This meeting will come to order. This is the June meeting of the regular session of the Bloomington
Transportation Commission. Can we please have a call of the roll. Copic here. Connell binder here. Bowlin
here. Drummey here. We have a quorum.
The agenda is as follows. We'll hear a 180 day order update from staff under reports and commissions.
We have several cases to consider tonight. Case A is TCP 26 0 7 an addendum to the infrastructure improvement
on Roger Street and Grimes Lane TCR 26 13 an amendment to the Transportation Commission's bylaws TCR
26 14 title 15 amendments.
to codify no parking on streets in Matlock Heights and the TCR 26 15 many title 15 to codify no parking
on Cottage Grove will then have discussion of topics not on the agenda including a report on on site
private parking at the current at Latimer will take up general public comment on items not on the docket
and then we will adjourn.
Let us start with reports and communications from commissioners. Is there any report of interesting
things or things to know on my right. Mr. Connell I'll just bring up speed. We launched our open paint
payment platform for Bloomington Transit so now you can ride by the tap of a credit card Google pay
phone. So it's looking pretty good. And that's happening right now.
Yeah, we launched last Monday Fantastic any other reports to my right mr. Binder I'll just compliment
planning transportation and engineering on the work. They've done so far on Rogers It's very exciting
to see a raised pedestrian crossing at Howe Street, which is where I live and I've been Petitioning
for a long time for that crossing to be improved. So it's wonderful to see that finally finally in action
and boots on the ground so yeah, my my
Sincere compliments. Thank you Mr. Binder on my left. Any reports. No I have no report. So let's now
move to reports from staff. We have a 180 day order update. I see Andrew Seaboard director of engineering
ready to present Andrew Seaboard city engineer. Just providing my monthly update on 180 day orders since
your last meeting. No new orders have been issued.
Though three previous issued orders were extended. Two of those are related to neighborhood Greenway
projects in the Park Ridge area. And another was related to a development project off of East 19th Street
and some some parking changes there. Just maybe a preview of what's to come pending some items on your
agenda today. Likely there would be some additional 180 day orders that will be issued.
In the coming weeks or months, there's also some Previously approved new subdivisions that may be close
to being accepted into the city's inventory and at that point we would issue orders for any new stop
signs or parking controls within those subdivisions and then also just an update that city administration
staff and City Council legal staff have engaged in some conversations about
Just this section of city code and the traffic Regulations and just excited to start making some progress
and in continuing those conversations with council staff and ultimately with some council members as
well So so more to come on that but just that those conversations are are moving along or and happy
to answer any questions that you have Thank You mr. Seabor for the report are there any questions for
the director engineering to my left to my right and
Did I hear right that you said subdivisions Correct there's some when new subdivisions are constructed
as we start to accept those new streets into our inventory we Need to make sure that the stop signs
and any parking controls are Reflected in this practice And we approve new subdivisions. They have an
obligation to build sidewalks and tree plots, right? Correct. Okay
Okay, I think that's it. Thank you so much. Great. Let's go now to cases. We'll start with TCP 2607.
Who is here to present? Hi there, Kendall Kenoki, Engineering Department. I am back. Two months ago,
I presented this project to you, so this is more of an update to a previous approval of the project.
There were several things. I think I'm sharing my screen, is that? Okay. So just to remind you of the
scope of the project, so this is primarily a maintenance project of Patterson, Grimes, and Rogers.
When I presented this project to you two months ago I kind of went over what we were doing and there
was two kind of areas of title 15 changes that we really hadn't Because of the speed at which we needed
to go with this project in order to secure some state funding We really hadn't done the public engagement.
We would have liked to before coming to the Transportation Commission So I've since done that public
engagement. So I'm coming back to you to kind of
update you on the results of that public engagement and then also inform you of kind of the final selected
design. So basically before you tonight is an approval of the amended project from what was presented
to you in March or maybe April, not March. So kind of gonna go over these three areas here. The first
is Rogers between second and third.
