City of Bloomington, Indiana City Council, 3 Dec 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Bloomington City Council, December 3, 2019

Description

Meeting Agenda: https://bloomington.in.gov/onboard/meetingFiles/download?meetingFile_id=5209

A

Seeing we have a quorum I'd like to call to order this bloomington to come, and.

A

Counsel special session meeting for the proposed amendments to ordinance 1924.

A

Which repeals and reenacts the text of title 20, the unified development.

A

Ordinance, you do, and this is the you do meeting for 6:00 p.m. tuesday december.

A

3Rd well, the clerk. Please call the roll.

B

Here here, thank you here is tonight's agenda summation. We have continued.

A

Consideration of amendments ordinance 1924 for the you do, we will have first.

A

We'll have presentation on unanswered questions from previous discussions if.

A

We have any will speak about conduct of deliberations this evening. Our.

A

Parliamentarian will remind us of time limits. We have a consent agenda and a.

A

Regular agenda this evening, the consent agenda has amendments for consideration.

A

Which may be adopted by one roll call vote note that council members are.

A

Reviewing the new amendments and may recommend some for quick consideration.

A

Here please also note that any council member may request that the amendments.

A

On the consent, agenda be would move to their ordinary order of deliberation.

A

Later on in the agenda, so the tentative consent agenda is following under zoning.

A

Districts, 20.0 2. We have amendment 41, which is sponsored by councilmember.

A

Sandburg and staff and affects twenty point o two point: zero: six: zero, a five.

A

It provides clarification on upper floor, facade setbacks and the relationship to.

A

Public street, rather than setbacks along the building site or rear under use.

A

Regulations: twenty point: zero: three amendment, forty three sponsored by.

A

Councilmember sandburg and staff affects twenty point, o three point: zero three.

A

Zero b ten reduces the spacing standard for group care homes from five hundred.

A

To three hundred feet to reflect a typical block length under development.

A

Standards and 20 0.04 we have amendment 44, sponsored.

A

By councilmember sandberg and staff effects, 20 point: oh four: point: zero: two.

A

Zero f 1 b provides a new graphical illustration to better show how building.

A

Height is measured the next amendment under development standards and.

A

Incentives is sponsored by councilmember piedmont, smith, and it is amendment 59.

A

Affecting twenty point: zero four point: zero: three: zero g, three and it clarifies.

A

How to measure the buffer area from a compound sink hole. Amendment 46.

A

Sponsored by councilmember, sandburg and staff affects twenty point. Oh four point.

A

Zero seven, zero c and twenty point: oh five point: zero: five, zero j, ten d.

A

Relocates md district's for street lighting to better align with the.

A

Downtown vision in infill strategy plan, the last amendment under development.

A

Standards and incentives is amendment 49, sponsored by councilmember, sandburg and.

A

Staff affects twenty point. Oh four point: zero, eight, zero c two and it provides.

A

Clarification on plant species identification requirements, then under.

A

Our subdivision standards, twenty point: zero five is amendment fifty-four.

A

Sponsored by councilmember, sandburg and staff affects twenty point: zero five.

A

Point: zero: five: zero k gives authority to the fire chief to locate hydrant.

A

Locations other than every six hundred feet under administration and procedures.

A

Twenty point: zero: six is a minimum. Fifty six sponsored by councilmember sandburg.

A

And staff it affects twenty point: zero. Six point.

A

Zero nine zero f to be to he clarifies the use standards for the corner. Lots.

A

Four corner: lots and respective setbacks are based on the highest classified.

A

Street under definitions is amendment 57, sponsored by councilmember, sandburg and.

A

Staff, it affects twenty point: zero, seven point zero one zero and it provides a.

A

Revised definition for fraternity or sorority house and the last amendment on.

A

Our tentative consent agenda is amendment 58, sponsored by councilmember.

A

Sandburg and staff of affecting twenty point zero. Seven point.

A

Zero seven zero and it provides a revised definition for use change in and.

A

Increases the scope of the definition.

A

After our we decide on our consent agenda, we have a regular agenda for.

A

Hearing amendments we have concluding other first round amendments under.

A

Zoning districts: twenty point: zero two is amendment forty sponsored by.

A

Councilmember stir bomb, it affects twenty point: zero, two point: zero two.

A

Zero c and twenty point: zero four point: zero, two zero c and it reduces the.

A

Maximum height of our two buildings from fifty 40 feet to thirty five feet under.

A

Use regulations: twenty point: zero three is a minute. Forty two sponsored by.

A

Councilmember stir bomb, and that affects twenty point. Zero. Three point: zero: two.

A

Zero in table three one allowed use table. It changes the approval for plexus.

A

Multifamily dwellings and live work dwellings in residential multifamily rm.

A

District from a permitted use to a conditional use under twenty point: zero.

A

Four development standards in santos, we have six amendments, beginning with.

A

Amendment 47 sponsored by councilmember, sir bomb. It affects twenty point: zero.

A

Four point: zero: seven, zero d, it inserts a preface to twenty point: zero. Four.

A

Point: zero: seven: zero d to give architects more creative freedom when.

A

Designing mixed-use in non-residential buildings amendment forty eight.

A

Sponsored by councilmember, sandburg and staff affects twenty point: zero. Four.

A

Point: zero, seven, zero and twenty point: zero. Five point: zero: five: zero.

A

It adds new subsections requiring inclusion of at least two elements of.

A

Universal design in certain multi-family residential buildings, student housing in.

A

Dormitory buildings, amendment fifty sponsored by councilmember, sandburg and.

A

Staff affixed twenty point: zero four point: zero, eight, zero d and e; and it.

A

Makes changes to the landscaping lists to identify evergreens to remove poor.

A

Quality, slash invasive species or to add new species. Amendment 51 sponsored by.

A

Comes mr. bomb effects, 20 point zero, four point: zero: eight: zero n: it allows fences with a maximum height of eight feet.

A

Along the frontage of a secondary front building wall in our three districts to.

A

Be built to the property line except under certain circumstances, amendment 52.

A

Sponsored by councilmember, sandburg and staff affects twenty point: zero. Four.

A

Point one: zero: zero one: four, twenty points: zero, six point: zero: two: zero c d.

A

And g: twenty point: zero, six point: zero, eight, zero b and twenty point: zero: seven.

A

Point: zero, zero one zero, and that removes the reference to the use.

A

Variance process in the affected sections: the last amendment under.

A

Development standards and incentives is amendment 53, sponsored by councilmember.

A

Stir bomb it affects twenty point: zero four point 1 to 0 e and it specifies.

A

That machinery, such as hvac equipment, ventilation and generators and engines.

A

That service buildings and other structures are subject to noise control.

A

Regulations contain in bloomington municipal code chapter fourteen point.

A

Zero, nine under administration and procedures. Twenty point: zero: six is.

A

Amendment fifty five sponsored by councilmember stir bomb and it affects.

A

Twenty point: zero six point: zero: three zero table: six, one summary table of.

A

Review procedures and twenty point: zero six point: zero: five: zero b3: it requires.

A

A neighborhood meeting as part of the conditional use process approval process.

A

Last amendment, under our first-round amendments in the regular agenda, is.

A

Under development standards and incentives- and that is amendment 45.

A

Sponsored by councilmember boland, it affects twenty point, zero. Four point.

A

Zero six, zero e and h. It replaces the term requirement with a term allowance.

A

Or limit to better characterize the maximum allowed amounts of parking for.

A

Listed land uses standardizes by way of new default parking allowances and.

A

Reduces parking allowances for certain residential and non-residential land.

A

Uses and adds a default parking allowance chart which reduces the.

A

Default parking allowances by specified amounts each year for.

A

Twenty years after we finish amendments this evening will visit council schedule.

A

And then we will recess for this evening until our next you do meeting so with.

A

That we will now go to presentation on. I answered questions from previous.

A

Discussions, mr. robinson, do you have any here? We have nothing in the way of.

A

Unanswered questions very good: we will now go to conduct of deliberations.

A

Parliamentarian, mr. chair to review, we currently have set 10 minutes per.

C

Sponsor of presentation, 5 minutes for a staff of planning and transportation to.

C

Comment: , council questions of 20 minutes 2 minutes per member per round.

C

Of questions, public input of 3 minutes per speaker assuming fewer than 50.

C

Speakers- and we have very few speakers tonight- so I'm assuming it will be 3.

C

Minutes additional council questions will be a 20-minute round, two minutes per member and finally, a common council debate and.

C

Vote would be total of 30 minutes of debate. 3 minutes per member per.

C

Opportunity to speak to opportunities to speak maximum, so there's no need to make.

C

A motion that is currently what exists very good, all right. Let's proceed now to.

A

The consent agenda, we will need a motion of some sort.

A

If anyone like to remove anything on the current consent agenda or make a motion.

A

To adopt the consent agenda as presented okay.

A

Is this, do we have debate on this, or is it simple up and down.

C

They want to discuss.

D

And now you're to motion to adopt is the first or second motion. You've made this.

A

Is the first motion up to adopt, then you just what it's it's it's subject to.

D

Debate, if you care to yes, okay, any questions comments.

A

Do we need public comments on the cuts on this motion? No, yes, there is an.

D

Opportunity for the public to request that items be taken off the consent.

D

Agenda their comments, I'll go to the public. The public would like to comment.

A

On the consent agenda, seeing no public comment we're back to.

A

Council discussion of amendment 57, which is the definition of fraternities or.

C

Sororities, so I'd ask that that be removed. I'm sure it won't take very long.

C

To discuss sorry, which item? Did you want? Seven? It's item.

C

Nine mm 15 and item be taken off consent agenda, so that item will be taken off.

A

Any others request to be taken taken off with.

A

Someone like to call the questions questions may call in second on the.

A

Motion all in favor say aye any opposed the consent agenda is.

A

Adopted with a removal of a minute, fifty seven, very good- we will now go to our.

A

Regular agenda, we will yes you've taken and that did require unanimous consent.

D

So your unanimously agreeing that you will consider the consent agenda and the.

D

Next motion is to adopt the consent agenda and that merely requires a.

D

Two-Thirds majority and I would recommend that you have a roll call vote.

D

On that consent, consent agenda motions been made. Will the clerk please call the.

A

B

Councilmember ruff, piedmont, smith, yes, granger. Yes,.

B

Rallo? Yes, yes, simms, yes, sandburg! Yes! Thank you. Thank you.

A

That is adopted unanimously 7-0. Turning now to a regular agenda, we shall.

A

Probably begin with amendment 57 is that correct mr. shermin? That was the one.

A

D

Well, we had amendment 57 removed from the consent agenda. Does it take priority.

A

Over the item 19, since it affects 2007.

D

All right, okay, if no one moves to hear it, then we'll replace it after amendment.

A

19: okay: okay: let's go thing with amendment 40 then sponsored by.

A

Councilmembers durbin, who is not present.

A

Sure, if you want to move it, please I move them at 40. It's been introduced.

E

Yeah, it reduces the maximum height of our two buildings from 40 feet to 35. We.

A

Will go to staff. I think there was some confusion about the intent behind this.

F

Amendment as staff reads the synopsis. I think a council member store mom might.

F

Think this is a new height being proposed for the r r rs district in.

F

Fact, 40 feet has been the height for this district for a very long time. It.

F

Has not changed staff would recommend to deny that there.

F

Are many properties this would impact and have legally non-conforming uses.

F

We're not aware of any height issues with the long history of this height.

F

Standard be happy to answer any additional questions. So are we doing.

A

Separate that staff is not in favor of this yeah, that's correct. I don't.

F

Understand reasoning or logic to lowering it to by.

F

Five feet: I think the councilmembers stir bomb is concerned about additional.

F

Stories but again, this district has had a 40-foot height maximum for a very long.

F

Time I see thank you, will now turn to comp council questions. Sir questions.

A

Okay, then, we will now turn to the public. Public would like to comment on.

A

Amendment 40 seeing no public. We were back to council for debate further.

A

Questions debate yes, councilmember sandberg of council members turbine.

G

Status, I feel a little uncomfortable moving forward on his recommendations. If.

G

He's not here to defend them or explain.

D

Confused about starting time, you know we started so he's coming and he requested.

D

That that perhaps you move on to an amendment that he's not sponsored after.

D

This one, so that he can be there to make the case for it.

C

Based on the consent agenda, I move to postpone amendment 42 later in the.

C

Meeting any questions or comments: okay, mr. sherman does this require any public.

A

Comment this motion and technically it's not a motion to postpone its to move. It.

D

Down on your agenda, so as he said, I moved to move amendment 40 down to say.

C

After amendment 12 for after number item 12 I mean he would you take it event.

A

Would you consider, since the following amendment 42 and 47 are also sponsored.

A

By councilmember storm on, perhaps we should after number 14, okay, there's a.

A

Motion on the table, so, okay, so two two after amendment 48 mm in 48 correct all.

A

In favor, say, aye any opposed all right, so we, if we're.

A

Going in order very good okay, this is sponsored by councilmember, sandburg and.

A

Staff, customary sandburg: yes, this one has to do with inclusion of at least two.

G

Elements of universal design in certain multi-family residential buildings.

G

Students- oh I'm sorry, which one 50 provides have revised at home for.

G

Fraternity, thank you right having to do with the definition of fraternities.

G

Sororities and I will defer to staff for any further explanation and any.

G

H

This is a modification to the modified definition of fraternity and sorority.

H

House this is the city is currently in litigation. Regarding the existing.

H

Definition of fraternity or sorority house, we had originally modified that.

H

Definition in the adoption draft of the you do to try to correct some of the.

H

Deficiencies, so that the litigation would be moot after talking it over and.

H

Thinking it over some more, we determine when the definition was in front of the.

H

Plan commission that we wanted to modify it a bit more. Unfortunately, we didn't.

H

Have time to get it done in front of the plan commission, and so after after.

H

Looking at some of the case law and some of the rules regarding the ways.

H

Fraternities and sorority houses can be affiliated with universities. This is the.

H

Definition we arrived at, so we believe this brings us into compliance with all.

H

Of the requirements of the indiana constitution, the us constitution, so that.

H

We don't have any issues with regard to the ongoing litigation, so I'm happy to.

H

Address any questions you may have there, questions from council.

A

Councilmember fallin, I figure out how to make my timer work, because my old-timers.

C

Out so two minutes here we go so can you be more specific about the.

C

Deficiencies, I mean I'd like you to go into a little bit more like what was the.

C

Problem, what was the solution, so I will go a.

H

Little bit into those details, we do have a case pending in front of the court of.

H

Appeals right now we're waiting on a decision from the court of appeals just.

H

To be clear, the city does not believe that our current definition, the.

H

Definition, not the modified definition, you'll see there red line doubt, but the.

H

Current definition, we don't believe that it's constitutionally deficient. However,.

H

We believe that we can nonetheless make some modifications that would erase any.

H

Questions and the issue is generally that the at least the claim by the other.

H

Side is that the current definition unlawfully delegates authority to.

H

Indiana university to determine what constitutes a fraternity or sorority.

H

House use who is the other side? The other side is a particular fraternity on.

H

You so technically be more clear, technically.

H

It's the owner of a particular fraternity house on the iu campus, okay.

H

So you're saying that their thing, what idea having to do with the university.

C

Itself, so it's what they're claiming essentially, is that we have delegated.

H

Authority not to the plan commission, where the board of zoning appeals or.

H

Some other lawfully constituted governmental body to determine what.

H

Constitutes a fraternity or sorority use they're, claiming that by saying you have.

H

To be affiliated with the university or recognized by the university and in fact.

H

The language they take issue with says, through whatever procedures, the.

H

University may use to determine what's a fraternity or sorority they're saying.

H

That that language constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of authority.

