plot to be 01:23:55.266 --> 01:24:03.196 - but in the right location. I understood from planning that that would be acceptable Yes, they wouldn't 01:24:03.196 --> 01:24:11.049 - have to change anything tonight. You would just deny the waiver and then Whatever comes forward would 01:24:11.049 --> 01:24:17.054 - be fully compliant with the transportation plan and the reasonable conditions 01:24:22.274 --> 01:24:32.784 - Because and we would just it would be corrected before we do secondary plan approval. Yes, okay Well, 01:24:32.784 --> 01:24:43.499 - this may make my next question move but it in what was proposed tonight with the tree plot being inside 01:24:43.499 --> 01:24:51.742 - of the sidewalk Is that was that still proposed to be in city right-of-way? Yes 01:24:52.482 --> 01:24:59.751 - Yes, the tree plot and the right away the tree plot and the sidewalk would be in right away as was shown 01:24:59.751 --> 01:25:06.744 - here today Okay All right, so it's not in the front yards of individual Parcels that are going to be 01:25:06.744 --> 01:25:13.806 - sold off it is in it's still proposed. Well, you propose it's still in city right away. Yes. Okay Yes 01:25:13.806 --> 01:25:20.798 - in existing city right away. There's a five-foot minimum five-foot section with the street trees and 01:25:21.090 --> 01:25:29.658 - I think the concern was it feels like it's your front yard, but it is legally in the city's public right 01:25:29.658 --> 01:25:37.817 - of way. All right. Thank you any other questions Go ahead Yes, if you have more questions, go ahead 01:25:37.817 --> 01:25:45.406 - So to to be clear, so the reason we're moving the trees is because there's a water line that 01:25:46.402 --> 01:25:51.979 - Prevents them from being put where they would be put Yeah, we cannot plant street trees within five 01:25:51.979 --> 01:25:57.613 - feet of the water main So if a tree plot was added there just wouldn't be street trees planted in it 01:25:57.613 --> 01:26:03.246 - So in order to meet the requirement we would have to plant street trees on the private property That 01:26:03.246 --> 01:26:08.823 - would not be city street trees. They would just be up to that property owner what to do with in the 01:26:08.823 --> 01:26:15.070 - future so there's kind of the ideal situations you plant street trees in the tree plot if there's utilities and 01:26:15.266 --> 01:26:19.923 - You plant them on the other side of the sidewalk hopefully still in the right-of-way if there's no more 01:26:19.923 --> 01:26:24.400 - right-of-way Then you plant them in the private property. That's kind of the order of operations on 01:26:24.400 --> 01:26:28.878 - how you meet that requirement We're not planning them in private property. I thought they just said 01:26:28.878 --> 01:26:33.534 - we're planning them in the city's right-of-way still in this can in this case Yes, we are planting them 01:26:33.534 --> 01:26:38.191 - in the city's right-of-way if we pulled that sidewalk back We couldn't plant them in the true plot that 01:26:38.191 --> 01:26:42.668 - we just created So we'd have to plant them on the private property or eliminate the parking to meet 01:26:42.668 --> 01:26:45.086 - that requirement But we're we're not doing that we're 01:26:45.186 --> 01:26:51.140 - Planting it in still the right of way. Yes We're talking about that. I'm not sure why but we're not 01:26:51.140 --> 01:26:57.332 - doing that But the reason we're not putting them where originally promises because there's a water main 01:26:57.332 --> 01:27:03.345 - there So you can't plant is that not right? Am I incorrect on that? No, they are asking for a waiver 01:27:03.345 --> 01:27:09.299 - so that they don't have to have a tree plot between the sidewalk and the street and in order to put 01:27:09.299 --> 01:27:15.134 - the parking spots in they have to move the trees on the other side but city legal just agreed and 01:27:15.522 --> 01:27:22.426 - That that violates the PUD and that would be open to a legal challenge So our best option right now 01:27:22.426 --> 01:27:29.330 - is to deny the waiver buys us but we can make our own decision. Yes, correct Yes, let's try to keep 01:27:29.330 --> 01:27:36.441 - the questions between I would think that a water main. I mean, that's not something that you can avoid 01:27:36.441 --> 01:27:39.134 - that's inherent to the land, right and 01:27:39.810 --> 01:27:46.829 - That I didn't see a free-for-all here you need to be recognized before you speak. Thank you. So we passed 01:27:46.829 --> 01:27:53.516 - things before that Saying that oh we have to pass this waiver It's something inherent to the land in 01:27:53.516 --> 01:28:00.402 - the last petition that we did. I didn't think those were this is a water main Right, we can't move that 01:28:00.402 --> 01:28:07.156 - we can't that that's inherent to the land. That's something that's there. You can't plant trees on it 01:28:07.156 --> 01:28:08.414 - So I think that is 01:28:09.858 --> 01:28:16.372 - Is this correct? My original question was am I understanding this correctly, right? There's a water 01:28:16.372 --> 01:28:23.081 - main where they want to put the trees so they want to move the trees Is that a question for staff that 01:28:23.081 --> 01:28:29.791 - you would like to respond to question? Yes So if the parking that we're proposing to add on 1st Street 01:28:29.791 --> 01:28:36.370 - was removed a 5-foot tree plot and a 6-foot sidewalk could be provided and trees could be planted in 01:28:36.370 --> 01:28:38.910 - that tree plot, so that's the existing 01:28:39.106 --> 01:28:45.673 - Condition for first Street we are proposing to add parking to the street and by doing that we've now 01:28:45.673 --> 01:28:52.241 - shifted the tree plot You know seven or eight feet farther south which places it on top of the water 01:28:52.241 --> 01:28:58.873 - main So that's why we're requesting to put the sidewalk on top of the water main and the street trees 01:28:58.873 --> 01:29:05.700 - on the other side Does that answer the question? Conditions I know there were lots of conditions imposed 01:29:05.700 --> 01:29:07.326 - as the parking itself is 01:29:08.194 --> 01:29:14.761 - Not any of the consequences of it, but does the parking itself contradict any of the reasonable conditions 01:29:14.761 --> 01:29:21.021 - imposed by council? My understanding is the pud on the cross section for first street has a statement 01:29:21.021 --> 01:29:27.220 - that says parking may be added to either side of the street I'll weigh into support kendall. Yes the 01:29:27.220 --> 01:29:33.357 - approved packet that went to city council and the final approved pud has a section for first street 01:29:33.357 --> 01:29:34.462 - that says that if 01:29:34.594 --> 01:29:40.633 - it is determined additional parking is needed, then parking may be added to First Street. And so we 01:29:40.633 --> 01:29:46.853 - we were under the impression with with the waiver that this was within compliance of condition because 01:29:46.853 --> 01:29:53.013 - the condition states that a tree plot is required between the sidewalk and the drive lane. It doesn't 01:29:53.013 --> 01:29:58.206 - say between parking lane or between street or something in general. And so this was a 01:29:58.370 --> 01:30:04.916 - problem solving, trying to make sure if we have the tree plot in between the sidewalk and parking lane, 01:30:04.916 --> 01:30:11.398 - we won't have trees in it. This was the best problem solving around not needing to move the water main 01:30:11.398 --> 01:30:17.755 - and preserving public funds. But yes, I think that's the tricky geometry here is we can get trees if 01:30:17.755 --> 01:30:24.112 - the sidewalk is against the parking lane, we can't get trees within the city right of way if we have 01:30:24.112 --> 01:30:27.070 - parking and tree plot and sidewalk. Thank you. 01:30:31.586 --> 01:30:39.305 - Just mentioned that parking could be added if it was determined that it was necessary Is there a parking 01:30:39.305 --> 01:30:47.024 - any sort of a study or any sort of performative data that led to that conclusion? I Can answer on behalf 01:30:47.024 --> 01:30:54.744 - of the petitioner there's no parking study other than a Comparison of the number of units and the number 01:30:54.744 --> 01:31:00.478 - of proposed parking spaces. So this isn't a necessary or required feature and 01:31:01.986 --> 01:31:13.510 - That's correct. The project could move forward without parking on 1st Street. Yes. Thank you Is about 01:31:13.510 --> 01:31:25.711 - the capacity to get the CBU approval and add it to this Packet I have some concerns about moving a proposal 01:31:25.711 --> 01:31:31.134 - forward without that letter acknowledging CBU's 01:31:31.298 --> 01:31:39.457 - Approval of this and I see it in writing and I presume that's enough but I Wonder if it can't be added 01:31:39.457 --> 01:31:47.854 - We do have emails from Phil Peden and cat who both said that they were fine with the petitioners Proposal 01:31:47.854 --> 01:31:56.092 - to give additional supplemental information prior to the secondary plat So we you know, we do have that 01:31:56.092 --> 01:31:59.102 - correspondence from them directly and 01:32:02.434 --> 01:32:10.678 - I just want to make sure that we're following procedures to the degree that we should be So to me that 01:32:10.678 --> 01:32:18.681 - that is an important thing to either add now or add as a condition That it be a part of a secondary 01:32:18.681 --> 01:32:26.845 - plat approval so that we can formalize this just to keep it straight And Edina Casamayan from city of 01:32:26.845 --> 01:32:29.406 - Bloomington legal would like to 01:32:29.634 --> 01:32:43.524 - Offer a short recess so that legal can deliberate and then come back and answer these questions How 01:32:43.524 --> 01:32:58.526 - short maybe ten minutes five minutes All right It seems reasonable I'll move that we recess for ten minutes 01:32:58.850 --> 01:33:11.988 - Reconvene here at let's call it 715 Thank you want to second that All right, all in favor of recessing 01:33:11.988 --> 01:33:25.508 - for ten minutes aye aye any opposed All right reconvene in 715 All right It is 715 Let's call the meeting 01:33:25.508 --> 01:33:27.294 - back to order 01:33:28.290 --> 01:33:42.427 - I Was going to say we're gonna go back to The petitioner to use the rest of their time, but I don't 01:33:42.427 --> 01:33:57.694 - think there's anyone from the petitioner back in the room yet So We'll just We'll just wait one more minute 01:33:59.106 --> 01:34:07.711 - Chair, yeah Can I can I make a clarification while we're sitting here I'm sorry. Can I make a clarification 01:34:07.711 --> 01:34:15.839 - while we're sitting here like a point of information? Yes that there is currently a long first street 01:34:15.839 --> 01:34:23.807 - where we're talking about a Tree plot and the sidewalk that are compliant in all ways with what was 01:34:23.807 --> 01:34:28.030 - there so part of what they're asking is to tear up a 01:34:28.578 --> 01:34:35.704 - what just got installed last year in order to do something different. So in terms of the concern before 01:34:35.704 --> 01:34:42.556 - about the water line that the trees are currently planted around the water line, the water line was 01:34:42.556 --> 01:34:49.682 - installed based on where the trees were planted. All of those things went together and it was just last 01:34:49.682 --> 01:34:52.286 - year that all of that was designed by 01:34:59.554 --> 01:35:06.938 - I see representatives of the petitioner coming back into the room now. So what we're going to do is 01:35:06.938 --> 01:35:14.912 - this. We're gonna give the petitioner back the remainder of their time to make any additional presentation, 01:35:14.912 --> 01:35:22.517 - any additional comments they'd like to make and hopefully answer some of the legal questions that have 01:35:22.517 --> 01:35:27.390 - been raised. But looks like we have Mayor Thompson. Take it away. 01:35:27.682 --> 01:35:37.066 - Hi, I'm speaking on behalf of the petitioner Mayor Thompson Listen There was really no malicious intent 01:35:37.066 --> 01:35:46.180 - here an attempt to save trees Understand that if this solution to saving trees Doesn't work and this 01:35:46.180 --> 01:35:55.925 - is a solution they came up Which we believed was within the realm of the PUD and it was a solution provided 01:35:55.925 --> 01:35:57.278 - by engineering 01:35:57.410 --> 01:36:06.861 - I actually had no idea this was happening So definitely not the mayor playing chess here Anna can kill 01:36:06.861 --> 01:36:16.403 - enhancer Hansen can explain how how the preservation of trees was anticipated for this area and If that 01:36:16.403 --> 01:36:25.578 - doesn't work, we're happy to withdraw the waiver it's really important to us to get this affordable 01:36:25.578 --> 01:36:27.230 - housing built and 01:36:27.394 --> 01:36:35.834 - built as soon as possible and this really was just The intent to try to save trees, which I think we 01:36:35.834 --> 01:36:41.182 - all agree with so Anna Can I get you to address these concerns? 01:36:44.738 --> 01:36:52.311 - Absolutely, but I actually think that Kendall from engineering would be best suited to Explain to you 01:36:52.311 --> 01:36:59.736 - how we got to this point. It was not an effort to bamboozle anyone It was simply trying to save the 01:36:59.736 --> 01:37:07.161 - trees Hi Kendall from engineering Yeah, I mean really this originated with the art discussions with 01:37:07.161 --> 01:37:13.918 - the RDC and talking about parking and where can we add more parking in so first Street and 01:37:14.050 --> 01:37:21.249 - Came to light because there's no parking on it currently the PUD appeared to allow parking to be installed 01:37:21.249 --> 01:37:28.112 - so we you know were Changed the plan to show parking we evaluated site distance We eliminated some of 01:37:28.112 --> 01:37:35.041 - the parking spaces, and then we kind of came up with what's before you tonight. There was no Intention 01:37:35.041 --> 01:37:41.770 - to you know go around any of the requirements, so you're you're welcome to deny this waiver tonight 01:37:41.770 --> 01:37:42.846 - if you'd like I 01:37:43.682 --> 01:37:49.510 - or withdraw. I'm sorry, I don't know the legal language, but... And yeah, I mean, I don't know if I 01:37:49.510 --> 01:37:55.745 - can provide any additional details. Still going to plant the required street trees. We're going to attempt 01:37:55.745 --> 01:38:01.631 - to move some of the trees that have already been planted out there that we just planted. They may be 01:38:01.631 --> 01:38:07.517 - moveable. If not, we're gonna plant new ones. So we're gonna continue to maintain the same number of 01:38:07.517 --> 01:38:11.422 - trees and all the trees that are required by planting in the PUDs. 01:38:14.082 --> 01:38:25.919 - Thank you. I'm gonna ask a clarifying question just for staff. If we were to approve this petition without 01:38:25.919 --> 01:38:37.314 - the waiver tonight, since this is preliminary Platt approval, you would be able to make changes before 01:38:37.314 --> 01:38:40.190 - secondary Platt approval. 01:38:40.834 --> 01:38:47.743 - There would not be any changes that would affect the plat unless there's an additional easement that 01:38:47.743 --> 01:38:54.856 - needs to be secured For instance if a sidewalk is shown on the private property, that would be the only 01:38:54.856 --> 01:39:02.176 - implication for this for the plat Okay, nothing would change on the plat itself But there would be changes 01:39:02.176 --> 01:39:04.638 - to the the site plan essentially to 01:39:04.898 --> 01:39:11.112 - Accommodate like I said, the only change would be an additional easement or the pedestrian access easement 01:39:11.112 --> 01:39:17.326 - that would run along the front of those property lines If the sidewalk is pushed into the private property 01:39:17.326 --> 01:39:23.540 - and is not able to be contained within the right-of-way You know, there's at least three different options 01:39:23.540 --> 01:39:29.406 - here for solutions But you know nothing has to change on the primary plat as a result of denying the 01:39:29.406 --> 01:39:34.110 - waiver All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? 01:39:34.370 --> 01:39:40.896 - I have a question I think there's still the outstanding question of the fact that we don't have any 01:39:40.896 --> 01:39:47.488 - documentation in this packet that says that CBU has passed off on their drainage plan and that was a 01:39:47.488 --> 01:39:54.079 - requirement by the primary plot and And I find that if this was a private petitioner We would not be 01:39:54.079 --> 01:40:00.932 - trusting right now that they have that signed off on and and I am entirely sick of this petition getting 01:40:00.932 --> 01:40:02.302 - special treatment of 01:40:02.594 --> 01:40:10.651 - simply because they are An arm of the city and not a petition or like any other and this is like we're 01:40:10.651 --> 01:40:18.473 - eight months into this right now And I'm honestly not interested in continuing to give them special 01:40:18.473 --> 01:40:26.608 - treatment I We should have had that information from CBU in our packet that documented that they signed 01:40:26.608 --> 01:40:31.614 - off on the drainage and the stormwater plan Any other questions 01:40:32.130 --> 01:40:38.342 - Yes I Don't care about the semantics of this. I'm not worried about CBU. We need housing This whole 01:40:38.342 --> 01:40:44.678 - process has been micromanaged and taken way too long. We have a great plan before us I'm not in favor 01:40:44.678 --> 01:40:50.330 - of the waiver simply because I like the street cross-section the way it is We tear out too 01:40:50.330 --> 01:40:56.604 - much infrastructure already to rebuild things and I think we need to approve this and get this thing 01:40:56.604 --> 01:41:00.766 - moving because we need housing more than we need anything else and 01:41:04.162 --> 01:41:13.146 - Like to on behalf of the RDC withdraw the request for waiver The whole point of this entire PUD is to 01:41:13.146 --> 01:41:22.042 - try and show how we can build housing more easily and more cost-effective So let's not lose sight of 01:41:22.042 --> 01:41:25.918 - that Thank you There are two waivers on our 01:41:26.562 --> 01:41:33.096 - Agenda one is for the subdivision standards regarding tree plot with and the other waivers from a required 01:41:33.096 --> 01:41:39.570 - second hearing I just want to clarify what we're asking This is the waiver from the subdivision standards 01:41:39.570 --> 01:41:46.104 - regarding tree plot that you're withdrawing So so the waiver from the required hearing is directly related 01:41:46.104 --> 01:41:52.333 - to the fact that there is a waiver request So with the waiver request being withdrawn, this no longer 01:41:52.333 --> 01:41:54.654 - requires two hearings. Okay? Okay, so 01:41:56.514 --> 01:42:05.065 - All right, so the Just as a Just as a reminder we You know the the staff recommendation in the packet 01:42:05.065 --> 01:42:13.447 - was that we adopt the proposed findings and approve the prayer requests with five listed conditions 01:42:13.447 --> 01:42:22.249 - Now that that waiver request has been withdrawn. I think it's safe to say the staff recommendation would 01:42:22.249 --> 01:42:25.854 - be that we adopt the proposed findings and 01:42:28.482 --> 01:42:36.859 - the preliminary plat with those same conditions Yes, and and so just for the the planning Commission's 01:42:36.859 --> 01:42:44.830 - information You know, there are two very specific conditions in there that deal with CBU approval 01:42:45.218 --> 01:42:50.805 - One this I'm sorry condition number two final acceptance and approval from CBU is required prior to 01:42:50.805 --> 01:42:56.615 - the issuance of any permits This is standard language that we have on on every single petition and then 01:42:56.615 --> 01:43:00.190 - condition number three prior to approval the secondary plat and 01:43:00.322 --> 01:43:07.201 - Additional will show all easements and notes required by CBU for utility service connections So both 01:43:07.201 --> 01:43:14.080 - of those conditions were something that we had coordinated with CBU to make sure that their concerns 01:43:14.080 --> 01:43:20.890 - were addressed You know, I have an email from Phil Peden Assistant director from August 6th of this 01:43:20.890 --> 01:43:28.382 - week saying that he has given his approval for this I have an email from Katherine the director from noon and 01:43:28.482 --> 01:43:35.496 - I think today, again, also reiterating her acceptance and approval of this moving forward. So we have 01:43:35.496 --> 01:43:42.648 - communicated with CBU. We've been in heavy communication with them. And so they are aware of everything 01:43:42.648 --> 01:43:49.661 - here and have given their blessing for this to move forward and have not given any reservations about 01:43:49.661 --> 01:43:56.607 - this project being able to meet their requirements. All right. Any other questions, comments? Are we 01:43:56.607 --> 01:43:57.982 - ready for a motion? 