WEBVTT 00:00:01.154 --> 00:00:12.352 - This meeting will come to order. This is the June meeting of the regular session of the Bloomington 00:00:12.352 --> 00:00:24.223 - Transportation Commission. Can we please have a call of the roll. Copic here. Connell binder here. Bowlin 00:00:24.223 --> 00:00:28.478 - here. Drummey here. We have a quorum. 00:00:28.866 --> 00:00:36.996 - The agenda is as follows. We'll hear a 180 day order update from staff under reports and commissions. 00:00:36.996 --> 00:00:45.764 - We have several cases to consider tonight. Case A is TCP 26 0 7 an addendum to the infrastructure improvement 00:00:45.764 --> 00:00:53.814 - on Roger Street and Grimes Lane TCR 26 13 an amendment to the Transportation Commission's bylaws TCR 00:00:53.814 --> 00:00:55.966 - 26 14 title 15 amendments. 00:00:56.130 --> 00:01:03.676 - to codify no parking on streets in Matlock Heights and the TCR 26 15 many title 15 to codify no parking 00:01:03.676 --> 00:01:11.005 - on Cottage Grove will then have discussion of topics not on the agenda including a report on on site 00:01:11.005 --> 00:01:18.623 - private parking at the current at Latimer will take up general public comment on items not on the docket 00:01:18.623 --> 00:01:20.510 - and then we will adjourn. 00:01:21.186 --> 00:01:29.129 - Let us start with reports and communications from commissioners. Is there any report of interesting 00:01:29.129 --> 00:01:37.310 - things or things to know on my right. Mr. Connell I'll just bring up speed. We launched our open paint 00:01:37.310 --> 00:01:45.253 - payment platform for Bloomington Transit so now you can ride by the tap of a credit card Google pay 00:01:45.253 --> 00:01:50.654 - phone. So it's looking pretty good. And that's happening right now. 00:01:51.970 --> 00:01:58.642 - Yeah, we launched last Monday Fantastic any other reports to my right mr. Binder I'll just compliment 00:01:58.642 --> 00:02:05.315 - planning transportation and engineering on the work. They've done so far on Rogers It's very exciting 00:02:05.315 --> 00:02:11.857 - to see a raised pedestrian crossing at Howe Street, which is where I live and I've been Petitioning 00:02:11.857 --> 00:02:18.791 - for a long time for that crossing to be improved. So it's wonderful to see that finally finally in action 00:02:18.791 --> 00:02:21.342 - and boots on the ground so yeah, my my 00:02:21.730 --> 00:02:29.564 - Sincere compliments. Thank you Mr. Binder on my left. Any reports. No I have no report. So let's now 00:02:29.564 --> 00:02:37.786 - move to reports from staff. We have a 180 day order update. I see Andrew Seaboard director of engineering 00:02:37.786 --> 00:02:45.930 - ready to present Andrew Seaboard city engineer. Just providing my monthly update on 180 day orders since 00:02:45.930 --> 00:02:49.886 - your last meeting. No new orders have been issued. 00:02:50.082 --> 00:02:57.130 - Though three previous issued orders were extended. Two of those are related to neighborhood Greenway 00:02:57.130 --> 00:03:04.526 - projects in the Park Ridge area. And another was related to a development project off of East 19th Street 00:03:04.526 --> 00:03:11.713 - and some some parking changes there. Just maybe a preview of what's to come pending some items on your 00:03:11.713 --> 00:03:17.854 - agenda today. Likely there would be some additional 180 day orders that will be issued. 00:03:17.986 --> 00:03:25.329 - In the coming weeks or months, there's also some Previously approved new subdivisions that may be close 00:03:25.329 --> 00:03:32.460 - to being accepted into the city's inventory and at that point we would issue orders for any new stop 00:03:32.460 --> 00:03:39.944 - signs or parking controls within those subdivisions and then also just an update that city administration 00:03:39.944 --> 00:03:45.310 - staff and City Council legal staff have engaged in some conversations about 00:03:45.442 --> 00:03:52.063 - Just this section of city code and the traffic Regulations and just excited to start making some progress 00:03:52.063 --> 00:03:58.372 - and in continuing those conversations with council staff and ultimately with some council members as 00:03:58.372 --> 00:04:04.619 - well So so more to come on that but just that those conversations are are moving along or and happy 00:04:04.619 --> 00:04:10.990 - to answer any questions that you have Thank You mr. Seabor for the report are there any questions for 00:04:10.990 --> 00:04:14.238 - the director engineering to my left to my right and 00:04:15.490 --> 00:04:23.507 - Did I hear right that you said subdivisions Correct there's some when new subdivisions are constructed 00:04:23.507 --> 00:04:31.291 - as we start to accept those new streets into our inventory we Need to make sure that the stop signs 00:04:31.291 --> 00:04:39.231 - and any parking controls are Reflected in this practice And we approve new subdivisions. They have an 00:04:39.231 --> 00:04:44.446 - obligation to build sidewalks and tree plots, right? Correct. Okay 00:04:45.602 --> 00:04:58.544 - Okay, I think that's it. Thank you so much. Great. Let's go now to cases. We'll start with TCP 2607. 00:04:58.544 --> 00:05:11.486 - Who is here to present? Hi there, Kendall Kenoki, Engineering Department. I am back. Two months ago, 00:05:11.874 --> 00:05:21.900 - I presented this project to you, so this is more of an update to a previous approval of the project. 00:05:21.900 --> 00:05:32.026 - There were several things. I think I'm sharing my screen, is that? Okay. So just to remind you of the 00:05:32.026 --> 00:05:41.854 - scope of the project, so this is primarily a maintenance project of Patterson, Grimes, and Rogers. 00:05:41.986 --> 00:05:47.477 - When I presented this project to you two months ago I kind of went over what we were doing and there 00:05:47.477 --> 00:05:53.131 - was two kind of areas of title 15 changes that we really hadn't Because of the speed at which we needed 00:05:53.131 --> 00:05:58.947 - to go with this project in order to secure some state funding We really hadn't done the public engagement. 00:05:58.947 --> 00:06:04.438 - We would have liked to before coming to the Transportation Commission So I've since done that public 00:06:04.438 --> 00:06:07.102 - engagement. So I'm coming back to you to kind of 00:06:07.266 --> 00:06:16.422 - update you on the results of that public engagement and then also inform you of kind of the final selected 00:06:16.422 --> 00:06:25.150 - design. So basically before you tonight is an approval of the amended project from what was presented 00:06:25.150 --> 00:06:33.878 - to you in March or maybe April, not March. So kind of gonna go over these three areas here. The first 00:06:33.878 --> 00:06:36.958 - is Rogers between second and third. 