►
From YouTube: Bloomington Plan Commission, August 14, 2023
Description
Plan Commission Documents:
https://bloomington.in.gov/boards/plan/meetings
A
Good
evening,
I'd
like
to
call
to
order
this
meeting
of
the
city
of
Bloomington
planned
commission
for
August
14
2023,
just
a
quick
overview
of
our
agenda
this
evening,
we'll
begin
with
some
internal
housekeeping
and
then
we
will
get
to
our
petitions.
There
are
there's
one
petition
that
has
been
tabled,
that
is
sp-24-22
Cutters,
kirkwood123
LLC.
A
This
is
a
petition
for
the
property
at
115,
East,
Kirkwood
Avenue.
That
position
is
tabled.
We
also
have
a
petition
that
has
been
continued,
that
is,
sp
21-23,
true
storage,
LLC.
This
is
the
property
at
1701,
South,
Liberty
Drive.
There
are
two
petitions
that
will
be
heard
this
evening.
The
first
is
PUD
18-23
Sudbury
development,
Partners
LLC.
This
is
rezone
property
at
South,
Weimer
Road,
and
then
we
will
also
hear
zo-29-23,
and
this
is
a
petitioner
city
of
Bloomington
planning
and
transportation
department.
A
C
B
D
D
E
E
A
D
B
B
C
C
A
A
A
I
A
J
E
D
J
M
A
D
A
H
A
B
A
D
B
Okay,
so
this
is
the
second
hearing
for
PUD
1823,
which
the
plan
commission
discussed
at
its
July
hearing
as
well,
and
this
is
for
a
PUD
at
the
location.
The
property
is
roughly
139
Acres.
It
is
the
Old
Sudbury
PUD
being
rezoned
from
that
PUD
to
a
new
PUD,
which
is
called
Summit,
and
there
is
a
small
portion
of
a
residential
medium
lot
that
is
included
as
well
in
the
Little
Hook
here
next
to
weemer.
B
The
comprehensive
plan
designation
is
neighborhood
residential
and
is
also
in
a
focus
area,
and
the
property
has
not
yet
been
developed
when
it
was
the
Sudbury
PUD.
Some
of
the
outlying
properties
in
that
PUD
have
been
developed
so,
for
example,
Arbor
Ridge
or
parcel
o
of
the
Sudbury
PUD
to
the
South.
Some
of
the
summit
developments
down
there.
B
So
a
brief
overview.
We
discussed
at
length
last
time
details
about
the
Pud
proposal.
They
are
proposing
five
neighborhoods.
You
can
see
those
here
with
the
five
different
colors,
as
well
as
new
rights,
of
way,
the
two
largest
of
those
being
the
connection
of
atoms
from
North
to
the
South
shown
here
in
blue
and
the
connection
of
Sudbury.
Here
in
the
red
going
East-West
last
month,
the
petitioner
indicated
that
they
were
planning
somewhere
between
4450
and
6
000
units
that
number
those
numbers
are
not
included
in
the
information
that
we
received
for
August.
B
So
that'll
be
one
question
we
have
for
the
petitioners
just
to
confirm
what
the
expected
build
out
of
units
is
at
this
location
and
again
last
month
we
were
told
eight
to
nine
years.
Some
of
the
information
says
that,
but
in
the
information
we
received
for
August,
there
are
also
build
outs
that
go
until
2043,
so
that
would
be
a
big
change
from
what
we
heard
last
time.
So
that's
something
that
will
ask
the
petitioner
to
clarify
as
well.
B
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about
last
month
with
the
petitioner
was
that
they
had
a
number
of
development
standards,
sections
and
a
number
of
use
sections
as
well
in
their
proposed
code
and
they
didn't
match.
So
we
asked
them
to
make
the
use
a
more
kind
of
standard
zoning
code
format
and
have
districts,
basically
that
contained
both
uses
and
development
standards.
So
they
have
done
that.
B
This
was
a
an
illustrative
potential
building
built
building
layout
that
was
in
this
month's,
as
well
similar
to
the
one
that
was
in
the
last
month's
a
little
bit
different
missing
a
couple
of
the
roadway
connections
that
we
know
they
are
planning
to
do.
Based
on
this
Mobility
plan
that
was
included
this
month,
so
this
is
for
roadways
and,
as
you
saw,
I
think
comments
in
the
staff
report
has
its
positives
and
negatives.
B
I
think
we
are
still
having
two
roundabouts
here
on
Adams
or
excuse
me
now,
three
roundabouts
here
on
Adams
to
help
traffic
move
through
and
did
they
did
some
changes
to
some
roadway
connections.