So this was an area where we were proposing to remove some on-street parking But if you talk to someone
who lives in the area, they will tell you we are actually removing a left-turn lane from northbound
Rogers into Onto westbound how it's actually not a left-turn lane their street parking on the east side
and then Kind of a taper for traffic to go around but it essentially functioned as a left-turn lane
so the proposal was to
This is what what was shown before but to eliminate the that parking Provide pedestrian refuge islands
and then taper the road over and maintain the street parking with bump outs After doing outreach the
updated design is essentially the same thing So there's no changes tonight in terms of title 15 or anything,
but I wanted to kind of go over what what resulted from that public engagement so
Kind of listed here, but attended a couple prospect Hill neighborhood association meetings sent some
mailings to adjacent residents Definitely had numerous phone calls and emails from the residents. That
was great We had lots of engagement kind of presented all of the different options that could be done
on this street that I've Touched on in April to you all But some of the takeaways here was that the
parking on Rogers was important to many residents maintaining turning for vehicles at how and
Rogers along with Smith and Prospect was important to the residents. They didn't want to see that cut
off. There was some desire to maintain the kind of left turn lane I described before, but there was
also kind of a more powerful desire for enhanced pedestrian crossings at that intersection. Green space
and street trees, if you're familiar with the corridor, it's definitely got some very mature trees.
That was very important to the residents and there's actually a pretty Consistent desire for some traffic
calming along this corridor. This is an arterial street But essentially what we've done with the final
design is kept it largely the same as what was shown to you But to kind of help facilitate that traffic
calming we did Extend the bump outs a little bit. So we still have two 11-foot travel lanes 22 feet
but they are a little bit wider out than they were before and the hope is that'll provide maybe a little
bit of traffic calming and I think For the future of this corridor. So this was a maintenance project.
This was kind of immediate improvements There's a larger corridor study going on as you're aware Rogers
Madison Kinzer and I've really encouraged the residents to get involved with that so that the final
long-term vision for this corridor can be you know come out of that study and
In the future long term we can work towards additional traffic calming or whatever is desired along
this corridor. So That's the update on Rogers between second and third really no change from what was
presented before the next location I can go back to the map here is
Rogers between Patterson and Dixie. So this is an area with existing on-street parking on the east side
The road kind of tapers over and then tapers back. It's not heavily utilized currently But we wanted
to get out and talk to some of the residents out there. So there's Some ways that I was able to do that
neighborhood association Constituent meeting we even did some tabling out there at switch yard park
for Grimes Lane But also talked to people about Rogers
The feedback we received is that the existing parking is not heavily used and most of the residents
Avoid parking there because they feel it's dangerous. There could be damage to their vehicles Didn't
encounter anyone who was opposed to eliminating that parking So as a result, this is what was shown
to you Is it April or March when I was here
I'm saying March here, but I think it was April. But anyway at the last meeting when I was here Nothing's
changed. So just wanted to kind of show that we are striping bike lanes in lieu of parking on the east
side of Rogers And then the third location here is Grimes Lane So this is a area where we were proposing
a lot of really cool safety improvements we've actually made some changes to that so
We are now showing the extension of an existing multi-use path on the north side of Patterson along
Grimes From Morton to the switch yard park entrance and then adding a raised crosswalk adjacent to the
switch yard park interests so this was prioritized by planning for pedestrian safety and traffic calming
and I can kind of show maybe here on the map so This is what was shown to you previously and then this
is this was the final design. So I think
You know, there's a grade-separated pedestrian crossing at this location, so it's kind of like, why
would you do a race crosswalk at this location? But when you look at kind of the network and
the connectivity, so there is a multi-use path that extends to the west, and the plan is for it to extend
to the east eventually, that you'd have to kind of loop all the way around if you're going to take the
B line, which most people are not.
Doing to access those areas if you're headed to new hope for families or Bloomington Transit Which are
a lot of people that cross there for that from the park. This is where you're crossing So there's kind
of some some connectivity things there with it and also just a desire for During peak times the traffic
congestion kind of does its own traffic calming but during non peak times ensuring that people are traveling at
Not excessive speeds in this corridor and doing this race crosswalk as part of this project. We ended
up I mean the cost savings it truly is very very reasonably priced to do it as part of the project rather
than as a standalone project so that that was something that changed in addition to all the as you can
see in green the curb line work and Dry vapor and sidewalk reconstruction. We were already proposing
so Yeah, we did some public outreach along Grimes
to kind of get the word out there We had coordination with police and fire about it and They had some
concerns, but we've alleviated those. We're not making this as as big of a bump As we could and and
kind of discussed target speeds over the crosswalk and things like that with them so with that that
is a summary of all the changes so tonight I
There's no changes to the title 15 approvals. You already did but there is a change in kind of the project
as a whole So it's an amendment to the approval of the project before you and I'm happy to answer any
questions Thank You. Mr. Kenoki. All right. Are there questions on this item from members to my right?