H

And so it violates the due process clause here: we've we've removed so first.

H

Off we don't agree just to be clear that that's unlawful or unconstitutional, but.

H

We believe that by removing the language that says, through whatever procedures,.

H

The university may use we've addressed that particular legal concern, so this.

H

Language is a little bit cleaner.

A

Councilmember ruff.

I

The discussion I didn't anticipate we're gonna get into this pending litigation.

I

Discussion, but if you could just move it that it if it okay, so if the city.

I

Prevails are you gonna want to change the definition back as it was? No, we.

H

Believe this definition is perfectly acceptable, so so no we won't want to go.

H

Back to the definition that currently exists, we're satisfied with this definition. Okay, it's I know that sounds complicated, but further counsel.

A

Questions on a minute 57, seeing none we'll go to the public. The public would.

A

Like to comment, seeing no public comment we're back to.

A

Council for further questions, okay, no questions, then we will go to comment.

A

Councilman rowland yeah. I just wanted to have a brief discussion about it. You.

C

Know on the record, I you know appreciate the effort that the city is making to.

C

Clarify this question: I'm always sensitive to issues of university.

C

Governance with respect to the city, but in this case since fraternities are so.

C

Commonly associated with universities, I don't have any objection, at least at.

C

This at the moment to this clarification not be curious to know how the the.

C

Result of the suit comes, but I mean it. It's certainly been an issue for us. The.

C

Definition of a fraternity or sorority with respect to land use, off-campus and.

C

There are, there are several such houses off campus that we should be concerned.

C

About I do recall that at the 2006 you do maps of 2007. There was a significant.

C

Question about what properties próxima the university should be zoned.

C

Institutional or not, and so I just wanted to get some clarity about what.

C

This definition was and how it plays into that concern. Thank you.

A

Their comments, it's a recommendation.

C

Okay, questions been called in seconded on I'm in my 57 with a clerk. Please call.

A

The roll rolla- yes boland, yes, simms, sandburg, yes, ruff. Thank.

B

You thank you. Ma'am 57 is adopted 7 to 0.

A

Yes, let's would somebody like to introduce. I move amendment 48 and again.

G

This is with respect to universal design being incorporated in multi-family.

G

Residential buildings, student, housing and dormitory buildings, and once again I.

G

Will defer to staff for further explanation and for any questions.

F

Throughout the process, we've heard input from the public about visible, visited.

F

Ability and universal design one of the challenges that we've had to contend.

F

With in incorporating those changes, as those are typically enforced through.

F

Building codes or implemented through building codes, as opposed to zoning ordinances. You know we reached to our consultant to kind of take another look.

F

At how we can incorporate that so, what's included in the packet, is a proposal to.

F

Incorporate some universal design standards in response to those concerns.

F

And to address some of the needs regarding greater accessibility to.

F

Housing you know that may be presented through standards, so staff supports this.

F

Amendment we recognize there might be some challenges moving forward with.

F

Staff to be able to enforce and inspect but again we're certainly open to.

F

Moving forward with this, it's a good start or a good place to start with.

F

Moving forward with that, so again I'd be happy to answer any additional questions.

F

I'll try to get it up here on the screen, but again this is something that we've.

F

Rolled around internally for a while didn't quite have a chance to present it.

F

During the plan, commission process be happy to answer any additional questions.

A

Thank you. Are there additional questions? Councilman granger is this in any way.

E

Attempt to meet some ata standards is this an attempt to meet aba standards in.

E

Any way or some portion thereof, no it's a little bit different.

F

Generally, a da standards apply to public places. These would be applied to private.

F

Property, sometimes these type of ordinances or.

F

Legislations can be tied to where public money is funded. So that's where a da can.

F

Kick in sometimes they're brought through fair housing act in other processes. So again this would apply to private property or.

F

Private improvements and not public improvements, only two out of twenty.

E

Percent, why only two of these opportunities out of five I'm just.

E

F

As far as the list of requirements, why only two? You know you have five and.

E

You're saying they just need to do two again, I think the idea is to address the.

F

Immediate concerns and provide an option to consider a list of the choices for.

F

Developers to address again there are some challenges with the way our system.

F

Is set up as a zoning ordinance versus building code.

F

Some of these things get into building code. The city doesn't inspect buildings.

F

So there's things that we can do through permitting and site approvals that are a.

F

Little bit easier, but some of the other things they're a little bit harder to to.

F

Review clear what the immediate concerns are. I'm sorry, the immediate concerns.

F

With the need for this amendment or the well generally, I think the general.

F

Concerns from the community is giving the people the ability to age in place.

F

More easily, without having modifications to their homes again, when you're looking.

F

At multifamily units generally, those things aren't considered as often as as.

F

Maybe single-family homes or private residences, where people may or may not.

F

Have the abilities to make those modifications so that's again something.

F

That is trying to address a segment of our community that might not have the.

F

Mobility and functionality to be able to access housing. This is done in many.

F

Other places throughout the country again through different mechanisms than.

F

A zoning ordinance do we have trouble with the visuals I'm trying to find it.

F

In the package, sorry.

A

There we are that's helpful.

F

Thank you further questions from council on amendment 48, a consequent piedmon.

A

Smith, I don't have a question. I have a proposed revision to the amendment.

C

Kennedy can we see the visuals that they were planning? I want to see what.

A

I thought there was some kind of graphic.

A

Help speed matt smith: you want to amend this amendment. Yes, after communicating.

J

With phil stafford, who is a member of our commission on aging and an expert in.

J

This area, I would like to propose an amendment to this amendment and it would.

J

Be to require item a in both cases and then say. In addition, one of the.

J

Following additional elements of universal design is required and then.

J

Have them select one of the b c d or e because item a is really the most.

J

Essential thing and it's the easiest item for staff to verify.

J

According to mr. robinson, that at least one entrance be at grade level and not.

J

Requiring any steps up or down or ramp for entry amendment to amendment 48.

A

Councilman roland, yes, I'd like to hear staffs.

C

Opinion of the amendment, its staffs in support of this again, I think, item a is.

F

One of the easier things that can be inspected through the process that staff.

F

Does when they evaluate these projects, both in site plan and site inspections,.

F

So again, I think item a is relatively easy for us to inspect the other items.

F

We certainly can, but this is the easier one starting I just I don't understand.

C

Why, b through e, are difficult or unreasonable? Why shouldn't they all be.

C

Required that you're getting into building code, so the city and the first.

F

Of all the city doesn't have the ability to change building code, as I understand at some that the state legislature does in rural county building department, you know administers the building code. So when.

F

You start looking at internal widths of doorways. We can measure those on-site.

F

Plans, but to inspect those on-site again gets challenging your start getting into.

F

Countertop heights and light switch heights internal wall reinforcements.

F

Those are things that would happen during the building inspection process.

F

And not typically when staff releases the permit for occupancy at that time,.

F

Usually the building's all the internal stuffs done in the building and that.

F

We're looking at the exterior the building with the landscaping, the.

F

Parking improvements and other things, so those internal things become a little.

F

More challenging for staff to to validate an argument for the city to.

C

Reconsider taking back its building, I mean our right now: we've delegated it to.

C

The county we have an interlocal agreement right. I don't necessarily.

F

Think it's an argument. One way for again side. I don't know building code enough.

F

But I do think it would require a change in this in how the state regulates.

F

Building code and my understanding generally from how indiana works that.

F

Has to be done at the state level and not the local level. I don't. It is okay,.

F

To make that choice, but again I don't think it would make it easier for us to change indiana building code per se. I don't think the state gives us the.

F

Ability to change building code locally, the question about hold it. Thank you.

A

Just clarify all interior doorways, with at least 32 inch wide openings. That's to.

A

Accommodate I assume wheelchair wheelchairs is that correct yeah. That's.

F

A minimum standard, you know sometimes those interior hallways the door. It's.

F

More the door openings in the hallways and that provides a minimum clearance to.

F

Get through those doorways shuns on the actually the amendment to amendment 48.

A

Comes member to follow up, I was asking so why is it that we can require any of.

C

These at all, if it goes against state statute, I don't think it goes against.

F

State statute: I'm talking about our ability to inspect and enforce that's.

F

That's a different question that I think you're asking again we're providing an.

F

Option in again, the ability for staff to inspect and enforce those is not a.

F

Problem, I don't I'm not aware that these would conflict with state code, but.

F

Requiring that these are put in the building code is a different question.

C

Okay, thank you further questions. Mr. sherman is.

A

Delivering the the amendment to amendment 48, seeing no further questions.

A

We'll go to public if the public would like to comment on the amendment to.

A

Amendment 48 to especially think that planning departments, cotton in.

K

Particular for the work that went into this, because it's no small thing and and.

K

There are a lot of different ways. Communities are handling these things so.

K

I think this is really important. Why is it important? Well, first of all, it's in.

K

The comp plan- and I say that with emphasis the comp plan policy, five point.

K

Two point: seven reflects the underlying value of making our community more.

K

Livable, more welcoming and more inclusive for all eight.

K

And abilities, though I represent the commission on aging. This is not at all.

K

An issue of age alone, as you may know, the commission advocates not only for an.

K

Age-Friendly community, but a community for all ages and abilities a lifetime.

K

Community we recognize that the ad a merits praise for its focus on public.

K

Places but know that it falls seriously short when it comes to private spaces.

K

However, short of public action, we remain with the status quo and that's not.

K

Working very well: what is being recommended here is the basic floor for.

K

Accessibility, fundamental principles that will allow a person in a wheelchair.

K

To reside person in a wheelchair to visit their neighbor even allow a mother.

K

With a stroller to have improved access in and out of her home, the affected.

K

Population is not small. One study reports that up to sixty percent of.

K

Individuals living in homes built in 2000 will have one person with a.

K

Disability at some point in time, given the value of these physical improvements.

K

The status quo and private development practices are not making a big.

K

Difference the fair housing center of central indiana reports that only 22.

K

Percent of housing units in the us are accessible, though 95 percent of new.

K

Homes could practically be built to these more inclusive and basic standards.

K

Eight states and over 20 municipalities have enacted laws that require basic.

K

Visible features in certain kinds of new construction if we want to walk the walk.

K

Or wheels wheels towards a more inclusive community. This is a very.

K

Important starting place, there was a time when a neighborhood wouldn't be.

K

Built without sidewalks, regretfully that time has passed and I'd like to see it.

K

Returned I like to imagine a time when it would be unthinkable to build a new.

K

House or apartment building, without a no step entrance nor accessible, first-floor.

K

Bathroom so it's time to get started on this. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. staffer and.

A

Would you please sign in, I think, there's a sign-in sheet to assist the clerk is.

A

There further public comment on the amendment to amendment 40-48, seeing none.

A

Back to council further questions: okay, council comments, councilmember sandberg.

A

I'm in favor of this amendment, I think it does help prioritize the most.

G

Important aspect of moving this forward for not only people in wheelchairs but.

G

As mr. staffer pointed out, visitors in in apartments that are rented by people.

G

Who, maybe are not particularly challenged, so this is a step in the.

G

Right direction, I'm happy to support the amendment to the amendment. Thank you, sir.

C

Thank you to counsel her stance berg for reminding me. This is an amendment to an.

C

Amendment I'm fine with it too, I'm a little still, not quite.

C

Understanding why all of the elements can't be required, except as it's a.

C

Logistical problem for staff rather than a legal one, but these seem like good.

C

Ideas all of them should be part of any new house. I don't understand why we.

C

Can't make them that way, but I will support the amendment to the amendment.

C

Thank you further comment. Somebody you'd like to call the question on the.

A

Amendment all the question. Second, okay, this is questions. We call it second on.

A

The amendment to amendment 48 with a clerk, please call the roll. Yes thank you.

A

That is adopted 8-0, so we are now considering the amendments or amendment.

A

48, as amended, I believe we were on council. We had just.

A

Concluded council questions so we are now to the public. Public would like to.

A

Comment on amendment 48, as amended.

A

Seeing none were back to council for further questions or.

A

Comment: councilman rollin of respecting paragraph to the the application to 20%.

C

Of all the lots and the two combined subdivisions, how was that number chosen.

C

Why 20%, why not 10 or 30 or all of them to start somewhere.

F

This is again a recommendation from from clarion on the percentages. Again, I think.

F

Some of the research in a again phil stafford might suggest that there's a.

F

Proportionality with members of the community, this might impact and I think.

F

That's a reasonable number to start with. Maybe this might impact. This is talking.

C

About a development to subdivision this is not going to affect any members of of.

C

New members who be joining the community, so no I mean okay, so say you have an.

C

Existing subdivision, none of those houses, are going to change if you've got.

C

Two of them together 20%, have to conform. That 20 is going to be in the new.

C

Subdivision it'll be more than 20% of the new construction, which has no.

C

Neighbors yet so, how is it affecting the community, except in a positive way, to.

C

Require these standards well that that's true for all the standards. These would.

F

Only impact new developments is that the question you're asking I don't know.

C

F

So for the subdivisions, yes, a subdivision only apply for new.

F

Subdivisions 20% of those. Why not everything in the new subdivision? Why.

C

Wouldn't all the new construction be required to meet these standards? That's.

F

A policy question that I think is up for council again. This is based on the.

F

Recommendation for our consultants and what they have found, what is typically.

F

Done in other places, generally my understanding, it's based on the.

F

Proportionality of members of the community that this would benefit again.

F

If you wanted a hundred percent, that would be a policy question. I would.

F

Recommend that we would start here and see monitor to see how it goes and again.

F

I think the proportion is a reasonable one to start with. Thank you. Okay, further.

A

Questions: okay comment on amendment 48, as amended.

A

Councilmember sandberg, once again, I think this is an incremental move in a.

G

Direction that I think we would all like to see perhaps expand in looking over.

G

These choices that that developers would have, I know you know, I'm unfamiliar with.

G

The accommodations that teachers have to make for students with learning.

G

Disabilities and attention deficit, disorder and the school of thinking.

G

There is that those accommodations that are good for that specific group of.

G

Students is also good for every student in the classroom and I'd like to think.

G

That some of these you know wider, doorways and easier step-ups would.

G

Actually be good for people who are not necessarily dealing with strollers and.

G

Wheelchairs and other and other physical disabilities, but at this point in time.

G

We want to move the needle a little more slowly. We are in a situation where we.

G

Need housing we want to encourage housing, don't want to put too many more.

G

Additional restrictions, if, as our consultants have advised us this seems.

G

To be proportional to the need right now but again I would look forward to.

G

Tweaking this as we go and make make even more of these universal design.

G

Standards just general, but for now I feel comfortable that this.

G

Is a very good first step? I think it needs to be in the you do due to the.

G

Fact that it is in the comp plan- and I think this is just a nice easy step.

G

Forward, thank you.

A

Sandburg accounts merv olin, I mean I agree with counsel for sandburg. I think.

C

That this is it's fine as it is, but I also know that many people who have.

C

Restricted mobility struggled to find housing and, if you know, if we're going.

C

To require at least one entrance at grade level, you know tune order to.

C

Acquire this kind of universal design I mean she pointed out, rightly, that you.

C

Know it benefits other people in the room, even if they're, not disabled or.

C

Reliant on universal design, principles.

C

You know, I respect the consultants you know saying this is a easy incremental.

C

Step but they seem such innocuous changes that would provide so much.

C

Benefit, I don't understand why we don't simply require all new construction to.

C

Have it and then let those people who would say this house in particular and.

C

Capabilities rise because it needs stair steps here we just can't get around it.

C

And ask for a variance I mean I wouldn't eager to hear some of my colleagues tell.

C

Me why we shouldn't eliminate the phrase at least 20% of and paragraph 1 of, f and.

C

Paragraph 1 of l and in paragraph 2 thank you further questions or comments.