01:44:03.682 --> 01:44:14.361 - I will move myself. I'll make the motion. I move that we adopt the proposed findings and Approve the 01:44:14.361 --> 01:44:24.935 - preliminary plat with the five conditions that are listed in the packet Any final discussion before 01:44:24.935 --> 01:44:33.182 - we call the roll All right, please call the roll on the motion to approve Yes 01:44:34.594 --> 01:44:50.256 - Homes yes, Kenzie. Yes Smith. Yes Stossburg. No Wish Whistler. Yes Bishop. Yes Braille. Yes Motion carries. 01:44:50.256 --> 01:45:01.278 - Thank you. We are now on to our second petition of the evening Zio 2026-06- 01:45:01.474 --> 01:45:09.565 - And again, we have Eric Grulick to present. Thank you, so this is the second hearing for this particular 01:45:09.565 --> 01:45:17.888 - amendment. This was heard at the planning commission meeting last month as part of fulfilling a requirement 01:45:17.888 --> 01:45:26.056 - for resolution that was passed by the common council directing the planning commission to look at several 01:45:26.056 --> 01:45:28.830 - aspects for changes within the UDO. 01:45:28.994 --> 01:45:35.631 - And so this was heard last month and briefly presented and requested to be continued to the required 01:45:35.631 --> 01:45:42.269 - second hearing, which this is. So the Planning Commission was directed in this resolution to prepare 01:45:42.269 --> 01:45:49.169 - changes to the UDO consistent with that resolution and hear that petition within 60 days, which happened 01:45:49.169 --> 01:45:55.806 - last month. Then the Planning Commission has 60 days to vote on these changes within the resolution. 01:45:55.938 --> 01:46:03.019 - to forward that on to the Common Council. So briefly, the resolution looked to address several issues 01:46:03.019 --> 01:46:10.100 - within the Unified Development Ordinance, and I'll just briefly step through each of those particular 01:46:10.100 --> 01:46:17.250 - sections. So section one of the resolution directs the Plain Commission to prepare a proposal to amend 01:46:17.250 --> 01:46:22.110 - the text of the UDO to reduce minimum lot width in minimum lot areas. 01:46:22.210 --> 01:46:29.734 - within the single family zoning districts. Also to reduce minimum lot widths and minimum lot areas in 01:46:29.734 --> 01:46:37.700 - other zones. Section two of the resolution directed further changes for the planning commission to consider 01:46:37.700 --> 01:46:45.740 - further changes to reduce setback requirements to look at making lot subdivision and small scale development 01:46:45.740 --> 01:46:46.846 - more feasible. 01:46:46.978 --> 01:46:53.767 - As part of this, we were also directed to look at impervious surface coverage maximums, lot frontage 01:46:53.767 --> 01:47:00.893 - requirements, and subdivision standards. Section three of the resolution directed the planning commission 01:47:00.893 --> 01:47:07.817 - to bring forward a new requirement for projects seeking to be eligible for the sustainable development 01:47:07.817 --> 01:47:14.942 - incentives that they would be required to use either electricity or other onsite renewable energy sources 01:47:15.042 --> 01:47:24.579 - for all significant energy needs and then section 4 Looked to establish a new qualifying standards for 01:47:24.579 --> 01:47:34.579 - PUD that required PUDs coming forward to utilize those sustainable development incentives in their entirety 01:47:34.579 --> 01:47:43.838 - And then section 5 of the resolution looked to address or eliminate minimum parking requirements So 01:47:43.970 --> 01:47:51.731 - Real briefly and just to kind of forward or do a slight preface with this as well as the next series 01:47:51.731 --> 01:47:58.878 - of UD amendments that we'll be discussing after this tonight. These do also serve to address 01:47:59.010 --> 01:48:06.232 - Public hearings that are required as part of a house bill that was passed earlier this year That directs 01:48:06.232 --> 01:48:13.179 - communities to look at changes within their unified development ordinance or zoning codes to address 01:48:13.179 --> 01:48:20.401 - housing attainability You know to have a hearing on what changes are necessary in specifically accessory 01:48:20.401 --> 01:48:26.110 - dwelling units duplexes minimum lot area a lot with a wide range of things so this 01:48:26.274 --> 01:48:32.865 - hearing that we are having tonight to address this resolution does also meet that requirement. There's 01:48:32.865 --> 01:48:39.520 - also a reporting requirement that is required at the end of the year to kind of summarize those changes 01:48:39.520 --> 01:48:46.239 - as well as to address building permits and new lots and several other reporting aspects. So this hearing 01:48:46.239 --> 01:48:53.022 - that we're having tonight does serve to address that, so I want to make sure that the Planning Commission 01:48:53.022 --> 01:48:54.174 - is aware of that. 01:48:54.274 --> 01:49:01.938 - So going back to the items of the resolution, as I mentioned, it specifically looked to address minimum 01:49:01.938 --> 01:49:09.529 - lot width, minimum lot area, setbacks, and all of the things that deal with housing, creation of lots, 01:49:09.529 --> 01:49:16.899 - and development on lots as a whole. So we looked at several standards within the UDO that relate to 01:49:16.899 --> 01:49:22.942 - this. So minimum lot area, minimum lot width, setbacks. So what we are looking at 01:49:23.042 --> 01:49:30.842 - proposing, and certainly this is what we are bringing to the Planning Commission so you can adjust these 01:49:30.842 --> 01:49:38.567 - as you need, is reducing the minimum lot area kind of across the board and all of the zoning districts. 01:49:38.567 --> 01:49:45.995 - So in the R1 district, we would be proposing to go from a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet to 01:49:45.995 --> 01:49:50.526 - 7,200. In the R2 districts, we would go from 7,200 to 5,000. 01:49:50.658 --> 01:49:58.336 - In the R3 and R4 zoning districts, we would go from 5,000 and 4,000 square feet respectively to a minimum 01:49:58.336 --> 01:50:05.579 - lot size of 2,500 square feet. And then in the multifamily districts, RM and RH, we would go from a 01:50:05.579 --> 01:50:13.113 - minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet to no minimum lot size. The lot width in the districts would also 01:50:13.113 --> 01:50:15.358 - kind of go down substantially. 01:50:16.034 --> 01:50:23.022 - The R1 would go from 100 foot minimum lot width to 50 feet. The R2 would go from a minimum lot width 01:50:23.022 --> 01:50:29.941 - of 60 feet to 40. And then the R3 and R4 districts would go from a 50 and 35 foot minimum lot width 01:50:29.941 --> 01:50:37.413 - to a 30 foot minimum lot width. And then there would be no minimum lot width requirement in the multifamily 01:50:37.413 --> 01:50:38.174 - districts. 01:50:38.562 --> 01:50:45.102 - So kind of extending some of these changes. We would also look to change the front build to range in 01:50:45.102 --> 01:50:51.641 - some of these areas or front building setback to establish a build to range of five to 15 feet. That 01:50:51.641 --> 01:50:58.116 - gives obviously a narrower depth that somebody can accomplish on a property giving more developable 01:50:58.116 --> 01:51:04.785 - area on a site as well as giving more flexibility in terms of porches and incorporation of other units 01:51:04.785 --> 01:51:05.886 - along the front. 01:51:06.306 --> 01:51:13.602 - Side yard setbacks, we would be reducing or eliminating the additional side yard setback that is required 01:51:13.602 --> 01:51:20.484 - for second stories and just have a base side yard setback across the board regardless of the number 01:51:20.484 --> 01:51:27.573 - of stories. So in the R1, it would be eight foot side yard setback. The R2 would be going to six feet. 01:51:27.573 --> 01:51:33.630 - The R3 would stay at four feet, but like I said, would not have any additional setback. 01:51:33.730 --> 01:51:41.915 - for the second story, and then the R4 district would go down to zero foot. The RM and the RH would be 01:51:41.915 --> 01:51:50.101 - proposing to stay the same. The rear yard setback in the R3 and R4 would go down to 15 feet. And then 01:51:50.101 --> 01:51:57.403 - so to kind of further this goal of these changes to increase the likelihood, the potential 01:51:57.403 --> 01:52:03.422 - for developability, we would be adjusting the impervious surface coverage. 01:52:03.522 --> 01:52:11.622 - on these lots as well. So in the R2 district, the impervious surface coverage would go from 40% to 60% 01:52:11.622 --> 01:52:19.643 - allowance. In the R3, we're proposing to go from a 45% to a 70%. And the R4, it would be going in the 01:52:19.643 --> 01:52:27.821 - 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 01:52:27.821 --> 01:52:32.382 - adjusting the minimum landscape area numbers accordingly. 01:52:32.930 --> 01:52:40.368 - So in the resolution, it directs us to look at two somewhat recent PUDs in terms of lot size and lot 01:52:40.368 --> 01:52:48.027 - width to sort of look at and replicate. One of those is a PUD that's down on kind of the southwest side 01:52:48.027 --> 01:52:55.539 - of town on the corner of Morton Dodds. So this PUD established lots that were 28 feet wide with a lot 01:52:55.539 --> 01:52:58.558 - size of approximately 3,900 square feet. 01:52:58.722 --> 01:53:07.588 - And then the other PUD was what was known as the Dunn Street PUD and has a lot within there of approximately 01:53:07.588 --> 01:53:15.723 - 40 feet with lot sizes of about 4,500 square feet. One important thing to also kind of look at with 01:53:15.723 --> 01:53:20.766 - the Dunn Street PUD is it did allow for also these half lots. 01:53:20.994 --> 01:53:27.804 - That were created or allowed to be created on the corners So these half lots were about 40 feet wide 01:53:27.804 --> 01:53:34.681 - and about 2,300 square feet So when we were proposing or are proposing the minimum lot sizes of about 01:53:34.681 --> 01:53:41.625 - 2,500 square feet that was somewhat based on this example that you see And again this example of these 01:53:41.625 --> 01:53:48.367 - kind of half lots is something that we see somewhat common within the community where you have lots 01:53:48.367 --> 01:53:49.918 - That have been divided 01:53:50.082 --> 01:53:56.313 - Obviously, historically, very long in the past before subdivision restrictions had minimum lot size 01:53:56.313 --> 01:53:57.310 - and lot widths. 01:53:57.378 --> 01:54:03.277 - But you see these along fronts where you have these half lots that have been developed with houses. 01:54:03.277 --> 01:54:09.176 - So when we were looking at our impervious surface coverage and side yard setbacks and other things, 01:54:09.176 --> 01:54:15.133 - this is the kind of housing that we were looking to try to allow for. So you'll see lots of examples 01:54:15.133 --> 01:54:21.327 - as you scroll through areas within the community where you've got these half lots that are located along 01:54:21.327 --> 01:54:27.344 - streets and corners. So allowing for this type of lot creation and this sort of lot size would not be 01:54:27.344 --> 01:54:32.978 - out of character with a lot of our established areas and the lot sizes were consistent with what we 01:54:32.978 --> 01:54:38.669 - were proposing and what we based it on. So, you know, just to kind of give you an example of what we 01:54:38.669 --> 01:54:44.190 - would be looking to allow by right, this would be the example of what we're trying to accomplish. 01:54:44.738 --> 01:54:51.427 - So one of one of the other key components to the changes and the lot establishment standards has been 01:54:51.427 --> 01:54:58.183 - a long-standing provision within the unified development ordinance that all lots have to have frontage 01:54:58.183 --> 01:55:05.134 - on a public street and More specifically that that frontage has to meet the minimum lot width requirement 01:55:05.134 --> 01:55:12.414 - of that district So those two aspects create a lot of challenges with creating new lots within the city itself 01:55:12.898 --> 01:55:20.278 - So as we worked through this particular change, one of the biggest challenges was making sure that we 01:55:20.278 --> 01:55:27.659 - are creating lots that can be seen and accessed by emergency services. So we worked very closely with 01:55:27.659 --> 01:55:35.184 - the fire department and their regulations to ensure that we were allowing lots to be created that could 01:55:35.184 --> 01:55:39.742 - be served by public services, by emergency service facilities. 01:55:39.874 --> 01:55:46.776 - So we are proposing to Include new language that allows for lots to be created that that don't meet 01:55:46.776 --> 01:55:53.816 - the typical minimum lot width frontage So these would be the language is written to allow for lots to 01:55:53.816 --> 01:56:01.339 - be created on existing lots of record that are less than 150 foot deep so the 150 foot number is significant 01:56:01.339 --> 01:56:08.862 - because from fire department regulations that's kind of the length of hoses from where a parked truck is and 01:56:09.122 --> 01:56:15.837 - So that's why that number is very significant and is used in two places here in this language to talk 01:56:15.837 --> 01:56:22.420 - about these restrictions. So this would allow for lots to be created on lots that are less than 150 01:56:22.420 --> 01:56:29.135 - foot deep provided that they provide a six foot no build easement from the lot to the street in order 01:56:29.135 --> 01:56:35.850 - to give fire department access to that new lot. There is a note that would be placed on the plan that 01:56:35.850 --> 01:56:38.878 - no part of any structure built on the new lot 01:56:38.978 --> 01:56:46.112 - would be more than 150 feet from the street, or as approved by the fire department, and that the new 01:56:46.112 --> 01:56:53.670 - lot shall not be wider than six feet along that frontage, and that only one lot can be accessed or created 01:56:53.670 --> 01:57:01.440 - from this new provision. There's a second portion we are proposing, and this is a little bit more challenging 01:57:01.440 --> 01:57:08.574 - in terms of it would allow for, again, a lot to be created that doesn't have frontage on the street, 01:57:08.770 --> 01:57:15.510 - but would require a 20 foot access easement with a fire access road to get to that back lot. So this 01:57:15.510 --> 01:57:22.651 - is something that probably due to that requirement wouldn't be utilized too much, but there are situations 01:57:22.651 --> 01:57:29.525 - where it could, and so we are trying to build in as many allowances as possible. So I've tried to draw 01:57:29.525 --> 01:57:35.198 - here on the screen just an example of what this might look like. So one of the other 01:57:36.130 --> 01:57:42.124 - Aspects of the subdivision code that we are removing is a required four to one depth ratio to allow 01:57:42.124 --> 01:57:48.238 - for these flag lots So this would allow for a lot to be created in the back as I mentioned would have 01:57:48.238 --> 01:57:54.412 - a six foot no build easement and then you would have a new lot created in the back that somebody could 01:57:54.412 --> 01:57:56.510 - subdivide and build a new house on 01:57:56.898 --> 01:58:03.769 - So this was this is the scenario that we were writing to try to accomplish You know, we certainly went 01:58:03.769 --> 01:58:10.573 - through a lot of different scenarios as we were trying to work on this language and again Making sure 01:58:10.573 --> 01:58:17.311 - that the lots could be served by fire department and emergency access vehicles was very important so 01:58:17.311 --> 01:58:20.446 - the third section of the resolution talks with 01:58:20.546 --> 01:58:28.772 - talks about sustainable development incentives and adding a requirement that buildings utilizing the 01:58:28.772 --> 01:58:37.323 - sustainable development incentives must be accessed or use electricity for all significant energy needs. 01:58:37.323 --> 01:58:45.631 - And then a second directive related to that to add this qualifying standard for PUDs. So we did write 01:58:45.631 --> 01:58:50.110 - language that was consistent with what that resolution 01:58:50.210 --> 01:58:57.990 - specifically directed us to do. However, you also find in your packet a memo from the legal department 01:58:57.990 --> 01:59:06.073 - advising that this would be noncompliant with an Indiana code that prohibits regulations that specifically 01:59:06.073 --> 01:59:13.702 - deal with energy sources and restricting them to a specific one. So we do have a member of the legal 01:59:13.702 --> 01:59:19.518 - department to speak to that directly, but also there is a memo in the packet 01:59:19.618 --> 01:59:26.361 - Addressing that itself And then section 5 of the resolution dealt with eliminating minimum 01:59:26.361 --> 01:59:33.994 - parking requirements in all zones So again, we have direct made changes made direct changes to the UDO 01:59:33.994 --> 01:59:41.701 - Eliminating parking minimums in all zones throughout the city for all uses So again, this is consistent 01:59:41.701 --> 01:59:46.814 - with the resolution Obviously it is within the Planning Commission's 01:59:46.946 --> 01:59:54.075 - ability to modify this to some degree if they feel necessary, but Plaint Commission's ultimate role 01:59:54.075 --> 02:00:00.990 - here is to forward this to the common council with either a positive or negative recommendation. 02:00:00.990 --> 02:00:08.476 - So with that, we are recommending that the Plaint Commission forward this petition to the common council 02:00:08.476 --> 02:00:10.686 - with a positive recommendation 02:00:10.786 --> 02:00:17.419 - Except for section 3 and then section 4 that kind of are connected That those would be forward with 02:00:17.419 --> 02:00:24.184 - a negative recommendation for the reasons that I kind of referenced in the legal department's memo So 02:00:24.184 --> 02:00:31.214 - with that I'm happy to answer any questions Thank You Eric, I am Assuming again that You are representing 02:00:31.214 --> 02:00:38.046 - the petitioner here tonight, but I don't want to make the same mistake twice. Is there anybody else? I 02:00:38.178 --> 02:00:44.461 - From the petitioner that wouldn't speak. No, I mean other than my esteemed colleagues of the Planning 02:00:44.461 --> 02:00:50.620 - Department And we do have Jeff with the fire department here to answer questions about you know any 02:00:50.620 --> 02:00:57.026 - fire code implications But no, it's it's great. All right, we'll go to questions and any questions from 02:00:57.026 --> 02:01:03.246 - commissioners. We'll start at the end down here The topic of removing minimum parking requirements I 02:01:03.246 --> 02:01:06.942 - noticed that minimum bicycle parking requirements are still 02:01:07.202 --> 02:01:13.229 - Left where they were Because the vehicular conveyance was not specified from the common council. It 02:01:13.229 --> 02:01:19.316 - seems that it would be Necessary to remove the bicycle parking requirements as well I feel that does 02:01:19.316 --> 02:01:25.886 - place an undue burden on businesses that have to put bicycle parking there where no bicycles may ever travel 02:01:27.746 --> 02:01:34.173 - Yes, the the resolution, you know said eliminate minimum parking requirements while it certainly did 02:01:34.173 --> 02:01:40.854 - not Specifically say vehicular parking requirements. I mean that that was our interpretation of it Yeah, 02:01:40.854 --> 02:01:47.471 - so you're correct. We did not alter the bicycle parking minimums or anything related to bicycle parking 02:01:47.471 --> 02:01:54.344 - But can we strike those because the the direction was to remove all? vehicular minimum parking requirements 02:01:54.344 --> 02:01:55.998 - and we didn't do that and 02:01:56.962 --> 02:02:03.927 - Yes, that would certainly be an interpretation. It did not say vehicular or bicycle It just said eliminate 02:02:03.927 --> 02:02:10.501 - minimum parking requirements in all zones. So so you referred to the the section on parking the 2004 02:02:10.501 --> 02:02:17.075 - 060 and that is specifically covered in that section and so to live up to the spirit of what we were 02:02:17.075 --> 02:02:23.584 - charged with it would have to be a removal of the minimum parking requirements across the board for 02:02:23.584 --> 02:02:25.406 - all within that section and 02:02:26.690 --> 02:02:33.862 - Yes, I could certainly see so maybe you know, the recommendation would be to remove vehicular but keep 02:02:33.862 --> 02:02:41.104 - bicycle parking minimums, I Think it all needs to go. But that's my opinion. Well, thank you If there's 02:02:41.104 --> 02:02:48.276 - a question, I mean, you're certainly welcome to Propose an amendment Along the way here if that's that 02:02:48.276 --> 02:02:54.334 - is your your prerogative Does that answer your question though? Okay. Let's keep going 02:02:57.698 --> 02:03:04.012 - very large changes to the UDO or like reducing the lot sizes sometimes in half, increasing the impervious 02:03:04.012 --> 02:03:09.968 - area, all these setbacks. I can see why I'm not talking about the merits of it, but these are major 02:03:09.968 --> 02:03:16.043 - changes. There's nobody out here and I'm just wondering, I'm sure the statutory requirement of notice 02:03:16.043 --> 02:03:22.059 - for people in the city was adhered to for this. I'm sure we did what we were supposed to do legally, 02:03:22.059 --> 02:03:26.526 - but was any effort made beyond the statutory minimum to notify the public? 