Mr. Binder Thanks very much
And I'll repeat that I'm very happy to see improvements made on Rogers lately. Can you help me understand
what criteria engineering uses when determining when to paint crosswalks and when not to? Because, for
example, I don't see crosswalks painted on the ground depicted at Dixie or Prospect, for example. But
there is a new one at Howe. And so, like, you know, Prospect or Smith, I mean, there are new
per bump outs, and I understand what you said earlier about horizontal deflection, traffic calming,
purpose that serves, but to me it seems like, especially when you add up everything against the pouring
of concrete and so on, painting a crosswalk doesn't seem like it would be much more to do, so I'm wondering
if that's still in the plan or could be considered in the future, and why one particular crossing gets
the crosswalk and another one doesn't?
get it painted? Yeah, yeah. I can help answer that. So crosswalks, there's a large variety of reasons
why we paint them and why we don't. Maintenance is a factor in crosswalks, but also the amount of pedestrian
traffic and also kind of where we're encouraging people to cross. So we typically don't stripe uncontrolled
crosswalks unless we have improved the crosswalk in some way. So a great example is
Here on 7th Street near City Hall. There's the beeline crossing and then there's another crossing West
of Madison for a long time that there was no crosswalk painted there There wasn't even a receiving curb
ramp, but when we added the curb ramp and added signage we painted the crosswalk to kind of go along
with those improvements because we've improved that crosswalk and so typically
we try to only paint crosswalks where we've done some kind of improvement. So at Howe, we're doing the
Refuge Islands, we're doing the signage, we're striping the crosswalks there. At Prospect and Smith,
yes we are doing the bump outs, but it's not a very high volume pedestrian crosswalk, and we really
would prefer pedestrians to cross at the most improved crosswalk at Howe and at Traffic Signals where
they have their own dedicated crossing.
It kind of is a balance between maintenance and volume of pedestrians. If we had an extreme number of
pedestrians crossing at Smith, if it was right in front of an IU building, we'd probably stripe that
crosswalk. And then also maintenance, I know that paint seems like it's not that big of a maintenance,
but we really try to get those crosswalks out of wheel paths because they fade very quickly and it is
a bit of a maintenance burden. So we try to be basically,
deliberate with where we're striping crosswalks. You don't want to stripe them everywhere. There is
some research behind crosswalks and if you're striping uncontrolled crosswalks without doing any kind
of improvements, it is either not making a difference or it may actually be less safe to stripe those
crosswalks is what some of the research has shown. So we really try to be deliberate with making improvements
to actually help the crossing rather than just throwing paint down and hoping that magically improves it.
Hopefully, that's helpful. There's a lot of considerations. I might email you later if you care to send
me some of that research. Thank you, Mr. Binder. Questions to my left? OK. I have a quick question about
the Grimes. I have to get to the right picture here. Right near the bridge for the B line.
Why wouldn't you put the crosswalk directly under the bridge. That probably is the ideal location from
a drainage standpoint. We really wanted to kind of align it with where it made sense. There is that
kind of large path that comes out of switch yard park and we are able to widen the path.
From the east and connect it here at this location So it just seemed to make the most sense from a crossing
standpoint Especially if you think about someone coming out of that path and then turning east which
believe it or not the few times I've been out there I've been out there two or three times doing outreach
for this and I've seen people come out and turn east And they're not gonna walk over to go under the
bridge and cross they're gonna try to cross You know what's most convenient for them. So we're trying
to maximize that and
Okay, that's no big deal. I just was curious any further questions from members Mr. Connell Excuse me.