A

I guess bearing comments. That's one word. Piedmon smith. I understand.

J

Councilmember roland's point and you know and looking at these requirements.

J

It doesn't from a lay person's perspective, it doesn't seem like.

J

At least bcd and ii would really cost much more than not doing them. Maybe I'm.

J

Mistaken on that, but I think that this is a good start and certainly you know.

J

Even next year we might consider doing more. I think I personally would want to.

J

Talk to some builders and developers and and get their opinion on it, so I would.

J

And I would also want to publicize this a little more. I think you know people.

J

Are on you do burnout and aren't probably paying much attention at this.

J

Time and that would be a big big change if we said 25% of any new development or.

J

I'm sorry hundred percent of any new development.

J

Of 25 units or more has to have universal design. I think it's that's.

J

Where we should end up, but I think this is a good first step and let's see what.

J

Happens. Thank you. Councilmember strip.

L

Interesting, how society has different values over time, most of the suburban.

L

Houses I work on have two-foot doors for the bathroom. It's like no one was ever.

L

Gonna get old for some reason. You know it's just a new consciousness, we're.

L

Finally, getting it let's build, let's build appropriately. Thank you, stolen.

A

Comments, councilmember simpson, thank you. My comment is, and this is directed at.

M

Staff at some point I would like to know more about state law and building code.

M

And what type of infractions requiring this could we could run into? I know.

M

It'll take some check. You know that, but I'd like to know some actions that we.

M

Take here we require how could that run? Afoul of in particularly the building.

M

Code- and I think I've heard something about state law of some sort of so when.

M

That's my only comment. Thank you.

A

I think we've exhausted first rent, so I mean I spent the past two weeks dealing.

C

With my mother, who is elderly and infirm, in always in a wheelchair, and that her.

C

Challenges had to do with being able to access bathrooms and other rooms, while.

C

In a wheelchair, so I'm very sensitive to this question at the at this very moment.

C

You know now she was somebody who also designed.

C

Houses for a living and at least anticipated some of this- there were no.

C

Two-Foot doors as a customer service example, but you know I again can't.

C

Disagree with my colleagues that it's a it's a good incremental step and I'm.

C

Certainly going to support this, but I just I'm a little surprised that it.

C

Doesn't that were, as customer service said, like it's funny how time changes.

C

And yet I feel like the times already now for this for to be in all new.

C

Construction, I mean, if we're looking at a an apartment building, that's gonna, be.

C

A single unit that was obviously going to have universal design, the wheelchair.

C

Access we're talking probably about single family or plex developments.

C

Neighborhood developments and I just I'm a little surprised that developers don't.

C

Do this as a matter of course, I failed to see how these will create greater.

C

Expenses, I mean a two foot wide door cost as much to put in as a 32 inch wide.

C

Door, the light switches have to go somewhere is going to be a counter in.

C

The bathroom, I think that expense is going to be minimal, no matter what they.

C

Adopt so I look forward to revisiting it next year. I don't want to take the time.

C

Now to to change it, but I think it's already it's time has already come that.

C

We do it in every new unit. Thank you.

A

Second round comment or recommendation with okay questions been called. Second.

A

On amendment 48, as amended with a clerk, please call the roll.

B

Yes, sims, yes, mr. baum sandberg, yes, ruff, piedmont,.

B

Smith, yes, grainger. Thank you, amendment 48, as.

A

Amended is adopted, 8 0, yes, comer sterben welcome and we have.

A

Introduced this we've had staff comment we fit when we we were on council.

A

Comment, so if you would like to comment on amendment 40 before we call the.

A

Question as to thank you for waiting, I want to remind my fellow council members.

L

That r2 is not the core. It's the single-family zone. That is not the core.

L

Predominantly one story- houses, suburb houses, edge houses- and this is a modest.

L

Reduction from 40 to 35 feet of a height restriction, and it's it really is about.

L

Compatibility do we really want a potentially four story in the context of.

L

Those neighborhoods do we want. We can still get a three story with 35. We can.

L

Build you know very compatible, two-story, duplexes and triplexes. So simple,.

L

Modification that I recommend and I'd appreciate support. Thank you. Thank you.

A

Comes mr. baum before we perhaps we can entertain questions, but I've had a.

A

Request to have staff respond to customer stir bones.

A

Comment yeah. Thank you. Scott robinson, an assistant director for planning.

F

Transportation certainly appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.

F

Generally, as I stated earlier, this district rs in our two district has been.

F

This height for a very long time, that's how it's been in our code now. This is.

F

The it's was not proposed to increase in height, it's been 40 feet for a long time.

F

Staff is not aware of any issues or concerns regarding compatibility in.

F

Height, so staff doesn't support the this amendment to lower the height again. We.

F

Don't see any issues or concerns as.

F

Proposed by this amendment, thank you. Thank you, council questions or comments.

A

Questions first, council member, following just as a refresher, so that the height.

C

Is measured from the top of the roof, even if it's a peaked roof, or is it just.

C

Sort of like the top of the floor and the roof doesn't count. It's the height.

F

Is accommodating for gabled roofs? We don't allow flat roofs. So that's why the.

F

Height or we talk about the top of the chimney or anything else, top of the roof.

C

So that chimney doesn't count, I think, there's some allowance for chimneys. I.

F

Don't know the specifics on that, but generally it's the top of the roof. Okay,.

C

Is there such a thing as a four-story residential building anywhere in the.

C

City, of course, rory in our I'm, I'm not aware of anything off the top of my head.

F

You know, maybe, if you're on a steep slope and you're talking about a.

F

Basement grade, that's open, you might maybe get three storeys, but but again.

F

I'm not aware of any and again just talking with staff. This height has been.

F

At this level, for a very long time I mean we talked about commercial.

C

Buildings and the mechanicals on them they're, usually because they're.

C

Flat-Roofed, the mechanicals aren't hidden and in a house the roof sort of hides. Almost all the mechanicals like if they're, even on.

C

Top of the building isn't that a safe characterization of.

C

Residential generally, residential houses and mechanicals are not on the roof.

F

They're off to the side on the ground, you know there might be some inside the.

F

Inside the roof, but generally the hvac air conditioning that sort of stuff not.

F

On the roof? Okay, thank you. Okay, comments councilmember mr. bone, although this has.

L

Been this height for all this time, the new discussion of putting multifamily in.

L

R2 puts it in a different context and that's what caught my attention on the.

L

Height, you know what what's going to happen next year. We don't know. I.

L

Certainly, don't know, I hope it's a matter of mapping and we discuss where.

L

Things go and now density fits in the community. Forty feet is a lot different.

L

If you're thinking about limiting a mcmansion or or a mik apartment, so.

L

That's why 35 feet makes more sense to me.

L

Thank you further comment or a recommendation: councilmember piedmont.

A

Smith, yeah, I I don't see any reason for this amendment. I mean it's the same.

J

Height limit that we've had for many years, it's never been a problem if we.

J

We've already said: no, I mean we, we as a council, the nine of us voted majority to.

J

Not allow plexus in so-called single-family neighborhoods, so I I don't.

J

I don't understand what the point of this is, so I'm going to vote no.

A

Any other comments, questions been called and seconded on amendments 40. Will the.

A

Clerk, please call the roll.

B

Simms, no stir bomb sandberg, no ruff, piedmont, smith, granger, no rallo. Yes,.

A

It fails amendment 40, fails 2 to 6.

A

Moving on to amendment 42, perhaps council members to rob yes, so I move.

L

Amendment 42, okay, so to orient this is about residential multifamily. Currently.

L

That is five unrelated and it is essentially a residential zone. These are.

L

The old residential zones that got up zoned back in the 70s and then.

L

Grandfathered and and had had too much conversion to bring back to.

L

Single-Family zone that was the the rm zone, the rm is changing a lot in this.

L

You do, in fact it's become an indistinguishable from our age. You know.

L

That almost everything is allowed in an rm zone at this time, so I am just.

L

Suggesting that there are a lot of still remaining single-family homes in the rm.

L

Zone there are a lot of remaining structures that are single family in.

L

Appearance and some of the large modifications that are now allowed in rm.

L

Might need a little more review than by right. I think people, some of the people.

L

Who live in rm would appreciate having a little more review of whatever can.

L

Happen because they don't have the chart well.

L

It is the charts on the next page and if you look at our m and our age, they are.

L

Nearly identical that they are identical, I think, there's a height difference so.

L

Auriemma disappears, as we know it, which used to.

L

Be sinkhole 5, unrelated kind of a transition zone between single-family.

L

And high-density- and I don't think anyone's noticed this very much but rm.

L

Has been turned into our age, and this just turns it a little back toward rm.

L

And respects the buildings that are actually there. If I had a good.

L

Presentation, I would show you what our h looks like and what our m looks like and.

L

Why that's a different zone even though the new board, the new chart says it is.

L

Not a new zone, so that's my amendment and that's why thank you.

A

Station will now go to staff for their comment. Thank you. Generally speaking,.

F

Staff doesn't support this amendment. We believe that what went through the.

F

Planning commission process and what's proposed is sufficient. It is a.

F

Multi-Family district, you know, councilmember ster bomb did mention the.

F

Similarities between the rm and rh, if you go to chapter 2, there is a.

F

Difference in height, we did address with other amendments. The existing.

F

Single-Family structures and how to deal with those setbacks so again, generally.

F

This is a policy question. Looking at the uses allowed pretty much the only thing.

F

That would be allowed in a this district would be single-family uses and not.

F

Smaller multifamily plexes, which is the intent of the district, so again, staff.

F

Does not recommend this amendment. Thank you. Thank you.

A

Council questions.

A

Seeing councilmember piedmont smith. Yes, I have a question for a councilmember.

J

Stir bomb during the debate about allowing plexus in traditionally.

J

Single-Family neighborhoods, you said that you're not against plexus. You just.

J

Don't want them in single-family neighborhoods. How do you square that.

J

With this, current proposal was the conditional and by right we're.

L

Essentially, the same there's just a little more review with conditional use.

L

And it modifies it just a little and it allows things that were going to be.

L

Allowed by right that didn't work correctly to be caught, so that's how I.

L

Justify that council murmurs drop yeah, just if staff would talk about.

L

Essentially, making our eman rh indistinguishable? What how can you.

L

Really justify that, could you repeat the question.

F

Yeah just explain the rationale for making rm and rh practically.

L

Indistinguishable, well, I think that's your opinion that they're induced.

F

Indistinguishable, I would disagree with you in that comment. If you go to chapter.

F

2 and look at the intent of the district's on the bulk and standards.

F

There are some differences there. There are some differences in the uses and.

F

Then again you mentioned the the mapping of where these districts are and.

F

Generally, the lot configurations of those districts are different, so I don't.

F

Think, there's a blurring between the lines of these becoming the same. You.

F

Know if you're just simply looking at the household living as a comparison, I.

F

Could see where you might draw that conclusion, but again I would disagree.

F

With your opinion, so the fact that the chart is id n is identical as misleading.

L

Is what thing in the rme district.

N

You can't go above 40 feet, that's the maximum! It's 40 feet, but then, when you.

N

Get over here to our h, it can't exceed 63 feet. So that's that's! A pretty big.

N

Difference right there there was a little difference. Thank you.

L

13 feet was terry porter, the director of planning transportation. That's that's.

A

Quite right, any other questions: okay, seeing none we'll go to the public.

A

Remember come on smith, just a point of information. 663 minus 40 is 23 feet, not.

J

A

This is an amendment 42 members of the council. My name is david keppel. I would.

O

Like to thank you for your continued diligence and hard work, I would like to.

O

Thank all members of the council for the expression, I've thought of unity. After a.

O

Very difficult debate over amendment 1 and what the unity was was a willingness.

O

To advance the plexus in other than those controversial areas that had.

O

Brought out so many residents and I respect the concerns of those residents.

O

And I think actually, although I wasn't on that side that evening, the council.

O

Acted wisely for the time being, but now I think we need to hear the other side.

O

Of that equation, which is the urgency for affordable, sustainable, dense housing.

O

And these other disks, the district other than the core districts, are where there.

O

Seemed to be a consensus, we could move forward with them, so I hope that the.

O

Council will reject this amendment and we'll try to facilitate dense.

O

Housing in these other areas of the city, I also I respect the the terms in which.

O

Councilmembers, stir bomb explained the question of of conditional use, but I beg.

O

To differ with him that I think that the that the understanding of the plan.

O

Commission and the reason the plan commission had had recommended that the.

O

Core regions be conditional use was that they understood that conditional uses.

O

Against by right is a considerable hindrance, and that seemed to them a.

O

Reasonable compromise so by that same interpretation that the.

O

Plan commission put to put conditional use on the areas where we need to be.

O

Accelerating denser development is a hindrance and I don't think we should be.

O

Putting that hindrance on friday, there's going to there's going to be extinction.

O

Rebellion action going on here in city hall to stress the urgency that younger.

O

Generations end and some of us who were older feel about climate change.

O

Something that was recently stressed in a un report. We need to be facilitating.

O

Adaptation and and mitigation of climate change and to put the brakes on it in.

O

The areas of the city where it ought to be going forward is a serious mistake in.

O

My opinion, so I respectfully ask you to reject amendment 42. Thank you. Thank you.

O

For your coming.

P

Hi, my name is greg alexander and I obviously really support density.

P

Anywhere, including my own backyard, and in maple heights, there are several of.

P

These as mr. sturm described them, were they because of past development. The.

P

Area got zoned residential multi. It's pretty much, just a like a circle around.

P

One building and in the future that building will change. You know it's the.

P

Building, I'm thinking of it's about 40 units, it's old! It's about 450 bucks, a.

P

Month to rent- which is just amazing, I think, like this- is how we got affordable.

P

Housing is this housing that people had been allowed to build. You know, but it's.

P

Gonna change, it's it's gonna be redeveloped, it's gonna be remodeled. I.

P

Don't know, but if you put conditional use, if you put more barriers to changing.

P

It it's gonna, be harder. It's gonna be more likely that when it's built again.

P

It's gonna be luxury single-family housing, which we have growing numbers of.

P

Luxury single-family housing units where people do things like demolish the house.

P

Next door, so they can have a large yard and advertise that I don't know you know.

P

I know who rents these things, our students and I can't imagine anything.

P

More destructive than my to my neighborhood, then turning the residential multi that we have into back into residential single. Because what I.

P

Love about my neighborhoods people live there and they use the services around.

P

Which is the only reason I have services why I have busts? Why? I have restaurants.

P

Anyways, I'm I'm a small-time landlord. I married into a house.

P

I had a house, my wife had a house and we ran out her house. It's in maple heights.

P

Also and it's zoned residential multi, it's right off of like a block and a.

P

Half off of walnut and we have a stable tenant, so I can't do anything to it.

P

Right now, I'm fine with that, but I've wanted for a long time to turn it into a duplex and there's a house right beside it that it's a do or it's a it's a house.

P

Then, in the back is a tiny apartment, building just kind of growing out of the.

P

Back of the house, it's very affordable. Also, it's it's ugly.

P

I guess people don't want to live by that. I love that it's in my neighborhood.

P

It's just a whole blocks for my house, but I would actually honest to god. I.

P

Would like to do that to this house, but I'm gonna have to do.

P

That I have to make a bunch of plans and planning is so difficult, and then I have.

P

To plan to wonder whether I'm gonna get a conditional use approval when it comes.

P

Time for when my tenant turns over the house- and I look at my plan if it's.

P

Conditional use- I'm gonna, be really tempted myself to just sell that to a.

P

Larger developer, that's willing to take that risk and then, if they lose that.

P

Conditional use, it will turn back into a low density form and that just would.

