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