I just wanted a first. Thank you for reaching out on the Grimes project but I just want to reiterate
the importance of Having access to get it in and out of our facility because there's only one way in
and there's only one way out and I hope that's strongly communicated to the contractors and That you
know, it's a number one priority
Would appreciate that Yep, absolutely Okay, if there's no other questions we'll go to the public for
comment There's no members of the public in the room if there's anyone online who'd like to comment
on this item TCR Sorry TCP 2607 Please raise your hand and zoom and you'll be called on you'll have
three minutes Nobody
Last call for public comment on TCP 2607 as it ended. I don't think that's the right word. Seeing none
we come back to the commission for final comments or a motion. I move that we approve the proposed amendments
to TCP 2607. Is there a second. Second. We have a motion and a second.
Will the if it's not the clerk, what should I refer to them as? Secretary the second the secretary,
please call the roll. I'll get used to this eventually Connell Yes finder. Yes Folan. Yes, Jimmy.
Yes Copic. Yes That passes 5-0 We move now to TCR 2613
Who is here to present on that, Mr. Kenoki? No? I think that might be me, sorry. Mr. Roebling. I'm catching
up. Okay. Okay.
Brian Merlbling, Planning Services Manager. We have a bylaws update. It's been about a year since we
adopted our bylaws and so we've learned some lessons and we have some fixes based on those lessons learned.
Two relatively minor ones that are, one's an oversight, one is a misunderstanding of what would happen.
So the first is based off of the Kirkwood conversation that we had
Earlier this month with tcr 2612 where council members were bringing forward a title 15 amendment And
our rules had no formal Method for them to bring forward anything which obviously they are allowed to
amend title 15 but title 2 Requires that this body review any title 15 amendment first and so it led
to this confusing handoff where no one was really sure how to
move that to from council to this body. And so thankfully Commissioner Rolland is on top of it. But
this will alleviate that and now staff can reach out to council members and have that handoff happen
smoother. And then the second one is related to the Indiana Avenue safety project which is T.C.P. twenty
six ten if you'll recall.
You this body sent it back to staff for further consideration And as they weren't as you weren't satisfied
with the design as it stood, so we're still dealing with that we haven't Come up with a solution to
bring back to this body, but we will at some point but in the meantime we it we became aware that there
was an issue where the body might never agree with the findings and might want to
for all intents and purposes adopt a negative finding while still allowing the city engineer to move
forward with a project since the transportation commission doesn't really have the ability to cancel
a project. So this fix will do that and my screen will switch. There we go. I'll show both of those.
They're in red in the packet. The first one is to article four.
A2 and then it's just adding the line members of common council similar to members of this body or staff
will be able to bring forward resolutions Again, that was just an oversight didn't think about it at
the time And then the second one is in D1 D which will add a new motion for petitions Which is D find
the petition does not satisfy all approval criteria. So if all other avenues are explored and the
Transportation Commission does not believe that the proposal meets all of the required criteria they
can find negative findings in this case and allow the petition to go on and And meet the real world
and I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you for the presentation are there questions to my left
on TCR 2613 to my right
Okay I think I have one I get the ability of the members of the common council to to bring a resolution
because we have an obligation to I mean it is our obligation according to city code to vet any transportation
related ordinance right. Correct. Yeah.
Now with the other part, so this is an article for section D decisions. You talk about this new addition
that we can approve approve with refinement considerations refer the matter back to staff for further
refinement and now find that the petition does not satisfy all approval criteria. Why is it that the
this body can't simply reject a petition?
The simple answer is that all engineering or excuse me infrastructure related decisions via state code
are assigned to the city engineer. And so the city engineer has ultimate authority. So if the city engineer
were to deem something appropriate then they alone can approve it. So this would allow you to weigh
in on that but not allow you to prevent it. Sorry go ahead. That's a good explanation.
Our enabling legislation is purely locally related local ordinance and state code doesn't require the
engineer to get our approval but it doesn't necessarily. Well I guess what I'm trying to ask is does
local code compel the engineer in any way. No.