P

Really break my heart, but if it if it's bi-rite, then I know what I'm getting.

P

Into and it will they'll help me if I do sell it, but it will also help me if I.

P

Keep it if I remain a small landlord, interested and affordability interested.

P

In preserving the house, that's there because I want to add units to the back.

P

That I don't want to demolish it and build a mini smallwood, and I just I.

P

Can't explain you as a landowner how disturbing it is to look at conditional.

P

Use it just it's really, you want to know what you can do. Thank you. Thank you. Hi.

Q

Mary morgan with the greater bloomington chamber of commerce, we were surprised to.

Q

See this amendment come forward also surprised to see the previous amendment.

Q

Come forward, we need housing, david kepler said it well earlier: it's a.

Q

Crisis we hear this from local employers every day, so we would like to see fewer.

Q

Barriers to development conditional use as a barrier. We hope that you will.

Q

Reject this amendment, thank you. Thank you.

A

Seeing no further public comment back to council for further questions, see no.

A

Questions we'll go to comment on amendment 42 counselor ever since oh.

R

Sorry I thought I saw hands before mine. I won't support this amendment because.

M

Like staff mentioned, it does appear that this is more of a policy question and it.

M

Is in fact, a multi-family district that we're talking about this appears to be.

M

More restrictive to to possible development, I think.

M

Maybe and consequentially will reduce density and maybe even to a point.

M

Encourage sprawl, but one of the things that we've been talking about has to do.

M

With increasing public transportation and and doing other things, and it seems.

M

Kind of opposite to me when we want to do that, but then we are restricting.

M

Increasing density, I mean it's in many places, so that seems counterproductive.

M

To me so, and what we're talking about, if it does, is but isn't amended, it's not.

M

Just gonna change the whole character of where we're talking in this area, so I.

M

Won't support this amendment. Thank you.

A

Fullan, just a couple of points number one I think, like councilor sim said.

C

We've already restricted density. You know through amendment one. You know that.

C

Was a very contentious debate, I don't think we should do it any further. We.

C

Have enough challenge finding places where denser housing is allowed little.

C

In the same way that we have the same challenge finding I mean what I said.

C

About amendment was the one remember 48 the universal design amendment where.

C

People who have physical restrictions have you know they can't just buy any.

C

Place or live anywhere so there's a limited supply of that so yeah. I can't.

C

Support this, but I also wanted to comment on a public comment made about.

C

Luxury housing. I saw a billboard up in lake county that I was desperate.

C

Desperately unhappy that I did not get a chance to photograph, it was an ad for an.

C

Apartment, complex or a new subdivision, and it said luxury is now standard and.

C

You know like with this word: luxury student housing has been batted about so.

C

Much that I wanted to call attention to it. I think.

C

Excuse me: I think that detractors of housing are using the term luxury when.

C

They mean market rate and it's a pejorative term. It implies that the.

C

People who are renting it are rich. They are wealthy when they are simply able to.

C

Pay market rate- and we all have to acknowledge it market rate- is higher.

C

Than it used to be it's more expensive than it used to be, it's a problem that.

C

We've all acknowledged already through this long debate over the you do, but you.

C

Know every time I hear the word luxury I'm going to call it I'll call it out.

C

You know because it implies that the only new housing is luxury housing when.

C

Really it's luxury is now standard. You know, like that's sort of the nature of.

C

The beast: if you build new housing, you're not going to build it to crap it from the get-go you're gonna, build it new, but to say.

C

That all new housing is luxury housing is simply untrue. So I wanted to to point.

C

Out that we shouldn't take such terms for granted, it's important to be precise,.

C

Thank you how's mr. wrong mm-hmm. I brought this forward out of respect for.

L

Some people, I know that- actually live in rm zones, they're more than we realize.

L

That are both single-family and multi-family, who live in those zones as.

L

They are the way this you do is come forward and the focus that's been on.

L

Single-Family zoning, I think almost no one recognized what had happened to.

L

Multifamily zoning, the residential multifamily, contrary to what the.

L

Planners are explaining and they had, they did some damage control because.

L

Residential multifamily was essentially obliterated as we know it, and this is a.

L

Simple modest care a little bit of a break, because I know because I've worked.

L

In so many houses, I can picture how many different variations there are of this.

L

Our m's and the what I like about conditional.

L

Use is it actually fits the area. People who live in the area get to say this is.

L

What is happening in this area? These are broad generalizations in one zone, just.

L

Like in other cases, one zone doesn't fit all I mean I I I'm not going to be.

L

Surprised if this doesn't pass and I'm not surprised that it's being.

L

Characterized as being against density, while it actually isn't.

L

It's I'm telling you that conditional use is actually a great tool to fit the.

L

Zoning to the place and to moderate it when it comes, and to think that a.

L

Perfect rule can be made. That's not going to make mistakes is just not.

L

Understanding zoning, but I don't see people here who live in those zones and.

L

This was written quite a long time ago, so I'm just explaining what I did why I.

L

Did it and how there will be unintended consequences from these changes, but that.

L

Takes a long time to see thank you comment: councilmember peanut smith, yeah.

J

There are several false equivalencies that mister stir bomb has been using.

J

This evening, first of all that our m equals rh, it's not our age is 23 feet.

J

Higher allowance he says, conditional use is same as by.

J

Right well then, why are you bringing this amendment? I mean dad. I've said I've.

J

Heard council members throw bombs say that several times throughout these.

J

Processes- and it's just not true conditional use, puts you up to it as mr.

J

Alexander said, it makes it uncertain if you are a small property owner. What's.

J

Going to happen, if all your plans are going to come to naught or are allowed.

J

To go forward and then it in a way it becomes a popularity contest. I mean, is.

J

Your image of what the perfect house is is going to be. Is that.

J

The same as as people on on the bca or on the plan, commission, it leaves you.

J

Open to judgment, which.

J

Nobody can control everything that gets built in this city and I think there are.

J

Some people out there that really want to control everything, that's being built.

J

In the city- and it's ridiculous- it's not that's not possible, nor should it be. We.

J

Need more housing, we need more dense housing both because, ultimately, it's.

J

More affordable and because it makes public transit more possible, it makes.

J

Walking and biking more feasible. These are all things that we need to implement.

J

Because of the urgency of climate change- and you know anything.

J

Councilmember stir around brings forward that others on this body opposed. He.

J

Characterizes as a simple modest change, oh it's a no-brainer! Oh what's the big.

J

Deal well, it is a big deal and, and frankly, we already went through an.

J

Excruciating process with plexes that, against my better judgment, I voted.

J

Against the plexes- and I thought we had laid this to rest, so I personally I'm.

J

Disappointed that he brought this forward at all, because I thought during.

J

That whole debate, which was agonizing, we had agreed that multifamily districts.

J

Are the places for plexus that now to make it a conditional use, it's a slap in.

J

The face- and it is not good policy, so I will be voting against it.

E

Would it against the plexus in the core neighborhoods, because I do believe we.

E

Have other properties, vacant and underdeveloped that we can use? So I'm.

E

Just going to put that out there, but this is a place where we can do these.

E

Flexes where I thought again as councilmember piedmont smith noted that.

E

We had come to terms with that with the discussion with the first amendment. I.

E

Won't be supporting this because I'm not.

E

We have to facilitate adaptation. Thank you. Okay. Further comment. I will just say.

A

That I'm in agreement with my colleagues, I think, if plexus certainly deserve to.

A

Be in the rm district and I I don't want to put any barriers up. I think that we.

A

Did have that debate on and what I found is that it was very likely that plexus.

A

Would replace affordable single-family homes in residential districts and core.

A

Neighborhoods and but in this case I think that this is entirely appropriate.

A

To keep a permitted use so with that, is there any council more volunteer? Do you.

A

Ever come to call out to particular phrases that I'd like to get some.

C

Clarity on the first is the phrase core neighborhood that sort of the problem of.

C

The core neighborhood is that these are neighborhoods with lower density, housing.

C

That are close to the dense center of the city and what we did with amendment.

C

One was to preserve the lower density of these neighborhoods in the name of the.

C

People who are currently in the neighborhoods- and you know I sympathize.

C

With those neighbors who want to preserve their neighborhood as much as.

C

They they can, but it you know this amendment exposes that contradiction.

C

Like we artificially, you know, suppress the densification.

C

Of this, these properties of these areas that are close to the center of town for.

C

Reasons that I do not fully fault with I mean like I, I get the idea.

C

Even though I opposed that amendment, but I think we have to acknowledge this, this.

C

Problem and it's it's eminent eminent rather in event at 42, the other question.

C

That it's a one I'd like counter words serve on by asking his comments. Is he.

C

Has in fact said that conditional use is a great tool tonight.

C

He's also decried conditional use as being just like permitted use. I don't.

C

Get which one it is either it's the bane of our existence or it's a fantastic.

C

Tool- and we should make it use, you know we should make everything conditional. I.

C

We really like to get some clarity on that point. You know and also point out.

C

That we are never going to stop having demand for residency in centralized.

C

Neighborhoods, if we don't allow anything above trip flexes in residential.

C

Multi-Family is just going to exacerbate the problem we already have. Thank you.

C

Any further comment, I'll just say as a second bite, that core neighborhoods are.

A

The highest density neighborhoods in bloomington, so that was someone late.

A

Like to call the question, okay, questions been called seconded on amendment 42.

A

With the clerk, please call the roll.

B

Councilmember sims no stir bomb; yes, sandburg, no ref, piedmont, smith, granger,.

B

Rollo no bowling, I'm in 42 fails 1 to 7 moving on amendment 47 councilmember.

A

Stir well first I'll say: maybe I should have stayed home.

R

So amendment 47 I'll move them in 47. Let's see.

L

L

This is a this is an attempt to not trap architecture in specific rules and.

L

Regulations of variations in every x number of feet, numbers of materials that.

L

Need to be used and often that works out, but sometimes it's in conflict with a.

L

With an architect's design, vision and potentially a superior building, so this.

L

Asks that there be an alternate way to in some ways appeal and let me see how.

L

It's been rewritten here.

L

This kind of allows- and I think I could let planning explain it- a little better.

L

Because some of this language was, I believe, rewritten by planning, but it was.

L

To allow, let's say, the architect has a vision of a building that has maybe one.

L

One color of material or two colors of material and the the standards are very.

L

Clear you must bury every 30 feet, it must mod.

L

You know have a different color on a higher level, and this gives a way to.

L

Have a meeting with planning and bringing in as I had imagined it, the.

L

Architect that the administration has kept on retainer, so it allows for.

L

Another meeting to happen where those design conflicts can be discussed. So if.

L

I somewhat captured that thank you go to staff. Mr. robinson, do you have comment.

A

Yeah, thank you again. I want to appreciate council members serve on for.

F

Bringing this to our attention, we did work with him on the language and trying.

F

To address his concerns, currently we do have architect on retainer to help.

F

Review some of the bigger projects to get their feedback, a kind of a opinion.

F

On the architectural designs- and we found that to be helpful, so what this.

F

Does is it sort of incorporates that process that we currently are practicing.

F

Right now and again, we would support this. I do want to point out just a minor.

F

Clarification, it might have been some confusion on the back and forth, and the.

F

Email, we would prefer that this apply to the whole section of building design.

F

Right now, as you see in your packet, it would only apply under the mixed use in.

F

Non-Residential the intent was to include it actually under part d and not.

F

Part d, one: I think there was agreement on that with councilmember stir bomb and.

F

Excuse me, mr. sherman, but just wanted to point that out for clarification. This is.

F

Something that we currently do, this clarifies that process and again.

F

Something that we would support. Thank you a practice. That's already in place.

A

Yes, well all right, so staff has a contradiction, apparently.

A

With you regarding the interpretation of where this should be.

A

Supposed to mixed use and unrest intial would you is that what you were.

A

Exploring trying to find out the same question? Yes, so the when we were.

F

Exchanging ideas back and forth, the intent was to include it under just.

F

Building design where it apply both to mixed use in non-residential and then.

F

Part two which is residential if, if it's included here as I would read it, this.

F

Would only apply to mixed use and non-residential, I believe the intent of.

F

Mr. stir bomb was, we would want this to apply for all types of projects. So again.

F

We've used this for just strictly residential projects in the past and.

F

Mixed use projects as well, so something that we currently do to.

A

This amendment, it seems its staff, is advocating that.

A

They would prefer to see it. Yes, it's just a minor technical thing again. I.

F

Think that was the intent that councilmember stir bomb had raised in.

F

Reaching out to us, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember stir bomb. If.

M

Councilmember, stir bomb is amenable to.

A

Following staff's recommendation, is that what you intend word? Yes, okay,.

C

There's been questions, so we can see if there's any other well, I wanted to.

A

Learn, counsel attorney sherman this because we may need it in writing is.

A

That correct, we are hoping to amend amendment 47 in terms of its use and.

A

Staff can clarify is, is the text correctly positioned, so it applies to.

D

Mixed use and non-residential it should it should be d so that it would embody.

F

Both sections 1 & 2 meeting our technical requirement that it be in.

D

Writing the text be moved from below paren 1 2 above paren 1. Is that correct.

D

Yes, yes, writing. I think staff and customer seroma are in agreement. Do we.

A

Need that as an amendment or could it be a friendly amendment, since that was the.

A

Intention move the line line 1 to below the red text. That would be a little bit.

C

Slightly easier, procedurally, do we need to have an amendment considered a.

D

Friendly amendment okay, would someone like to move that? Okay.

A

So, let's proceed with that: any questions.

A

All in favor of that change say aye any opposed. Thank you. Alright. Now that.

A

We have that straightened out. Are there questions from council? Yes, counselor.

A

C

Okay, so can you define a phrase like significantly enhances the visual appeal.

C

Of the building, who decides what's appealing visually, define that no, I.

F

Can't but I think the intent is suggesting that if there's question.

F

About the concerns of complying with the code in ways to improve that, that would.

F

Be something that again through the development review process and plan.

F

Commission that would be a discretionary decision that those bodies would make.

F

And staff would make a recommendation back based on that yeah that there is.

C

Discretion involved at certain points in our process, but you can see why someone.

C

Might balk at the phrase was it visual appeal? I mean it seems entirely.

C

Arbitrary, well, you know, there's been concern for some time about trading a.

F

Design review committee and in other aspects and obviously that's a much.

F

Larger question again, I think this is a step in that direction. It's something.

F

That our department has been practicing for some time now, with current projects.

F

And again those recommendations have been forwarded to those petitioners and.

F

They've incorporated many of those recommendations and that's been shared.

F

During the plan commission process, so again, I think maybe face value. Might.

F

Appear that way, but architecture is somewhat of a subjective matter and.

F

Again, this is something that we're trying to contend with on the design of.

F

Some of these buildings, thank you. I just want to clarify we're codifying kirke.

E

Practice, basically, that's correct. Thank you. Further questions, council.

A

Member piedmont, smith yeah, I was wondering- maybe miss porter.

J

Can answer this about? How much does it cost us to retain this third-party.

J

Architectural firm to review our the proposals that come before the city, he.

N

Contract the initial contract with them that went into effect in 2017 for a.

N

Hundred and twelve thousand dollars, I believe- and that was for a year- a period.

N

Of a year at the end of 2018, we had more than fifty thousand dollars left on that.

N

Account so I we we haven't used that entire amount. What we have had the.

N

Contractor review our larger projects more complex developments, we've had them.

N

You know not just look at the design, but the way the structure fits within the.

N

Area that it's being proposed, they've also reviewed for for green.

N

Features and made recommendations of how the developer can improve the climate.

N

Friendliness of the design, pedestrian safety number of drive cuts so that it's.

N

Its architectural review, but it's much more in-depth and we still have pretty.

N

Significant funds left from our initial contract that remain available to use.