00:06:37.090 --> 00:06:43.629 - So this was an area where we were proposing to remove some on-street parking But if you talk to someone 00:06:43.629 --> 00:06:49.917 - who lives in the area, they will tell you we are actually removing a left-turn lane from northbound 00:06:49.917 --> 00:06:56.456 - Rogers into Onto westbound how it's actually not a left-turn lane their street parking on the east side 00:06:56.456 --> 00:07:02.744 - and then Kind of a taper for traffic to go around but it essentially functioned as a left-turn lane 00:07:02.744 --> 00:07:04.190 - so the proposal was to 00:07:05.570 --> 00:07:12.378 - This is what what was shown before but to eliminate the that parking Provide pedestrian refuge islands 00:07:12.378 --> 00:07:19.054 - and then taper the road over and maintain the street parking with bump outs After doing outreach the 00:07:19.054 --> 00:07:26.258 - updated design is essentially the same thing So there's no changes tonight in terms of title 15 or anything, 00:07:26.258 --> 00:07:31.678 - but I wanted to kind of go over what what resulted from that public engagement so 00:07:32.706 --> 00:07:38.723 - Kind of listed here, but attended a couple prospect Hill neighborhood association meetings sent some 00:07:38.723 --> 00:07:44.860 - mailings to adjacent residents Definitely had numerous phone calls and emails from the residents. That 00:07:44.860 --> 00:07:50.936 - was great We had lots of engagement kind of presented all of the different options that could be done 00:07:50.936 --> 00:07:56.894 - on this street that I've Touched on in April to you all But some of the takeaways here was that the 00:07:56.894 --> 00:08:02.494 - parking on Rogers was important to many residents maintaining turning for vehicles at how and 00:08:02.690 --> 00:08:09.973 - Rogers along with Smith and Prospect was important to the residents. They didn't want to see that cut 00:08:09.973 --> 00:08:17.113 - off. There was some desire to maintain the kind of left turn lane I described before, but there was 00:08:17.113 --> 00:08:24.538 - also kind of a more powerful desire for enhanced pedestrian crossings at that intersection. Green space 00:08:24.538 --> 00:08:31.678 - and street trees, if you're familiar with the corridor, it's definitely got some very mature trees. 00:08:32.162 --> 00:08:39.380 - That was very important to the residents and there's actually a pretty Consistent desire for some traffic 00:08:39.380 --> 00:08:46.394 - calming along this corridor. This is an arterial street But essentially what we've done with the final 00:08:46.394 --> 00:08:53.476 - design is kept it largely the same as what was shown to you But to kind of help facilitate that traffic 00:08:53.476 --> 00:09:00.286 - calming we did Extend the bump outs a little bit. So we still have two 11-foot travel lanes 22 feet 00:09:00.386 --> 00:09:06.632 - but they are a little bit wider out than they were before and the hope is that'll provide maybe a little 00:09:06.632 --> 00:09:12.759 - bit of traffic calming and I think For the future of this corridor. So this was a maintenance project. 00:09:12.759 --> 00:09:18.946 - This was kind of immediate improvements There's a larger corridor study going on as you're aware Rogers 00:09:18.946 --> 00:09:24.894 - Madison Kinzer and I've really encouraged the residents to get involved with that so that the final 00:09:24.894 --> 00:09:29.534 - long-term vision for this corridor can be you know come out of that study and 00:09:29.634 --> 00:09:35.961 - In the future long term we can work towards additional traffic calming or whatever is desired along 00:09:35.961 --> 00:09:42.415 - this corridor. So That's the update on Rogers between second and third really no change from what was 00:09:42.415 --> 00:09:46.718 - presented before the next location I can go back to the map here is 00:09:46.818 --> 00:09:53.401 - Rogers between Patterson and Dixie. So this is an area with existing on-street parking on the east side 00:09:53.401 --> 00:09:59.795 - The road kind of tapers over and then tapers back. It's not heavily utilized currently But we wanted 00:09:59.795 --> 00:10:06.378 - to get out and talk to some of the residents out there. So there's Some ways that I was able to do that 00:10:06.378 --> 00:10:12.708 - neighborhood association Constituent meeting we even did some tabling out there at switch yard park 00:10:12.708 --> 00:10:16.190 - for Grimes Lane But also talked to people about Rogers 00:10:16.546 --> 00:10:23.566 - The feedback we received is that the existing parking is not heavily used and most of the residents 00:10:23.566 --> 00:10:30.657 - Avoid parking there because they feel it's dangerous. There could be damage to their vehicles Didn't 00:10:30.657 --> 00:10:37.677 - encounter anyone who was opposed to eliminating that parking So as a result, this is what was shown 00:10:37.677 --> 00:10:40.766 - to you Is it April or March when I was here 00:10:41.602 --> 00:10:48.691 - I'm saying March here, but I think it was April. But anyway at the last meeting when I was here Nothing's 00:10:48.691 --> 00:10:55.579 - changed. So just wanted to kind of show that we are striping bike lanes in lieu of parking on the east 00:10:55.579 --> 00:11:02.601 - side of Rogers And then the third location here is Grimes Lane So this is a area where we were proposing 00:11:02.601 --> 00:11:08.286 - a lot of really cool safety improvements we've actually made some changes to that so 00:11:08.834 --> 00:11:15.396 - We are now showing the extension of an existing multi-use path on the north side of Patterson along 00:11:15.396 --> 00:11:22.155 - Grimes From Morton to the switch yard park entrance and then adding a raised crosswalk adjacent to the 00:11:22.155 --> 00:11:29.045 - switch yard park interests so this was prioritized by planning for pedestrian safety and traffic calming 00:11:29.045 --> 00:11:35.804 - and I can kind of show maybe here on the map so This is what was shown to you previously and then this 00:11:35.804 --> 00:11:38.494 - is this was the final design. So I think 00:11:38.658 --> 00:11:43.790 - You know, there's a grade-separated pedestrian crossing at this location, so it's kind of like, why 00:11:43.790 --> 00:11:48.563 - would you do a race crosswalk at this location? But when you look at kind of the network and 00:11:48.563 --> 00:11:54.003 - the connectivity, so there is a multi-use path that extends to the west, and the plan is for it to extend 00:11:54.003 --> 00:11:59.290 - to the east eventually, that you'd have to kind of loop all the way around if you're going to take the 00:11:59.290 --> 00:12:01.086 - B line, which most people are not. 00:12:01.186 --> 00:12:07.949 - Doing to access those areas if you're headed to new hope for families or Bloomington Transit Which are 00:12:07.949 --> 00:12:14.712 - a lot of people that cross there for that from the park. This is where you're crossing So there's kind 00:12:14.712 --> 00:12:21.540 - of some some connectivity things there with it and also just a desire for During peak times the traffic 00:12:21.540 --> 00:12:28.894 - congestion kind of does its own traffic calming but during non peak times ensuring that people are traveling at 00:12:29.058 --> 00:12:35.642 - Not excessive speeds in this corridor and doing this race crosswalk as part of this project. We ended 00:12:35.642 --> 00:12:42.483 - up I mean the cost savings it truly is very very reasonably priced to do it as part of the project rather 00:12:42.483 --> 00:12:49.132 - than as