For
example,
an
additional
one
that
was
here
on
the
North
side
so
got
got
rid
of
some
connections,
one
down
here
on
the
south
side
that
was
in
what
will
likely
be
a
tree
preservation
area.
Something
we
have
not
seen
is
a
connection
to
weemer,
which
you
heard
from
some
of
the
neighbors.
B
This
is
floodplain
along
Weimer,
so
a
vehicular
connection.
There
may
not
end
up
being
desirable,
but
we
are
still
talking
to
the
petitioner
about
potentially
doing
a
pedestrian
connection
to
weemer
there,
something
along
the
lines
of
extending
the
trail.
So
this
was
the
a
trail
and
bicycle
infrastructure
map
that
was
included
this
month.
You
can
see
protected
bike
lane
along
the
two
major
roads.
The
roadways
would
be
built
to
our
transportation
plans
standards.
B
So
if
we
have
bicycle
or
pedestrian
infrastructure
that
should
match
that's
something
I'll
talk
about
here
shortly,
but
more
particularly
for
the
connections
we
have
in
the
petitioner
has
worked
with
parks
to
talk
about
doing
a
connection
down
to
the
South
again
to
a
trail
that
already
exists
at
this
stub.
That
runs
on
the
west
side
of
breaking
a
way.
B
And
then
we
are.
We
and
parts
are
talking
to
the
petitioner
about
potentially
moving
this
Trail
onto
their
property
so
that
it
can
be
completed
out
to
weemer
and
not
be
waiting
for
the
development
of
the
Farm
property
here
still
owned
by
the
sudburys.
So
you
can
see
some
other
Trail,
it's
kind
of
probably
hard
to
see
at
this
scale,
but
some
other
black
dotted
lines
here,
and
this
is
in
your
packet
indicating
some
other
pedestrian-only
connections
that
the
petitioners
are
planning
to
kind
of
round
out
the
accessibility
in
the
in
the
development.
B
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
highlighted
in
the
staff
report
was
that,
since
we
met
in
July,
the
department
has
been
able
to
meet
with
representatives
from
Parks
and
Recreation
and
the
fire
department
to
discuss
a
potential
land
donation.
So
you'll
see
in
the
staff
in
some
of
the
exhibits
that
the
petitioners
submitted
about
one
and
a
half
acres
in
this
area
shown
as
being
able
to
be
dedicated
for
the
use
of
a
potential
future
fire
station,
as
well
as
a
Trailhead
for
the
trail
that
is
expected
to
go
under
the
Duke
line.
B
East
of
atoms
could
be
donated
because
when
you
take
out
the
one
and
a
half
acres,
there's
not
much
developable
land
around
it
and
in
the
schematic
from
the
petitioner,
showing
the
potential
building
sites
they
aren't
showing
using
any
of
that
land.
So
that's
something
that
we're
still
working
with
the
petitioner.
We
haven't
had
a
chance
to
discuss
with
them
in
detail
about
that.
B
But
some
the
plan
would
be
some
portion
of
this
property
here
would
be
donated,
and
potentially
we
would
ask
you
all
to
consider,
including
a
condition
of
approval,
that
that,
when
they
went
to
prepare
the
land
for
atoms
that
they
prepared
this
land
as
well,
that
would
help
the
viability
of
this
actually
ever
maybe
becoming
a
fire
department
location
quite
a
bit
if
the
land
was
ready
for
that
kind
of
development.
So
that's
something
we'll
continue
to
talk
about
with
the
petitioner
and
the
other
department.
Representatives.
B
Last
month
we
showed
this
drawing
and
circled
some
areas
of
concern.
So
this
one
here
at
the
bottom,
as
well
as
the
one,
the
lower
one
as
well
on
the
right
side,
were
both
areas
where
we
were
concerned
about
roadways
being
shown
in
the
thickest
of
the
tree
preservation
areas
so
that
they
have
pulled
back
from
development
in
those
two
spots.
So
that's
positive
and
then
something
that
you'll
probably
hear
some
about
tonight.
B
There
is
a
lot
of
concern
from
the
Arbor
Ridge
Neighborhood
about
the
Heights
and
of
the
buildings
that
are
being
proposed
immediately
across
Sudbury.
So
one
of
the
things
the
petitioners
has
put
in
the
new
draft
is
proposing
some
step
backs
of
the
higher
buildings,
as
well
as
to
leave
some
extra
space
for
for
develop.
B
Excuse
me
between
development
and
Sudbury,
so
that
was
its
actual
own
special
section
in
their
proposed
District
ordinance,
and
so
we
have
some
suggested
changes
for
them
there
and
that's
something
we're
still
talking
to
them
about,
but
I
think
it's
moving
in
the
right
direction
of
acknowledging,
maybe
to
pull
off
of
that
road.