N

Thank you to follow up on my first question with the third bullet point: how.

C

Do we determine what creates no adverse impacts on surrounding properties? How do.

C

We define adverse impacts.

C

You see it there.

C

S

So now actually defined in the code, it's up to the board of zoning appeals or I'm.

C

Sorry, thank you. Can't you fast like cyrus and you that you're saying that.

C

Adverse impacts is or is not defined them. It's not have a strict definition.

S

It's up to the board or the commission to determine if something will have an.

S

Adverse impact, yes, I will direct the question to mr. baum, please those.

L

Changes that are suggested don't create an adverse impact. So if, if it's the way.

L

It is, and then the new architect says: let's move it over here and it clearly.

L

Shades that next building or affects that other building that would be even.

L

Though it's an architectural design idea, it could have a negative impact. The.

L

Concrete definition I have of adverse impact is it might shade the other.

C

Building do we have nothing more specific than that example? I would like.

C

Some more examples: I find this to be a really vague term, and I'm surprised that.

C

In a very precise document, we're not including more specifics, it's a.

L

Condition of all conditional use and has been used as a condition for conditional.

L

Use since conditional use began in the city of bloomington have no adverse.

L

Effect on an adjacent property is one of the conditions of conditional use, so.

L

It's a well-established phrase to be able to define I'll reserve for another.

C

Question. Thank you. Okay counsel. Merv, on what other examples have there been that.

C

Are defined as adverse impact, I mean this is the kind of a vague phrase that.

C

Drives people crazy when they're trying to figure out what's possible and what's.

C

Not give us another example: please.

R

I should give another senator your amendment light noise, visual blight.

L

There are just numerous things that you can do to a next-door property that.

L

Cause a problem for it: traffic impact parking that first impact with parking.

C

Like as too much or not enough, which one is adverse you, I can't exactly.

L

Answer your specific, but that this has been considered by the boers owning.

L

Appeals a million times, and they do you- know adverse impact. When you see it and.

L

Just this leaves this decision up to the body making the final decision so you're.

C

Saying that should be the council's entity, you know when you see it seeing.

A

None we will go to the public publicus comment on amendment 47 public comment.

A

We're back to council any further questions: councilmember sims marie.

A

Sandberg, oh I'm sorry.

A

In questions, oh I'm in comments. So if you had a question since did you have a.

A

Question, yes, I did actually I mean under the legislative intent the.

M

Last sentence says this: amendment would give architects more creative freedom. I.

M

Guess I'm wondering what in fact does that mean or how does it give an.

M

Architect, more creative freedom than a design person would have that a phrase.

M

That I was actually actually my sponsor of this amendment, but staff can, if they.

M

Choose to jump in there. My statement was that sometimes an architect will have a.

L

Concept for the build- and you know a lot of traditional.

L

Concepts for buildings were oddly out of one material, even though they were.

L

Gracefully done and then to arbitrarily have to cut that into three different.

L

Materials and three different divisions that are also specified about height or.

L

Or a line that continues across you know that can interfere with a simple design.

L

Of a building- and this is this- is that's an example of interfering with the.

L

Architects, creative abilities by basically rules that are made in our.

L

Zoning laws that are essentially arbitrary to an architect: okay, let's.

A

Move the comments and customers sandberg the whole concept of creative freedom. I.

G

Think we have very good use of schmidt and associates our architectural review.

G

I think the whole intent we want to make all projects that come before us, whether.

G

It's playing commissioned bza this body. We want to make them better and.

G

Sometimes you know, architects can come up with some really great ideas that.

G

Improve what what initially is brought forward- and I think that's a good thing.

G

And so allowing this additional use of consulting to be able to take a project.

G

And make it better than it is more visually appealing more more attractive.

G

More substantial and and thinking a little bit more outside of the standard.

G

Box, I think, is a good thing moving forward, so I would be in favor. Thank you.

A

Thank you I'm in favor of this, since it's what we're already doing, and it.

E

Seems to be working, and I seem to remember that council had asked for.

E

Architectural support some time ago so that we wouldn't have to decide where.

E

The flowerpots belong, so I am supporting this. Thank you. I just googled and found.

C

The phrase in wikipedia I know it when I see it.

C

Potter, stewart's famous supreme court statement on obscenity, a critique of it.

C

By william goldberg was I'll, read it the simple phrase, embedded in a plurality.

C

Opinion carries with it many of the conflicts and inconsistencies that.

C

Continue to plague american obscenity law, in fact quote. I know it when I see.

C

It unquote can still be paraphrased and unpacked, as quote I know it when I see it and someone else will know it when.

C

They see it but what they see and what they know may or may not be what I see.

C

It would, I know, and that's, okay, unquote. The only reason.

C

To support this is because it's been it's not really changing our practice.

C

But it disappoints me greatly that in a document where we have been striving to.

C

Define things better and we actually had a couple of amendments tonight to.

C

Provide revised definitions in our definitions section that we can't define.

C

Phrases like visual appeal, the perceived quality of the building facades, visible.

C

From public streets, the adverse impacts on surrounding properties, the last.

C

Phrase strengthened the public private interaction at the street level. I mean.

C

We have got to be able to better define these terms. You know this is the.

C

Arbitrariness that so many people who complain about the development process.

C

Are concerned about- and it's not like there isn't a point to the conditional.

C

Conditionality of something that we should be, you know reviewing certain designs. I don't want to see anymore.

C

Glass and steel unornamented buildings in bloomington, but we ought to be able.

C

To find a way to define them, this isn't as hard as defining obscenity, and I.

C

Don't want to say that these phrases are obscene simply that you know visual.

C

Appeal is well, I guess we know what we see it. Thank you.

J

Vague ness and subjectivity of the bullet points in this amendment are also.

J

A concern to me, but overall, what concerns me the most is that we're.

J

Paying about fifty thousand dollars a year for an architect- and you know I may.

J

Have been one of the people two years ago, who said we need more architectural.

J

Oversight but the urgency of climate change has hit home with me and.

J

Hopefully it was many others in the intervening couple of years and I'm just.

J

Thinking how many solar panels could we install for $50,000 a year? I know it's.

J

Not fungible and I can't just move things around but but as a concept I.

J

Think there are better things we can spend that money on than having schmidt.

J

Associates to review plans. I also I used to be on the planning commission. I think.

J

In the early days of our affiliation with that architecture firm, I that was I.

J

Was still on the plane commission, I never got a lot out of their reports.

J

I've read a few plan commission packets since then, even though I'm not on the.

J

Plan, commission, I just I don't think their memos, at least that are given to.

J

Planning, commission have been very helpful. You know I'm I haven't been on.

J

The planning commission, so maybe I've, missed a certain incidents, were they.

J

They made excellent adjustments or recommendations, but I.

J

You know if it be up to me to renew that kind of contract. I wouldn't do it and so.

J

I'm not gonna support this amendment either. Thank you. Some members, turbo yeah.

L

The trouble with architecture is it's kind of an art, it isn't it's an art form.

L

And it isn't always that you can define how that art is supposed to fit and work.

L

And I'll remind everyone that the comp plan requested a design review process.

L

And this is a most modest one, and my vision of this was that it would.

L

Actually function as a kind of appeal you know, most things are going to do.

L

What they do there gonna be a few buildings that deserve this kind of.

L

Special attention and that to not have it kinda cheats the community out of.

L

Something that could be really beautiful and everyone knows, I'm a traditionalist.

L

But this I know this opens the door for all kinds of architecture. It just says.

L

Sometimes there are, the art has to transcend the rules and we need to.

L

Consult with another architect and give that architect an opportunity to create.

L

Something wonderful, so that's again something kind of simple, but it opens a.

L

New door, thank you, councilmember sims. Thank you.

M

I think we've talked about. I can support this amendment, but like some of my.

M

Colleagues and particularly councilmember boland, it's stated: I'm a.

M

Little uncomfortable with the lack of some definitions- and I understand art in.

M

Art museum, I understand their differences, but when it comes to design.

M

And what we're codifying in neighborhoods, I think that's a different.

M

Issue, I would also to be devil's. I've could.

M

Say that maybe I find glass and steel or animated be lit buildings quite.

M

Appealing then, where do I fit? You know what we're talking about here now. I.

M

Don't- and I think many of us don't, but I think that opens the door to those sorts.

M

Of things and lastly, I want us to think about more tight definitions, moving.

M

Forward because, like I said before, something that's more visually appealing.

M

To one person is another person's visually obnoxious, so we really really.

M

Need to do it, we can to type that up. Having said all that, we're already doing.

M

This to a certain degree, so I will support it. You know I'll say that I'm in.

A

Agreement that it would be good to have more specificity in terms of definition,.

A

I think we could agree generally speaking on what has visual appeal of.

A

Buildings- after all, I think we all value the downtown, because the visual appeal I.

A

Don't think there's really any question be very few people who would say that's.

A

An unattractive downtown can we replicate that? I think we could. I think.

A

We could have those visual elements integrated, it hasn't been in many.

A

Buildings, a lot of the buildings are, I think, visual blight. Instead of enhancing.

A

So I'm very sympathetic to this, but I would like more definition and frankly I.

A

Think people don't care about what they they see is visually unaesthetic.

A

And therefore it does matter for the community. It's not optional. In my mind,.

A

Council comes my role, you know, I don't want to discourage current practice on.

C

The other hand, the whole point of this again was to get more specific and to.

C

Get a better stronger you do, you know, I think I could support it if some of.

C

These definitions were were written, but I mean look at the second bullet point.

C

Significantly enhances the perceived quality of the building facade, visible.

C

From public streets perceived quality, I mean the only definition of that is.

C

Whatever the bca thinks, or whatever planning thinks, whoever so the point of.

C

View of whoever is on the making the decision, their perception of the quality.

C

And you know, are we really gonna settle for a definition that vague? Why why.

C

Bother, if we're already doing it, why not send this back and make it? You know.

C

Stronger because, by making it more specific, I you know like, I was ready to.

C

Vote for it anyway, because we're already doing it, but if we're already doing it.

C

Why do we have to codify something we're already doing when it's no more specific.

C

Than what we're already doing, let's make it stronger, let's make it more specific.

C

Thank you, I'm looking forward to an amendment from councilman, fallin and.

A

Second round, to make it more specific.

G

Something like a challenge to yourself and so the question that can call them.

A

Second and an amendment 47 will the clerk please call the roll council.

B

Members, turbo sandberg, yes, ruff, piedmont, smith,.

B

Grainger, yes, rallo, yes, valen simms, yes, and it is adopted. 6, 2, 2,.

A

1 minute and 47: ok, I'm in at 48 comes member sandburg.

G

This is 50, and this is in regard to I move amendment 50 all right.

G

This makes changes to landscaping identifying certain species evergreens.

G

Removing poor quality invasive species adding new this is quite complicated, so.

G

I will defer to staff to explain it further. Several pages of strikeouts and.

G

Additions plant species list based on some recommendations from the.

F

Environmental commission and updating plants that are invasive non invasive.

F

And have poor characteristics. So again it's pretty straightforward. Just.

F

Updating that current list and moving including new plants in the invasive.

F

Species list, as well as others that are native or acceptable plant species, be.

F

Happy to answer any questions that you may have for staff council, meramec.

A

E

List appear because this is not the first time we've seen this right, which.

F

The list before you or the yeah this this list has been modified. Several.

F

Times through the process and that's a reflection of some changes that have.

F

Been based on input from the environmental commission and staff, okay,.

E

It's okay, perfect, thank you and I in direct reporter corrected me as well as.

F

Parks department, so it I apologize, it has been somewhat of a moving target.

F

Since we started this process out through planning commission to where we.

F

Are now, but that's thank you for the questions. Councilmember, piedmont, smith. I.

A

Would like to move a friendly amendment to amendment 50 and that is to add under.

J

Prohibited invasive grasses, yellow groove bamboos, I will not try to.

J

Pronounce the scientific name- and this is at the recommendation of linda.

J

Thompson, senior environmental planner because bamboo is nasty and you can't.

J

Get rid of it yep I mean I'm sorry that was a little bit to sue frank, but anyway,.

A

You know what, when you see it: okay, other questions for the sponsor of the.

A

Amendment to the amendment slowly.

C

Yellow groove bamboos. Thank you. No questions. Okay,.

A

How does staff support it came? Fiesta staff supports that it was an oversight.

F

On our part, was left out in the list that we provided to counsel. My apologies.

F

On that, okay go to public public would like to comment on the amendment to the.

A

Amendment to remove yellow group bamboo.

A

Singing now and we're back to council, may I ask mr. shermin if he has that in.

J

Writing, mr. lucas, okay, okay, it's been moved and.

A

Seconded with a clerk, please call the roll on that amendment to amendments.

A

Amendment 50, thank you. Yes,.

B

Piedmont: smith: grainger; yes, rallo; yes, yes, sims! Yes,.

B

Mr. baum, thank you. Thank you. That's amendment sue a minute. Fifty is adopted.

A

Eight zero, so we're back to the amendment as amended. We were. Are there.

A

Any questions from council on that amendment comes merv. Oh yeah, is it.

C

Possible that the reason that this was not on the consent agenda is because of.

C

That oversight, the yellow, groove bamboo or was there there any reason why this.

C

Wasn't is that the only reason it was really alright? Thank you. Thank you.

A

What amendment 50, okay? Seeing no public comment we're back to council, okay,.

A

Questions been called in second amendment 50, as amended. Will the clerk.

A

Please call the roll.

B

Councilmember ruff, yes, piedmont, smith, yes, grainger! Yes, rallo.

B

Yes, boland simms, yes, sterben sandburg. Yes, thank you. Thank you.

A

Amendment 50, as amended, is adopted. 8-0.

A

We'll turn now to amendment 51, please proceed so this. This is before us to try.

L

And solve, but I think, was an oversight. In the previous time we tried to fix the.

L

Fence amendment which remember allowed the friendly fence along the along the.

L

Side yard above five feet: you had to have a open fence and what happened in.

L

My neighborhood was somebody put up a fence right against the sidewalk and in.

L

The neighborhood yards are kind of small, but.

L

He didn't put the open fencing on top, so he was going to have to modify it and.

L

Oddly, the rule came out that he would actually have to move the fence back.

L

About seven feet from the sidewalk to match the side of the house instead of.

L

His property line- and this allows it to go to the property line, which would be.

L

Right next to a sidewalk and in the other case, the same kind of thing.

L

Happened and it would, this was more in the elm heights area and an older couple.

L

We're trying to put a fence on their property line and again the rule pushed.

L

Would have pushed them back about eight feet into their lot and they would have.

L

In order to have a fence to have the privacy next to a busy street, they would.

L

Have had to give up about eight feet of their entire side backyard, so this this.

L

Essentially allows the fences to go out to the property line and corrects what I.

L

Believe was an unintended and certainly was unintended in my in my from my.

L

Position and being part of the people that drafted that ordinance, I can attest.

L

To the fact that it was unintended, so I asked planning to help and I'm not sure.

L

Where we landed with this weather planning ended up a helping, and I think.

L

They did be supporting and I'm not sure they do and then see. We ended up with a 12-foot fence that we had to then reconcile.

L

Because nobody wants 12-foot fence right against the sidewalk so that the old.

L

Line worked well for a 12-foot fence, but not so much for an 8-foot fence. So I.

L

Guess I'm throwing this a little bit to planning. I think the intent is clear. I.

L

Would like, I think it would be in in the interest of the public and of us to.

L

Allow that fence to be right against the sidewalk or right against the property.

L

Line without arbitrarily taking away part of a yard of a house just because.

L

It happens to be corner line and the yards are small.

L

Enough- and this is one of those things where that rule worked, nine out of ten.