Mr. Seaborg can correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe state code in my reading of state code it is
very clear that the city engineer alone has authority and doesn't allow the engineer to ignore
the Transportation Commission. It's silent on that. So it's simply what local code has said. It requires
this process regardless of our recommendation. No matter what we decide the
Items still have to come before this body correct, even though the final decision rests with the engineer,
correct? Yes, sorry misunderstood the question. Okay, that's a good explanation Okay, any other questions
to my left to my right? If none we'll go to the public for comment now again no one in chambers from
the public is anybody online if you have a comment on the
TCR 26 13, please use the raise hand function in zoom You'll be called on you'll have three minutes
to speak No raised hands last call for comments Coming back to the body TCR 26 13 any comments from
members To my right to my left. All right so I talked with Mr. Roebling about this a week ago, and I
didn't really have time to
to address it, although I really appreciate the explanation he gave today, because that was clarifying.
But I do wish that there was a way to simplify the decision matrix that we have built for this body,
because it's a pretty busy and involved set of decisions we have to make. But it's something that can
wait. We can do another bylaw revision as we see fit.
With that I'm looking for a recommendation on this resolution a Motion I should say is there a motion
on TCR to approve The motion is there a second second. We have motion in a second. Will the secretary
please call the roll? Finder yes Bowen. Yes drumming. Yes Copic. Yes Connell. Yes
And that resolution passes five zero as well. We now move on to TCR 26 14 who is presenting title 15
amendments on Matlock Heights. All right. Traffic engineer at the engineering department for Matlock
Heights. We're proposing to restrict parking for the entire neighborhood on one side of the street in
order to maintain vehicle access.
while still allowing some on-street parking. What triggered this is that the Neighborhood Association
brought their concerns that during football games, there was a lot of parking going on and it would
restrict vehicle access. When vehicles would park on both sides of the streets, neighbors and emergency
vehicles weren't able to pass through the street, or if they were, it was very narrow. In response to
this concern, we went out and evaluated the road
and took a look at the width of the road, as well as locations for driveways, mailboxes, and
other conditions. And after that, we are proposing that there be no parking restrictions, sorry, that
we put in no parking restrictions for the entire neighborhood on one side of the streets. The neighborhood
has very low parking demand, except for on game days. And we looked into permanent solutions versus
just game day only parking restrictions,
Currently we're proposing to do permanent no parking. This will be easier for parking enforcement and
it will be consistent with other locations in the city for outreach. We shared our proposed idea with
the representative from the neighborhood association and we also sent out mailers to the residents and
the feedback that we heard was mostly about the location of signs and no concerns about the restrictions itself.
I'm happy to take any questions. Thanks for the presentation. Other questions on TCR 26 14 to my right
Mr. Connell crazy it can be. Is there an enforcement strategy because you know I think people tend to
just find parking and I was just curious.
My understanding is that for this if residents see people parking and they're blocking the street that
they can call in for parking enforcement and then they'll come out. Questions to my left. So I guess
I want to know when somebody I mean do they do people respond quickly when there's a complaint of illegal
parking in a neighborhood like this on a game day.
Do you know I'm not aware of that but I can find that out. Yeah I think it'll be interesting for us
to know because Mr. Connell makes a good point. Do people tend to violate no parking restrictions on
a day like that. I would also not. I'm not sure about that but I can find out. Yeah that's something
I'd like to know. And regardless of how we dispose of this today I think it would be good
to report the next meeting, follow up on that info. Further questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the
public for comment on TCR 2614. There's no one in the room. If there's anyone online who'd like to comment
on amending Title 15 to codify no parking on streets in Matlock Heights, please use the raise hand function
in Zoom and you'll be called on. You'll have three minutes. Mr. Robles, is there anybody in Zoom at
all, let alone
Who's raising their hand. That's a no. We'll come back to the commission for comments and debate. And
if there is none for a motion on this resolution I'll move to approve it. Second we have a motion and
a second. Will the secretary please call the roll on TCR 26 14. Yes. Drumming. Yes.