a standalone project so that that was something that changed in addition to all the as you can 00:12:49.132 --> 00:12:55.651 - see in green the curb line work and Dry vapor and sidewalk reconstruction. We were already proposing 00:12:55.651 --> 00:12:58.878 - so Yeah, we did some public outreach along Grimes 00:12:59.138 --> 00:13:07.396 - to kind of get the word out there We had coordination with police and fire about it and They had some 00:13:07.396 --> 00:13:15.491 - concerns, but we've alleviated those. We're not making this as as big of a bump As we could and and 00:13:15.491 --> 00:13:23.587 - kind of discussed target speeds over the crosswalk and things like that with them so with that that 00:13:23.587 --> 00:13:27.230 - is a summary of all the changes so tonight I 00:13:27.426 --> 00:13:35.501 - There's no changes to the title 15 approvals. You already did but there is a change in kind of the project 00:13:35.501 --> 00:13:43.199 - as a whole So it's an amendment to the approval of the project before you and I'm happy to answer any 00:13:43.199 --> 00:13:50.973 - questions Thank You. Mr. Kenoki. All right. Are there questions on this item from members to my right? 00:13:50.973 --> 00:13:53.086 - Mr. Binder Thanks very much 00:13:53.858 --> 00:14:01.103 - And I'll repeat that I'm very happy to see improvements made on Rogers lately. Can you help me understand 00:14:01.103 --> 00:14:08.142 - what criteria engineering uses when determining when to paint crosswalks and when not to? Because, for 00:14:08.142 --> 00:14:15.114 - example, I don't see crosswalks painted on the ground depicted at Dixie or Prospect, for example. But 00:14:15.114 --> 00:14:21.470 - there is a new one at Howe. And so, like, you know, Prospect or Smith, I mean, there are new 00:14:22.050 --> 00:14:28.639 - per bump outs, and I understand what you said earlier about horizontal deflection, traffic calming, 00:14:28.639 --> 00:14:35.492 - purpose that serves, but to me it seems like, especially when you add up everything against the pouring 00:14:35.492 --> 00:14:42.609 - of concrete and so on, painting a crosswalk doesn't seem like it would be much more to do, so I'm wondering 00:14:42.609 --> 00:14:49.396 - if that's still in the plan or could be considered in the future, and why one particular crossing gets 00:14:49.396 --> 00:14:51.966 - the crosswalk and another one doesn't? 00:14:52.162 --> 00:14:59.580 - get it painted? Yeah, yeah. I can help answer that. So crosswalks, there's a large variety of reasons 00:14:59.580 --> 00:15:07.507 - why we paint them and why we don't. Maintenance is a factor in crosswalks, but also the amount of pedestrian 00:15:07.507 --> 00:15:15.361 - traffic and also kind of where we're encouraging people to cross. So we typically don't stripe uncontrolled 00:15:15.361 --> 00:15:21.470 - crosswalks unless we have improved the crosswalk in some way. So a great example is 00:15:22.050 --> 00:15:28.752 - Here on 7th Street near City Hall. There's the beeline crossing and then there's another crossing West 00:15:28.752 --> 00:15:35.518 - of Madison for a long time that there was no crosswalk painted there There wasn't even a receiving curb 00:15:35.518 --> 00:15:42.090 - ramp, but when we added the curb ramp and added signage we painted the crosswalk to kind of go along 00:15:42.090 --> 00:15:47.230 - with those improvements because we've improved that crosswalk and so typically 00:15:47.522 --> 00:15:53.906 - we try to only paint crosswalks where we've done some kind of improvement. So at Howe, we're doing the 00:15:53.906 --> 00:16:00.166 - Refuge Islands, we're doing the signage, we're striping the crosswalks there. At Prospect and Smith, 00:16:00.166 --> 00:16:06.365 - yes we are doing the bump outs, but it's not a very high volume pedestrian crosswalk, and we really 00:16:06.365 --> 00:16:12.687 - would prefer pedestrians to cross at the most improved crosswalk at Howe and at Traffic Signals where 00:16:12.687 --> 00:16:15.166 - they have their own dedicated crossing. 00:16:15.362 --> 00:16:21.644 - It kind of is a balance between maintenance and volume of pedestrians. If we had an extreme number of 00:16:21.644 --> 00:16:27.864 - pedestrians crossing at Smith, if it was right in front of an IU building, we'd probably stripe that 00:16:27.864 --> 00:16:34.208 - crosswalk. And then also maintenance, I know that paint seems like it's not that big of a maintenance, 00:16:34.208 --> 00:16:40.490 - but we really try to get those crosswalks out of wheel paths because they fade very quickly and it is 00:16:40.490 --> 00:16:44.062 - a bit of a maintenance burden. So we try to be basically, 00:16:44.802 --> 00:16:50.272 - deliberate with where we're striping crosswalks. You don't want to stripe them everywhere. There is 00:16:50.272 --> 00:16:55.851 - some research behind crosswalks and if you're striping uncontrolled crosswalks without doing any kind 00:16:55.851 --> 00:17:01.431 - of improvements, it is either not making a difference or it may actually be less safe to stripe those 00:17:01.431 --> 00:17:07.448 - crosswalks is what some of the research has shown. So we really try to be deliberate with making improvements 00:17:07.448 --> 00:17:13.246 - to actually help the crossing rather than just throwing paint down and hoping that magically improves it. 00:17:14.178 --> 00:17:23.828 - Hopefully, that's helpful. There's a lot of considerations. I might email you later if you care to send 00:17:23.828 --> 00:17:33.570 - me some of that research. Thank you, Mr. Binder. Questions to my left? OK. I have a quick question about 00:17:33.570 --> 00:17:42.014 - the Grimes. I have to get to the right picture here. Right near the bridge for the B line. 00:17:42.114 --> 00:17:49.472 - Why wouldn't you put the crosswalk directly under the bridge. That probably is the ideal location from 00:17:49.472 --> 00:17:56.616 - a drainage standpoint. We really wanted to kind of align it with where it made sense. There is that 00:17:56.616 --> 00:18:02.974 - kind of large path that comes out of switch yard park and we are able to widen the path. 00:18:03.426 --> 00:18:09.189 - From the east and connect it here at this location So it just seemed to make the most sense from a crossing 00:18:09.189 --> 00:18:14.579 - standpoint Especially if you think about someone coming out of that path and then turning east which 00:18:14.579 --> 00:18:20.236 - believe it or not the few times I've been out there I've been out there two or three times doing outreach 00:18:20.236 --> 00:18:25.626 - for this and I've seen people come out and turn east And they're not gonna walk over to go under the 00:18:25.626 --> 00:18:31.069 - bridge and cross they're gonna try to cross You know what's most convenient for them. So we're trying 00:18:31.069 --> 00:18:32.190 - to maximize that and 00:18:33.090 --> 00:18:40.109 - Okay, that's no big deal. I just was curious any further questions from members Mr. Connell Excuse me. 00:18:40.109 --> 00:18:46.992 - I just wanted a first. Thank you for reaching out on the Grimes project but I just want to reiterate 00:18:46.992 --> 00:18:53.874 - the