L

Times but arbitrarily every once in a while, it completely didn't work.

L

And I'm really trying to fix that. So what the guy, with the fence against the.

L

Sidewalk had to do was cut it down to four feet, but his german shepherd wasn't.

L

Held in by a 4-foot fence, so he had to either he may have to change and move it.

L

Back into his yard to keep his dog in instead of being allowed to make that a.

L

Six-Foot fence, with a transparent part on the top, so I guess I'll throw it to.

L

Planning to further confuse everybody in our packet, do you have those are those.

A

Helpful too, I do they have the. I do not have the illustrations, but we could put.

F

Up the overhead.

R

They'd make it even a little bigger.

L

So if you, you can see where that fence the thing that looks like a fence there.

L

In the back sort of is along the property line and the side of the house.

L

I think would define the other line if you were going to in the cases where we.

L

Ran into trouble, they weren't allowed to bring them out to the property line, so.

L

This amendment is trying to allow that to happen so now I guess you will throw.

L

It to plan, please would planning care to comment yeah. So again, I think the intent.

F

Was to specifically deal with corner lots and again with the recent changes.

F

With the defense ordinance not regarding the the 12-foot high, it does create some.

F

Unique situations and how staff interprets corner lot so corner lot says.

F

You know have to frontages what would be your front yard so in the situations.

F

They would have to have their fence at four feet rather than the higher height.

F

What councilmember ster bomb is proposing that, on one of the on the.

F

Secondary street they could have a higher height now, in this instance, or in.

F

This illustration, that might be fine, but there are some instances which I'll pull.

F

Up a google map where a corner lot, you would have a conflict if your neighbor.

F

Had a four foot high fence, which they would be acquired because they only have.

F

One frontage, but the corner lot depending on the street prioritization.

F

You you could have an 8-foot fence that the neighbors would have a 4-foot fence.

F

So it you know just for consistency, that's why staff would not recommend.

F

This again, it's a fairly unique situation. In the two cases, the.

F

Councilmember stir bomb was talking about corner lots. Do that's either a.

F

Trade, often owning a quarter lot that you do have essentially to frontages on.

F

The street and you don't traditionally have a true backyard or two side yards.

F

Like you would on a most street, so I just have an image of an area. That's.

F

Residential core lincoln and grant an 11th street so depending on, if in this.

F

Situation, 11th or lincoln street in grant could be the primary streets and.

F

Depending on the neighbors, if they had a fence in their front yard, and if this.

F

Amendment were to be approved. You'd have that weird juxtaposition of a eight-foot.

F

Fence and then your neighbor would only get a 4-foot fence, so we would recommend.

F

Not adopting this in that situation, oh.

F

C

It's the, but he just referred to other questions from council.

A

Councilmember rough last thing you said was staff would not recommend adopting.

I

This in that situation, but that.

I

Situation would be covered by this amendment, so right I mean: what do you.

I

Soon know I get again the two cases that councilmember ster obama's requesting.

F

The the intent was that they wanted to have more of a backyard, even though they.

F

Don't because they're on a corner lot and because of the way the code is.

F

Written we have to treat both those frontages as a front yard and that's why.

F

The defense would have to be four feet and brought back to the property line.

F

There was nothing unique about their property that they could not comply with.

F

The code, those instances those residents felt that they wanted to have a higher.

F

Fence either because of a dog or they wanted a larger area for privacy. For a.

F

Backyard, even though they're on a corner a lot as drafted here again, the unique.

F

Situation, I'm talking about is not every corner would just not. Every block has.

F

Two corner lots where it would be okay: there are instances where they're.

F

Adjacent properties that could have a front yard would have a four-foot fence.

F

And in this instance, the corner lot would be allowed an 8-foot fence on the.

F

Secondary street and a four-foot fence on the four on the primary street so.

F

Again for consistency, we would prefer that four corner lots both streets are.

F

Treated as a frontage and they get to four-foot fence.

A

Tell me repeat: once men counts mercer, so most of the most of the lots that I've.

L

Seen have a alley between them so that their side yard in in my neighborhood.

L

The side yards all end at an alley and you're saying they're occasional out.

L

Side yards that actually end in somebody else's front yard, even though the the.

L

Side, the fence between those properties would be able to be taller. So are you.

L

Saying that you want an amendment for that rare case where there will be a.

L

Tall fence going into a short fence, or what are you suggesting because and are.

L

You saying that's more important than people losing large percentage of their.

L

Yard for in order to keep this consistency in the rare case where.

L

There's a tall fence going into a small fence. Again I wouldn't say it's a I.

F

Would say it's more frequent of occurrence where we would not treat.

F

Alleys as a frontage, so again the there might be some instances where you have.

F

To corner lots that are on a narrow or block where that may not create a.

F

Problem but again the nature of corner lots in the way they're treated. They do.

F

Have two street frontages and again when we're looking at aesthetics and building.

F

Forward in those aspects of that eyes on the street you're looking at sight.

F

Distances and vision, clearance triangles and those things the consistency of four.

F

Feet is what staff would recommend and certainly acknowledge your concern with.

F

Those two cases, but again our recommendation, is the consistency of.

F

That four foot along the front front yard, as currently drafted.

A

Okay, further questions we'll go to the public. Tells me repeat: matt smith can.

J

You put back that image. So what are you trying to show us here? I'm sorry! I.

J

Missed the point of the image so depending on which corner house you look.

F

At so, in this instance on the corner of lincoln and 11th street.

F

I'll just for argument's, say lincoln is the primary street, so their front yard.

F

Would get the four foot fence 11th street as councilmembers amendment? Would.

F

Be proposed, they would get an 8-foot fence along here. These houses here would.

F

Only be allowed a 4-foot fence along their frontage because that's their.

F

Frontage of the street, if you continue around the corner again, let's just shake.

F

Of argument grant street is the primary street. You could continue that pattern.

F

Around so they would get an 8 foot fence here, 4 foot fence here their neighbors.

F

Would get a 4 foot fence, so that's the situation that could be created with.

F

Treating giving deference to corner lots where you get to pick one frontage as.

F

Their primary and then other street frontage of treating as a side yard as.

F

You would be with the adjacent loss, so that's the concern is, we would be.

F

Creating inconsistency with that aspect.

I

Under what is it certain circumstances.

I

Except in except under certain circumstances, I mean.

I

Well, that's just the summary: it's not in the language! Well, then, what why is it in.

I

The summary do you understand the question mr. robbins, okay, other.

A

Questions sighs its custom, seeing none will good. Apparently he was mistaken. So.

A

We'll go to public no public comments on this amendment.

A

So we're back to council councilmember or there let's go to questions first.

A

There any unresolved questions seeing none we'll go to comments. The thing.

A

Comes mr. bone and then granger this condition the condition that planning is.

L

Even talking about exists already, people have already built fences, pre fence.

L

Rules, it's not it's not a big problem, but what is a problem is, I think, that's.

L

What we have to decide what's the public good is taking that much of their yard.

L

When it's a small core neighborhood yard for a really quite an arbitrary reason,.

L

So that, like we're taking their yards so that in some other instance, there isn't.

L

At all kind of a tall fence and then a short fence and the rarity. When there's.

L

Another frontage that has a small fence with a big fence next to it, so I think.

L

We may not be able to write the perfect fence amendment. You know. I would like to.

L

See something about a way to address that issue. But I think, if we're just.

L

Going to write the best fence amendment we can at the moment- and we currently.

L

Have a bad one, because it's hurt two people to my knowledge in the last year.

L

And in a way that made one person say I didn't even if I knew this was how.

L

Bloomington treated me, I'd have moved here. That's how much this old couple was.

L

Upset by the that they couldn't put a fence to.

L

Privacy, privacy, their backyard, they were very upset and the other guy I just want.

L

To keep my dog in, why does this have to be a four-foot fence? Why don't we have.

L

To give up this much of my yard to make fence, so those are the human impacts so.

L

We have to weigh that against the aesthetic of of a fence stepping down.

L

Occasionally, when there's a rarity of those other frontages that planting.

L

Pointed out because most of the ones in my mind, those secondary frontages go.

L

Back to an alley anyway, so they always have a fence and then a fence along the.

L

Alley so I think it's weighing the public good and are we going to allow an.

L

Ordinance to stand that you know in my testimony has really harmed two.

L

Individuals in this last year versus the kind of vague worry that maybe there.

L

Will be an aesthetic problem when one fence hits another fence, so that's why I.

L

Brought this forward really with those very individuals in mind, and I would.

L

Appreciate support on that and ranger is next. Thank you. I'm not gonna support.

E

This I like what staff said about consistency to not change this, not.

E

Approve this amendment, I'm concerned that this amendment is response to a.

E

Limited number of properties, and so I'm not supporting it. Thank you.

I

Question of staff at this point. Yes, please thank you staff. Is there any.

I

Safety issue behind this, or is it really just an aesthetic and consistency thing.

I

Or is there an actual safety issue like for cars, traveling or anything just.

I

There there could be some safety issues with alleys, I mean we do have vision.

F

Sight, distance and triangles to look at, but there are, there could be some.

F

Concerns with a eight-foot fence, even with an open top adjacent to alleys, so.

F

There are some safety considerations to think about on those corner: lots again.

F

Corner lots is somewhat a choice that people may choose and that's a.

F

Reflection on the aspect that they do have to street frontages and those are.

F

There are some safety concerns that we need to be cognizant of. Thank you.

D

This amendment complies says: the fence must comply with the vision sight.

D

Triangle, so that's it's clear that it must meet those requirements. There may.

D

Be other issues that aren't covered by the sight triangle that mr. robbins is.

D

Referring to but this these fences have to comply with that requirement. Okay,.

A

Let's remember piedmont. Smith. May I also ask a question. I'm sorry, I'm really.

J

Trying hard to understand this amendment so from what I understand, the amendment.

J

Would allow an 8-foot fence in the secondary front side yard the secondary.

J

Frontage, instead of limiting it to a 4-foot fence, is that right and does it.

J

Also allow that fence to be closer to the street.

S

So it's gonna raise the height pass the bill to line in the r3 district. It's.

S

Sorry, it's going to raise the height pass, the bill to line in the r3 district.

S

So currently the bill to line would be even with the house, for example, and so.

S

That would have to be 4 feet if it were passed that bill to line behind that.

S

Bill to line it can be 8 feet currently, but this would allow it to go all the.

S

Way up to the property line as 8 feet in.

L

Front of the yard: it's not doing that on the primary or on the secondary frontage.

L

It still has to turn that corner. You don't start a larger fence until you're.

L

Behind at the front edge of the house and back well he's correcting that this.

F

Is staff has looked at this closely and again we we understand the intent, but we.

F

Don't support it because we do believe it does create some it. We could argue it.

F

Does have to comply with site distances you throw in street trees on street.

F

Parking those things it does raise some concerns. Our interpretation is that it.

F

Would allow for that offense to be forward of that bill to line so again.

F

That's our interpretation all right, so I don't think. Excuse me counsel. Mr. baum.

A

Can we just I'm trying to see if customer piedmont smith is satisfied.

L

Conflicting, yes, we're trying to resolve this, so come samara, piedmont, smith from.

J

What I understand staff is saying that, currently in front of the build to line.

J

The defense on the secondary frontage cannot exceed 4 feet and, with this.

J

Amendment it would be able to go to 8 feet. Is that correct? That's correct.

F

Thank you. That's not how we wrote the amendment front, wall, frontage and.

D

Councilmember piedmont smith is correct. The fence could be up to 8 feet, tall.

D

Anything above 5 feet would have to be open construction. It could go to the.

D

Property line, unless there were a sidewalk and then the sidewalk would be.

D

You know outside the fence.

A

We run concert questions right now. So would you like to ask a question? Please.

A

I, the fence, is going to the front face of the house that front bill to line and.

L

After the front bill to line it's reduced to 4 feet, that's correct.

D

We're talking about the secondary frontage, in other words, the corner, lots.

D

Secondary frontage, but on the address side of the house, it has to be for.

D

Convened the the fence can be no more than 4 feet tall, so front. That's 4 feet.

D

Turns the corner 4 feet back to that edge of the house, then it is allowed to.

L

Get up to 6 feet 8 feet. Yes, 8 feet! Yes, that's correct!.

L

That's what I was trying to explain cuz, I didn't think that's how it was getting.

L

Answered and if I was, if it allowed the eight foot wall to the front of that.

L

Corner, I would have withdrawn the amendment that isn't how I intended it.

L

It, I don't believe it's house written and I'm sure it isn't. So that's where.

L

That stops and that's why the taller fence starts behind the front of the.

L

A

Council, member piedmont smith, so I read in the amendment in the r3 district.

J

Fences and walls along the frontage of the secondary front building wall should.

J

I comply with section n2 and those fences and walls located forward of the.

J

Building two or front building setback line shall not exceed eight feet in.

J

Height, so it's not, it does not read the way that councilmember ster bomb has.

J

Just described that he wants it to read.

J

Its staff is that your interpretation as well, so if council members stirabout if.

J

His intention was for the maximum fence height in front of the build to line to.

J

Be four feet then he would need to change his amendment. I have to ask dan.

L

Sherman to clarify, as he wrote this.

D

I believe it, the amendment accurately states, council members, stir bombs, intent.

D

And that is that there are there's a secondary frontage, which you see by the.

D

Two o on the overhead and there's a I guess, the let's call it a primary.

D

Frontage and the area on the primary frontage in forward of the build tool. I.

D

Know it's in front of the house can be no more than four feet tall. So that's.

D

Where you see that short fence yeah on two side and then on the side, frontage.

D

On the secondary frontage from the building to the rear of the lot, it could.

D

Be eight feet tall, so you see the taller fence right there and I believe that's.

D

How it's written and that's how it is displayed on the on the overhead and.

A

Staff is consistent with that interpretation.

A

Okay, so we're stalling questions so counsel, merv rowland is next. The section.

C

Of fence, sorry, it's a minor question with the section of fence that is parallel with the front of the house between the.

C

Letters c and letter f does that supposed to match the eight feet of the.

C

Back or the four feet of the front, the one that's parallel to the secondary.

C

Frontage, does everyone know the little section I'm talking about? No, no, no. It's.

C

No, it's it's ninety degrees that way it's the it's attached to the house that.

C

Little section between the house and the street: that's it: what height is that.

C

Section of fence: no, it's funny, isn't it the fill to line it could be eight feet.

S

If the build to line, if that fence was in front of the build tool on so as.

S

Written that would be part of the primary facade, so it had to be four feet.

S

If it were somehow in front of the block face average at the build tool, I'm sorry.

C

Sorry, I'm just not, are you saying that if it's like one foot behind the facade.

C

Of the house, then it could be eight feet, but if it's at the facade of the house.

C

Then it's four feet depending on where the build to line actually is so the.

S

Build to lines based on the average of the block, so it's not necessarily the.

S

House doesn't necessarily have to exist at the build to line currently, if it's.

S

An older house, for example, sure exactly, but you could make it eight feet tall if.

L

You get back to the right line.

C

Complicated the bill to line for that selection offense in this in this.

S

Picture it would appear that it would be even with the facade just since they're.

S

All drawn together in a lot of older neighborhoods, they vary, so it could be a.

S

Couple feet behind the facade of the current structure, so I mean if in this.

C

Picture this house, which can go four feet, a four foot fence, can go from the.

C

Primary frontage back to the the facade of the house, and then it becomes eight.

C

Feet we, we can't determine from this picture. I it's to the bill to line so.

A

It's variable, so I will. I still have time. I would ask mister obama. Where is.

C

The bill to line for that section of fence the bill to line is flush with the.

L

Front of the house: okay, so that's why the fence turned back there. So if the.