02:03:26.722 --> 02:03:31.320 - of what we're doing here with this, because this is major. Did we do neighborhood meetings like we did 02:03:31.320 --> 02:03:35.784 - for Hopewell? Were there social media campaigns? Did we do anything? Did we send out flyers? Did we 02:03:35.784 --> 02:03:40.382 - do anything to tell people what's going on? Because it looks to me like nobody knows what we're doing. 02:03:41.346 --> 02:03:47.391 - Well, so our previous planning director did go through to all of the neighborhood associations They 02:03:47.391 --> 02:03:53.557 - spent pretty much the majority of last year going to all of the ones within the city Letting him know 02:03:53.557 --> 02:03:59.784 - that we would be bringing forward Changes to the ud. Oh, I'm trying to gauge reaction and comments and 02:03:59.784 --> 02:04:06.373 - concerns So we notified art as part of that and like I said, he went to all of the neighborhood associations 02:04:06.373 --> 02:04:08.126 - We did not have any specific 02:04:09.666 --> 02:04:16.181 - Programs at the library or town halls here to say hey, you know, these are changes that are coming forward 02:04:16.181 --> 02:04:22.757 - These were noticed in the paper But you know beyond that, you know these public notifications and obviously 02:04:22.757 --> 02:04:29.028 - the City Council resolution Was also publicly noticed and as a public meeting, you know there that has 02:04:29.028 --> 02:04:35.300 - that resolution has been discussed several times so it's certainly been in the public eye that there's 02:04:35.300 --> 02:04:37.918 - been a desire for us to change the UDO and 02:04:38.082 --> 02:04:43.545 - Certainly in this case there was a specific resolution ordering us to Understand that so the public 02:04:43.545 --> 02:04:49.226 - me that's good that they went around and did to talk to the neighborhood associations was the substance 02:04:49.226 --> 02:04:54.853 - of what the changes were going to be Included or was it just we're gonna make changes to the UDO. What 02:04:54.853 --> 02:05:00.589 - are your ideas? We didn't really have an idea at that time and obviously I was not all of those meetings 02:05:00.589 --> 02:05:06.162 - or at any of those meetings to know You know what was kind of said or brought back, you know, most of 02:05:06.162 --> 02:05:07.582 - it was Yeah, and I'm just 02:05:07.874 --> 02:05:13.368 - Paraphrasing because I was not there, you know the gist of it. Like I said was you know, we will be 02:05:13.368 --> 02:05:19.027 - bringing forward changes could involve You know, we weren't sure it could have been used table changes 02:05:19.027 --> 02:05:24.906 - could have been dimensional standards like what you're looking at tonight So I know that we least prefaced 02:05:24.906 --> 02:05:30.510 - it with neighborhood associations Okay Second one just to make sure I understand them and I think you 02:05:30.510 --> 02:05:35.070 - answered it you may have done it in your initial opening statement there, but it's 02:05:35.554 --> 02:05:41.277 - Is it correct that these requirements, if you own a plot of land, you could buy right, subdivide it 02:05:41.277 --> 02:05:47.000 - into two, and as long as the two new plots adhere to the new standards, you essentially could do it 02:05:47.000 --> 02:05:52.723 - buy right. You're not asking for a waiver. You have to come and go through the process, but there's 02:05:52.723 --> 02:05:58.675 - no permission, no chance to deny it. It would be buy right. Yeah, so it would be subject to the regular 02:05:58.675 --> 02:06:04.798 - subdivision process. Obviously, some of you would need to send public notification requirements to anybody 02:06:04.898 --> 02:06:11.883 - All property adjacent property owners post a sign and go to a plaque committee meeting or plane commission 02:06:11.883 --> 02:06:18.607 - meeting for any subdivision requests So there is a public notification and public approval process You 02:06:18.607 --> 02:06:25.136 - know, I'll just say You know that the changes that we are proposing, you know, let's let's you know 02:06:25.136 --> 02:06:32.382 - put the Impervious surface coverage and side yard setback standards the same and the subdivision standards are 02:06:32.546 --> 02:06:39.785 - Looking at those, you know the subdivision creation standards that we're looking at We're written to 02:06:39.785 --> 02:06:47.096 - try to accomplish this unfortunately, I think it'll be very difficult oftentimes for Those situations 02:06:47.096 --> 02:06:54.693 - to be fully realized Given where existing houses might be on lots and having available backyard Certainly 02:06:54.693 --> 02:07:01.502 - we want to see these utilized and we're hoping that there are situations but I'm not sure that 02:07:01.730 --> 02:07:08.002 - You know, we're gonna see a widespread incorporation of those just given the built-out environment You 02:07:08.002 --> 02:07:14.578 - know the reduction in minimum lot width and lot area requirements will probably more be more fully realized 02:07:14.578 --> 02:07:20.850 - with vacant lots that are larger or situations where somebody has a really large yard and they're able 02:07:20.850 --> 02:07:27.304 - to now sell off a portion of that yard And get one house in a in a neighborhood or maybe two or something 02:07:27.304 --> 02:07:31.262 - like that But we're again trying to move the needle a little bit 02:07:31.362 --> 02:07:37.995 - make it easier, reduce some of the burdens, some of the barriers to people achieving new housing within 02:07:37.995 --> 02:07:44.373 - the community, whether it's adding onto their house, subdividing a portion of their backyard for an 02:07:44.373 --> 02:07:51.006 - ADU. We're just trying to enable that a little bit more, but just to be honest, I'm not sure that we'll 02:07:51.006 --> 02:07:57.639 - see widespread changes as a result of this. It'll be an incremental change here and there as situations 02:07:57.639 --> 02:08:00.382 - can kind of allow. Thank you for all that. 02:08:00.738 --> 02:08:07.565 - Wanted to make sure I understood it right the answer is yes, right they could do it. Okay. Thank you. 02:08:07.565 --> 02:08:14.257 - Thank you Yeah Standard seven do we have minor subdivision capability anymore? Is that gone and all 02:08:14.257 --> 02:08:21.218 - the subdivisions are the same two lot to 20 lot the same, right? Yes, all all subdivisions whether it's 02:08:21.218 --> 02:08:28.446 - two lot or 20 have to have a public hearing. Okay I Love these changes, but I think we left some things out 02:08:28.546 --> 02:08:34.974 - with these changes, you left out MM and MN zones, which are kind of the fringe zones around our core 02:08:34.974 --> 02:08:41.529 - neighborhoods. Like in my neighborhood, we're all R3. And right now, the core neighborhood can be more 02:08:41.529 --> 02:08:48.020 - dense than MM or MN. And I would think that the MM, MN should reflect the R3 changes because it is a, 02:08:48.020 --> 02:08:54.512 - it should be more dense. It's on higher-trafficated streets. And I'd request, I'm gonna probably make 02:08:54.512 --> 02:08:57.630 - a motion at the end to add that to this process. 02:08:58.530 --> 02:09:04.280 - I think it really needs to happen now this yeah able to propose amendments and and add additional ones, 02:09:04.280 --> 02:09:09.920 - you know, we did not Really dip into the mixed-use districts because that that wasn't really the area 02:09:09.920 --> 02:09:15.780 - where we had encountered any challenges in terms of development of You know people like hey my impervious 02:09:15.780 --> 02:09:21.586 - surface coverage or my setbacks are what's limiting me All right brought one to you and I got shut down. 02:09:21.586 --> 02:09:23.742 - So that's why I'm bringing it up for a 02:09:23.874 --> 02:09:28.966 - I had but anyway, I think it's something we need to address with this with these changes because they 02:09:28.966 --> 02:09:34.309 - are the fringe They're the what's wrapped these neighborhoods They front these heavier traffic and streets 02:09:34.309 --> 02:09:39.451 - and probably should be more dense than the neighborhood itself just in my opinion Is this where you're 02:09:39.451 --> 02:09:42.846 - doing a tree canopy coverage chain an R3 and R4 is this this one? I 02:09:43.458 --> 02:09:50.448 - I get confused which one yes, there there is a change in here that does that state that on our three 02:09:50.448 --> 02:09:57.715 - and our four four lots less than 5000 existing lots of record less than 5000 and my request me to change 02:09:57.715 --> 02:10:04.774 - that to 6000 I did some research and the 5000 really restricts most of those lots a lot of those lots 02:10:04.774 --> 02:10:06.366 - are like 5600 feet and 02:10:06.658 --> 02:10:14.687 - 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 02:10:14.687 --> 02:10:23.044 - to 6,000 I'm just gonna say that out loud again. Certainly any plane commission member can People can 02:10:23.044 --> 02:10:31.647 - 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 02:10:31.647 --> 02:10:35.006 - that anyway With regard to the lot depth 02:10:36.322 --> 02:10:42.064 - I had this discussion our meeting the hundred and fifty foot rule. I understand the rule I just don't 02:10:42.064 --> 02:10:47.862 - like it tied to the lot depth. You have said I believe in yours What'd you what'd you say? No building 02:10:47.862 --> 02:10:53.492 - can be built past 150 feet, right? Yes, so so the language in here is that no part of any structure 02:10:53.492 --> 02:10:59.177 - built on the new lot can be more than 150 feet from the street or as approved in writing by the city 02:10:59.177 --> 02:11:04.638 - of Bloomington Fire Department right but that starts with the lot has to be 150 feet or less and 02:11:06.498 --> 02:11:11.904 - You do a lot depth restriction and then you do a building site restriction And my question is why do 02:11:11.904 --> 02:11:17.364 - we have to have the lot depth restriction if we have the building depth restriction? Yep So it was it 02:11:17.364 --> 02:11:22.984 - was looked at, you know, obviously what what's the maximum distance that something can be from the road? 02:11:22.984 --> 02:11:28.551 - So the 150 foot was a good right that that was I agree and you know as you know, I remember the comment 02:11:28.551 --> 02:11:34.225 - from the Plain Commission lunch session and so I did take a lot of time to look around and it's certainly 02:11:34.225 --> 02:11:34.974 - very rare and 02:11:35.106 --> 02:11:40.666 - To find any lots within our core neighborhoods or older neighborhoods that are deeper than 150 foot 02:11:40.666 --> 02:11:46.281 - So again, you know, we're trying to work with the fire department's restrictions and Concerns and so 02:11:46.281 --> 02:11:51.951 - the 150 foot would capture, you know, that's just from front to back That's the maximum that it would 02:11:51.951 --> 02:11:57.789 - be but then we also added the section here that talks about You know the lot or where the house is built 02:11:57.789 --> 02:12:00.958 - can't be any portion of that can't be more than 150 foot 02:12:01.090 --> 02:12:06.498 - You know, we can certainly ask the fire department if they have I think that meets that's what I'm saying 02:12:06.498 --> 02:12:11.753 - That feels like that meets the requirement and so if you go out there, are you gonna ask for a survey, 02:12:11.753 --> 02:12:17.007 - 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 02:12:17.007 --> 02:12:22.160 - one feet, they can't do it Yeah, so if the if the lot is more than 150 foot deep then they would not 02:12:22.160 --> 02:12:27.262 - be subject to it yes, they wouldn't be allowed to meet that they wouldn't be allowed to do this and 02:12:27.458 --> 02:12:33.618 - 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 02:12:33.618 --> 02:12:39.839 - you have to go to number two and you have to have a 20-foot side yard Right. Yes. Yes, which of course 02:12:39.839 --> 02:12:45.878 - most these lots are 40 feet wide and the house in the middle of it So that's my so in order for the 02:12:45.878 --> 02:12:52.099 - first one to work my comp my question is Why do we keep tying it to lot depth if we're restricting the 02:12:52.099 --> 02:12:53.246 - building 150 feet? 02:12:54.402 --> 02:13:02.518 - And if we're gonna restrict 150, let's do it 155 just in case in case somebody's 150 foot lot actually 02:13:02.518 --> 02:13:10.635 - surveys out to 151 point two Yes, I hear what you're saying I don't think there'd be immediate problem 02:13:10.635 --> 02:13:18.830 - I'd want to it just seems so hard. It seems like a hard If they had any concerns with removing 150 foot 02:13:18.830 --> 02:13:23.006 - depth Yeah, I'd like to hear from that be great yeah 02:13:29.346 --> 02:13:37.438 - City of Bloomington, so the hundred foot wouldn't necessarily we need this to the Lot line in our opinion. 02:13:37.438 --> 02:13:45.152 - It's that structure. It's basically the hose has got there It's all about the fire hose and where the 02:13:45.152 --> 02:13:52.790 - truck park so we have to get to all portions of that building within 150 feet so if that Will that's 02:13:52.790 --> 02:13:56.798 - what the code says so if that is the build rule that 02:13:57.346 --> 02:14:10.190 - That you're saying then it wouldn't necessarily have to be tied To that that death. Okay. Thank you. 02:14:10.190 --> 02:14:23.034 - Thank you I want to go down the rule the the road of this electrification and that that legal Advice 02:14:23.034 --> 02:14:27.230 - that was given by city legal and 02:14:27.330 --> 02:14:34.406 - Part of the reason why I want to do this is that I've gotten varying advice over the last couple years 02:14:34.406 --> 02:14:41.482 - about incentives and what can be in incentives and what cannot be in incentives because incentives are 02:14:41.482 --> 02:14:48.833 - by their nature optional. We're not forcing anybody to do an incentive. So first of all, the legal opinion 02:14:48.833 --> 02:14:55.977 - states it only talks about the PUD section, which is really section four, not section three. So I guess 02:14:55.977 --> 02:14:57.214 - I'm interested in 02:14:58.498 --> 02:15:05.176 - An opinion from city legal and I've been talking to council legal about this today as well And I don't 02:15:05.176 --> 02:15:11.660 - know if he's allowed to speak right now in this in any way About simply the electrification part on 02:15:11.660 --> 02:15:18.597 - section 3 not the PUD part because the sustainable development incentive is an incentive We're not forcing 02:15:18.597 --> 02:15:25.340 - anybody to do it. So how does that violate? State law if we're not forcing anybody to do it and they're 02:15:25.340 --> 02:15:27.998 - opting in Thank you Dana Kerr from legal 02:15:28.162 --> 02:15:39.171 - It again is an ordinance that is regulating energy source Regulating utilities based on energy source. 02:15:39.171 --> 02:15:49.859 - So It is still an ordinance whether it appears in the PUD section or in the incentive section It is 02:15:49.859 --> 02:15:57.982 - still a requirement in order to receive certain benefits you have to forego 02:15:58.146 --> 02:16:04.944 - certain energy sources, so therefore it is a regulating energy source well correct, but Correct me if 02:16:04.944 --> 02:16:11.743 - I'm wrong in terms of affordability and in affordability incentives and in terms of state law We also 02:16:11.743 --> 02:16:18.675 - are not allowed to require that developers build a certain amount of affordable housing when they build 02:16:18.675 --> 02:16:25.740 - but if they take advantage of affordability Incentives then we can require that so why doesn't the supply 02:16:25.740 --> 02:16:27.006 - in the same way? I 02:16:32.034 --> 02:16:45.119 - That is a Question that I was hoping not to get My opinion is is that the affordability requirement 02:16:45.119 --> 02:16:58.334 - is not allowed either by state law that it was I've been with the city for a little over a year that 02:16:58.722 --> 02:17:08.099 - Determination when it came to affordability was made before I was here and I did not Look into that 02:17:08.099 --> 02:17:17.569 - and but having looked into this situation I have now looked at the affordability statute as well and 02:17:17.569 --> 02:17:26.946 - the affordability statute does not allow any exceptions based on whether it is mandatory or whether 02:17:26.946 --> 02:17:28.446 - it is something 02:17:28.546 --> 02:17:38.535 - That you can choose to do as part of an incentive. It simply says that you cannot have an ordinance 02:17:38.535 --> 02:17:48.624 - that Regulates that requires a private private property owner owner to Have affordable housing based 02:17:48.624 --> 02:17:58.014 - on Someone's income. So the same thing would apply to the affordability provisions of the UDO 02:17:58.498 --> 02:18:10.875 - So the electrification portions that you see before you tonight would not be allowed per state law. 02:18:10.875 --> 02:18:24.862 - And the affordability provisions that are in the UDO looking at them fresh would not be allowed either. Previous 02:18:25.442 --> 02:18:33.143 - interpretations by the legal department I Cannot Count comment on that Do you have any case law that 02:18:33.143 --> 02:18:41.072 - you want to cite that defends your position because right now your position on this? differs from every 02:18:41.072 --> 02:18:47.934 - other attorney that I have encountered over the last three years and I made significant a 02:18:48.130 --> 02:18:54.817 - Modifications to the affordability incentives last year and several attorneys looked at that including 02:18:54.817 --> 02:19:01.438 - two I believe of our former counsel attorneys and our current counsel attorney and more than one city 02:19:01.438 --> 02:19:08.060 - legal attorney So is there any case law that actually defends your opinion or is it just your opinion 02:19:08.060 --> 02:19:15.006 - right now? There is no case law on the subject defending either side also if I look through numerous other 02:19:15.618 --> 02:19:23.574 - City ordinances regarding affordability and none of them regulate in the way that regulate affordability 02:19:23.574 --> 02:19:31.228 - And require the things that the city of Bloomington does Therefore to me that substantiates the fact 02:19:31.228 --> 02:19:38.957 - they don't because it's not a permissible by state law. So simply because other Udo's and other towns 02:19:38.957 --> 02:19:45.246 - don't have incentives like this you conclude that it must be against state law and 02:19:45.410 --> 02:19:52.532 - No, I conclude it's against state law and I state that because others aren't doing doing it as well 02:19:52.532 --> 02:19:59.654 - to me supports the fact that it is against state law or I would think that others would be doing it 02:19:59.654 --> 02:20:07.060 - if they wanted to Address affordability the way that the city of Bloomington does but there's no actual 02:20:07.060 --> 02:20:13.470 - case law There's no way this one way or the other there's no case wall that supports that 02:20:13.602 --> 02:20:22.295 - It can be done if it's discretionary and not mandatory. There's no state law that says that Just the 02:20:22.295 --> 02:20:30.643 - state law says you cannot have an ordinance that regulates the affordability component requiring 02:20:30.643 --> 02:20:39.422 - affordability component of private property owners There is a state law that says you cannot regulate 02:20:39.422 --> 02:20:41.918 - what utilities are available 02:20:42.146 --> 02:20:50.899 - based on energy source. Those are two state laws that are in place that are very straightforward. So 02:20:50.899 --> 02:20:59.566 - an ordinance may not require anybody do this. Where in the UDO is it required that a developer take 02:20:59.566 --> 02:21:08.666 - advantage of sustainability incentives or affordability incentives? For instance, to have the incentive, 02:21:08.666 --> 02:21:11.006 - you are required to do it. 02:21:11.330 --> 02:21:18.432 - Can somebody build something without the incentive? You can choose to do it without the incentive, but 02:21:18.432 --> 02:21:25.466 - to have the incentive, you're required to do it, and the UDO and ordinance is requiring you to do it. 02:21:25.466 --> 02:21:32.430 - And it is an ordinance regulating energy source by requiring to do it, even if it's something you're 02:21:32.430 --> 02:21:40.222 - accepting to do to receive that benefit. There's no way to receive that benefit without being required to do it. 02:21:42.178 --> 02:21:51.636 - Benefit is still a benefit and an option that people don't have to use and they can still develop a 02:21:51.636 --> 02:22:01.188 - piece of property without having to use an incentive I understand that but as I say the statute does 02:22:01.188 --> 02:22:10.078 - not make any Allowance for it saying that it is okay as long as it's discretionary as long as 02:22:10.178 --> 02:22:17.767 - The petition petitioner would choose to do it. It is fine. It does nothing states that it just says 02:22:17.767 --> 02:22:25.431 - an ordinance cannot regulating it and an ordinance that says we will give you an incentive if you do 02:22:25.431 --> 02:22:33.096 - it is regulating it I I Find it interesting that this is the sole legal Conclusion that goes against 02:22:33.096 --> 02:22:39.774 - all other legal conclusions of the city having said that I also don't necessarily think 02:22:39.874 --> 02:22:50.235 - The text as it is written in our ordinance actually does follow the resolution from councilmember Flaherty 02:22:50.235 --> 02:23:00.305 - which says that it must only include buildings that Use either electricity or on-site renewable sources 02:23:00.305 --> 02:23:05.534 - as opposed to what the proposed language says is that 02:23:05.986 --> 02:23:14.524 - I'm gonna have to find it on my other screen now the proposed language says that it's Shall only be 02:23:14.524 --> 02:23:23.404 - served by electricity and that's not actually what the resolution says the resolution says it must only 02:23:23.404 --> 02:23:32.028 - include buildings it doesn't necessarily preclude the idea of Being served by things so in if in the 02:23:32.028 --> 02:23:35.870 - original design it included everything being 02:23:36.034 --> 02:23:42.734 - Served by electricity or on-site renewables. It doesn't in terms of the text I think of councilmember 02:23:42.734 --> 02:23:49.368 - Flaherty's resolution doesn't mean that five or ten years down the road an individual Building owner 02:23:49.368 --> 02:23:56.134 - might say well, I want to pay to get gas line installed in all of my things Because the building would 02:23:56.134 --> 02:24:02.834 - have already been set up to be To utilize electric and so those are the I mean if we're talking about 02:24:02.834 --> 02:24:05.790 - wordplay here, which I think that we are and 02:24:06.402 --> 02:24:17.023 - I guess I'm proposing a slight amendment to the text or I will when we have that option, but I definitely 02:24:17.023 --> 02:24:27.243 - am not sure that all attorneys would agree with this legal position and there's no case law on it and 02:24:27.243 --> 02:24:34.558 - that it goes against what we've been doing in a way that is interesting. 