importance of Having access to get it in and out of our facility because there's only one way in 00:18:53.874 --> 00:19:00.757 - and there's only one way out and I hope that's strongly communicated to the contractors and That you 00:19:00.757 --> 00:19:03.006 - know, it's a number one priority 00:19:04.514 --> 00:19:13.406 - Would appreciate that Yep, absolutely Okay, if there's no other questions we'll go to the public for 00:19:13.406 --> 00:19:22.209 - comment There's no members of the public in the room if there's anyone online who'd like to comment 00:19:22.209 --> 00:19:31.013 - on this item TCR Sorry TCP 2607 Please raise your hand and zoom and you'll be called on you'll have 00:19:31.013 --> 00:19:32.862 - three minutes Nobody 00:19:33.570 --> 00:19:44.257 - Last call for public comment on TCP 2607 as it ended. I don't think that's the right word. Seeing none 00:19:44.257 --> 00:19:55.671 - we come back to the commission for final comments or a motion. I move that we approve the proposed amendments 00:19:55.671 --> 00:20:03.038 - to TCP 2607. Is there a second. Second. We have a motion and a second. 00:20:03.874 --> 00:20:15.041 - Will the if it's not the clerk, what should I refer to them as? Secretary the second the secretary, 00:20:15.041 --> 00:20:25.984 - please call the roll. I'll get used to this eventually Connell Yes finder. Yes Folan. Yes, Jimmy. 00:20:25.984 --> 00:20:32.126 - Yes Copic. Yes That passes 5-0 We move now to TCR 2613 00:20:32.226 --> 00:20:53.209 - Who is here to present on that, Mr. Kenoki? No? I think that might be me, sorry. Mr. Roebling. I'm catching 00:20:53.209 --> 00:20:56.318 - up. Okay. Okay. 00:20:57.762 --> 00:21:05.501 - Brian Merlbling, Planning Services Manager. We have a bylaws update. It's been about a year since we 00:21:05.501 --> 00:21:13.776 - adopted our bylaws and so we've learned some lessons and we have some fixes based on those lessons learned. 00:21:13.776 --> 00:21:21.744 - Two relatively minor ones that are, one's an oversight, one is a misunderstanding of what would happen. 00:21:21.744 --> 00:21:26.878 - So the first is based off of the Kirkwood conversation that we had 00:21:27.170 --> 00:21:35.333 - Earlier this month with tcr 2612 where council members were bringing forward a title 15 amendment And 00:21:35.333 --> 00:21:43.497 - our rules had no formal Method for them to bring forward anything which obviously they are allowed to 00:21:43.497 --> 00:21:51.580 - amend title 15 but title 2 Requires that this body review any title 15 amendment first and so it led 00:21:51.580 --> 00:21:56.542 - to this confusing handoff where no one was really sure how to 00:21:56.674 --> 00:22:04.258 - move that to from council to this body. And so thankfully Commissioner Rolland is on top of it. But 00:22:04.258 --> 00:22:11.919 - this will alleviate that and now staff can reach out to council members and have that handoff happen 00:22:11.919 --> 00:22:19.882 - smoother. And then the second one is related to the Indiana Avenue safety project which is T.C.P. twenty 00:22:19.882 --> 00:22:21.854 - six ten if you'll recall. 00:22:22.210 --> 00:22:30.015 - You this body sent it back to staff for further consideration And as they weren't as you weren't satisfied 00:22:30.015 --> 00:22:37.310 - with the design as it stood, so we're still dealing with that we haven't Come up with a solution to 00:22:37.310 --> 00:22:44.896 - bring back to this body, but we will at some point but in the meantime we it we became aware that there 00:22:44.896 --> 00:22:50.878 - was an issue where the body might never agree with the findings and might want to 00:22:52.002 --> 00:22:59.434 - for all intents and purposes adopt a negative finding while still allowing the city engineer to move 00:22:59.434 --> 00:23:06.865 - forward with a project since the transportation commission doesn't really have the ability to cancel 00:23:06.865 --> 00:23:14.297 - a project. So this fix will do that and my screen will switch. There we go. I'll show both of those. 00:23:14.297 --> 00:23:19.006 - They're in red in the packet. The first one is to article four. 00:23:19.490 --> 00:23:27.210 - A2 and then it's just adding the line members of common council similar to members of this body or staff 00:23:27.210 --> 00:23:34.637 - will be able to bring forward resolutions Again, that was just an oversight didn't think about it at 00:23:34.637 --> 00:23:42.136 - the time And then the second one is in D1 D which will add a new motion for petitions Which is D find 00:23:42.136 --> 00:23:49.342 - the petition does not satisfy all approval criteria. So if all other avenues are explored and the 00:23:50.050 --> 00:23:58.551 - Transportation Commission does not believe that the proposal meets all of the required criteria they 00:23:58.551 --> 00:24:06.969 - can find negative findings in this case and allow the petition to go on and And meet the real world 00:24:06.969 --> 00:24:15.386 - and I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you for the presentation are there questions to my left 00:24:15.386 --> 00:24:17.406 - on TCR 2613 to my right 00:24:19.490 --> 00:24:30.442 - Okay I think I have one I get the ability of the members of the common council to to bring a resolution 00:24:30.442 --> 00:24:42.026 - because we have an obligation to I mean it is our obligation according to city code to vet any transportation 00:24:42.026 --> 00:24:46.238 - related ordinance right. Correct. Yeah. 00:24:46.882 --> 00:24:55.242 - Now with the other part, so this is an article for section D decisions. You talk about this new addition 00:24:55.242 --> 00:25:03.364 - that we can approve approve with refinement considerations refer the matter back to staff for further 00:25:03.364 --> 00:25:11.406 - refinement and now find that the petition does not satisfy all approval criteria. Why is it that the 00:25:11.406 --> 00:25:14.750 - this body can't simply reject a petition? 00:25:16.034 --> 00:25:23.238 - The simple answer is that all engineering or excuse me infrastructure related decisions via state code 00:25:23.238 --> 00:25:30.791 - are assigned to the city engineer. And so the city engineer has ultimate authority. So if the city engineer 00:25:30.791 --> 00:25:37.785 - were to deem something appropriate then they alone can approve it. So this would allow you to weigh 00:25:37.785 --> 00:25:43.870 - in on that but not allow you to prevent it. Sorry go ahead. That's a good explanation. 