C

Flood if they've said, if it's flush of the front of the house, what would the.

C

Homeowner have to do to build an 8-foot section of the head fence. Now, how far.

C

Back would have to go well in this case. He can build it right where it's drawn.

L

If the bill to line was an average of the front, if it was farther back and it.

L

Could be two or three feet farther back he'd have to just go to her three feet.

L

Farther back build that taller fence. Thank you.

A

All right we'll go to the public. Oh I'm sorry, councillor granger, we went.

A

C

All right so we're in the comments. Sorry accounts, murmured granger, taking a.

E

Second, bite of the apple, I am even more confused and if we can't understand it, I.

E

Say, let's vote? No councilmember, piedmont? Smith! Yes, the way I see it, the problems.

J

The specific case is that councilmember stir bomb brought forward as a reason.

J

For this amendment, those could be solved by having an 8-foot friends from the.

J

House to the other fence, just beyond the building setback line, and so then you.

J

Could have your side yard for the dog, your back yard, for the dog? I don't see a.

J

Need for this amendment, I also find it quite confusing and I think the way it's.

J

Written is not accomplishing what councilmembers turbot intended, so I'm.

L

Going to vote no, I just wish you could have heard that couple that moved to.

L

Bloomington retired to bloomington and couldn't put a fence where it simply.

L

Should have gone and what it was. If that was their backyard, they would have had.

L

To build the fence on that, see that little straight line going back to e or.

L

Whatever that is, is that c it had to be parallel to the side of their house. That.

L

Was where the determination was, and they thought this isn't right- we're going to.

L

The bca to ask they went to the bca several times and because of the.

L

Strictness of the language of the current ordinance, the bca turned them.

L

Down to maybe three at least two times, and they just went home crushed and they.

L

Don't I don't believe they have a fence to this day? That's I'm not doing this.

L

For me, I'm doing this to straighten out a problem in this language, and you know.

L

Councilmember peanut smith is right. The language is confusing the first time we.

L

Drafted this, that's why this mistake got made. No, there are all these different.

L

Lines and people talk so fast that you don't get it and you have to draw really.

L

Good pictures- and there were some pictures drawn last time that.

L

Didn't actually explain the whole problem, so this is really simply saying.

L

Instead of having to build your fence where that little pinstripe pencil line.

L

Is you get to build it out on your property line? That's really for all the.

L

Confusion jargon, that's all this amendment says so for the sake of two.

L

Cases where the the logical thing couldn't happen, in fact the whole the.

L

Neighborhood, commission listen to this guy's appeal and suggested to the bca.

L

That he be able to build his dog fence right there with the open space on top.

L

Bca had to look at this rule and say: no, you can't you know, and it was simply.

L

Common sense to solve it that way, so I'm trying to fix this may not be the most.

L

Perfect language, but it's a lot better and it's going to allow the bca to be.

L

Able to amend and fix things when things come to them. That are just obviously a.

L

Mistake, so that's all I'm trying to do here. Thank you, councilmember ruff. They.

I

Didn't think that this did what counsel mr. baum was intending to do, but I.

I

Understood mr. shermin to say that he thought it did so, I'm thinking I'm to.

I

Say I'm a client vote? Yes, counselor volant.

A

Okay, is there a recommendation now? No other comment, then we'll go to.

A

Councilmember boland.

C

I'm still confused by this. I don't know whether it's clear or not kind of.

C

Apathetic about it, but you know I'm inclined to support it for the same.

C

Reason that comes from a rough was that, if it makes it a little bit more.

C

Flexible to address confusing issues, I say: let's do it and, as was suggested to.

C

Me with the previous amendment, if somebody wants to bring a technical.

C

Amendment to fix the language, then let them do it. Thank you.

A

So recommendation questions macomb seconded on amendment 51. Will the clerk.

A

Please call the roll. No! Yes! No! Yes,.

B

Sandburg, yes,.

A

Or four pass is not adopted, so we will now go to amendment 52. My mic.

G

Is not on my apologies. The city would like to move away from the term use.

G

Variance in that whole process, and so this removes a reference and again I.

G

Will turn it over to staff to explain further? If you recall, this was something.

F

That was discussed through the process. It's a recommendation that our.

F

Consultants recommended, generally speaking with the state provision with a.

F

Use variance, there's a fairly strict standard that you have. No, you have no.

F

Ability to use your property for anything else in practice, oftentimes the.

F

Requests are dealing with uses that are desired on those properties, but that.

F

Doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't do what's allowed on those properties, so.

F

By removing the use variance process, which is very subjective in nature, it.

F

Still would require discretionary approval through board of zoning appeals.

F

This was somewhat of a remnant that was left in the in the document and actually.

F

In chapter six in the process, there really isn't a section called use.

F

Variances, if you, if you look at the amendment, you can see that the process.

F

Is kind of referenced in various sections in the code, so the intent was.

F

To not include this process from the beginning, but this is a remnant fix up.

F

To kind of clean that aspect out of the code again, the use is allowed.

F

And conditional, we believe that most of the districts have many options.

F

Available for uses- and there wouldn't be a need for a use variance. I know with.

F

The cooperative housing that has been a tool we've used in the past to make an.

F

Exception to that you know the strict interpretation or application of the use.

F

Variance, I would believe we couldn't necessarily support that again. The the.

F

Standards or the criteria that would staff would have to determine is the the.

F

Property, that's seeking a use, variance there'd have to be something very unique about that property that it could not be used for the permitted uses. That's why.

F

We would support a use variance. So again our recommendation would be to approve.

F

This recommendation to take that process out of the code again, staff believes.

F

That the necessary uses in chapter three either permitted or conditional as well.

F

As the standards and processes would allow for the appropriate development.

F

Where it's needed in those rare instances where there might be a use.

F

That isn't included and there would be a desire to do that. The appropriate.

F

Process would be to be considered, would be a rezoning process and that's.

F

Something that would ultimately go before council and so again that's just.

F

Kind of an overview of what this amendment is, the intent was more of a.

F

Cleanup to kind of take out the references on the use ference be happy.

F

To answer any questions.

A

Second, chance of questions or comment a.

G

Second question: that's been called in second on minute, 52 with a clerk. Please.

A

B

Councilmember granger, yes, rallo, yes, boland! Yes,.

C

Simms, yes, mr. baum, yes, sandburg, yes, rev, yes, few months smith! Yes, thank you.

A

1952 is adopted eight to zero. Next up is a minute 53 counsel mr. bone. So this.

L

Just specifies that hvac equipment, ventilation and generators engines that.

L

Service buildings are subject to noise control regulations. Tim miller suggested.

L

This reading this, it looks like they would be anyway, but I I think it.

L

Particularly specifies them went on the second page, where it says a noise all.

L

Activities shall comply regardless of permissible level of noise levels. Will.

L

Be conducted to avoid creation of any noise that create a public nuisance.

L

That's existing language. This just adds the operation of machinery shall comply.

L

With these provisions, so I throw it over to planning on that one. Would you say.

L

Those would have been covered anyway, and this is maybe not necessary to add or.

L

Are you in support of this.

H

We don't believe that this is necessary for a few reasons. First off my title: 14.

H

Where we have the the city code, this body is important, imposed. Noise controls.

H

The way that that works is generally any unreasonable. Noise is prohibited unless.

H

It falls within a particular exception: hvac units ventilators generators, those.

H

Are not covered by any exceptions, so that would be if it's an unreasonable.

H

Noise, it would already be a violation of the chapter. We'd rather not expand. The.

H

Noise controls that we have unnecessarily outside of title 14 beyond.

H

What we must do so we'd really rather not make it more confusing for folks to.

H

Figure out where noise controls are in the city code they're in you know, 14.

H

Point, oh nine: let's leave them there! So if you're, looking for what the rules are.

H

That's the spot. You go to so we'd, rather not just as a matter matter of.

H

Legislative clarity and and having you know, good practices with our city code.

H

We'd, rather not expand, expand the definition to specify these items so so.

L

Going to questions yes proceed question, so I understood you to say that it was.

L

Covered anyway, absolutely if you have an hvac unit, that's creating unreasonable.

H

Noise, that would be a violation of title fourteen. That's absolutely right.

L

Installed and it from the beginning created an unreasonable noise that would.

L

Be something that this ordinance would cover you'd be subject to fines for.

H

Violating for violating fourteen point- oh nine, that's right! Yes! Okay, then I'll.

L

Just withdraw this one: okay, procedurally counsel attorney sherman.

A

Introduced it do we need to take any action, can you withdraw it? If you have.

D

Unanimous consent: you can withdraw it. Okay, unless I hear something different.

D

From the parliamentarian tell me, okay, so I'll. Consider that a motion to a draw is.

A

Everything- okay, all in favor, of we're drawing amendment 53, say hi any opposed and then 53 is withdrawn. I'm in 55 is.

A

Next counselor mr. baum mr. chair, as you can see, I am a bit under prepared to.

C

Present this tonight I had hoped to be able to present it because I figured we.

C

Were gonna go with all the other amendments, but I will take my best.

C

Effort here I do not have my computer with me. I spent three hours today at the.

C

County dealing with the convention center food and beverage advisory.

C

Commission, but I'll do my best here to summarize the changes of this there, that.

C

This amendment recommends the first aspect of this amendment that people.

C

Should know, is that and the you do there are parking minimums and parking.

C

Maximums and while I still feel that the parking minimis should be eliminated, it.

C

The same language was used to describe minimums and maximums. The word was.

C

Requirement so there was a minimum parking requirements and maximum parking.

C

Requirements well, that word requirement doesn't make sense when it comes to.

C

Maximum parking- and you can see it in the voluminous list of of parking.

C

Maximum that you know, are the latter part of.

C

This section of code, really the phrase should be limit or allowance. There's a.

C

Maximum parking allowance a maximum limit as to how much parking one can.

C

Build when it's referred to as a requirement, it doesn't make sense, and so.

C

The first thing that this amendment does is that it changes simply changes the.

C

Word requirement wherever logical, to either allowance or to limit so before.

C

You would look at the list and it would say certain thing had no requirement.

C

Which meant it had? No maximum parking acquiring, but really what it meant was.

C

There's no limit, there's no upper limit on how many spaces you can put in the.

C

Second thing this amendment does is that it creates a it changes. Well, does a.

C

Couple of things in the second part, it changes the standard by which we measure.

C

The parking allowance from one space per x number of gross square feet to x.

C

Number of spaces per thousand square feet, because it's a little misleading.

C

When you say one space for 350 versus one space versus 500, it's very confusing.

C

And it doesn't really give people a sense of how many square feet so it it.

C

Changes the unit of measure of how many square feet are allowed in.

C

Non-Residential uses so instead of saying one space per two hundred one.

C

Space per 500 square feet, it says 2.0 spaces per thousand square feet now also.

C

In this section, it reduces allowances for certain residential in part and.

C

Non-Residential land uses so where you had like one per 301 space for 350.

C

Square feet most but not all uses are now changed at 2.0 spaces per thousand.

C

Square feet some have been left alone and.

C

I don't even have the actual amendment in front of me, so I'm doing it from.

C

Memory- and I can talk to some extent about the details of that- I will say.

C

This the impetus for this change to 2.0 spaces per thousand square feet comes.

C

Directly from donald shoe, so in a chapter of the high cost of free parking.

C

He analyzes the the usage of parking and forty some cities around the world.

C

Thirty, of which, or so were in the u.s. three of which were college metros like.

C

Bloomington they were logan utah, chapel hill, north carolina and state college.

C

Pennsylvania and in the cities across the country that had measured how many.

C

Spaces per square per thousand square feet were be where each typical city had.

C

The average was 2.8 parking spaces per thousand square feet. This study was done.

C

In 1996, so at that time, 2.8 spaces per thousand square feet was the nationwide.

C

Standard in those three cities that his study considered, the the average usage.

C

Was 2.1 spaces per thousand square feet, so I felt that we should have a lower.

C

Standard that we should that in this day and age, 25 years later, when climate.

C

Change is a big deal and we know we have vastly oversubscribed the amount of.

C

Parking in the community that we should be lowering that average.

C

And I wanted to go to 1.5 spaces per thousand square feet, but instead I.

C

Settled on 2, which was many not many commercial uses, were at 2.0 spaces per.

C

Thousand square feet, but this does in fact reduce all new uses, not existing.

C

Ones new uses 2 2.0. We have successfully reduced the average number of spaces in.

C

The downtown to 0.5 spaces per bedroom for residential use.

C

I think that this is a number that we should be making our new maximum.

C

Allowance, finally, this amendment creates a default parking allowance. The vast.

C

Majority of non-residential uses should we shouldn't be distinguishing. This is.

C

Something that soup actually mocked when he presented in this very room in 2005.

C

The utter utter arbitrariness that planners across the country use to.

C

Decide parking because there was no science at the time he enjoyed for.

C

Example, citing cities that had cite that it said that a nunnery should have one.

C

Space pretend nuns: why is that it's completely arbitrary? So I think that we.

C

Can say that we should have a a standard across the board that standard calls for.

C

2.0 spaces per thousand square feet as a standard, and the third part of this.

C

Amendment actually starts ratcheting down the maximum allowable parking per.

C

Year by a factor of about 3 percent, so in 2020 the number will be 2.0 and 2021.

C

The number will be one point: nine, seven spaces per thousand square feet and so.

C

On for the next twenty years until by 2040, the new use will be allowed. One.

C

Point four parking spaces per thousand square feet. The same goes for.

C

Residential but it reduces it by one percentage point per year so next year.

C

Will be 0.50 spaces per bedroom. 2021 will be 0.49 point four, eight by 2020 by.

C

2040, the figure will be point three spaces, that is, the ratio of parking that.

C

Currently exists in smallwood plaza, so those are the the the gist of the.

C

Amendment and I at that at this point I'll turn it over to staff for their.

C

Opinion, thank you valen. We had discussed his idea and concepts and I think.

F

There's three general concerns that staff would have with this proposal. You.

F

Know the terminology with allowance: I think that semantics and I'm not.

F

Don't have any concerns with that, generally, treating all uses alike does.

F

Create some issues that we might need to look at certainly understand when you.

F

Look at averages across all uses 2.0 might be appropriate, but when you start.

F

Looking at specific uses, there might be a scaling effect, so, for example, when I.

F

Was looking at a grocery store versus a pawn shop, those inevitably would have two different demand. I guess for parking.

F

Maximums, if I remember correctly, as proposed a grocery store, would allow if.

F

You just assume two grocery stores a thousand feet for simplicity. They would be have a maximum of five spaces in a pawn shop would have three this.

F

Amendment they both be treated the same. I think we can all imagine that a pawn.

F

Shop probably doesn't have the same demand as a grocery store, so that would.

F

Be the one concern is that we're using a uniform standard across all the uses.

F

Secondly, we have updated our useless, so I don't think we have nuns and old type.

F

Of uses that we're basing those standards on, we have updated that so.

F

Again the example that mr. boland provided is comical, but again I don't.

F

Think we had those type of uses that we need to worry about. My favorite was we.

F

Did have a pager store and our current code, which those no longer exist, as I.

F

Believe and then lastly, the idea here is to ratchet down over time, I think, is an.

F

Interesting concept: that's something that we've done with council has done.

F

With parking permits, but again I think, for tracking and simplicity, I do think.

F

This introduces some complexity, both from the user and for staff to track and.

F

Enforce especially on an annual basis, I think probably a wiser approach would be.

F

Just to simply come back as council and pick another time to ratchet it down.

F

Another final point again from bloomington compared to many communities.

F

We do have parking maximums and we've eliminated many of our minimums, so.

F

That's very progressive, so just because you have a maximum doesn't mean they're.