Copic? Yes. Connell? Yes. Binder? Yes. That too passes five to zero. Let's move on now to TCR 2615,
title 15 amendments on no parking on Cottage Grove. Mr. Roebling, I assume this is yours too? No? Who's
presenting this? Oh, sorry, Mr. Garzi. Sorry. John Garzi, traffic engineer. For Cottage Grove, we are
proposing to move the parking from the north side of the block to the south side
for the three blocks of Cottage Grove between Lincoln and Indiana. This will move people that are biking
outside of the parked vehicle zone area. And we are doing this in response because the streets are being
repaved and then they'll be restriped afterwards. And we're using this as an opportunity to improve
the bike lane. Our proposal is not gonna be removing any parking. It's going to reduce the risk of someone
biking being doored.
and overall improve comfort for people that are biking and for people that are driving. The section
of Indiana to forest is going to remain unchanged. And since we're doing this as part of the paving
project, it's going to help to minimize additional costs and disruption. For outreach, we emailed the
affected property owners and residents. And in support, we heard one resident respond that they
that they bike to and from the university on a regular basis and that they like this idea. And we didn't
have anything in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. If there are any questions to my left on TCR 2615
to my right, seeing none. Is there any member of the public who had to comment on TCR 2615? Please raise
your hand. If you are on zoom and you'd like to speak,
Seeing none and no members of the public in the chambers who come back to the Commission for debate
Is there any final comment or a motion on TCR 2615? Maybe we can get a motion for the left side for
once Can we get a second from the left side here Second the motion. We have a motion in a second. Will
the secretary please call the roll on TCR 2615 drumming
Yes Copic. Yes, Connell. Yes finder. Yes, Volin. Yes That's 5-0 in favor and that passes as well. We
now move to discussion of topics not on the docket There any items from commissioners that they want
to talk about that. We have not put on the agenda Like I said, I'm going to want to address to tighten
some other
Minor bylaws issues as we have time I would like to ask when is our next scheduled meeting or when our
next scheduled meetings maybe the next two because I think there's a planning session coming up or planning
hearing Nothing yet for planning session and then I don't know the date I think Iris is pulling it up
The next planned Commission meeting I see is for July 27th
Plan Commission, did you say the regular hearing our regular here? Yeah, sorry. Yeah, okay, but there's
no we don't know whether there's gonna be a Planning a session before that There is no plan for one
to be before that if there's if that changes well, there's one after that though in August, right? Yes
after that we should have one but nothing between now and then unless something changes and because of
City budget hearings we have chosen not to schedule a regular hearing in August. Right. So July. Yeah.
OK. So July 27th is our next meeting at 530 in these chambers. Right. OK. So that and the deadline for
submitting things would be January or July 13th or July. What's the date for. I'm looking this up now
on the 10th.
Yeah, thank you, it is the 10th. It is now on our Transportation Commission calendar. So when you go
to the Transportation Commission website, on the panel, the right-hand side of the page, you'll see
meeting notices, upcoming meetings. I've also co-opted that script so that our deadlines are more visible,
easier to access, and generally remember. But I would like to recommend that anyone who's using Google Calendar
Click through to view those events on Google Calendar. You can add and subscribe to that calendar on
your own so you get updates Without having to search for them. They'll just show up in your own calendar
The deadline is now 17 days for the meeting on the 10th. Is that the regular? the regular It is generally
three weeks before A holiday holidays tend to move that a few days one way or the other sometimes
Okay, any other items for discussion, Mr. Drummey? I have a discussion item. I don't know if it's appropriate
or not, but more of just honestly a discussion. I use the e-Report system for work sometimes and it
used to be able to search the e-Report system and it used to have a mapping function to look at where
various reports have been made and placed. And it seems like that's no longer working. I mean, it looks
like you can still search, but it doesn't seem to really work.
And the mapping feature seems to not be working and I submitted a you report about the you report and
I think it ended up in the technology part ITS department or whatever that is. And they basically said
we just have to rebuild the system and there's no timeline to do that. But is anyone else. I mean it
might just be a.