00:25:44.162 --> 00:25:55.010 - Our enabling legislation is purely locally related local ordinance and state code doesn't require the 00:25:55.010 --> 00:26:05.751 - engineer to get our approval but it doesn't necessarily. Well I guess what I'm trying to ask is does 00:26:05.751 --> 00:26:10.750 - local code compel the engineer in any way. No. 00:26:10.946 --> 00:26:18.843 - Mr. Seaborg can correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe state code in my reading of state code it is 00:26:18.843 --> 00:26:26.345 - very clear that the city engineer alone has authority and doesn't allow the engineer to ignore 00:26:26.345 --> 00:26:34.636 - the Transportation Commission. It's silent on that. So it's simply what local code has said. It requires 00:26:34.636 --> 00:26:40.638 - this process regardless of our recommendation. No matter what we decide the 00:26:40.770 --> 00:26:48.114 - Items still have to come before this body correct, even though the final decision rests with the engineer, 00:26:48.114 --> 00:26:55.389 - correct? Yes, sorry misunderstood the question. Okay, that's a good explanation Okay, any other questions 00:26:55.389 --> 00:27:02.321 - to my left to my right? If none we'll go to the public for comment now again no one in chambers from 00:27:02.321 --> 00:27:06.302 - the public is anybody online if you have a comment on the 00:27:06.818 --> 00:27:15.480 - TCR 26 13, please use the raise hand function in zoom You'll be called on you'll have three minutes 00:27:15.480 --> 00:27:24.142 - to speak No raised hands last call for comments Coming back to the body TCR 26 13 any comments from 00:27:24.142 --> 00:27:32.891 - members To my right to my left. All right so I talked with Mr. Roebling about this a week ago, and I 00:27:32.891 --> 00:27:35.230 - didn't really have time to 00:27:35.650 --> 00:27:43.909 - to address it, although I really appreciate the explanation he gave today, because that was clarifying. 00:27:43.909 --> 00:27:51.930 - But I do wish that there was a way to simplify the decision matrix that we have built for this body, 00:27:51.930 --> 00:28:00.030 - because it's a pretty busy and involved set of decisions we have to make. But it's something that can 00:28:00.030 --> 00:28:04.318 - wait. We can do another bylaw revision as we see fit. 00:28:05.282 --> 00:28:14.890 - With that I'm looking for a recommendation on this resolution a Motion I should say is there a motion 00:28:14.890 --> 00:28:24.498 - on TCR to approve The motion is there a second second. We have motion in a second. Will the secretary 00:28:24.498 --> 00:28:32.222 - please call the roll? Finder yes Bowen. Yes drumming. Yes Copic. Yes Connell. Yes 00:28:34.210 --> 00:28:42.203 - And that resolution passes five zero as well. We now move on to TCR 26 14 who is presenting title 15 00:28:42.203 --> 00:28:50.195 - amendments on Matlock Heights. All right. Traffic engineer at the engineering department for Matlock 00:28:50.195 --> 00:28:58.267 - Heights. We're proposing to restrict parking for the entire neighborhood on one side of the street in 00:28:58.267 --> 00:29:00.958 - order to maintain vehicle access. 00:29:01.218 --> 00:29:07.467 - while still allowing some on-street parking. What triggered this is that the Neighborhood Association 00:29:07.467 --> 00:29:13.593 - brought their concerns that during football games, there was a lot of parking going on and it would 00:29:13.593 --> 00:29:19.964 - restrict vehicle access. When vehicles would park on both sides of the streets, neighbors and emergency 00:29:19.964 --> 00:29:26.212 - vehicles weren't able to pass through the street, or if they were, it was very narrow. In response to 00:29:26.212 --> 00:29:29.214 - this concern, we went out and evaluated the road 00:29:29.602 --> 00:29:35.869 - and took a look at the width of the road, as well as locations for driveways, mailboxes, and 00:29:35.869 --> 00:29:42.742 - other conditions. And after that, we are proposing that there be no parking restrictions, sorry, that 00:29:42.742 --> 00:29:49.953 - we put in no parking restrictions for the entire neighborhood on one side of the streets. The neighborhood 00:29:49.953 --> 00:29:56.691 - has very low parking demand, except for on game days. And we looked into permanent solutions versus 00:29:56.691 --> 00:29:59.454 - just game day only parking restrictions, 00:29:59.650 --> 00:30:06.224 - Currently we're proposing to do permanent no parking. This will be easier for parking enforcement and 00:30:06.224 --> 00:30:12.797 - it will be consistent with other locations in the city for outreach. We shared our proposed idea with 00:30:12.797 --> 00:30:19.435 - the representative from the neighborhood association and we also sent out mailers to the residents and 00:30:19.435 --> 00:30:26.718 - the feedback that we heard was mostly about the location of signs and no concerns about the restrictions itself. 00:30:28.354 --> 00:30:40.469 - I'm happy to take any questions. Thanks for the presentation. Other questions on TCR 26 14 to my right 00:30:40.469 --> 00:30:52.466 - Mr. Connell crazy it can be. Is there an enforcement strategy because you know I think people tend to 00:30:52.466 --> 00:30:57.406 - just find parking and I was just curious. 00:31:00.930 --> 00:31:09.338 - My understanding is that for this if residents see people parking and they're blocking the street that 00:31:09.338 --> 00:31:17.582 - they can call in for parking enforcement and then they'll come out. Questions to my left. So I guess 00:31:17.582 --> 00:31:26.235 - I want to know when somebody I mean do they do people respond quickly when there's a complaint of illegal 00:31:26.235 --> 00:31:30.398 - parking in a neighborhood like this on a game day. 00:31:30.946 --> 00:31:38.325 - Do you know I'm not aware of that but I can find that out. Yeah I think it'll be interesting for us 00:31:38.325 --> 00:31:45.777 - to know because Mr. Connell makes a good point. Do people tend to violate no parking restrictions on 00:31:45.777 --> 00:31:53.229 - a day like that. I would also not. I'm not sure about that but I can find out. Yeah that's something 00:31:53.229 --> 00:31:59.870 - I'd like to know. And regardless of how we dispose of this today I think it would be good 00:32:00.162 --> 00:32:07.134 - to report the next meeting, follow up on that info. Further questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the 00:32:07.134 --> 00:32:14.594 - public for comment on TCR 2614. There's no one in the room. If there's anyone online who'd like to comment 00:32:14.594 --> 00:32:22.124 - on amending Title 15 to codify no parking on streets in Matlock Heights, please use the raise hand function 00:32:22.124 --> 00:32:29.096 - in Zoom and you'll be called on. You'll have three minutes. Mr. Robles, is there anybody in Zoom at 00:32:29.096 --> 00:32:30.142 - all, let alone 00:32:31.394 --> 00:32:41.706 - Who's raising their hand. That's a no. We'll come back to the commission for comments and debate. And 00:32:41.706 --> 00:32:52.018 - if there is none for a motion on this resolution I'll move to approve it. Second we have a motion and 00:32:52.018 --> 00:33:00.510 - a second. Will the secretary please call the roll on TCR 26 14. Yes. Drumming. Yes. 00:33:01.570 --> 00:33:09.193 - Copic? Yes. Connell? Yes. Binder? Yes. That too passes five to zero. Let's move on now to TCR 2615, 00:33:09.193 --> 00:33:17.120 - title 15 amendments on no parking on Cottage Grove. Mr. Roebling, I assume this is yours too? No? Who's 00:33:17.120 --> 00:33:24.896 - presenting this? Oh, sorry, Mr. Garzi. Sorry. John Garzi, traffic engineer. For Cottage Grove, we are 00:33:24.896 --> 00:33:31.070 - proposing to move the parking from the north side of the block to the south side 00:33:31.266 --> 00:33:37.824 - for the three blocks of Cottage Grove between Lincoln and Indiana. This will move people that are biking 00:33:37.824 --> 00:33:44.382 - outside of the parked vehicle zone area. And we are doing this in response because the streets are being 00:33:44.382 --> 00:33:50.628 - repaved and then they'll be restriped afterwards. And we're using this as an opportunity to improve 00:33:50.628 --> 00:33:57.310 - the bike lane. Our proposal is not gonna be removing any parking. It's going to reduce the risk of someone 00:33:57.310 --> 00:33:58.622 - biking being doored. 