F

Gonna necessarily provide all those spaces. We do have pretty high.

F

Landscaping and buffering requirements that sometimes limit the ability to hit.

F

Those maximum, so that's just general concerns, certainly understand the intent.

F

In interest of this amendment, but staff does have concerns in those areas and.

F

I'd be happy to answer any additional questions. No we're not supportive of.

F

This okay, then good questions, councilmember ruff, so staff gave the.

I

Example of the pawn shop grocery store differential demands for parking, whereas.

I

This amendment standardizes across uses right. So would you say that you know one.

I

Can imagine well in some cases the use you would think would be maybe less.

I

Demand then, what customer volans amendment proposes and other cases more.

I

Would you say compared to current practice based on use the differential.

I

Requirements or allowances what I want to call it would you say it.

I

Averages that I would average out similar over across all uses, if you were.

I

To just sort of average everything, what does it actually do to the total that.

I

You could project, I can speculate on the averages. I can think of a couple couple.

F

Current cases where maybe direct reporter can help me out on this, the.

F

Culver's project out on west 3rd, they have consistently asked for more.

F

Parking because of the parking matic maximums and they've tried to.

F

Demonstrate the need so those types of auto oriented businesses historically.

F

Have have requested more parking than our parking maximums and we haven't.

F

Supported those requests, other projects, you know again most of the projects we.

F

Get typically or more excused residential and generally we've hit the.

F

Mark on those I know, there's been some concerns about spillover impacts of you.

F

Know where visitors are gonna park and those sorts of things, but I think we're.

F

Headed in the right direction, I guess my recommendation would be if.

F

There was concerns with some specific uses. I would suggest council look at.

F

Ratcheting those down, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach I mean, would.

C

You I would ask staff, would you say that every use in this amendment is ratcheted.

C

To one-size-fits-all, because I see many many uses that were untouched- that have.

C

No limit or that the 2.0 per thousand square feet is actually the equivalent.

C

Of the one per 500 square feet: well again, I think when you're you are.

F

Ratcheting them all down and again just looking at many of them, they might still.

F

Be the same, but there are some instances that staff have has identified that.

F

There are some of those concerns. Well I mean let's, let's take one example here.

C

And I'd like to hear an example of yours, the crematory is set for one space for.

C

300 square feet is era logic. Behind I mean how many crematoria do we have.

C

And why is 3.3 spaces per a thousand necessary for them? You know the basis of.

F

That standard again, this is based on review of our current standards.

F

Recommendations from our consultants wyatt, why are where did that requirement.

F

Come on, you come from a crematorium, it's probably based on a number of employees.

F

Possibly the number of vehicles needed to deliver the deceased for services so.

F

Those standards are based on some logic. Now I might you. I certainly understand.

F

You might disagree with where that logic came from and again are concerned with.

F

Treating many of these with a similar ratio does raise some concerns for staff.

C

Okay well, but what I'm hearing is a very vague concern. This word concern, but it's.

C

Very little specific- and this was supes point- was that there was no science.

C

Behind that choice that we cannot show why that demand was there and so you're.

C

Asking us to maintain this arbitrary standard, simply because it's been that.

C

Way for ages, even though we don't even have crematory anymore or nunneries or.

C

Anything else I mean we, we had pagers stores who decided that a pedra store.

C

Needed x or y amount of parking four thousand square feet. I guess I would.

F

Counter that, where is your logic on arriving these standards from shoop.

F

Again, this is based on studies and observations that they've had. This is.

F

The standards that we've had have evolved over time from since 2007 based.

F

On input and based on feedback from the consultants, in our conversation, my.

F

Recommendation was to be more targeted and focused you specific, rather than.

F

One-Size-Fits-All approach and again that that was my recommendation. If there.

F

Were some uses that you felt we were being over parked again? We certainly.

F

Understand the nature and intent of your amendment, I can't necessarily give you.

F

Scientific findings, for why a crematorium was based on this amount or.

F

That amount, but I can tell you on some of the more frequent types of.

F

Uses that we get as an example for auto oriented businesses, they do often.

F

Request for more parking than what our code allows, so thank you so further.

A

Questions consummate piedmont, smith, yeah. This is a.

J

Question for the sponsor, so I I see that the default allowance for.

J

Non-Residential which refers back to the table, which is another part of the.

J

Amendment is applied to many different categories and I am concerned that these.

J

Different categories will have different levels of need for parking. I mean a.

J

Large fitness center, unfortunately most people drive to fitness. Centers is going.

J

To have a lot more need than you know, a storage facility or something or a pawn.

J

Shop so to apply the same default allowance for such disparate uses. I.

J

Wonder why you think that is not a problem. Well, what this does instead is.

C

Say that parking is based on gross floor area not on use, it's sort of the same.

C

Principle behind form-based code that it's not about the use of the.

C

Building it's about its form in this case. It's about this, how much space! Oh.

C

Yes, I'm certainly going to concede that there are some uses that are more.

C

Intense than others, but I would ask about the example set by mr. robinson.

C

Pawnshop versus a grocery store is how many pawnshops are the size of a grocery.

C

Store the the grocery stores usually are larger, and so they need more parking per.

C

Square foot, but I also question the word: need it's not. There's no need for.

C

Parking there's a demand for it and to say that a business needs parking, no.

C

Demand is part of its success equation: okay, but we've devoted so much land to.

C

Parking that it's frankly obscene there's that word again, so I would just.

C

Say that this only changes for the future, it does not require any current.

C

Usage to change, but any future new project should conform to this modestly.

C

Lower allowance, which is not that different than 1996.

A

As a question of the sponsor, so maybe the grocery store versus.

A

Pawnshop, I could see you know, the square footage would obviously make a.

A

Difference and would impact the number of spaces, but just going back to.

A

Councilman piedmont, smith's example of a pawnshop versus a fitness center. They.

A

Seem to be very close in size, but the use would be very, very different.

C

Well, first of all, why is a small fitness center only need three point. Three.

C

Spaces per thousand square feet, but if large fitness center needs 2.5 spaces.

A

Because I'm saying, though, is that what you're employing with this amendment, not.

A

Not what is an existing code, but your amendment is saying treat them the same.

A

And they're clearly not the same terms of use that correct treat most things.

A

The same, not everyone, and I like that example pawnshop versus fan of center.

R

France, yes, okay, yeah, all right. Other questions, yeah.

A

Councilman roland, so I'd like to ask staff or frankly, any member of the.

C

Council, what else directed to staff are there specific uses that you think.

C

Should be given a larger than 2.0 4,000 square feet like that, you would be.

C

Content with pulling out in order to get the standard changed.

F

Again, I'd you know. In our original conversation, my recommendation was to.

F

Focus in on the uses that you had concerns with, I haven't had the time or.

F

My staff has not had the time to go through and identify those specific uses.

F

I do want to possibly point out that this could retroactively oiy apply when.

F

A change abuse happens, so we did change some of those rules. So it's not just for.

F

New development there might be some instances where this would apply in other areas. So you know sites do have to conform depending on those change of use.

F

Criteria and what they do there, so I just wanted to point that out off the.

F

Top of my head, I don't think I can run through the full list and provide any of.

F

Those recommendations, a technical amendment, could address any number of.

C

Concerns that people have throw about a particular issue. But if we really think.

C

Mortuary needs three point: three spaces per thousand square feet. Then fine. Thank.

C

You, okay, seeing none we'll go to the public, see no public comment, we're back.

A

To council final questions or comments.

A

Comments then, council, member sister sandberg, I think was this- is just again.

G

Combined with staffs not recommending this, it's it's just a bit overreaching.

G

To me, I I respect the nobility of the intent, but I think when you're doing a.

G

Percentage of ratcheting down over the next 20 years, we're also failing to take.

G

In consideration, the changing evolution of transportation itself that vehicles.

G

In the future may be powered in different ways, we may not be able to.

G

Reach our goals of ideal utopian transit system that would alleviate the need for.

G

Cars, so, in addition to the usage factor that none of us can really predict with.

G

100% accuracy, we also are not factoring in other elements.

G

Innovation that are going to help us address our climate action concerns, so I.

G

Will I will be voting no on this? Thank you that's my opinion. On smith yeah, I.

J

Really, like the part that changes parking requirements to parking.

J

Allowance, it really kind of shifts the perspective on parking, and it just makes.

J

More logical sense, when you're talking about limits and such I think the the.

J

More substantive part of this ordinance in tying parking allowances directly to.

J

Square footage for non-residential is something I would really need to study.

J

More, I would need to look into studies more recent than 1996 and see what has.

J

Been shown to work and whether this approach has been shown to work in other.

J

Communities I mean I've, never seen this where non-commercial uses are. You know.

J

Are applied, they have the same parking table applied across the board. I'm not.

J

Saying that's not good, because certainly a lot of our status quo attitudes.

J

Towards transportation are not good, so maybe this is a better way to go, but I.

J

Just I have not had enough time I haven't had time to you, know, discuss.

J

With with councilmember fallin and others, what the you know pros and cons.

J

Are I also respect staffs feeling that this is? You know too much really to take.

J

In at this time, I just I don't know what unintended.

J

Consequences negative consequences there might be here, so I do not feel.

J

Comfortable supporting this today, thank you.

A

Okay, councillor volant yeah. It's pretty clear that this isn't going to pass as.

C

Is so I am thinking about ways of police, preserving the part that no one should.

C

Disagree with, which is the changing the term requirement to allowance or limit and changing the the unit of measure from one space per x.

C

Square feet to x spaces per thousand square feet.

C

I still think those are good standards that we should be using from non, so we.

C

Have a better and easier idea of being able to compare uses, but I'm thinking.

C

About withdrawing the amendment so that I can strip out the controversial part.

C

That people do not seem to be able to accept yet that we have too much parking.

C

And we are continuing to allow too much parking to be built, even though again.

C

This would only affect new uses or changes of use. The default parking.

C

Allowance chart what I've not heard anyone say tonight is whether they would.

C

Have a problem with the reduction of residential parking from 0.5 to 0.3 over.

C

20 years, it's a very, very reasonable change. The residential is a much more.

C

Standard in common than non-residential, and I would like to be able to retain.

C

That so I may have to build that as a part of the amendment that can be.

C

Stripped out of people can vote on it separately, but and I will check with.

C

Councilmen with mister with our attorney as to how we might go about doing that.

C

But to say that this is utopian is frankly off-putting. We acknowledge the.

C

Climate crisis: we acknowledge the problem we there, the car drivers have to.

C

Learn that parking costs not just money, but you know, affects the environment, a.

C

Great deal, we know this and there again there is no such thing as need in.

C

Parking there's demand and supply, and our current code encourages too much.

C

Supply and staff cannot articulate why we have the arbitrary numbers that we do.

C

There is no rec, there is no there's just there's just.

C

The the habit that we've had- and we know that it's arbitrary, take a look at the.

C

Parking lots around college mall. They were full on black friday they're, not full the rest of the time. Even on black friday, many parking lots around town.

C

Were not full, so absolutely the time has come for this. It's not as arbitrary as.

C

The existing code that we have it was based on a reasonable number again. I.

C

Only reduced the the maximum amount of parking by from 2.8 to 2.0, and you know.

C

From what shoop studied in 1996, so I would urge people to accept it, but I.

C

Will otherwise plan to withdraw in favor of amending it to remove the.

C

Controversial parts, thank you.

A

I will just say that I unfavorable to certain aspects of it. I'm unresolved in.

A

Terms of that of the declining parking allowances over time, I think that I'm.

A

Trying to determine, if it's better, to just revisit this and and and and and.

A

Then lower them rather than have staff continually modify, but I think the.

A

Biggest fatal flaw is that treating a number of different you know uses as the.

A

Same is is it's very problematic because I think that's a really a fatal flaw. So.

A

With that comes more piedmont's meant just a very brief comment in case the.

J

Sponsor does decide to bring back a different version of this.

J

I, like the terminology, allowances, parking allowances, but, on the other hand,.

J

I do not like changing no requirement to no limit in various places in table. 410.

J

Because it makes it sound like hey, you can have as much parking as you want. No.

J

Requirement was better cuz, it was like okay, you're.

J

Not required to have any parking, so if we could tweak that, if you bring this.

J

Back that would be appreciated. Thank you further comment.

A

Councilman rollin that person's particular question about terminology so.

C

If you changed no requirement to no allowance, it would imply that no parking.

C

Is allowed at all, so we couldn't use that word if you say no limit, that's no.

C

Change, I mean they had no maximum requirement, we're just changing the term.

C

To no maximum no maximum limit, I don't know a better word. It doesn't again this.

C

Is the section on maximum parking allowances not on minimum parking.

C

Requirements so I do not see a better word than limit. It was the least.

C

Controversial word discussed tonight, so if councilor piedmont smith has a.

C

Better suggestion, then, I mean no requirement, I think, is confusing in a.

C

Section on maximum parking allowance. Thank you. Mr. chair, I'd like to withdraw.

C

Amendment 45 to amend it and bring it back later as a technical amendment. Okay,.

A

There's been a motion, a second consultation.

A

This requires unanimous consent. Correct. Do it draw.

D

That's just a quick way of disposing of something it could. A majority vote would.

D

Be sufficient to have you accept that withdrawal, so if I've say yes withdraw.

D

It that's fine our process for the you do if I want to bring it back as a.

C

Technical amendment to correct what I've described can I leave it as amendment 45.

C

Do I have to introduce it as a technical amendment? What say you.

D

Second round and the deadlines passed for that, so I think you want to work.

D

With what you got, that's what I'm asking is withdrawing the proper motion for.

C

Being able to do that or is it postponing it, you don't want to postpone.

D

It okay, but as long as it, the the motion is understood that it's worth trying to.

C

Bring back the non-controversial would have to just as a practical matter would.

D

Have to go out this week, that's fine and there may be more work to it that I'm.

C

Worried about the motion right now, so my motion stands as stated yeah and it's.

A

Been seconded so with the clerk, please call the roll to withdraw.

A

I think determine a majority so that we better have a roll call vote.

B

Okay, um councilmember bowling yes to withdrawal, sims.

B

Yes, mr. baum sandberg, yes rough few months, myth, yes,.

B

Granger, yes, rallo! Yes, thank you. Okay, that's unanimous!.

A

I will have the amended version of ready for by friday. Thank you would that.

A

Concludes there are amendments for first round and we will now turn to by the way.

A

I did I fail to mention that we have the ability for the public to file written.

A

Objections to the order 19:24 they could submit those to the.

A

Clerk or her staff- and I understand also written objections- may also be found at.

A

Other times at the office of the city clerk or the monroe county auditor.

A

So now we'll visit counsel scheduled mr. sherman you've now completed, except for.

D

The one withdrawn amendment, all your first-round amendments.

D

The deadline for second-round amendments as has passed and we're finalizing them.

D

For a packet that goes out this friday for consideration and meetings next week.

D

If you need them both tuesday and thursday, okay, you would then- and at this.

D

Point we have about a dozen less than a dozen second-round amendments. So yes,.

D

That's a thumbs up as I it could be by the end of next week. You've actually.

D

Gone through your second round amendments, the following week were.

D

Scheduled for a hearing on the 17th, which is a tuesday and also the 18th.

D

Which is a wednesday and where we're handling usual course of business, you.

D

Don't need to decide today, but you might want to think about wrapping up the you.

D

Do on tuesday the 17th so you're sort of separating you do from from your regular.

D

Business, you don't need to decide that I just want to let you get to think about.

D

Where we are and how close we are to wrapping this up, so thank you. Thank you.

A

I'm scheduled, that's it for today. Okay, that's it great! Is there a motion to.

A

Recess: okay: we are recessed until we will.

A

Reconvene on tuesday december 10th at 6 p.m.