You know a problem with my chrome or something. Is anyone else having that experience? Is that an intern
several members of staff in the room? Does anybody have any feedback on this? Well, while I'm not a
representative of ITS I can speak to this a little bit because what you're experiencing was part of
the city's effort to meet that April compliance deadline for ADA accessibility and you report was very
non-compliant and as a consequence ITS
disabled features that would open up the city to liability and With respect to a schedule for implementing
something new I'll just echo what you heard is that there probably isn't a schedule right now because
it's not a priority but I do understand that staff have access to some features that the public don't
and part of that has to do with that compliance obligation and
Understand that the compliance deadline was moved back an entire year. Why couldn't those features be
re-enabled? one interpretation that I've heard is that while the Justice Department may not move on
Prosecuting any cases that lawsuits can still be filed or cases can still be filed against the city
So it's more of a matter of trying to be proactive and diligent but if there are specific
types of information that staff can readily research for you, that would be a great opportunity to utilize
the public records request portal. And that can involve more departments than just ITS. That is one
limitation of UReport, is that it's sending one message to one staff member, whereas the records request
system actually involves, it activates like six or seven different staff members all at once.
Do you have more thoughts, Mr. Jimmy? I always have more thoughts, but no, I appreciate the explanation.
I, um, I wasn't aware of the 80 or the background information. So no, I, um, I hope it gets, I mean,
it was useful to be, I mean, not just for war, just as a, as a, it seems like maybe that message should
be conveyed to the public that, cause like right now I can search something and be like, Oh,
there's nothing, you know, if I search my name, there's,
I'm not listening to your report. I know I'm listening to some of your reports. So maybe we need to
do a better job of conveying those limitations. I think that that's feedback that ITS needs to hear.
So I just recommend that people continue to send that feedback to the department. It's good for them
to know that these resources are relied upon because sometimes certain departments only receive negative
kinds of feedback. And that is what's driving their priorities. Knowing that this is a valued resource
that maybe should
take up more of their time. That's a different kind of feedback that they would they would appreciate
hearing. Can I simply ask on behalf of Mr. Drummond and the commission that staff directly convey this
discussion to I.T.S. Yeah. I mean passing our minutes send a note just say look this is a concern. I
can follow up. Yeah. OK. Thank you. Any further items not on the docket.
I've got one if not, I would like to make a formal request for something that we were accustomed to
at the parking commission, which is data, parking data. The commission had access to data through 2022.
So the past three years worth of meter and garage usage data, both summarized and raw files,
would be something that would be of interest. I don't know if they have any plans for, I know that parking
services is thinking about having new equipment purchased, but that historic data is still of use. And
in the past, I've spoken with people at ITS who said, yes, we could make that data available to you
in a graphic form if we just had access to it.
So I guess while you're writing ITS, could you also make the request to parking services for that data
and make sure that it gets to ITS so they can see what they can do with it? And certainly we'd love
to have a meeting to discuss what can and should be done with it. On that topic, I have already scheduled
coordination collaboration meeting with parking services and ESD staff for September to get together
and ITS staff to get together and exactly tackle that question of providing data to the Commission and
eventually scheduling a planning session for the Production of the annual parking report Thank you very
much for for thinking that far ahead that's exactly what I was hoping for any further items not on the docket
If not once again, the next meeting is July 27th deadline for submitting items is July 10th and mr.
Roebling has a Oh, I'm so sorry I skipped the report the discussion of I almost got away with it to
the staff has a discussion of items on the docket the current at Latimer mr. Roebling
Yeah, thank you. Ryan Roebling, planning services manager. This is actually, uh, was generated from
a commissioner of Olin. Um, it's, uh, was a request for an inquiry, um, and about the current Latimer.
I'm not sharing my screen. Hang on. Sorry. Uh, which is on third street here. It, um, is this area right
here. Former Kmart site. Yep.
just south of Blooming Foods on Third Street. It has a number of parking spaces. Mr. Volin's request
for an inquiry, this is mostly just a conversation to Mr. Volin, Commissioner Volin, but it took long
enough that I felt it necessary to bring it up and ask for clarification. The specific request was for
an inquiry on the number of parking spaces and the
the usage of the parking on-site we The zoning code at the time and currently right now requires a number
of parking spaces. There was 617 bedrooms proposed in that Development and the UDO requires half a parking
space per bedroom and so that would make the range from 309 parking spaces to 500 and a handful
Of acceptable parking spaces and they provided on-site 385 on the parking in parking structure and then
a hundred off-site adjacent to the in the lot adjacent to be foods So it's about 500 and just under
500 total spaces and then oh, sorry That's also they provided some on-street parking on the internal
drives. So 527 all told
Commissioner Roland asked that I reach out and determine how much how utilized their parking was that
has proved difficult. So the real question is and to do a full inquiry like I would normally do. That'll
be hard since I'll need private data that I can't easily get.