02:24:41.218 --> 02:24:57.796 - Any other questions on my left? All right, let's call for questions before we go to public comment here. 02:24:57.796 --> 02:25:07.742 - All right, we'll now go to public comments on ZO 2026-06-0006. 02:25:07.842 --> 02:25:12.992 - You're here in the chamber step right up to the podium state your name for the record you have three 02:25:12.992 --> 02:25:18.244 - minutes to speak if you're on the zoom call just hit that Reactions button and raise your virtual hand 02:25:18.244 --> 02:25:21.150 - and we'll recognize to you when it is your turn to speak 02:25:22.818 --> 02:25:28.373 - Thank you Larry Allen interim counsel attorney and just sort of know I'm speaking of the public out 02:25:28.373 --> 02:25:34.039 - of deference if the president if you all have any questions for me Afterwards and the president would 02:25:34.039 --> 02:25:39.594 - like to recognize me. You're certainly able to do that under your rules Just just to pick up on the 02:25:39.594 --> 02:25:45.205 - point that was just discussed I do have a different reading on this than than my colleague Dana Kerr 02:25:45.205 --> 02:25:51.038 - One the statute doesn't just say any regulation based on fuel source. It actually says a regulation that 02:25:51.138 --> 02:25:57.074 - Prohibits or would have the effect of prohibiting and so that's a key part of this language. These have 02:25:57.074 --> 02:26:02.896 - to be read together They cannot be separated out and when we're talking about an incentive program If 02:26:02.896 --> 02:26:08.718 - a development is possible without using that incentive program, then it cannot by definition Prohibit 02:26:08.718 --> 02:26:14.483 - based on the use of natural gas or any other utility So I think I agree with councilmember Stossberg 02:26:14.483 --> 02:26:16.766 - and Commissioner Stossberg in this case 02:26:16.898 --> 02:26:23.252 - case that the wording should be changed because right now the wording focuses on the delivery mechanism 02:26:23.252 --> 02:26:29.362 - and it looked like the intent was based on design to allow for designs who want to take part in the 02:26:29.362 --> 02:26:33.822 - sustainability incentive program to create a design that has the ability 02:26:33.890 --> 02:26:40.128 - to utilize all electric and renewable energy designs in that area. It does not necessarily preclude 02:26:40.128 --> 02:26:46.429 - a developer, again, from installing natural gas infrastructure that runs up the street, that runs to 02:26:46.429 --> 02:26:53.103 - each property, or anything like that. And it does not obviously preclude any customer from getting natural 02:26:53.103 --> 02:26:59.404 - gas or from the natural gas provider from providing that natural gas to the customer, even if it was 02:26:59.404 --> 02:27:02.398 - initially designed with an all-electric design. 02:27:02.754 --> 02:27:09.286 - Really quickly, and this is tangential, so I do apologize. In terms of affordable housing, because I 02:27:09.286 --> 02:27:15.818 - do think these are linked, the statute for affordable housing that we're discussing here, just to be 02:27:15.818 --> 02:27:22.285 - helpful, is Indiana Code 36124.2. That's the chapter, generally. There is a restriction, generally, 02:27:22.285 --> 02:27:28.947 - on affordable housing and for municipalities creating that affordable housing. However, Section 4 does 02:27:28.947 --> 02:27:30.046 - explicitly state 02:27:30.242 --> 02:27:35.131 - This chapter does not impair the right of an owner to voluntarily agree to a requirement that would 02:27:35.131 --> 02:27:40.459 - have the effect of regulating affordable housing and requiring it of this chapter in exchange for incentives 02:27:40.459 --> 02:27:45.348 - or grants provided by the county or municipality to the owner of the privately owned real property. 02:27:45.348 --> 02:27:50.383 - It's explicitly in the statute. You don't need additional case law, and I think that that's consistent 02:27:50.383 --> 02:27:55.369 - with the reading that we have based on the natural gas. I understand we have a different reading, and 02:27:55.369 --> 02:28:00.062 - I respect my colleague a lot, but I just want to present that to you as a piece of information. 02:28:01.378 --> 02:28:08.836 - Thank you We do have two members the public online after we hear from the member in the public Thanks 02:28:08.836 --> 02:28:16.221 - Good evening Commission. This is Chris her energy from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce I 02:28:16.221 --> 02:28:24.265 - am NOT a lawyer and will not be speaking any legal ease tonight. Good to see mr. Smith back on the Commission 02:28:24.265 --> 02:28:29.310 - as well there's a lot to say there's a lot to support here this is a 02:28:29.442 --> 02:28:35.744 - Strong ordinance, it reduces the minimum lot sizes, creates some flexibility for infill, eliminates 02:28:35.744 --> 02:28:42.236 - minimum parking requirements, removes several dimensional requirements. Together, this is a meaningful 02:28:42.236 --> 02:28:48.727 - package that I think some of the amendments that Mr. Bishop, Mr. Smith have, or Commissioner Smith and 02:28:48.727 --> 02:28:55.092 - Commissioner Bishop put through would make it even stronger. And, you know, it makes buildable lots, 02:28:55.092 --> 02:28:56.542 - there's not a parking, 02:28:56.962 --> 02:29:03.104 - Minimum that it lets the market decide and I think we could do that with bicycles as well We understand 02:29:03.104 --> 02:29:09.010 - that sustainability incentive provision the incentive is the key word there and if it developer ops 02:29:09.010 --> 02:29:15.388 - in as we have now sustainability development center, it's fair to ask for something in return and Including 02:29:15.388 --> 02:29:21.589 - the all-electric requirement, but we'd really caution that section 4. I don't know the legal Means about 02:29:21.589 --> 02:29:24.542 - it, but I will tell you it's just not good policy 02:29:24.994 --> 02:29:31.832 - the sustainability development compliance for qualifying PUDs does not belong in something that's Supposed 02:29:31.832 --> 02:29:38.223 - to just work incrementally on increasing housing supply. I think it kind of goes against that a PUD 02:29:38.223 --> 02:29:44.614 - is just not in a not a sustainability incentive. It's a tool for projects that don't conventionally 02:29:44.614 --> 02:29:49.918 - meet our current UDO with site constraints housing types and some other things and 02:29:50.114 --> 02:29:55.682 - Layering a new mandatory requirement onto that tool could cut against the flexibility that we're trying 02:29:55.682 --> 02:30:01.250 - to create in this ordinance So this isn't about abandoning sustainability goals. It just doesn't belong 02:30:01.250 --> 02:30:06.818 - particularly here It's about making sure we balance those goals with increasing housing is by improving 02:30:06.818 --> 02:30:11.422 - affordability encouraging sustainability development and maintaining that flexibility 02:30:11.522 --> 02:30:17.246 - for some good projects. So this is a strong package and I appreciate the work STAB has done to this 02:30:17.246 --> 02:30:23.084 - council in sort of pushing it forward. We're simply asking the commission to preserve the flexibility 02:30:23.084 --> 02:30:28.808 - that makes PUDs useful and make sure that the sustainability requirement doesn't inadvertently work 02:30:28.808 --> 02:30:34.933 - against what we're trying to do. Affordability and housing goals in this ordinance is otherwise advancing. 02:30:34.933 --> 02:30:37.566 - I thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. 02:30:41.378 --> 02:30:47.238 - Zach Amerman, you should be able to speak. Yes, hi. So Zach Amerman again, Bloomington resident. 02:30:47.238 --> 02:30:53.641 - First of all, I'm in favor of the vast majority of this. I think it's fantastic, particularly eliminating 02:30:53.641 --> 02:31:00.286 - car parking minimums to be clear, not bike parking minimums, car parking minimums. I'm very in favor of that. 02:31:00.610 --> 02:31:05.946 - Reducing lot sizes, loosening setback requirements, I think all those are long overdue and things that 02:31:05.946 --> 02:31:11.128 - we should absolutely adopt. I actually live on one of the example streets you gave of some existing 02:31:11.128 --> 02:31:16.412 - smaller lot sizes South Dunn Street, which is one of the best streets in Bloomington, I might add. So 02:31:16.412 --> 02:31:21.956 - I encourage you to come visit, it's a very cute street. So it shows you that you can do a really well-done 02:31:21.956 --> 02:31:27.292 - street with smaller lot sizes and I think it's perfectly possible. So I'm in favor of all of that. One 02:31:27.292 --> 02:31:29.054 - thing though I don't really like, 02:31:29.218 --> 02:31:35.880 - and that is the tree protection elimination for the smallest lot sizes. Basically, as far as I understand 02:31:35.880 --> 02:31:42.166 - it reading it, you're basically proposing eliminating all tree protections across the board for the 02:31:42.166 --> 02:31:48.765 - smallest lot. I'm very against that. I think there is already an exception for small parcels that allows 02:31:48.765 --> 02:31:53.982 - some little bit more flexibility for tree protections that is already in the code. 02:31:54.402 --> 02:31:59.948 - I don't think you need to further weaken the tree protections by completely eliminating all tree protections 02:31:59.948 --> 02:32:05.036 - on the smallest lots. I'm a member of the Commission on Sustainability. I've been working on a tree 02:32:05.036 --> 02:32:10.328 - resolution that's gonna be coming in the fall at some point. So I've been doing quite a bit of research 02:32:10.328 --> 02:32:15.518 - looking at what other pier cities have in terms of tree protections. And Bloomington actually I found 02:32:15.518 --> 02:32:20.707 - has pretty weak laws. We have no protection for heritage trees at all. We mentioned them in the code, 02:32:20.707 --> 02:32:22.590 - but there is no protection anywhere. 02:32:22.882 --> 02:32:28.445 - for heritage trees or the largest or oldest trees, there's no protection really at all for them. And 02:32:28.445 --> 02:32:33.897 - so we're already taking what I think are relatively weak tree protections and proposing completely 02:32:33.897 --> 02:32:39.570 - eliminating them for the smallest lot sizes. I understand the rationale behind that, but I nonetheless 02:32:39.570 --> 02:32:45.077 - urge you to oppose that portion. The rest of it I'm very strongly in favor of, but that portion I'm 02:32:45.077 --> 02:32:48.382 - opposed to because I think you're basically introducing the 02:32:48.834 --> 02:32:54.768 - the sort of death by a thousand cuts to the tree canopy that we've been seeing. We've lost, I think, 02:32:54.768 --> 02:33:00.642 - two to five percent, it depends on who you ask, but two to five percent of our tree canopy over the 02:33:00.642 --> 02:33:06.635 - past 25 years. That's only gonna increase if we keep loosening our already, I think, fairly weak tree 02:33:06.635 --> 02:33:12.568 - protection, so I urge you to reject that part. The rest of it, I think, is great and I think is long 02:33:12.568 --> 02:33:16.798 - overdue. Thank you. Thank you. Dave Huber, you should be able to speak. 02:33:18.146 --> 02:33:24.702 - Hi, thanks. I'm in favor of this. Thank you for walking through this and all the work that's gone into 02:33:24.702 --> 02:33:31.130 - it. I'm a local resident, grew up here and left 10 years ago and came back during COVID and about to 02:33:31.130 --> 02:33:37.686 - have my first baby. And we want to build a granny flat next door. We've actually spoken with the owner 02:33:37.686 --> 02:33:44.114 - who owns next door, but with the current laws, we're not able to subdivide that lot. The owner would 02:33:44.114 --> 02:33:47.742 - like to sell it to us. We'd like to build it back there. 02:33:47.842 --> 02:33:53.044 - We'd have to buy the whole lot and we really just want, you know, four to five thousand square feet 02:33:53.044 --> 02:33:57.778 - in the backyard. And so something like this that would allow us to build a granny flat and 02:33:57.778 --> 02:34:03.449 - have my mother-in-law live next door would be amazing. And I think in general, the density and the infilling 02:34:03.449 --> 02:34:08.651 - was a wonderful thing that I see a lot of other cities doing. So I just want to throw my hat in the 02:34:08.651 --> 02:34:13.853 - ring here and say I'm in favor of this and thanks for all the work you guys put into it. Thank you. 02:34:13.853 --> 02:34:15.934 - Is there any additional public comment? 02:34:17.826 --> 02:34:30.521 - There is anybody else online, please use to raise hand function and we can recognize you Last call for 02:34:30.521 --> 02:34:43.710 - public comment All right, we are back to the Commission then for any additional questions comments motions 02:34:46.626 --> 02:34:56.036 - Myself at this point in the meeting. So, thank you. Thank you I have a question about the tree preservation 02:34:56.036 --> 02:35:05.185 - Requirements that the commenter just made and I wonder if Eric you could talk through the staff response 02:35:05.185 --> 02:35:08.670 - on section 2 where that's mentioned and 02:35:13.122 --> 02:35:21.230 - Are you are you referring to our proposed language? Yes Department is proposing the following changes 02:35:21.230 --> 02:35:28.862 - in response to this section Add an exemption from tree preservation requirements Yes, so so the 02:35:29.186 --> 02:35:36.866 - Thought behind that was on the smaller lots, you know, these lots that are 5,000 square feet. Oftentimes, 02:35:36.866 --> 02:35:44.112 - you know, just existing tree canopy coverage is going to completely infringe on the buildability of 02:35:44.112 --> 02:35:51.503 - that lot. You know, but being so small and just the tree coverage realities that feels like you would 02:35:51.503 --> 02:35:59.038 - be forcing somebody in a variance situation in all of those situations. So we propose to grant by right 02:35:59.170 --> 02:36:06.832 - you know, relief from that with that language. Certainly this is just a recommendation. You know, the 02:36:06.832 --> 02:36:14.419 - Planning Commission members can vote to remove that or modify that if they feel that that, you know, 02:36:14.419 --> 02:36:22.457 - something is appropriate. Yeah, maybe you can help me see to where that appears in any of the presentation 02:36:22.457 --> 02:36:26.814 - that you did earlier where you're looking at the sections 02:36:27.266 --> 02:36:37.398 - Okay, yeah. Give me a second and I can... Yeah, I see it in the text, but I would like to be able to 02:36:37.398 --> 02:36:47.530 - see it in... Sure. If you wanna give me a minute, come back. It'd be great. Yeah, okay. Is that all? 02:36:47.530 --> 02:36:50.238 - Yeah. Any other questions? 02:36:58.690 --> 02:37:05.089 - I have a question about making a motion. Can we break this up? I was thinking about making a motion 02:37:05.089 --> 02:37:11.680 - on one two four and five Leaving three out because there's a very interesting discussion going on with 02:37:11.680 --> 02:37:18.399 - that and then I was gonna make the motion with what I want to see change and if somebody wanted a Second 02:37:18.399 --> 02:37:25.054 - vote on a friendly amendment. He wants to talk about bicycle parking down here. Can I structure it that 02:37:25.054 --> 02:37:27.102 - way? Is that allowed? How do we 02:37:27.202 --> 02:37:34.861 - What's the process for this? Yeah, give me just a second. I mean, I think They kind of lumped it all 02:37:34.861 --> 02:37:42.444 - positive recommendation for all five Well, what we have what we're actually considering here is the 02:37:42.444 --> 02:37:50.179 - whole package of of amendments, so what you would I think the appropriate motion would be to Make the 02:37:50.179 --> 02:37:56.094 - motion and I mean you could you could you could make a motion that we approve 02:37:56.354 --> 02:38:01.669 - With with certain exceptions, but I think it would probably be a little cleaner if you just Move to 02:38:01.669 --> 02:38:07.144 - amend to remove the sections you want to remove because it sounds like there's gonna be some other Let 02:38:07.144 --> 02:38:12.565 - me make a motion and then we'll see if there's a friendly a second first and if there is then they'll 02:38:12.565 --> 02:38:17.986 - probably be a friendly amendment, right? I assume there's I'm gonna get throw something thrown at me. 02:38:17.986 --> 02:38:22.398 - Is that how you do that? If somebody wants to modify the amendment, how's it work? 02:38:22.658 --> 02:38:30.752 - Well, there's a couple ways you can go about it right you but I think first thing is we got to get a 02:38:30.752 --> 02:38:39.006 - motion on The table so that I think the appropriate thing would be move Approval with the changes that 02:38:39.006 --> 02:38:47.100 - you want To make okay, and then someone else could Could offer an amendment to your motion to modify 02:38:47.100 --> 02:38:48.542 - that further Okay 02:38:49.218 --> 02:38:56.452 - I'll recommend we forward this petition to common council with a positive recommendation Except for 02:38:56.452 --> 02:39:04.193 - section 3 regarding incorporation of electrification The department recommends this pros language regarded 02:39:04.193 --> 02:39:11.645 - like before to the negative recommendation with the following changes in section 1 and 2 I want to add 02:39:11.645 --> 02:39:16.926 - MN and MM districts with the same change is reflected in the r3 zone and 02:39:18.530 --> 02:39:26.796 - I want to remove the lot depth language the less than 150 feet but all Clean up the language course, 02:39:26.796 --> 02:39:35.062 - but the 150 building depth has to stay and For the tree canopy are three are four. I think we should 02:39:35.062 --> 02:39:43.410 - modify that to 6,000 feet instead of five Now recommend we modify from 6,000 from 5,000 feet to 6,000 02:39:43.410 --> 02:39:45.374 - feet that's my motion I 02:39:49.570 --> 02:40:03.100 - Bear with me one second. So when you say What when you're referring to these sections Well, we have 02:40:03.100 --> 02:40:16.766 - section 1 2 3 4 5 right but those those those sections are really just in the already description of 02:40:17.858 --> 02:40:26.450 - I'm just trying to make it clear. Yeah, I think I think to be clear we need to specifically reference 02:40:26.450 --> 02:40:35.127 - The changes that you want to remove unless staff Feels Yeah, I don't know that I necessarily reference 02:40:35.127 --> 02:40:43.887 - this section as a resolution but just the development standards themselves that Commission member might 02:40:43.887 --> 02:40:47.678 - be wishing to change. Yeah. Okay, so can you 02:40:47.778 --> 02:41:00.048 - Okay to clarify for MM and MN districts, I want to reflect our three for the front build to range I 02:41:00.048 --> 02:41:12.686 - don't know front building facade. I don't know what all these all are Side Impervious surface coverage 02:41:12.686 --> 02:41:14.526 - landscape area 02:41:18.338 --> 02:41:28.338 - Yes, the front building facade at build to range Because you've changed it those the West what you've 02:41:28.338 --> 02:41:38.142 - changed and then rear because you change that too So I'm gonna try this again so now that I see how 02:41:38.142 --> 02:41:42.750 - to do this, okay The motion is to add MN and M 02:41:42.882 --> 02:41:53.022 - districts MM and MN district with the same changes for our three zone as follows the lot area the lot 02:41:53.022 --> 02:42:03.460 - width the front build to range the front building facade build to range the side The rear the impervious 02:42:03.460 --> 02:42:12.606 - surface coverage and the landscape area minimum Just to be clear you're you're referring to 02:42:13.250 --> 02:42:24.402 - The standards the table the table standards I Don't have the actual Page 105 is that dimensional standards 02:42:24.402 --> 02:42:35.450 - table and the tree preservation standards on page 118? That's what I was looking for So if we're guarding 02:42:35.450 --> 02:42:41.182 - tree preservation standards for our three and our four 02:42:41.634 --> 02:42:55.527 - Modify language from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet Gonna get more specific on the 150 foot lot depth It's 02:42:55.527 --> 02:43:09.015 - page 228 I believe it's c3 and you're just you're just proposing that we Do not adopt that section. 