00:33:59.170 --> 00:34:06.558 - and overall improve comfort for people that are biking and for people that are driving. The section 00:34:06.558 --> 00:34:13.946 - of Indiana to forest is going to remain unchanged. And since we're doing this as part of the paving 00:34:13.946 --> 00:34:21.482 - project, it's going to help to minimize additional costs and disruption. For outreach, we emailed the 00:34:21.482 --> 00:34:28.574 - affected property owners and residents. And in support, we heard one resident respond that they 00:34:29.378 --> 00:34:36.941 - that they bike to and from the university on a regular basis and that they like this idea. And we didn't 00:34:36.941 --> 00:34:44.217 - have anything in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. If there are any questions to my left on TCR 2615 00:34:44.217 --> 00:34:51.780 - to my right, seeing none. Is there any member of the public who had to comment on TCR 2615? Please raise 00:34:51.780 --> 00:34:55.742 - your hand. If you are on zoom and you'd like to speak, 00:34:58.082 --> 00:35:06.201 - Seeing none and no members of the public in the chambers who come back to the Commission for debate 00:35:06.201 --> 00:35:14.320 - Is there any final comment or a motion on TCR 2615? Maybe we can get a motion for the left side for 00:35:14.320 --> 00:35:22.683 - once Can we get a second from the left side here Second the motion. We have a motion in a second. Will 00:35:22.683 --> 00:35:27.230 - the secretary please call the roll on TCR 2615 drumming 00:35:27.682 --> 00:35:35.863 - Yes Copic. Yes, Connell. Yes finder. Yes, Volin. Yes That's 5-0 in favor and that passes as well. We 00:35:35.863 --> 00:35:44.044 - now move to discussion of topics not on the docket There any items from commissioners that they want 00:35:44.044 --> 00:35:52.387 - to talk about that. We have not put on the agenda Like I said, I'm going to want to address to tighten 00:35:52.387 --> 00:35:53.278 - some other 00:35:53.602 --> 00:36:01.867 - Minor bylaws issues as we have time I would like to ask when is our next scheduled meeting or when our 00:36:01.867 --> 00:36:10.534 - next scheduled meetings maybe the next two because I think there's a planning session coming up or planning 00:36:10.534 --> 00:36:18.719 - hearing Nothing yet for planning session and then I don't know the date I think Iris is pulling it up 00:36:18.719 --> 00:36:23.454 - The next planned Commission meeting I see is for July 27th 00:36:23.746 --> 00:36:31.318 - Plan Commission, did you say the regular hearing our regular here? Yeah, sorry. Yeah, okay, but there's 00:36:31.318 --> 00:36:38.599 - no we don't know whether there's gonna be a Planning a session before that There is no plan for one 00:36:38.599 --> 00:36:46.099 - to be before that if there's if that changes well, there's one after that though in August, right? Yes 00:36:46.099 --> 00:36:53.598 - after that we should have one but nothing between now and then unless something changes and because of 00:36:54.626 --> 00:37:03.897 - City budget hearings we have chosen not to schedule a regular hearing in August. Right. So July. Yeah. 00:37:03.897 --> 00:37:13.167 - OK. So July 27th is our next meeting at 530 in these chambers. Right. OK. So that and the deadline for 00:37:13.167 --> 00:37:22.348 - submitting things would be January or July 13th or July. What's the date for. I'm looking this up now 00:37:22.348 --> 00:37:23.518 - on the 10th. 00:37:24.066 --> 00:37:30.360 - Yeah, thank you, it is the 10th. It is now on our Transportation Commission calendar. So when you go 00:37:30.360 --> 00:37:36.591 - to the Transportation Commission website, on the panel, the right-hand side of the page, you'll see 00:37:36.591 --> 00:37:43.259 - meeting notices, upcoming meetings. I've also co-opted that script so that our deadlines are more visible, 00:37:43.259 --> 00:37:50.238 - easier to access, and generally remember. But I would like to recommend that anyone who's using Google Calendar 00:37:50.402 --> 00:37:57.464 - Click through to view those events on Google Calendar. You can add and subscribe to that calendar on 00:37:57.464 --> 00:38:04.806 - your own so you get updates Without having to search for them. They'll just show up in your own calendar 00:38:04.806 --> 00:38:12.218 - The deadline is now 17 days for the meeting on the 10th. Is that the regular? the regular It is generally 00:38:12.218 --> 00:38:19.070 - three weeks before A holiday holidays tend to move that a few days one way or the other sometimes 00:38:19.746 --> 00:38:26.476 - Okay, any other items for discussion, Mr. Drummey? I have a discussion item. I don't know if it's appropriate 00:38:26.476 --> 00:38:32.595 - or not, but more of just honestly a discussion. I use the e-Report system for work sometimes and it 00:38:32.595 --> 00:38:38.836 - used to be able to search the e-Report system and it used to have a mapping function to look at where 00:38:38.836 --> 00:38:45.199 - various reports have been made and placed. And it seems like that's no longer working. I mean, it looks 00:38:45.199 --> 00:38:49.054 - like you can still search, but it doesn't seem to really work. 00:38:49.154 --> 00:38:54.832 - And the mapping feature seems to not be working and I submitted a you report about the you report and 00:38:54.832 --> 00:39:00.565 - I think it ended up in the technology part ITS department or whatever that is. And they basically said 00:39:00.565 --> 00:39:06.188 - we just have to rebuild the system and there's no timeline to do that. But is anyone else. I mean it 00:39:06.188 --> 00:39:07.134 - might just be a. 00:39:07.330 --> 00:39:14.094 - You know a problem with my chrome or something. Is anyone else having that experience? Is that an intern 00:39:14.094 --> 00:39:20.536 - several members of staff in the room? Does anybody have any feedback on this? Well, while I'm not a 00:39:20.536 --> 00:39:26.978 - representative of ITS I can speak to this a little bit because what you're experiencing was part of 00:39:26.978 --> 00:39:33.614 - the city's effort to meet that April compliance deadline for ADA accessibility and you report was very 00:39:33.614 --> 00:39:36.126 - non-compliant and as a consequence ITS 00:39:36.322 --> 00:39:43.700 - disabled features that would open up the city to liability and With respect to a schedule for implementing 00:39:43.700 --> 00:39:50.733 - something new I'll just echo what you heard is that there probably isn't a schedule right now because 00:39:50.733 --> 00:39:57.766 - it's not a priority but I do understand that staff have access to some features that the public don't 00:39:57.766 --> 00:40:02.110 - and part of that has to do with that compliance obligation and 00:40:03.266 --> 00:40:10.367 - Understand that the compliance deadline was moved back an entire year. Why couldn't those features be 00:40:10.367 --> 00:40:17.330 - re-enabled? one interpretation that I've heard is that while the Justice Department may not move on 00:40:17.330 --> 00:40:24.292 - Prosecuting any cases that lawsuits can still be filed or cases can still be filed against the city 00:40:24.292 --> 00:40:30.558 - So it's more of a matter of trying to be proactive and diligent but if there are specific 00:40:30.658 --> 00:40:38.146 - types of information that staff can readily research for you, that would be a great opportunity to utilize 00:40:38.146 --> 00:40:45.144 - the public records request portal. And that can involve more departments than just ITS. That is one 00:40:45.144 --> 00:40:52.492 - limitation of UReport, is that it's sending one message to one staff member, whereas the records request 00:40:52.492 --> 00:40:59.070 - system actually involves, it activates like six or seven different staff members all at once. 00:41:08.290 --> 00:41:14.396 - Do you have more thoughts, Mr. Jimmy? I always have more thoughts, but no, I appreciate the explanation. 00:41:14.396 --> 00:41:20.268 - I, um, I wasn't aware of the 80 or the background information. So no, I, um, I hope it gets, I mean, 00:41:20.268 --> 00:41:26.316 - it was useful to be, I mean, not just for war, just as a, as a, it seems like maybe that message should 00:41:26.316 --> 00:41:31.724 - be conveyed to the public that, cause like right now I can search something and be like, Oh, 00:41:31.724 --> 00:41:35.038 - there's nothing, you know, if I search my name, there's, 00:41:35.138 --> 00:41:40.810 - I'm not listening to your report. I know I'm listening to some of your reports. So maybe we need to 00:41:40.810 --> 00:41:46.539 - do a better job of conveying those limitations. I think that that's feedback that ITS needs to hear. 00:41:46.539 --> 00:41:52.267 - So I just recommend that people continue to send that feedback to the department. It's good for them 00:41:52.267 --> 00:41:58.223 - to know that these resources are relied upon because sometimes certain departments only receive negative 00:41:58.223 --> 00:42:04.065 - kinds of feedback. And that is what's driving their priorities. Knowing that this is a valued resource 00:42:04.065 --> 00:42:05.086 - that maybe should 00:42:05.346 --> 00:42:12.949 - take up more of their time. That's a different kind of feedback that they would they would appreciate 00:42:12.949 --> 00:42:20.627 - hearing. Can I simply ask on behalf of Mr. Drummond and the commission that staff directly convey this 00:42:20.627 --> 00:42:28.156 - discussion to I.T.S. Yeah. I mean passing our minutes send a note just say look this is a concern. I 00:42:28.156 --> 00:42:33.598 - can follow up. Yeah. OK. Thank you. Any further items not on the docket. 00:42:33.794 --> 00:42:43.727 - I've got one if not, I would like to make a formal request for something that we were accustomed to 00:42:43.727 --> 00:42:54.057 - at the parking commission, which is data, parking data. The commission had access to data through 2022. 00:42:54.057 --> 00:43:03.294 - So the past three years worth of meter and garage usage data, both summarized and raw files, 00:43:03.810 --> 00:43:12.489 - would be something that would be of interest. I don't know if they have any plans for, I know that parking 00:43:12.489 --> 00:43:20.843 - services is thinking about having new equipment purchased, but that historic data is still of use. And 00:43:20.843 --> 00:43:28.954 - in the past, I've spoken with people at ITS who said, yes, we could make that data available to you 00:43:28.954 --> 00:43:32.766 - in a graphic form if we just had access to it. 00:43:33.122 --> 00:43:41.686 - So I guess while you're writing ITS, could you also make the request to parking services for that data 00:43:41.686 --> 00:43:50.001 - and make sure that it gets to ITS so they can see what they can do with it? And certainly we'd love 00:43:50.001 --> 00:43:58.814 - to have a meeting to discuss what can and should be done with it. On that topic, I have already scheduled 00:43:58.978 --> 00:44:06.176 - coordination collaboration meeting with parking services and ESD staff for September to get together 00:44:06.176 --> 00:44:13.516 - and ITS staff to get together and exactly tackle that question of providing data to the Commission and 00:44:13.516 --> 00:44:20.927 - eventually scheduling a planning session for the Production of the annual parking report Thank you very 00:44:20.927 --> 00:44:28.766 - much for for thinking that far ahead that's exactly what I was hoping for any further items not on the docket 00:44:30.210 --> 00:44:38.298 - If not once again, the next meeting is July 27th deadline for submitting items is July 10th and mr. 00:44:38.298 --> 00:44:46.386 - Roebling has a Oh, I'm so sorry I skipped the report the discussion of I almost got away with it to 00:44:46.386 --> 00:44:53.342 - the staff has a discussion of items on the docket the current at Latimer mr. Roebling 00:44:53.794 --> 00:45:01.944 - Yeah, thank you. Ryan Roebling, planning services manager. This is actually, uh, was generated from 00:45:01.944 --> 00:45:10.339 - a commissioner of Olin. Um, it's, uh, was a request for an inquiry, um, and about the current Latimer. 00:45:10.339 --> 00:45:18.897 - I'm not sharing my screen. Hang on. Sorry. Uh, which is on third street here. It, um, is this area right 00:45:18.897 --> 00:45:21.342 - here. Former Kmart site. Yep. 00:45:21.634 --> 00:45:29.075 - just south of Blooming Foods on Third Street. It has a number of parking spaces. Mr. Volin's request 00:45:29.075 --> 00:45:36.589 - for an inquiry, this is mostly just a conversation to Mr. Volin, Commissioner Volin, but it took long 00:45:36.589 --> 00:45:44.177 - enough that I felt it necessary to bring it up and ask for clarification. The specific request was for 00:45:44.177 --> 00:45:47.934 - an inquiry on the number of parking spaces and the 00:45:48.962 --> 00:45:59.027 - the usage of the parking on-site we The zoning code at the time and currently right now requires a number 00:45:59.027 --> 00:46:09.187 - of parking spaces. There was 617 bedrooms proposed in that Development and the UDO requires half a parking 00:46:09.187 --> 00:46:18.302 - space per bedroom and so that would make the range from 309 parking spaces to 500 and a handful 00:46:18.530 --> 00:46:26.955 - Of acceptable parking spaces and they provided on-site 385 on the parking in parking structure and then 00:46:26.955 --> 00:46:35.056 - a hundred off-site adjacent to the in the lot adjacent to be foods So it's about 500 and just under 00:46:35.056 --> 00:46:43.238 - 500 total spaces and then oh, sorry That's also they provided some on-street parking on the internal 00:46:43.238 --> 00:46:45.182 - drives. So 527 all told 00:46:46.178 --> 00:46:53.214 - Commissioner Roland asked that I reach out and determine how much how utilized their parking was that 00:46:53.214 --> 00:47:00.457 - has