So I guess the question is, is there any other data that would be suitable and would you like me to
look at other sites that had a similar requirement? There's a handful around PUDs specifically on the
same side of town or are you open to it being student housing anywhere or apartments anywhere? That's
a lot of questions. Let me try to answer one at a time. First of all, does the PUD have anything to
say about whether or not
The landlord is able to package parking with an apartment or whether they are required to sell it separately
from rent. This development was by right. It's in the MC zoning district. It started as a PD. Originally
the first rumblings were a PD and then the zoning map change allowed a similar development by right.
So the UDO does not have that requirement and there is no PD.
Okay, so we can't compel them to tell us how many permits they have sold or given out. Correct. But
we can at least keep trying to ask them. Do we know if the management is nearby or far away? I believe
they are on site. They just have not responded so far. I don't have contacts for this developer. I have
contacts for other developers, which is why. If you want, I could visit them with a Denver boot. Sure.
Okay, maybe compel info just kidding. Just kidding. Just kidding. But more importantly you asked about
a broader question. Can you restate the question? Yeah, I think I like I said, I have contacts for other
developers I might be able to pull up some similar data if we're open to that since I can't find it
for this specific location and that will maybe help answer some of the questions about required parking.
I mean any data we can get is better than what we have now. So because ultimately and this is the big
question I want to ask at some point in a more formal way. Would it be possible for us to make
new developments require the breaking out of parking from rent. In other words so that let alone that
we can require the reporting of parking. I mean it's an expensive resource it's a valuable resource.
We should be able to measure that value and see what kind of trips are generated by the parking that
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
need to look into the rules and code to.
But it's something we could certainly explore and I'm happy to bring forward in an inquiry a proper
inquiry next time. That'd be great whenever I While while we're here and mr. Connell is here. Mr. Connell
Do you have any sense of how bus passenger traffic is in this area? Latimer Is the occupancy rates pretty low I
Yeah, I think they have a lot of last I heard was that they're there I think 50 60 percent occupancy
so Measurable do you have the ability to measure? Ridership coming from there. Yes. We actually we actually
met with them Shortly after they got ready to launch to discuss possible
Partnership agreement for universal access prepay fares but it was never executed and we did prepare
a route and a cost but they eventually chose to contract with Go Express but they're not even doing
that now. So that leads me to believe that the occupancy rate is
is relatively low for whatever reason. Thank you for that feedback. Yeah I think that would be an interesting
aspect of an eventual inquiry but we can talk about setting one up. I don't have enough to to to make
an inquiry to ask for an inquiry right now. But that doesn't mean we can't set one up between meetings
right. OK. Any other items not on the docket.
Seeing none. Once again, next meeting is July 27th in this chamber at 5 30 p.m. Deadline for submissions
to the meeting is July 10th at 5 p.m. And you can send to transportation commission at Bloomington dot
gov. I get that right. We are asking that commissioners use the form that we've provided that is also
included in the event calendar listing. So just for track back.
purposes and members of the public don't have access to that form. And so we asked that if members of
the public would like to coordinate putting something on the agenda they coordinate that with commissioners
directly so that commissioners have sort of like a hand in you know coordinating whatever members of
the public may need in terms of participating in the meeting fully.
So once again, if members of public want to email transportation dot transportation dot commission at
Bloomington dot ion dot gov any commissioner can take up their concern and ask for something to be put
on the agenda. Yeah. Generally speaking. Yeah. And typically when members of the public email us that's
generally the public comment. And so those do appear in the packet when we receive them if
member of the public requested that something be circulated with commissioners. That is typically how
we would do it. And then commissioners would have an opportunity to follow up with members of the public.
OK. But I mean if somebody emails that address it'll go to us automatically or you'll forward to us.
It would just come to staff because we don't have commissioners set up within our system to receive
mail from the Google group. So you will forward to us whenever we get a comment. Yes. OK. OK. Seeing
none see no other comments. This this meeting is adjourned.