02:43:09.015 --> 02:43:11.038 - No be it be no 02:43:11.202 --> 02:43:19.763 - Be accessed from an existing lot of record With a six-foot no-build easement from the new lot So you're 02:43:19.763 --> 02:43:28.159 - just striking that you're just striking the words that is less than 150 feet basically Yes, all other 02:43:28.159 --> 02:43:37.214 - rules apply to meet the fire department fire 100 feet for the structure Okay Does staff understand the motion 02:43:39.522 --> 02:43:47.355 - I'm sorry. Will you the the M M and M and yes be clear on You are changing which particular development 02:43:47.355 --> 02:43:55.112 - standards specifically the same ones that you change for our three Side yard setbacks minimum lot area 02:43:55.112 --> 02:44:02.643 - minimum lot with an impervious surface coverage. I'm sorry Assistant directors front build to front 02:44:02.643 --> 02:44:07.614 - front building facade side rear impervious surface landscape area 02:44:07.906 --> 02:44:16.174 - Well-known purpose surface area, I guess. Yeah, he said lot area width front build to range front facade 02:44:16.174 --> 02:44:24.284 - build to range side rear impervious And then you're saying in the tree canopy section changing the lot 02:44:24.284 --> 02:44:32.394 - size from 5,000 to 6,000. All right, and then in the Lot depth language removing that is less than 150 02:44:32.394 --> 02:44:37.118 - feet. Yes, and then I'm sorry in the original motion moving 02:44:37.378 --> 02:44:44.039 - Send to the Common Council with a positive recommendation except for section three. You were just reading 02:44:44.039 --> 02:44:50.448 - from the motion, right? Sorry, were you just reading from the motion at the beginning of your motion? 02:44:50.448 --> 02:44:56.731 - Yes. Yes, okay I just wanted to make sure No, no, I just didn't have it open. Thank you So the ones 02:44:56.731 --> 02:45:01.758 - that I mentioned that's all you had right for the modified modification. Yes, I 02:45:03.810 --> 02:45:12.376 - As a point of information the actual resolution from council states that The request to reduce minimum 02:45:12.376 --> 02:45:20.693 - lot widths and lot areas and r1 r2 r3 and r4 and that is all so can we actually Have that amendment 02:45:20.693 --> 02:45:29.342 - in terms of the fact that this UDO Modification is supposed to be in response to the council resolution 02:45:29.342 --> 02:45:30.590 - We can propose 02:45:30.690 --> 02:45:39.037 - No, but I can answer your question Section one ends with the plan commission may also consider a proposed 02:45:39.037 --> 02:45:47.305 - reduced minimum lot widths and minimums lots in other zones and then Section two says impervious surface 02:45:47.305 --> 02:45:55.416 - coverage max would like to request all the other things so you tied it all together The changes in the 02:45:55.416 --> 02:46:00.062 - motion Commission this is accepting section three and four 02:46:00.290 --> 02:46:22.923 - I'm saying so okay, so I see you but the things that that You asked us to do a negative recommendation 02:46:22.923 --> 02:46:26.878 - for section three 02:46:27.426 --> 02:46:37.117 - Yes, based on the language that was presented in the staff report if the Plain Commission feels there's 02:46:37.117 --> 02:46:46.621 - better wording This is my motion and now I expect comments on two other things. Yeah, let me just let 02:46:46.621 --> 02:46:56.126 - me just clarify though the the proposed Changes in section 3 Were included in The presentation or not 02:46:57.954 --> 02:47:06.394 - I included them, yes, but I heard comments that maybe they were not worded correctly in line with what 02:47:06.394 --> 02:47:14.997 - the resolution was expecting, and there might be amendments to that to address legal challenges. I mean, 02:47:14.997 --> 02:47:23.191 - I don't know how we can have a single motion that has both a positive and a negative recommendation 02:47:23.191 --> 02:47:24.830 - in the same motion. 02:47:28.642 --> 02:47:35.482 - Could we potentially take all of these sections separately in terms of of motioning so instead of So 02:47:35.482 --> 02:47:42.526 - I guess I'm asking you Commissioner Smith if you would withdraw your motion and there's no second right 02:47:42.526 --> 02:47:49.298 - now anyway and then start with Section one and maybe section one and two should go together because 02:47:49.298 --> 02:47:56.139 - they reflecting each other and then it's like all of the Modifications based on sections one and two 02:47:56.139 --> 02:47:58.238 - and I also wonder if we should 02:47:58.722 --> 02:48:05.432 - Proposed amendments first and then make recommendations to include as amended So then we're voting on 02:48:05.432 --> 02:48:12.076 - amendments first and then we're voting on the whole the individual section packages Do you know what 02:48:12.076 --> 02:48:18.719 - I mean? I'm an orange sections group. That's I was gonna leave out three in my first motion But then 02:48:18.719 --> 02:48:24.574 - I was told I couldn't yeah, so I would love it if you would make a motion that just asks 02:48:24.706 --> 02:48:33.932 - Motions to amend the changes to include what you want to include with with MN and MN and so then we 02:48:33.932 --> 02:48:37.438 - can discuss and respond to that first 02:48:38.370 --> 02:48:44.798 - Yeah, I think the smaller packages right now that we divide this into the better and then if Commissioner 02:48:44.798 --> 02:48:51.105 - Bishop also has amendments Then we can deal with his amendment separately and I have an amendment about 02:48:51.105 --> 02:48:57.229 - the electrification And I'm not sure if Commissioner Kinsey has an amendment about the tree coverage 02:48:57.229 --> 02:49:03.415 - And if we deal with all of those separately That might be I know that'll be easier for my brain right 02:49:03.415 --> 02:49:07.902 - now because I can't keep track of it Yeah, this is tricky because the way 02:49:09.794 --> 02:49:23.223 - Let's present. We have to have something to amend. Give me just one second. Do we have a document? I'm 02:49:23.223 --> 02:49:37.043 - looking at the presentation. I need to find the full text. Is that in the staff exhibits? No, I'm looking 02:49:37.043 --> 02:49:39.390 - for the full text 02:49:39.490 --> 02:50:01.791 - of the proposed amendments Yeah, this is this is pretty tricky is there is there not is there anywhere 02:50:01.791 --> 02:50:08.286 - in the packet just a specific 02:50:09.826 --> 02:50:19.278 - Listing of the of the proposed amendments other than what's on the slides I mean, I know you you've 02:50:19.278 --> 02:50:29.014 - got the slides in the presentation that kind of show the changes am I missing the document that I Have 02:50:29.014 --> 02:50:38.750 - 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 02:50:38.946 --> 02:50:45.913 - I said I have a motion queued up for what it is that I want to do with the electrification. Can that 02:50:45.913 --> 02:50:52.950 - perhaps serve as a model? Well, what I'm trying to get at here is we have to have something to amend. 02:50:52.950 --> 02:50:59.917 - We can't just amend the staff report. We're not adopting the staff report here, right? So we have to 02:50:59.917 --> 02:51:07.298 - have some basis for what it is that we're amending, right? And I don't see in the packet just specifically 02:51:07.298 --> 02:51:08.126 - the list of 02:51:08.450 --> 02:51:19.508 - I see screenshots in the PowerPoint, but maybe I'm just missing the document. Yes, so the dimensional 02:51:19.508 --> 02:51:30.674 - standards table here, for instance, what I was just showing is on page 103 of the packet. Page 103 of? 02:51:30.674 --> 02:51:38.046 - Of the exhibits. So in staff exhibits, when you open that document, 02:51:38.338 --> 02:51:52.030 - Page 103 is that dimensional standards table. Yeah. Okay. I mean this is. 02:52:10.018 --> 02:52:17.199 - So in the in the packet and all of the amendments is a redline version of the entirety of the UDO with 02:52:17.199 --> 02:52:24.380 - the changes You know certainly apologize that the entire document is in there. But unfortunately given 02:52:24.380 --> 02:52:31.491 - how things have to be Put together for accessibility and codifier purposes. We it has to stay one big 02:52:31.491 --> 02:52:38.463 - document for now So yeah, I think the best way to do this and keep this clean would be that we move 02:52:38.463 --> 02:52:39.230 - to forward 02:52:39.810 --> 02:52:47.525 - These changes maybe one page at a time and that way you can Suggest the changes you want with with that 02:52:47.525 --> 02:52:54.942 - page. I think it's going to get really dicey if we try to Do one motion and keep amending that so I 02:52:54.942 --> 02:53:01.470 - think most of what you were what you were just proposing is on this page 103, right and 02:53:11.874 --> 02:53:18.924 - And allow them to do individual motions Would would you then withdraw your motion because that motion 02:53:18.924 --> 02:53:25.904 - is on the table right now I will I will withdraw it because had been seconded. I will withdraw it if 02:53:25.904 --> 02:53:32.954 - I understand what we're gonna do I don't understand what we're doing yet you would Yeah, I think what 02:53:32.954 --> 02:53:40.072 - I'm trying to do is I think what you originally proposed it would just kind of break this up Right and 02:53:40.072 --> 02:53:41.662 - kind of consider these 02:53:42.082 --> 02:53:48.200 - Changes one at a time, but we can't just consider these changes by referencing the section of the result 02:53:48.200 --> 02:53:54.202 - We have to actually reference what it is. We're many here remaining the UDO So we need to specifically 02:53:54.202 --> 02:54:00.145 - reference pages in the UD. I'll draw my motion Yeah, so if I may you are responding to a City Council 02:54:00.145 --> 02:54:06.264 - resolution that had very specific Provisions to it and if you are going to alter that I think you should 02:54:06.264 --> 02:54:08.478 - respond to the specific provisions of 02:54:09.762 --> 02:54:18.639 - That's that because it is a city council resolution and I'll see if Eric can call them up on the screen 02:54:18.639 --> 02:54:27.260 - So then you could make your changes to those actual sections Yes, if we had a if we had a mapping of 02:54:27.260 --> 02:54:36.478 - those resolved sections in the resolutions we were to the specific So can you So let's let's do section one 02:54:41.538 --> 02:54:48.411 - So do you have any changes to section one? The problem is in the UDO document, it doesn't reference 02:54:48.411 --> 02:54:55.628 - section one. That's where I struggle with this whole thing. I'm just using that as a frame of reference. 02:54:55.628 --> 02:55:02.776 - We'll give you the UDO sites. We're just going to associate pages. Yeah. Okay. You see what I'm saying? 02:55:02.776 --> 02:55:05.182 - We got to get to page 103 or five. 02:55:09.218 --> 02:55:18.064 - 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 02:55:18.064 --> 02:55:27.083 - 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 02:55:27.083 --> 02:55:29.598 - Eric, are you listening? Yes 02:55:29.762 --> 02:55:42.075 - I move that we amend the the redline text that we were given section 20.04 point one one one D to a 02:55:42.075 --> 02:55:55.128 - V and that is on page 216 as it is listed in the packet link that we were given electrification to strike 02:55:55.128 --> 02:55:58.206 - the words be served by a 02:55:58.562 --> 02:56:09.026 - Instead insert the words include buildings designed to use either such that the section 2004 110 D to 02:56:09.026 --> 02:56:16.926 - a V and that's a lowercase D and a capital a would then read electrification 02:56:17.026 --> 02:56:23.453 - Developments shall only include buildings designed to use either electricity or on-site renewable energy 02:56:23.453 --> 02:56:29.696 - sources for all significant energy needs Including for space heating water heating and non-commercial 02:56:29.696 --> 02:56:36.000 - cooking the Plan Commission may consider proposed exceptions for specific uses based on best practices 02:56:36.000 --> 02:56:42.120 - in all electric building codes Could you chat me that and then I can share it on the screen so that 02:56:42.120 --> 02:56:45.854 - everybody at home and on the Commission can see that wording 02:57:03.746 --> 02:57:09.343 - We're gonna do multiple motions. It's even the red line version. We're gonna have to do it, right, one 02:57:09.343 --> 02:57:14.994 - piece at a time, right? There's no way we do this all at once. That's right. Okay. So if you could just 02:57:14.994 --> 02:57:20.809 - type out in, like, in the, are you in the Zoom meeting? Yeah, I'm in here. I gotta go back to 105, though. 02:57:20.809 --> 02:57:26.351 - 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 02:57:26.351 --> 02:57:32.003 - 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. 02:57:32.003 --> 02:57:33.470 - I gotta get back up there. 02:57:42.402 --> 02:57:48.603 - So on Flavia's page 216, it's not on page 216, which is one of the reasons why we need to actually have 02:57:48.603 --> 02:57:55.161 - actual code citation. So it's 2.04.110, which is the incentive section down in the sustainability incentives. 02:57:55.161 --> 02:57:59.454 - And I find it really, really difficult to read this version of the UDO. 02:58:12.866 --> 02:58:22.750 - What page are we on in the UDO document page 216 16 02:58:43.042 --> 02:59:11.422 - I don't know what link we're looking at. That's just bizarre. 02:59:15.522 --> 02:59:33.500 - All right, we're referring here to Section two point oh four dot one one. Oh D to a five Assuming that 02:59:33.500 --> 02:59:44.670 - I read that right but For For the yeah, there's definitely some 02:59:49.570 --> 02:59:58.655 - some indentation and numbering out of the document we're looking at. That's how it comes up on my computer 02:59:58.655 --> 03:00:07.315 - in terms of the sections. And none of those are indented, which means that it is really difficult for 03:00:07.315 --> 03:00:11.390 - me to determine that. But I think that's right. 03:00:33.890 --> 03:00:45.413 - staff clear on what this So hope Commission member Stossberg has made a motion to amend the electrification 03:00:45.413 --> 03:00:56.402 - language based on what is on screen. Yes Is there a second for that motion? second All right, is there 03:00:56.402 --> 03:01:02.590 - Are there any questions about this proposed amendment? so 03:01:03.010 --> 03:01:10.271 - Is the intent if we agree to this to see what's happens legally Since we don't know Let it work it out 03:01:10.271 --> 03:01:17.392 - to City Council level well My intent is I mean I had several discussions about it today with council 03:01:17.392 --> 03:01:24.512 - attorney because of the legal advice that we were given in our packet and one of the things that got 03:01:24.512 --> 03:01:32.478 - brought up was that the way that the language was written is it did not match the language of the resolution and 03:01:32.578 --> 03:01:39.715 - Or the intent of the resolution in terms of that and so that that is the intent of the of the amendment 03:01:39.715 --> 03:01:46.646 - The legal question is potentially still out there. Okay, and I think that this is better language in 03:01:46.646 --> 03:01:53.646 - terms of it matching the intent I think that I'm more prone to go with the historic legal advice that 03:01:53.646 --> 03:02:00.234 - we've gotten from multiple attorneys at this point and instead of forwarding it with a negative 03:02:00.234 --> 03:02:02.430 - recommendation we could perhaps 03:02:02.530 --> 03:02:14.409 - With no recommendation because that is kind of this third option that we have right in terms of the 03:02:14.409 --> 03:02:26.526 - section But I think that either way this wording is better Any other questions Let's call the roll on 03:02:30.274 --> 03:02:39.330 - What she's recommending are you recommending a no recommendation or I'm just recommending a change in 03:02:39.330 --> 03:02:48.296 - the language Yes Yeah, so then I think what we'll need is after we amend What's what's been proposed 03:02:48.296 --> 03:02:57.530 - here we'll need We'll need a motion then later to forward it with a positive recommendation or negative 03:02:57.530 --> 03:02:59.838 - recommendation as amended 03:03:00.770 --> 03:03:08.114 - So but for right now, we're just considering this first amendment to The proposed amendments All right 03:03:08.114 --> 03:03:15.815 - Can I just do an administrative thing real quick somebody in this room bumped the panic button so everybody 03:03:15.815 --> 03:03:23.230 - be careful They're under the dais and they're not covered. So if you're moving around And you guys too, 03:03:23.230 --> 03:03:29.790 - I don't know they didn't say who it was but they somebody did so just be careful. Thank you 03:03:32.450 --> 03:03:49.117 - We're not panicking yet. Okay, let's call the roll, please. Holmes? Yes. Kinsey? Yes. Smith? Yes. Stossberg? 