proved difficult. So the real question is and to do a full inquiry like I would normally do. That'll 00:47:00.457 --> 00:47:04.734 - be hard since I'll need private data that I can't easily get. 00:47:04.994 --> 00:47:11.766 - So I guess the question is, is there any other data that would be suitable and would you like me to 00:47:11.766 --> 00:47:18.673 - look at other sites that had a similar requirement? There's a handful around PUDs specifically on the 00:47:18.673 --> 00:47:25.581 - same side of town or are you open to it being student housing anywhere or apartments anywhere? That's 00:47:25.581 --> 00:47:32.353 - a lot of questions. Let me try to answer one at a time. First of all, does the PUD have anything to 00:47:32.353 --> 00:47:34.046 - say about whether or not 00:47:34.594 --> 00:47:42.901 - The landlord is able to package parking with an apartment or whether they are required to sell it separately 00:47:42.901 --> 00:47:50.903 - from rent. This development was by right. It's in the MC zoning district. It started as a PD. Originally 00:47:50.903 --> 00:47:58.601 - the first rumblings were a PD and then the zoning map change allowed a similar development by right. 00:47:58.601 --> 00:48:03.326 - So the UDO does not have that requirement and there is no PD. 00:48:04.482 --> 00:48:11.779 - Okay, so we can't compel them to tell us how many permits they have sold or given out. Correct. But 00:48:11.779 --> 00:48:19.294 - we can at least keep trying to ask them. Do we know if the management is nearby or far away? I believe 00:48:19.294 --> 00:48:26.883 - they are on site. They just have not responded so far. I don't have contacts for this developer. I have 00:48:26.883 --> 00:48:34.398 - contacts for other developers, which is why. If you want, I could visit them with a Denver boot. Sure. 00:48:34.562 --> 00:48:41.233 - Okay, maybe compel info just kidding. Just kidding. Just kidding. But more importantly you asked about 00:48:41.233 --> 00:48:48.033 - a broader question. Can you restate the question? Yeah, I think I like I said, I have contacts for other 00:48:48.033 --> 00:48:54.510 - developers I might be able to pull up some similar data if we're open to that since I can't find it 00:48:54.510 --> 00:49:01.310 - for this specific location and that will maybe help answer some of the questions about required parking. 00:49:02.498 --> 00:49:09.825 - I mean any data we can get is better than what we have now. So because ultimately and this is the big 00:49:09.825 --> 00:49:16.649 - question I want to ask at some point in a more formal way. Would it be possible for us to make 00:49:16.649 --> 00:49:23.975 - new developments require the breaking out of parking from rent. In other words so that let alone that 00:49:23.975 --> 00:49:31.230 - we can require the reporting of parking. I mean it's an expensive resource it's a valuable resource. 00:49:31.618 --> 00:49:39.925 - We should be able to measure that value and see what kind of trips are generated by the parking that 00:49:39.925 --> 00:49:48.562 - we permit. So what is staff's opinion on this idea and how likely is it for us to be able to do. I would 00:49:48.562 --> 00:49:51.934 - need to look into the rules and code to. 00:49:52.034 --> 00:49:59.379 - But it's something we could certainly explore and I'm happy to bring forward in an inquiry a proper 00:49:59.379 --> 00:50:07.164 - inquiry next time. That'd be great whenever I While while we're here and mr. Connell is here. Mr. Connell 00:50:07.164 --> 00:50:15.390 - Do you have any sense of how bus passenger traffic is in this area? Latimer Is the occupancy rates pretty low I 00:50:16.642 --> 00:50:27.116 - Yeah, I think they have a lot of last I heard was that they're there I think 50 60 percent occupancy 00:50:27.116 --> 00:50:38.316 - so Measurable do you have the ability to measure? Ridership coming from there. Yes. We actually we actually 00:50:38.316 --> 00:50:45.886 - met with them Shortly after they got ready to launch to discuss possible 00:50:46.306 --> 00:50:56.717 - Partnership agreement for universal access prepay fares but it was never executed and we did prepare 00:50:56.717 --> 00:51:07.026 - a route and a cost but they eventually chose to contract with Go Express but they're not even doing 00:51:07.026 --> 00:51:13.726 - that now. So that leads me to believe that the occupancy rate is 00:51:14.306 --> 00:51:22.622 - is relatively low for whatever reason. Thank you for that feedback. Yeah I think that would be an interesting 00:51:22.622 --> 00:51:30.333 - aspect of an eventual inquiry but we can talk about setting one up. I don't have enough to to to make 00:51:30.333 --> 00:51:38.120 - an inquiry to ask for an inquiry right now. But that doesn't mean we can't set one up between meetings 00:51:38.120 --> 00:51:41.598 - right. OK. Any other items not on the docket. 00:51:43.394 --> 00:51:51.577 - Seeing none. Once again, next meeting is July 27th in this chamber at 5 30 p.m. Deadline for submissions 00:51:51.577 --> 00:51:59.605 - to the meeting is July 10th at 5 p.m. And you can send to transportation commission at Bloomington dot 00:51:59.605 --> 00:52:07.554 - gov. I get that right. We are asking that commissioners use the form that we've provided that is also 00:52:07.554 --> 00:52:12.542 - included in the event calendar listing. So just for track back. 00:52:12.738 --> 00:52:20.066 - purposes and members of the public don't have access to that form. And so we asked that if members of 00:52:20.066 --> 00:52:27.825 - the public would like to coordinate putting something on the agenda they coordinate that with commissioners 00:52:27.825 --> 00:52:35.081 - directly so that commissioners have sort of like a hand in you know coordinating whatever members of 00:52:35.081 --> 00:52:39.966 - the public may need in terms of participating in the meeting fully. 00:52:40.962 --> 00:52:48.150 - So once again, if members of public want to email transportation dot transportation dot commission at 00:52:48.150 --> 00:52:55.408 - Bloomington dot ion dot gov any commissioner can take up their concern and ask for something to be put 00:52:55.408 --> 00:53:02.737 - on the agenda. Yeah. Generally speaking. Yeah. And typically when members of the public email us that's 00:53:02.737 --> 00:53:09.150 - generally the public comment. And so those do appear in the packet when we receive them if 00:53:09.250 --> 00:53:14.580 - member of the public requested that something be circulated with commissioners. That is typically how 00:53:14.580 --> 00:53:20.120 - we would do it. And then commissioners would have an opportunity to follow up with members of the public. 00:53:20.120 --> 00:53:25.398 - OK. But I mean if somebody emails that address it'll go to us automatically or you'll forward to us. 00:53:25.398 --> 00:53:30.624 - It would just come to staff because we don't have commissioners set up within our system to receive 00:53:30.624 --> 00:53:35.902 - mail from the Google group. So you will forward to us whenever we get a comment. Yes. OK. OK. Seeing 00:53:35.902 --> 00:53:39.038 - none see no other comments. This this meeting is adjourned.