03:03:49.117 --> 03:03:58.750 - Yes. Whistler? Yes. Brischop? Yes. Burrell? Yes. Seaborg? Yes. 03:04:02.978 --> 03:04:15.138 - All right that Amendment passes Want to just pause for a second and call out that we are at 846 if we 03:04:15.138 --> 03:04:27.656 - do nothing We we have until 930 to wrap up this This case no new cases shall be heard after 9 p.m. Which 03:04:27.656 --> 03:04:30.398 - means there's two more 03:04:31.202 --> 03:04:37.786 - On the agenda here tonight. So if we don't suspend the rules We will be back here Are the other two 03:04:37.786 --> 03:04:44.371 - first reading? Both recommendation for second they were both continued from last time. So they have 03:04:44.371 --> 03:04:50.955 - not been heard at all I moved to suspend to allow to be heard so we can move it to a second hearing 03:04:50.955 --> 03:04:57.605 - Suspend our time so we can hear it and then we can make a recommendation for a second hearing. Okay, 03:04:57.605 --> 03:04:59.646 - so you already bumped up and I 03:04:59.906 --> 03:05:08.017 - Also to the being able to go past 930 as the second part, right? Yeah, so so if you want to stay here 03:05:08.017 --> 03:05:16.127 - tonight and finish all of this We're gonna need to suspend two rules run. We're gonna have to suspend 03:05:16.127 --> 03:05:24.317 - the rule to Overrule our adjournment time of 930 and we're gonna have to suspend the rule to allow New 03:05:24.317 --> 03:05:29.406 - case to be heard after 9 p.m You want to spend both those rules 03:05:30.274 --> 03:05:37.117 - Yes, only because the other two are Recommendation for second hearing and we I think we need to get 03:05:37.117 --> 03:05:44.233 - first reading in and we can just kind of leave it at that Yes, we could certainly still take the action 03:05:44.233 --> 03:05:51.144 - to continue those we don't have to take right finally get a big discussion we just continue after we 03:05:51.144 --> 03:05:57.918 - hear staff report so your motion is to Suspend the rules to Allow the meeting to continue pass our 03:05:58.626 --> 03:06:07.837 - 930 adjournment and to allow New cases to be introduced after 9 p.m. Uh-huh. Yes, is there a second 03:06:07.837 --> 03:06:17.324 - for that motion? I'll second Just you are commission member Stossberg did step away and this does need 03:06:17.324 --> 03:06:19.166 - a unanimous vote. I 03:06:29.410 --> 03:06:43.733 - We got 12 minutes I'll withdraw and let's keep going with what we're doing All right, so we have a motion 03:06:43.733 --> 03:06:56.030 - on the table to suspend the rules to allow us to continue past 930 and to allow additional 03:06:56.706 --> 03:07:13.196 - Cases to be introduced after 9 p.m.. We need unanimous consent on this if we're going to continue Let's 03:07:13.196 --> 03:07:25.246 - please call the roll Kinsey yes Smith yes Stossberg yes Whistler Yes Bishop 03:07:26.338 --> 03:07:38.523 - Burrell yes seabor yes Holmes Those all yeses All right All right, let's keep going Okay. So now what 03:07:38.523 --> 03:07:51.185 - we have one amendment in Would you like to go back and propose? I'm proposing amendment regarding section 03:07:51.185 --> 03:07:55.486 - one and two, but I'll be specific I 03:07:57.026 --> 03:08:09.874 - regarding table 04-3 mixed use district dimensional standards. I propose we include MN and MN in these 03:08:09.874 --> 03:08:22.473 - changes regarding lot area, lot width, front build to range, front, side, rear. These are different. 03:08:22.473 --> 03:08:25.342 - This is messing me up. 03:08:26.146 --> 03:08:39.456 - impervious surface coverage landscape area To reflect the same changes in table 04-2 residential district 03:08:39.456 --> 03:08:51.134 - specifically regarding r3 to reflect the r3 changes into the mm and mn section of table 04-3 03:08:54.690 --> 03:09:03.219 - So I think that was clear. Can you remind us again what page that tables on? Page 105 and 106 Thank 03:09:03.219 --> 03:09:11.832 - you So I'll just say real quick, you know from staff's perspective, you know the mm District and and 03:09:11.832 --> 03:09:20.958 - men kind of as well a little bit, you know, it's a wide range of situations It is a mixed-use medium scale 03:09:21.186 --> 03:09:29.073 - We see a lot of commercial development does allow for buildings that are four stories high So, you know 03:09:29.073 --> 03:09:36.657 - having having a four foot setback to a side property line depending on what you're up against might 03:09:36.657 --> 03:09:44.317 - be challenging so I just wanted to point out that Yeah, so, you know you're it sounded like you were 03:09:44.317 --> 03:09:49.246 - proposing to change that to the to the r3 district standards and 03:09:49.474 --> 03:09:55.090 - And so the r3 district has a four foot side yard setback requirement So a four foot side yard setback 03:09:55.090 --> 03:10:00.762 - requirement for a four story building is 50 feet tall might might be out of context in some situations 03:10:00.762 --> 03:10:06.323 - So that note six buildings abutting a property now one or two or three or four zoning districts I'll 03:10:06.323 --> 03:10:11.940 - comply with the standards and section that doesn't cover that I'm saying there's a note six buildings 03:10:11.940 --> 03:10:16.510 - abutting a property in the r1 r2 r3 r4 There's an exception if you're next to that 03:10:17.794 --> 03:10:35.597 - Yeah, so that's that's doing for the transition that's assuming it's a different zone not a different 03:10:35.597 --> 03:10:46.942 - use Point of clarification Commissioner Smith Yeah, do you mean? 03:10:47.362 --> 03:10:56.473 - When you mean to add M and that's Mike November and mm Mike Mike that that would only apply to Residential 03:10:56.473 --> 03:11:04.306 - structures in that district not all structures Apropos of what mr. Grillig said well, but I 03:11:04.306 --> 03:11:13.502 - mean a residential structure. Are you talking about? Could be apartment buildings residential structure and 03:11:18.466 --> 03:11:24.958 - Addressing was mr. Gurley said I mean, I'm gonna MN might include non-residential structures Which if 03:11:24.958 --> 03:11:31.513 - you reduce the side yard and other standards for those might create problems I'll remove the side yard 03:11:31.513 --> 03:11:38.132 - request or just Limit it to residential structures. You see what I'm saying? And what is so commercials 03:11:38.132 --> 03:11:44.687 - and others would still have to comply with all the standards they already have we wouldn't be We might 03:11:44.687 --> 03:11:47.742 - so you're saying if it's first floor commercial 03:11:47.874 --> 03:11:55.399 - It wouldn't count So that's why I'd rather just I'll remove the side yard requests and keep the MN MM 03:11:55.399 --> 03:12:03.146 - standards as they are Yeah, right right now in MM and M and you know We don't have the separate setbacks 03:12:03.146 --> 03:12:10.672 - for a single family duplex triplex that you have in another district So we don't really differentiate 03:12:10.672 --> 03:12:16.574 - it right now for I just take this to lot coverage in a purpose surface area and 03:12:17.186 --> 03:12:22.695 - Landscape area. I was trying to be, I mean, I can just go with that. If that makes it easier. I just 03:12:22.695 --> 03:12:28.314 - want to avoid a situation where we have someone building something we really don't want them to build, 03:12:28.314 --> 03:12:33.878 - but a residential structure would work. Well, I was just trying to, so I'll withdraw the motion, make 03:12:33.878 --> 03:12:39.496 - the motion to same motion, but just regarding impervious surface coverage area, the impervious surface 03:12:39.496 --> 03:12:45.224 - area and the landscape area. How about that? Because that's what's stopping all the development of those 03:12:45.224 --> 03:12:46.206 - two things. Yeah. 03:12:51.394 --> 03:13:03.226 - So the motion is to In table oh four dash two Sorry oh four Four dash three. Yeah, oh four dash three 03:13:03.226 --> 03:13:15.058 - to Have impervious surface coverage area and landscape approach reflect our three zone as proposed in 03:13:15.058 --> 03:13:17.726 - table oh four dash two 03:13:39.746 --> 03:13:56.449 - On the motion there is there a second All right any discussion Mr. Stossberg, I just want to note that 03:13:56.449 --> 03:14:05.854 - in our three there's actually no landscaping requirements 03:14:07.938 --> 03:14:17.463 - minimum landscape area is none and I'm not in favor of changing the MN and mm to no landscaping requirement 03:14:17.463 --> 03:14:26.281 - Can I get a definition of what that even is? I Don't even know what it is Yep, so the the two terms 03:14:26.281 --> 03:14:35.806 - the the difference between them is minimum landscaped area is just essentially raw grass on the property so 03:14:36.034 --> 03:14:43.013 - There are no exceptions for permeable pavers or any permeable materials Some of that might come into 03:14:43.013 --> 03:14:49.992 - play for impervious surface coverage for driveways for single-family But minimal landscaped areas in 03:14:49.992 --> 03:14:56.972 - essence just no exceptions, you know graphs on the ground So we would be interpreting, you know, mr. 03:14:56.972 --> 03:15:04.158 - Smith's recommendation that the impervious surface coverage reflect the 80% of the r3 and a converse of 03:15:04.450 --> 03:15:13.778 - 20% landscape area required. That's I guess I don't understand why there's a land because it's gonna 03:15:13.778 --> 03:15:23.198 - be 20% green space So is it in addition to because like in our in sorry question in RM You've changed 03:15:23.198 --> 03:15:32.525 - sorry, yeah an RM you've changed this I gotta find it To 80 or 75% because there's no table and then 03:15:32.525 --> 03:15:33.726 - 20% so is it 03:15:34.210 --> 03:15:40.289 - 80 and 20 so it's 40 No, so the two are kind of the opposite, you know, they're the inverse of each 03:15:40.289 --> 03:15:46.429 - other. So your maximum impervious surface coverage is 80% So your minimum landscape area requirement 03:15:46.429 --> 03:15:52.508 - is 20% Okay, then I'll amend mine to allow the minimum landscape area to be 20% Because wait, wait, 03:15:52.508 --> 03:15:59.013 - no, wait. No, wait. Hold on. What's our three? Yeah, so 70 70 and 30 Let's just be specific the impervious 03:15:59.013 --> 03:16:02.782 - surface coverage change to 70 the landscape area change to 30 03:16:06.242 --> 03:16:13.663 - Does that make sense? No, no, I'm gonna but I'm offering 30 because there's a concern about it So let's 03:16:13.663 --> 03:16:20.799 - 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 03:16:20.799 --> 03:16:28.077 - though I don't understand what the 30 does because it has to be there anyway But if it's concerned we 03:16:28.077 --> 03:16:28.862 - can add it 03:16:34.018 --> 03:16:43.710 - Reframed your motion to make sure I understand it. Yeah, so you're moving to Edit table. Oh five dash 03:16:43.710 --> 03:16:53.212 - three to change. Oh four dash three. Oh four dash three. What did I say? Oh my gosh Anyway, oh four 03:16:53.212 --> 03:16:59.198 - dash three to change the impervious surface coverage of MN and 03:16:59.394 --> 03:17:13.952 - MM to 70% and the landscape area minimum to 30% for those two districts so moved All right, is there 03:17:13.952 --> 03:17:28.222 - a second All right Any discussion All right, please call the roll on the motion to amend Smith yes 03:17:29.378 --> 03:17:45.694 - Stossberg I'm not sure yet Come back to me at the end. I just come back to me at the end Whistler. Yes 03:17:45.694 --> 03:17:58.366 - Bishop Yes, Borel. Yes seaboard Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes All right Stossberg 03:18:01.474 --> 03:18:16.007 - I'll say yes, but yes, I guess yes. All right motion carries Udo section 2.0 4.0 6.0 Mark parking and 03:18:16.007 --> 03:18:30.398 - minimums to specifically eliminate section L minimum bicycle parking required 180 of the current UDO 03:18:42.178 --> 03:18:56.575 - second for the vote Okay It's 180 of the published PDF version of the UDO Can you Can you reference 03:18:56.575 --> 03:19:04.062 - the I need the redline version the redline version? 03:19:11.906 --> 03:19:30.162 - So this would be on page 157 of the redline version All right Mr. Bishop do you mind just restating 03:19:30.162 --> 03:19:36.734 - your motion one more one more time? 03:19:37.442 --> 03:19:46.546 - Yeah, I'd like to make an amendment to section 5 which first to 20 point oh four point. Oh six. Oh the 03:19:46.546 --> 03:19:52.734 - UDO Specifically to remove section L minimum bicycle parking required 03:20:07.106 --> 03:20:35.422 - second again. I'm not even... I don't even see a section L. 03:20:40.738 --> 03:20:52.386 - I see got it. Okay Thank you, so Yeah, so your motion is to strike all of section L Correct. Yeah. 03:20:52.386 --> 03:21:02.270 - All right, and what's our second? Yeah, Chris did Okay Any discussion Mr. Stossberg 03:21:04.002 --> 03:21:12.453 - I appreciate what Commissioner Bishop was saying about the original resolution not specifying vehicular 03:21:12.453 --> 03:21:20.660 - parking minimums but that was the intent of it and part of the in the whereas clauses of that one of 03:21:20.660 --> 03:21:27.486 - the the reasons for it had to do with our climate action plan in terms of vehicular 03:21:27.618 --> 03:21:34.663 - usage and so bicycles don't add to Emissions in the same way that vehicles do So that that's why this 03:21:34.663 --> 03:21:41.639 - actually doesn't go along with that Resolution and the intent of council and in addition to that one 03:21:41.639 --> 03:21:49.374 - of the other reasonings behind it is to be able to add affordable parking because or affordable housing because 03:21:49.506 --> 03:21:57.697 - Creating parking is extremely expensive and so giving developers that option if they're developing in 03:21:57.697 --> 03:22:00.990 - a space where parking is not necessarily 03:22:01.122 --> 03:22:07.241 - going to be an issue Councilmember Flaherty cited I guess there's a development downtown they called 03:22:07.241 --> 03:22:13.300 - it the bicycle development at the time that actually doesn't have any parking I don't actually know 03:22:13.300 --> 03:22:19.419 - where it is but it doesn't have any parking with it it's right on the beeline and that's the kind of 03:22:19.419 --> 03:22:25.538 - thing that he was trying to to use and promote in that idea so in my opinion it doesn't speak to the 03:22:25.538 --> 03:22:28.446 - resolution and I'll be voting against it thanks 03:22:32.418 --> 03:22:40.082 - Other comments I'm sorry Yes So much like the parking minimums, it doesn't preclude anyone from adding 03:22:40.082 --> 03:22:47.597 - bicycle parking at all But it does remove the undue burden of forcing someone to put bicycle parking 03:22:47.597 --> 03:22:54.814 - which becomes costly at a certain point especially when you have to have a minimum threshold and 03:22:54.882 --> 03:23:02.630 - for businesses undergoing any sort of compliance for change of use or things like that, they would be 03:23:02.630 --> 03:23:10.302 - forced to add in bicycle parking, which is an expense that most small businesses can't afford. So by 03:23:10.302 --> 03:23:18.126 - removing that, you're taking away a financial burden for a developer and or small business. You're not 03:23:18.126 --> 03:23:24.734 - removing the ability for bicycle parking to continue. Any other comments? Mr. Seaborg. 03:23:24.962 --> 03:23:31.461 - I guess just a question if staff wouldn't mind weighing in on the proposed amendment. Well, you know, 03:23:31.461 --> 03:23:37.833 - like I said, we did not interpret this to mean bicycle parking. You know, that was not part of what 03:23:37.833 --> 03:23:44.587 - Mr. Councilmember Flaherty was trying to address. So that's why we didn't even address it in our proposed 03:23:44.587 --> 03:23:51.277 - amendment to that. So that's where we did not think that this was what he was intending to do. Certainly 03:23:51.277 --> 03:23:54.718 - also to reiterate what Councilmember Stossberg cited. 03:23:55.074 --> 03:24:16.178 - In part of why they came forward with that Thank you Any other comments Let's call the roll on the proposed 03:24:16.178 --> 03:24:24.190 - amendment the motion to amend No Yes Yes 03:24:24.834 --> 03:24:53.278 - Yes No No Yes Yeah, I already already said yes, I think that's five 03:24:53.378 --> 03:25:03.187 - Yes. Yes, that was fine. Just all right Motion carries. Okay Any other I do Okay, mr. Smith section 03:25:03.187 --> 03:25:13.095 - 2005 050 page 228 subdivision development standards see III Where I do this one remove the less than 03:25:13.095 --> 03:25:23.198 - I never got back to remove the less than 150 feet deep all that are well make sure it makes sense, but 03:25:23.426 --> 03:25:33.109 - 150-foot deep lot depth None of the rest of it. Give me that page number one more time, please to 28 03:25:33.109 --> 03:25:43.176 - 220 well, it's 2005 050 subdivision design standards. See III. Yeah, right. So in yes section CII you're 03:25:43.176 --> 03:25:51.230 - proposing you're moving to strike the words that is less than 150 feet deep Correct 03:25:53.410 --> 03:26:05.134 - second Second Any discussion I Want to make sure that this still addresses and Eric I want to get the 03:26:05.134 --> 03:26:16.629 - staff's input on assuring that this still addresses the fire department concerns is that clear just 03:26:16.629 --> 03:26:18.238 - by removing a 03:26:19.138 --> 03:26:28.350 - Yeah, the the remainder of that where you know, no structure can be built on the lot That's more than 03:26:28.350 --> 03:26:37.471 - 150 feet from the street seem to still address what the fire department's concerns are That honestly 03:26:37.471 --> 03:26:47.134 - sounds really good but just to understand the process so a subdivision happens independent of the building 03:26:47.970 --> 03:26:54.246 - Process are there processes in place to assure that somehow a building couldn't get approved that would 03:26:54.246 --> 03:27:00.400 - What are the process just to assure that that was? The kind of second part of that talks about a note 03:27:00.400 --> 03:27:06.495 - has to be placed on the plat regarding that effect So when we review the building permit and look at 03:27:06.495 --> 03:27:12.590 - the plat and see the note that is on there Then that would be our clue our trigger to make sure that 03:27:12.590 --> 03:27:15.486 - that additional standard is being met Thank you 03:27:21.954 --> 03:27:31.783 - All right, let's call the roll on that amendment I don't know that you went to public comment For an 03:27:31.783 --> 03:27:42.195 - amendment you are correct. I'm sorry All right, we have to start over no Here's what I don't think there's 03:27:42.195 --> 03:27:50.078 - gonna be any but if there is there any common public comment on this amendment I 03:27:54.754 --> 03:28:04.355 - There's anybody online that would like to give public comment on this proposed amendment, please use 03:28:04.355 --> 03:28:13.860 - the raise hand function And if you'd like to make comment on the prior amendment I'll allow that at 03:28:13.860 --> 03:28:24.126 - this time as well All right seeing none back to the Commission let's call the roll on the motion to men Yes 03:28:25.538 --> 03:28:52.190 - Yes, yes, yes Yes, yes Okay motion carries Is there any other motions at this time I 03:28:56.386 --> 03:29:06.525 - So we have this the document as amended as it is currently it includes the changes from all four sections 03:29:06.525 --> 03:29:16.377 - so if If a commissioner would like to move this along with only Some of those sections again will need 03:29:16.377 --> 03:29:23.646 - to be specific if there's something you want to exclude from the motion and 03:29:28.130 --> 03:29:40.310 - 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 03:29:40.310 --> 03:29:52.732 - three including the three amendments that were voted on in the Tonight's meeting. All right for so for 03:29:52.732 --> 03:29:56.350 - amendments You could just say 03:29:56.706 --> 03:30:10.201 - Second arts the motion on the table is to forward As amended which includes all of the original changes 03:30:10.201 --> 03:30:22.398 - is there any final discussion That is the that is the motion on the table Yeah, I just really 03:30:22.754 --> 03:30:29.610 - Want to move this forward because it will be taken up by council and I'm sure they'll have additional 03:30:29.610 --> 03:30:36.332 - Will change things. Yeah, they'll have additional comments and questions and changes But we've been 03:30:36.332 --> 03:30:43.054 - asked to move on this by council. So I want to Mr. Seymour, I'll just echo what Commissioner Kinsey 03:30:43.054 --> 03:30:49.776 - just said and just for for this group sake and maybe more for council sake to be thinking about the 03:30:49.776 --> 03:30:52.734 - removal of minimum parking requirements and 03:30:53.314 --> 03:30:59.838 - some land uses Or some streets, I guess don't allow certain land uses to park on those streets if it's 03:30:59.838 --> 03:31:06.362 - in a certain permit zone So just wanting to raise that awareness to be thinking about If people aren't 03:31:06.362 --> 03:31:12.759 - parked on the site and they're assuming they will park on the street that that's not always possible 03:31:12.759 --> 03:31:18.206 - in certain areas So just keeping that other larger policy implication in mind as well 03:31:23.138 --> 03:31:32.434 - I'll just say one more time for the record something I've said many times before which is I Don't like 03:31:32.434 --> 03:31:41.820 - the way that we are doing this with our With our incentives I'll vote to forward this on and I do agree 03:31:41.820 --> 03:31:51.206 - that I think I think probably I think probably it's legal I'm not a lawyer, but I do think that we kind 03:31:51.206 --> 03:31:52.830 - of get around and 03:31:53.442 --> 03:32:02.368 - Probably was the intent of the state law by making it an incentive, but I think it's completely disingenuous 03:32:02.368 --> 03:32:10.720 - when the reward for Using the incentives is just to get things that we wanted you to do anyway, right 03:32:10.720 --> 03:32:18.991 - more more density is also Going to help affordability right so it's like it makes so little sense to 03:32:18.991 --> 03:32:22.430 - me that we'd say you can only make things 03:32:22.914 --> 03:32:29.145 - You can only increase our housing supply if you do all these other things. Like if we want prices to 03:32:29.145 --> 03:32:35.560 - come down, if we want things to be affordable, we should just make it easy to build more dense housing, 03:32:35.560 --> 03:32:41.729 - 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 03:32:41.729 --> 03:32:47.898 - way we do it and I think it's, although it's probably legal, I think it's just bad policy. But that 03:32:47.898 --> 03:32:48.638 - being said, 03:32:49.442 --> 03:32:58.873 - We know this was specifically requested by the council and They're you know, they're gonna do with it 03:32:58.873 --> 03:33:08.582 - 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 03:33:08.582 --> 03:33:17.829 - You you can yes to Forward the petition as amended to council but with no recommendation instead of 03:33:17.829 --> 03:33:18.846 - a positive 03:33:24.610 --> 03:33:34.876 - I think that's a new motion. Yeah, I think We're gonna vote we're gonna vote twice on it either way 03:33:34.876 --> 03:33:45.347 - so I Suppose if there if there's a second for your motion then second. All right, so The motion is to 03:33:45.347 --> 03:33:53.662 - amend the motion to change the recommendation from positive to no recommendation 03:33:58.818 --> 03:34:08.348 - He's moving to amend her motion that is allowed under Yeah, I think maybe legal is gonna come up and 03:34:08.348 --> 03:34:17.972 - say that's just a separate motion because the three things you can do are all separate You can all of 03:34:17.972 --> 03:34:28.446 - the things we've been doing are moving to amend other motions that is That is standard parliamentary procedure 03:34:30.434 --> 03:34:39.798 - Would you like to weigh in and Edina from city of Bloomington legal I think that's just a new motion 03:34:39.798 --> 03:34:49.439 - under the Roberts rules So if it's easier just propose a new motion Does that make sense It makes sense 03:34:49.439 --> 03:34:53.982 - or vote on the motion. Yeah, that's before you I 03:34:54.562 --> 03:35:00.832 - Under Roberts rules, we have to vote on the motion. That's before us right now If I mean city legal 03:35:00.832 --> 03:35:07.228 - just said that that's an entirely new motion, but we have a motion on the table already So we have to 03:35:07.228 --> 03:35:13.561 - vote on the motion that is on the table or the person who made the motion has to withdraw the motion 03:35:13.561 --> 03:35:20.020 - Sorry, that's just not correct draw if this motion fails then we can make a second one. Thank you. All 03:35:20.020 --> 03:35:24.158 - right If There's no further discussion the motion on the table is 03:35:24.386 --> 03:35:51.806 - Is to forward as amended with a positive recommendation. Let's call the roll on that motion Yes No Yes No 03:35:54.978 --> 03:36:22.718 - Yes Yes Yes Yes I lost count six to All right motion carries We are now on to Zio 03:36:23.298 --> 03:36:33.504 - 2026-06-007 Thank you, so this is second amendment from staff Directed at three aspects within the unified 03:36:33.504 --> 03:36:43.423 - development ordinance again working towards the goal of increasing housing attainability as I mentioned 03:36:43.423 --> 03:36:48.574 - with the previous presentation this has also served a 03:36:49.122 --> 03:36:57.138 - Fulfill our requirements with the latest house bill regarding reviewing the unified development ordinance 03:36:57.138 --> 03:37:04.852 - in regards to Holding a public hearing for the purpose of increasing housing development So with this 03:37:04.852 --> 03:37:13.095 - we are proposing to amend three sections of the UDO related to accessory dwelling units cottage developments 03:37:13.095 --> 03:37:14.078 - and duplexes 03:37:14.434 --> 03:37:22.903 - So with this we are proposing to amend the allowed size for attached ad use to be a thousand square 03:37:22.903 --> 03:37:31.710 - feet and for detached ad use to be 1,000 square feet or 75% of the primary structure, whichever is less 03:37:32.130 --> 03:37:39.844 - Part of the reason for the adjustment of the language for detached ad use and what you see relates to 03:37:39.844 --> 03:37:47.710 - changes For this in this House bill 1001 of how those units are defined So this is syncing it with that 03:37:47.710 --> 03:37:52.702 - With this as I mentioned we are proposing to change the standards 03:37:52.802 --> 03:38:00.035 - for the use cottage develop cottage developments to increase the density that's allowed for those adjust 03:38:00.035 --> 03:38:04.926 - some of the standards that go along with that for setbacks and height. 03:38:05.154 --> 03:38:13.395 - and landscaping requirements and project size standards And then also adjusting some of the use specific 03:38:13.395 --> 03:38:21.243 - standards for duplexes To remove the limitation on the number of duplexes allowed per calendar year 03:38:21.243 --> 03:38:29.248 - the spatial limitation that applies to those as well Adjusting the use specific standards for triplex 03:38:29.248 --> 03:38:35.134 - and fourplexes and then modifying the standard for duplexes related to the 03:38:35.266 --> 03:38:43.364 - Review of roof orientation just to kind of clarify that a little bit So as I mentioned there were recent 03:38:43.364 --> 03:38:51.230 - changes to the state definition of accessory dwelling unit So we are modifying our definition to sync 03:38:51.230 --> 03:38:57.246 - with that. So this is just an excerpt from this Indiana code with that change 03:38:57.762 --> 03:39:04.097 - With that, there were a few changes to the definition that I mentioned that we have to adjust. One of 03:39:04.097 --> 03:39:10.493 - those would be to allow for a new definition for accessory dwelling units for the duplex, just to kind 03:39:10.493 --> 03:39:16.766 - of make that specific to that use. And then a second one related to just a single family definition. 03:39:16.766 --> 03:39:23.038 - Again, in essence, using that same language, just differentiating those two units or those two uses. 03:39:23.554 --> 03:39:30.959 - So with this as I mentioned very simply we're proposing to allow to increase the size for an attached 03:39:30.959 --> 03:39:37.566 - ADU to a thousand square feet again kind of sinking that with the state code definition of 03:39:37.730 --> 03:39:44.350 - Use and then adjusting same thing for the detached ADU, you know We feel like this gives a greater Use 03:39:44.350 --> 03:39:50.777 - for or a greater size for this use can increase the amount of bedrooms that are in there The number 03:39:50.777 --> 03:39:57.204 - of bedrooms aren't being changed with this but it could increase the size of those bedrooms And the 03:39:57.204 --> 03:40:03.632 - unit themselves create some more living space within there so we certainly see this as an advantage 03:40:03.632 --> 03:40:07.038 - to that that might help increase the use of that and 03:40:07.362 --> 03:40:13.765 - The next change here is in relation to cottage development So this is an excerpt of the use table just 03:40:13.765 --> 03:40:20.478 - kind of showing where this is It's a conditional use and all of the single-family and multifamily districts 03:40:20.478 --> 03:40:26.694 - Changing the allowed use table is not on the discussion for tonight. We can't change the use table, 03:40:26.694 --> 03:40:31.294 - but I'm just showing this for reference for where the UDO treats this and 03:40:31.554 --> 03:40:38.357 - So cottage developments just in case the Plaint Commission is not familiar because you don't see these 03:40:38.357 --> 03:40:44.961 - They go to the Board of Zoning Appeals or the hearing officer It allows for units to be constructed 03:40:44.961 --> 03:40:51.764 - on a site without subdividing a property and creating individual lots for this the typical arrangement 03:40:51.764 --> 03:40:58.369 - that is envisioned is You know some cluster of homes with parking in the back That are oftentimes a 03:40:58.369 --> 03:41:00.350 - smaller size unit but that is 03:41:01.090 --> 03:41:08.130 - Not necessarily a restriction of this use itself so we are proposing to change the density and Minimum 03:41:08.130 --> 03:41:15.239 - maximum project size to get rid of those minimum and maximum project size and increase the density that 03:41:15.239 --> 03:41:22.142 - is could be allowed with this So you see in the proposed amendment those changes to the unit and the 03:41:22.142 --> 03:41:23.646 - density count that is 03:41:23.778 --> 03:41:31.606 - Proposed here. We've also proposed modifying the language regarding perimeter sidewalks and also Modifying 03:41:31.606 --> 03:41:39.068 - the rear setback requirement for this Use as well. Again, we just have not seen this used utilized at 03:41:39.068 --> 03:41:46.457 - all and really feel a lot of the development standards in the udr are the main reason that that just 03:41:46.457 --> 03:41:48.286 - doesn't get utilized and 03:41:48.610 --> 03:41:55.837 - So we're also removing the maximum size that's allowed for each unit and the depth the width just kind 03:41:55.837 --> 03:42:03.064 - of governing how those Buildings are designed And then the last is changing the standards for duplexes 03:42:03.064 --> 03:42:10.362 - as I mentioned to get rid of the maximum number that are allowed per year and getting rid of the buffer 03:42:10.362 --> 03:42:14.782 - that is required the udio currently requires a 150 foot buffer 03:42:14.882 --> 03:42:21.622 - Around a duplex that applies for two years that prevents any other duplexes from being approved within 03:42:21.622 --> 03:42:28.820 - there And then also there was a cap of 15 duplexes that were allowed per calendar year One minor modification 03:42:28.820 --> 03:42:35.494 - that we're making to the use specific standards. It's just clarifying roof pitch To include the words 03:42:35.494 --> 03:42:42.169 - and orientation. That's how staff has applied this in the situations where these have come forward So 03:42:42.169 --> 03:42:43.870 - we just wanted to clarify 03:42:43.970 --> 03:42:52.033 - What exactly is is? Being reviewed when when we review those requests and then for the use triplex and 03:42:52.033 --> 03:42:59.940 - fourplex there is a limitation of Or a maximum of only two exterior entrances for those uses it that 03:42:59.940 --> 03:43:08.003 - does prevent a townhome arrangement where you create a townhome building with four units in there, but 03:43:08.003 --> 03:43:11.134 - each unit you want to condo eyes it and 03:43:11.266 --> 03:43:17.615 - Have its own entrance and you know having you know, a shared entrance does work against that goal So 03:43:17.615 --> 03:43:23.901 - we're proposing to remove that and then also again including roof pitch and orientation and the use 03:43:23.901 --> 03:43:30.438 - specific standard with that So this is required to have two hearings So we are simply recommending that 03:43:30.438 --> 03:43:37.038 - the Planning Commission forward this to the required second hearing in September and I'm happy to answer 03:43:37.038 --> 03:43:37.918 - any questions 03:43:41.506 --> 03:43:49.549 - questions from commissioners Commissioner Kinsey. Yeah, I just wanted some clarification or I would 03:43:49.549 --> 03:43:57.592 - like some clarification on the Duplex and the buffer and the removal of the cap. I mean, I remember 03:43:57.592 --> 03:44:05.796 - really laboring over that when we created this in the UDO and I just wonder how much of that was ever 03:44:05.796 --> 03:44:07.646 - needed or necessary in 03:44:08.482 --> 03:44:15.824 - and how much it was actually either protective or if it was a problem for any? I would say the spatial 03:44:15.824 --> 03:44:23.095 - limitation has certainly been more impactive than the maximum number of cap, the 15. However, we have 03:44:23.095 --> 03:44:30.438 - seen that trend going up in terms of the number of duplexes that are reviewed and approved every year. 03:44:30.438 --> 03:44:37.566 - As I kind of mentioned in the first presentation, a lot of this is just removing perceived barriers 03:44:37.698 --> 03:44:43.846 - to folks coming forward for this certainly we'd love to explore a conversation of Allowing this as a 03:44:43.846 --> 03:44:50.177 - permitted use in other districts and making it even more accessible But you know, as I mentioned, we're 03:44:50.177 --> 03:44:56.324 - not amending the use table. That's not something that we can do at this time So we're just trying to 03:44:56.324 --> 03:45:02.412 - remove some of the barriers that are in the code that that do seem to at least visually or mentally 03:45:02.412 --> 03:45:04.542 - present obstacle to some folks and 03:45:04.866 --> 03:45:10.530 - One of the goals as I mentioned with the house bill was look at hindrances in your zoning codes that 03:45:10.530 --> 03:45:16.419 - are creating barriers for housing attainability and this is certainly one of those As I mentioned, we're 03:45:16.419 --> 03:45:22.084 - not we're not hitting it. But you know, we certainly could and we would hope to you know see more of 03:45:22.084 --> 03:45:28.141 - these utilized So this is something that that is encouraged with that house bill. And so we're recommending 03:45:28.141 --> 03:45:28.926 - removing this 03:45:32.386 --> 03:45:39.108 - So segue into the house bills just very briefly Does the house bill 101? Require these this language 03:45:39.108 --> 03:45:45.829 - in these changes. It does not require You know it encourages communities to I mean one of the things 03:45:45.829 --> 03:45:52.617 - in that language does talk about you know encouraging communities to make these permitted uses But it 03:45:52.617 --> 03:45:59.539 - looks encourages communities to look at and remove barriers or housing through ad use through diversity 03:45:59.539 --> 03:46:00.670 - of housing types 03:46:00.770 --> 03:46:08.471 - Duplexes triplexes forplexes, you know reducing setbacks increasing impervious surface coverage, but 03:46:08.471 --> 03:46:16.706 - you know But is it required is this no, it's not required. Okay, that's good. Thank you Any other questions 03:46:16.706 --> 03:46:25.246 - Mr. Stossberg While we're on the duplex conversation, I have some kind of serious concerns about removing those 03:46:25.474 --> 03:46:32.417 - barriers to size without also making them by right in terms of I mean every time I watch a BCA meeting 03:46:32.417 --> 03:46:39.225 - there are is at least one often more Duplexes on their agenda that take up an awful lot of time So I 03:46:39.225 --> 03:46:46.033 - guess I'm concerned that if we remove this barrier them then what we're doing is but but we keep the 03:46:46.033 --> 03:46:52.773 - conditional use barrier then we're gonna overload the BCA in a way that's like really inappropriate 03:46:52.773 --> 03:46:54.526 - in terms of that body and 03:46:55.298 --> 03:47:02.845 - Yeah, so as I indicated, we would certainly love to have the more open conversation and path about amending 03:47:02.845 --> 03:47:10.043 - the use table. Amending the use table requires notification to all affected property owners within the 03:47:10.043 --> 03:47:17.102 - zoning district, so it has a much higher public notification requirement. It's a lot costlier. So we 03:47:17.102 --> 03:47:24.300 - looked at doing some use table amendments, but that was not something that we were moving forward with 03:47:24.300 --> 03:47:25.278 - at this time. 03:47:25.442 --> 03:47:36.038 - That is something that maybe we can revisit very soon in the next year or two But we share your concerns 03:47:36.038 --> 03:47:46.332 - and thoughts Other questions from commissioners Just just a statement that I agree With your proposal 03:47:46.332 --> 03:47:52.286 - because I'm on the BZA and I yeah, you should be but right 03:47:56.610 --> 03:48:04.049 - I'm also in the same view And I just wonder if the staff has thought more about what it would take I 03:48:04.049 --> 03:48:11.415 - mean obviously their obligation is about noticing and you know public information but I just wonder 03:48:11.415 --> 03:48:18.854 - if there's more of a case to be made and what that might be and maybe this is more of a comment than 03:48:18.854 --> 03:48:24.894 - anything, but but I do think that there's a there's a larger issue here than just 03:48:25.186 --> 03:48:32.774 - Noticing and making sure that the public has sufficient, you know and not living in all those zones 03:48:32.774 --> 03:48:40.438 - have information if we would want to really live by the spirit of the housing that the attainability 03:48:40.438 --> 03:48:48.102 - Incentive here that I mean, that's the idea here. I think we would need to perhaps report out on you 03:48:48.102 --> 03:48:50.302 - know other the the number of 03:48:50.434 --> 03:48:56.571 - Duplexes that were not permitted because of this conditional use or how much the BZA has been overwhelmed 03:48:56.571 --> 03:49:02.649 - By having to think about these things So I just wonder about other things that we might need to assemble 03:49:02.649 --> 03:49:08.670 - and if there's been any thought to that I guess that's how I could make it a question Yeah, like I said 03:49:08.670 --> 03:49:14.691 - we we hear your thoughts and concerns and see the same thing Right now at this time. It's not something 03:49:14.691 --> 03:49:17.470 - that the department has been directed to do yet 03:49:21.794 --> 03:49:34.254 - So is the holdup the department being directed to do that At this time it's not something that we have 03:49:34.254 --> 03:49:46.594 - been directed to bring forward Any other questions You had the floor I have a couple other topics Are 03:49:46.594 --> 03:49:51.070 - we ready to move on to other topics? 03:49:51.810 --> 03:49:58.987 - Okay, so the first question is about the cottage developments and I guess I The question that I wrote 03:49:58.987 --> 03:50:06.023 - down now I wrote this down last month, okay It's hard to know what I was thinking then but in terms 03:50:06.023 --> 03:50:13.270 - of the cottage developments Allowing for increased density and that I just want to understand how that 03:50:13.270 --> 03:50:20.447 - increased density is different than multifamily housing being allowed in the are one through our four 03:50:20.447 --> 03:50:21.502 - districts like 03:50:21.730 --> 03:50:30.697 - more than just plexes, because if there's no minimum project size, then could someone in a standard 03:50:30.697 --> 03:50:40.111 - type R2 lot, say, of about a quarter of an acre or a fifth of an acre, then create a cottage development 03:50:40.111 --> 03:50:49.437 - with more than four little units by right. And I say more than four because of trying to amend for quad 03:50:49.437 --> 03:50:51.230 - plexes, which would 03:50:51.490 --> 03:50:58.695 - You know not otherwise be allowed and an r2 district like because they can suddenly have 24 or well, 03:50:58.695 --> 03:51:06.256 - okay, so 24 divided by Say Yeah for for a quarter of an acre that would be six little little developments 03:51:06.256 --> 03:51:13.889 - and an r2 kind of standard Size little lot. So how is it different? Well, so, you know one thing certainly 03:51:13.889 --> 03:51:21.022 - is one of the use specific standards here that talks about no more than two units in a building and 03:51:21.378 --> 03:51:27.029 - So that that separates it from just an apartment building with multiple units in it You know, it is 03:51:27.029 --> 03:51:33.020 - a conditional use to certainly we evaluate for that use being appropriate in a particular area But you're 03:51:33.020 --> 03:51:38.785 - right. There are certainly a lot of similarities between this and a multifamily development But there 03:51:38.785 --> 03:51:44.493 - are restrictions here that do make it a little bit less in terms of the number of units that are out 03:51:44.493 --> 03:51:49.918 - in building trying to steer it more towards you know a series of duplexes within a property and 03:51:50.050 --> 03:51:56.359 - smaller tiny homes doesn't necessarily have to be a tiny home but you know it's just again something 03:51:56.359 --> 03:52:02.606 - to try to move the needle to getting more housing within the community. Again there aren't a lot of 03:52:02.606 --> 03:52:08.853 - empty lots in the single family zoning districts where you're going to get this happening at a very 03:52:08.853 --> 03:52:15.162 - large scale. So it's probably something that's just really going to be more utilized on you know the 03:52:15.162 --> 03:52:17.598 - rare lot that that might be available. 03:52:17.762 --> 03:52:24.150 - Or a situation where somebody wants to have a couple more units in their backyard that has a single-family 03:52:24.150 --> 03:52:30.120 - house up front and they want to have two or three units in the backyard or It's hard to really kind 03:52:30.120 --> 03:52:36.389 - of envision it because there's just a mix of possibilities that would have to kind of come forward Well, 03:52:36.389 --> 03:52:42.538 - how is it different from an ADU then? Well, so right now ADU is the owner has to live on the property. 03:52:42.538 --> 03:52:44.926 - So this would not necessarily have that 03:52:47.394 --> 03:52:58.707 - I have one more unrelated question. Should I go ahead? All right, so I'm trying to find it now. In the 03:52:58.707 --> 03:53:09.800 - definition of, there's a change of definition. It's on my page 348. I just have to find page 348. So 03:53:09.800 --> 03:53:13.534 - it is in the change of definition 03:53:13.762 --> 03:53:21.241 - Dwelling accessory unit and in the struck-out language it strikes out and is connected to city utilities 03:53:21.241 --> 03:53:28.577 - So is it not required anymore that the accessory that an ad you be? Connected to city utilities or did 03:53:28.577 --> 03:53:35.842 - I just miss where it got rewritten somewhere else? Like am I just reading it wrong? No, they do still 03:53:35.842 --> 03:53:42.110 - have to connect to city utilities The the previous I'm sorry. I'm gonna look at it here 03:53:42.306 --> 03:53:51.294 - Think the language referred to or the challenge that we were running into were separate meters which 03:53:51.294 --> 03:54:00.371 - utilities department wasn't doing So you're trying to eliminate the need for an ADU to have their own 03:54:00.371 --> 03:54:09.982 - meter Yes, that that was the main problem that we were running into is utilities just wasn't doing that and 03:54:10.146 --> 03:54:16.738 - We were changing this to reflect that policy that they have but in the end what you've done is struck 03:54:16.738 --> 03:54:23.266 - out connected to city utilities So is it still somehow is there still a requirement in there that it 03:54:23.266 --> 03:54:30.052 - has to have? utilities connected to our Because otherwise so I guess here's the question what's stopping 03:54:30.052 --> 03:54:36.514 - somebody from putting in an ADU with a composting toilet So CB you doesn't well, I think the health 03:54:36.514 --> 03:54:39.358 - department probably would step in there and 03:54:39.586 --> 03:54:49.241 - More more than we would or CB you would Is that that's not captured in this? Where is that captured? 03:54:49.241 --> 03:54:58.896 - I guess so part part of the change though that you see here though is this language is verbatim from 03:54:58.896 --> 03:55:03.102 - the state definition So for instance in the 03:55:03.362 --> 03:55:10.344 - Presentation here, you know I included yeah So some of those state codes that are cited in there require 03:55:10.344 --> 03:55:16.993 - some connection to utilities Yeah, so it you know, it talks about includes its own cooking sleeping 03:55:16.993 --> 03:55:23.908 - and sanitation facilities You know, I don't know if there's a state definition of sanitation facilities 03:55:23.908 --> 03:55:28.030 - that you know gives more guidance on that or restrictions and 03:55:34.466 --> 03:55:42.195 - We can certainly look into that and have an answer for you. I would appreciate that. Honestly, I mean 03:55:42.195 --> 03:55:49.772 - this is coming from a kid who was born in a house with without and in indoor plumbing, so It wasn't 03:55:49.772 --> 03:55:57.425 - that long ago that That sort of thing occurred so thanks those are all my questions All right, thank 03:55:57.425 --> 03:56:01.214 - you any additional questions from commissioners I 03:56:03.170 --> 03:56:12.860 - All right, is there any public comment on Zio 2026-06-0007? I don't see any here in the chambers. Anyone 03:56:12.860 --> 03:56:22.273 - online? If you're online and you'd like to make comment, just click the reaction button and click the 03:56:22.273 --> 03:56:31.870 - raise hand button and we will recognize you when it's your turn to speak. Last call for public comment. 03:56:34.114 --> 03:56:45.648 - We are back to the Commission for any final discussion or a motion You can do a motion to forward this 03:56:45.648 --> 03:56:56.959 - on for its of this petition Z o twenty twenty six zero six zero zero zero seven to a required second 03:56:56.959 --> 03:57:03.006 - hearing Alright, let's call the roll on the motion to 03:57:04.226 --> 03:57:21.692 - Continue Or forward I should say sir Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes All right motion carries we 03:57:21.692 --> 03:57:33.278 - are on to our final agenda item zeo 2026-06-0008 and we still have 03:57:34.178 --> 03:57:43.432 - Eric Grulick for one more time, one night only. Last show. Thank you. So this is, again, a third series 03:57:43.432 --> 03:57:52.686 - of amendments that staff has bring forward to try to decrease barriers to development and redevelopment 03:57:52.686 --> 03:58:01.406 - opportunities kind of more specifically. So this amendment or series of amendments look to adjust 03:58:01.538 --> 03:58:07.845 - the requirements within the unified development ordinance regarding to change in uses on a property 03:58:07.845 --> 03:58:14.215 - that trigger compliance with certain aspects of the zoning code. So we have several changes that are 03:58:14.215 --> 03:58:20.522 - proposed here. So one of those for the most part is adjusting what triggers change in use. And then 03:58:20.522 --> 03:58:27.838 - the second component is what are the site improvements that are triggered or required when those activities happen? 03:58:28.322 --> 03:58:35.168 - So we are looking to remove the requirement that a subdivision requires all properties to come into 03:58:35.168 --> 03:58:42.220 - compliance Properties still cannot subdivide away anything that it is needed to meet a requirement But 03:58:42.220 --> 03:58:49.408 - the subdivision act itself does not trigger compliance We're adjusting the comply or proposing to adjust 03:58:49.408 --> 03:58:56.734 - the compliance threshold for new building construction on the site where there is an existing building and 03:58:57.026 --> 03:59:05.692 - To allow for new buildings under a certain size to be constructed that without triggering full compliance 03:59:05.692 --> 03:59:14.031 - Modifying the language for expansion of parking areas to allow for limited Expansion of parking areas 03:59:14.031 --> 03:59:22.288 - without triggering compliance and then moving into What are the improvements required on a property? 03:59:22.288 --> 03:59:24.414 - We're proposing to adjust 03:59:24.706 --> 03:59:32.850 - one of the triggers or one of the implications of site improvements deals with Removal of parking spaces 03:59:32.850 --> 03:59:40.995 - over parking maximum So we're proposing to add language that parking spaces With 14 or less spaces don't 03:59:40.995 --> 03:59:49.061 - have to remove parking over the maximum we're proposing to address the threshold for building additions 03:59:49.061 --> 03:59:52.862 - to allow building additions up to 25 percent and 03:59:53.058 --> 03:59:59.770 - Currently 10% additions are allowed without triggering limited compliance. So we would be adjusting 03:59:59.770 --> 04:00:06.481 - that to 25% and then going into the world of What triggers change in use requirements one of one of 04:00:06.481 --> 04:00:13.394 - the big things that we have right now There are several things that trigger change in use requirements 04:00:13.394 --> 04:00:20.307 - certainly expansion of buildings expansion of use on a property but also one of the triggers is moving 04:00:20.307 --> 04:00:21.918 - from use categories and 04:00:22.114 --> 04:00:30.084 - within the UDO. So the UDO has uses that are broken into specific subgroups, as they're called. So if 04:00:30.084 --> 04:00:37.897 - you move from one subgroup to another, that is a change in use. So as you can see here, the change, 04:00:37.897 --> 04:00:45.789 - excerpt for the change in use table, you know, if you are going from indoor recreation to an office, 04:00:45.789 --> 04:00:47.742 - that is a change in use. 04:00:48.418 --> 04:00:56.537 - One of the other change in use triggers is dealing with a property or a building that has been abandoned. 04:00:56.537 --> 04:01:04.196 - So right now the UDO defines abandonment as a property or a building that the previous use has been 04:01:04.196 --> 04:01:11.166 - removed or abandoned from 12 months. So we would be proposing to change that to 24 months. 04:01:11.618 --> 04:01:18.003 - So with that, as I mentioned, I kind of gave an overview of what those actual triggers would be. So 04:01:18.003 --> 04:01:24.707 - I've just got the actual citations in there that talk about allowing for new buildings to be constructed 04:01:24.707 --> 04:01:31.283 - on a site that are less than 25% of existing buildings would be reviewed under limited compliance. And 04:01:31.283 --> 04:01:37.987 - then talking about some of the building additions and expansions of parking areas that would be allowed. 04:01:37.987 --> 04:01:40.030 - So all of these are intended to 04:01:40.322 --> 04:01:47.701 - make it easier to reuse properties without having to do significant improvements. But I think it's certainly 04:01:47.701 --> 04:01:55.012 - important to point out that these triggers are one of the main ways that we get improvements on properties. 04:01:55.012 --> 04:02:01.781 - These change in use situations are what we see most of the time, not tear down everything that's on 04:02:01.781 --> 04:02:09.566 - a property and start from scratch. So I just want to make sure to point out the advantages and disadvantages here. 04:02:09.666 --> 04:02:16.856 - Certainly we do make these changes as written, make it easier to reuse certain buildings and decrease 04:02:16.856 --> 04:02:24.045 - some of the things that somebody has to do on a property. But the opposite side of that is properties 04:02:24.045 --> 04:02:31.165 - can sit in a state of non-compliance for much longer and we won't get those improvements. So I just, 04:02:31.165 --> 04:02:37.438 - like I said, make sure I want to point out advantages and disadvantages to these things. 04:02:37.538 --> 04:02:45.076 - So with that we are recommending that the plane commission for this to the required second hearing in 04:02:45.076 --> 04:02:53.057 - September And I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions from commissioners? Mr. Stossberg, 04:02:53.057 --> 04:03:00.447 - I didn't actually have any questions on this one until you started your presentation. So thanks for 04:03:00.447 --> 04:03:05.694 - that So I've to now in terms of a change in use no longer triggering a 04:03:05.794 --> 04:03:12.875 - a limited compliance What would happen if the new use really changed how the property interacted with 04:03:12.875 --> 04:03:19.956 - the public or the street like wouldn't that kind of cause a problem potentially in terms of increased 04:03:19.956 --> 04:03:27.107 - traffic or severely decreased traffic just in terms of that street level interaction and Then how much 04:03:27.107 --> 04:03:34.188 - and I guess this speaks maybe to my second question or the second part of what you just said in terms 04:03:34.188 --> 04:03:35.646 - of improvements that 04:03:36.482 --> 04:03:43.318 - You know might be better in terms of the UDO To make depending on the usage. I guess I'm thinking about 04:03:43.318 --> 04:03:49.891 - things like landscaping or Parking though. I guess one of the other things that we just did tonight 04:03:49.891 --> 04:03:56.463 - was eliminate minimum parking requirements But we still have maximum parking requirements and so if 04:03:56.463 --> 04:04:03.299 - suddenly there's you know a new use is not gonna require the same kind of parking as it would otherwise 04:04:03.299 --> 04:04:05.534 - have and then we just have like a 04:04:05.730 --> 04:04:13.265 - massive parking lot that's empty all the time like Yep, so those those are great examples of you know 04:04:13.265 --> 04:04:20.727 - situations where depending on so Let me just back up a little bit So, you know one of our changes is 04:04:20.727 --> 04:04:28.557 - proposed that parking lots with less than 14 parking spaces don't have to remove parking over the maximum 04:04:28.557 --> 04:04:32.990 - So, you know what we have seen in situations where you have 04:04:33.666 --> 04:04:42.223 - a very low amount of parking like 14 spaces or so. You know, removing five or six spaces while it certainly 04:04:42.223 --> 04:04:50.225 - will be meeting the requirements of the UDO does have some real implications for properties and very 04:04:50.225 --> 04:04:58.228 - small amount of spaces. You know, that's not necessarily the more severe situation that we're trying 04:04:58.228 --> 04:05:00.446 - to work on where you've got 04:05:01.154 --> 04:05:06.864 - 100 parking spaces that sit empty for the majority year. You know, that's not where the big impacts, 04:05:06.864 --> 04:05:12.517 - those are the big impacts is those parking spaces that are 100 and they're sitting empty. You know, 04:05:12.517 --> 04:05:18.340 - five parking spaces sitting on a property empty, that's not as impactive. And those are the situations 04:05:18.340 --> 04:05:23.993 - where the small business owner feels a heavier impact because they've got to spend money, you know, 04:05:23.993 --> 04:05:29.703 - it's very costly to remove asphalt and do that work. So, you know, when we have these change and use 04:05:29.703 --> 04:05:30.494 - conversations 04:05:30.690 --> 04:05:36.549 - You know go through the requirements the things that people feel are most impact of our removing parking 04:05:36.549 --> 04:05:42.185 - spaces removing asphalt because that's very costly and When you've got a small business owner trying 04:05:42.185 --> 04:05:47.765 - to move into a small space that that can feel very substantial to them So we're still requiring the 04:05:47.765 --> 04:05:53.401 - large spaces to have to remove if yes So part, you know, so with what we've proposed right now 14 is 04:05:53.401 --> 04:05:58.590 - where we'd say, you know if you're less than that you don't ever have to remove anything and 04:05:58.786 --> 04:06:05.178 - You know obviously unless you completely tear everything down and build back then you're in a full compliance 04:06:05.178 --> 04:06:11.104 - so that's just where we've kind of looked at looking at you know years of situations and You know two 04:06:11.104 --> 04:06:16.915 - or three extra parking spaces it can mean a lot to a business You know as they ebb and flow between 04:06:16.915 --> 04:06:21.854 - different uses and and really is not the the scenario that we were trying to address 04:06:22.690 --> 04:06:29.544 - Okay and then the other thing that I was kind of wondering because you started talking about the pluses 04:06:29.544 --> 04:06:36.267 - and the minuses in such a way that kind of made me go like oh it feels like there's as potentially as 04:06:36.267 --> 04:06:42.858 - many like concerns about about eliminating these as keeping them and so I guess I'm wondering where 04:06:42.858 --> 04:06:49.580 - the recommendations then came from in terms of your like matrix of best practices and and UDO changes 04:06:49.580 --> 04:06:52.414 - and where did this sort of originate from? 04:06:53.346 --> 04:07:00.776 - Yep. So looking at all these changes, and as I'm pointing out, there are two things that we're adjusting 04:07:00.776 --> 04:07:07.922 - here. One is what are the triggers for a change in use? What are the things that trigger a change in 04:07:07.922 --> 04:07:15.140 - use? And then what are the improvements that you have to do with those? You don't have to say we want 04:07:15.140 --> 04:07:22.782 - to do all of these. The changes that we're proposing in this for the triggers, the removal of the subgroup, 04:07:23.042 --> 04:07:29.237 - I think is probably the most impactive. That's the one that we see the most of. You're going from a 04:07:29.237 --> 04:07:35.432 - restaurant to retail. Those are the big ones. And like I said, the site improvements that feel most 04:07:35.432 --> 04:07:41.627 - substantial are most of the time removing parking. Very rarely do folks have a problem putting in a 04:07:41.627 --> 04:07:48.007 - bike rack or adding street trees or landscaping. It's the removal of the asphalt. So that's where when 04:07:48.007 --> 04:07:52.158 - we were adjusting the limited compliance or the site improvements, 04:07:52.386 --> 04:07:58.322 - You know removing that parking or giving that allowance for spaces less than 14 You know seem to address 04:07:58.322 --> 04:08:04.201 - a lot of the day-to-day concerns or in situations that we have with the small business owners and small 04:08:04.201 --> 04:08:10.080 - sites So we just wanted to make sure to point out, you know, here's all the things that we're proposing 04:08:10.080 --> 04:08:15.960 - You know as as we've seen with previous amendments tonight, you don't have to do all of these But these 04:08:15.960 --> 04:08:21.726 - are what we're proposing to again kind of move the needle a little bit, you know, we can see how this 04:08:22.018 --> 04:08:31.203 - feels if we see that it's having effect of more properties not getting any improvements over the years, 04:08:31.203 --> 04:08:40.477 - maybe we go back. But this is what we felt was kind of a good starting point to move the needle a little 04:08:40.477 --> 04:08:49.309 - bit. OK, thanks. Any other questions? I got a couple. Just the change of use triggers, just want to 04:08:49.309 --> 04:08:51.870 - make sure I'm clear on this. 04:08:52.002 --> 04:09:02.259 - Number three under the change in use any change from one residential land use to another So let me give 04:09:02.259 --> 04:09:12.220 - you a scenario. I got an apartment building And I want to change it from rental To owner occupied so 04:09:12.220 --> 04:09:19.518 - that is not a Rental is not a land use itself. It's still a dwelling unit 04:09:19.906 --> 04:09:29.741 - So one residential land use to another would be multifamily to an opioid rehabilitation home Or condo 04:09:29.741 --> 04:09:40.250 - 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 04:09:40.250 --> 04:09:48.446 - and I want that now to be I want to put office in there not changing anything to the 04:09:48.674 --> 04:09:54.997 - Structure nothing no change to the footprint just instead of stacking boxes in my warehouse. I want 04:09:54.997 --> 04:10:01.509 - to put some desks in there and that Yep, so that would that would fall into the subgroup category that 04:10:01.509 --> 04:10:07.832 - I was talking about where you're going from a warehouse to an office So warehousing is listed under 04:10:07.832 --> 04:10:12.574 - employment That's kind of the the subgroup that that's listed in with just 04:10:12.738 --> 04:10:19.541 - a few other things, you know, bottled gas, contractor's yard, distribution warehouse, outdoor storage, 04:10:19.541 --> 04:10:26.345 - self-service storage, so that's it. So if you go to anything other than those five or six things, it's 04:10:26.345 --> 04:10:33.148 - a change in use. Yeah, I think that's where my, that's a comment, I guess. That's where my concern is. 04:10:33.148 --> 04:10:40.414 - I don't think it's fair to trigger change in use when you're not making any physical changes to the building. 04:10:40.994 --> 04:10:50.319 - Try to dig a little deeper. Just for a little bit of context, prior to 2019 when the UDO came in, 04:10:50.319 --> 04:10:59.929 - we had, I think, seven or eight lists of classes of uses. It was a lot broader. If you went from one 04:10:59.929 --> 04:11:10.206 - class to another class, that was a change in use. When we updated the use table and had it broken down into 04:11:10.370 --> 04:11:16.835 - these particular groups and subgroups, we wanted to look at how does that still function of going from 04:11:16.835 --> 04:11:23.614 - this use to that use. There is a difference between an office and a restaurant in terms of what's happening 04:11:23.614 --> 04:11:29.890 - on the site, traffic and impacts and things, so we can certainly look at revisiting maybe how these 04:11:29.890 --> 04:11:36.167 - subgroups are done, but in the interim right now, like you said, that's probably one of the biggest 04:11:36.167 --> 04:11:39.870 - triggers, and you're right, there might be very negligible 04:11:40.002 --> 04:11:46.928 - difference between storing boxes and an office but some uses there are big differences in terms of what's 04:11:46.928 --> 04:11:53.462 - happening there sure Yeah, okay. Thanks any other questions Any public comment If you would like to 04:11:53.462 --> 04:12:00.192 - make comment if you're online click that reaction button Click the raise hand button or send a message 04:12:00.192 --> 04:12:07.052 - to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak if you're here in the chambers 04:12:07.052 --> 04:12:09.470 - just make your way to the podium and 04:12:10.946 --> 04:12:24.737 - State your name for the record and you'll have three minutes to speak. Last call for public comment. 04:12:24.737 --> 04:12:40.030 - All right, we are back to the commission for any final comments or a motion. A motion. A motion Z02026-06-0008. 04:12:40.258 --> 04:12:52.663 - To move this forward Move this petition forward to the sec required second hearing second All right 04:12:52.663 --> 04:13:05.192 - motion the second is there any final discussion? Let's call the roll on the motion to forward to the 04:13:05.192 --> 04:13:09.534 - second hearing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 04:13:09.858 --> 04:13:21.171 - Yes Yes Yes Motion carries. Thank you all for your patience this evening That's our final agenda item. 04:13:21.171 --> 04:13:23.038 - We are adjourned