A
tiny
bit.
If
that's
the
desire
of
planned,
commissioning
Council
and
then
we,
though,
the
districts
have
changed,
as
you
saw
in
the
other
map.
B
Let
me
back
up
so
these
colors
don't
match
the
map
we're
looking
at
currently
this
area.
Here,
that's
red
is
still
primarily
for
high
density
and
some
commercial
and
again
the
department
is
raising
the
issue
that
we
think
it's
probably
more
appropriate
for
those
uses
to
stay
in
one
centralized
location
and
have
the
rest
be
focused
on
residential,
as
that
is
the
primary
use
that
need
that
we
think
would
benefit
the
community.
So
something
to
discuss
here
about
whether
or
not
the
more
high
intensity
uses
need
to
move
East
as
well.
B
So
this
may
be
kind
of
hard
to
read
and
I
will
just
we'll
go
through
it
a
little
bit.
So
this
is
the
same
map
indicating
the
heights
of
the
building.
I
think
it's
kind
of
hard
to
scale,
and
you
saw
you
saw
in
some
of
the
letters
from
the
members
of
the
public
as
well
as
in
some
of
the
staff
report.
You
know
trying
to
break
down
kind
of
what
these
different
areas
really
will
be,
bringing
to
really
will
be
producing
in
the
subdivision,
because
they
are
all
different.
B
So
the
blue
is
the
I
would
say,
least
intense.
It's
called
the
residential
district
per
the
narrative
at
the
beginning
of
the
district
ordinance.
The
focus
would
be
on
single
family,
including
detached
and
attached,
as
well
as
multi-family
of
the
style
of
plexes
or
Townhomes
or
condos
up
to
small
apartments.
B
So
that's
this
blue
here,
which
is
immediately
across
from
Arbor
Ridge
and
also
close
to
the
existing
environmental
constrained
floodplain
area
blue
here
to
the
north,
again
adjacent
to
some
existing
a
little
bit
of
existing
Arbor
Ridge
here
and
then
some
at
the
southern
portion
as
well,
and
there
is
attached
new
touch
single
family
immediately
to
the
South
and
then
oh
sorry,
excuse
me
and
then
a
little
bit
here
as
well.
So
as
I
discussed
earlier,
they
kind
of
pulled
back
on
road
proposals
here
and
at
the
southern
portion.
B
So
then
putting
kind
of
the
least
impactful
type
of
development
or
excuse
me,
the
least,
dense
development
in
those
areas
as
well.
Okay,
so
then
we
move
on
to
rh1
and
the
only
area
they're
showing
for
that
is
kind
of
surrounding
here
on
the
West
End,
immediately
adjacent
to
the
flood
plain,
and
that
is
three
to
five
stories.
B
The
r
area
excuse
me
was
two
to
three
stories
or
four
stories
with
a
step
back
of
the
fourth
floor,
and
then
we
go
to
rh2
so
gaining
intensity
as
they
go
up,
and
that
is
the
area
here,
where
the
adjacent
to
where
the
fire
station
slash
Trailhead
would
be
on
the
west
side
of
the
proposed
atoms
connection.
So
by
right.
Four
to
five
stories:
six
feet
with
a
step
back
above
five
five
stories,
and
that
would
be
again
in
the
Northeast
portion
as
well.
B
B
So
there
is
five
to
six
stories
by
right,
seven
stories
with
a
step
back
and
then
there's
a
small
there's,
a
block
portion
of
that
here
as
well
on
the
north
side
of
Sudbury,
immediately
adjacent
to
existing
Arbor
Ridge
and
then
MN
is
the
final
district
and
that
is
kind
of
where
they're
looking
where
they
would
like
to
kind
of
have
their
Neighborhood
Center
Summit
district.
And
that
would
be
seven
to
eight
stories
by
right
and
12
stories
with
a
step
back.
B
B
So
again,
issues
and
concerns
slightly
different,
but
similar
from
the
last
hearing,
General
PUD
organization,
the
things
that
they
cleared
up
with
the
districts
was
great.
That's
super
helpful
not
only
for
administration,
but
for
being
able
to
sell
and
talk
about
these
properties
or
for
us
to
be
able
to
answer
questions
from
the
public.
It's
definitely
less
confusing
this
time
than
it
was
last
time
there
were
just
a
couple
of
things
we'll
want
to
go
over
with
you
all
to
get
your
temperature
on
unit
count.
Is
this
an
appropriate
unit?
B
Count
it
based
on
documents
we've
seen,
such
as
the
Schmidt
plan,
and
those
are
questions
to
be
honest,
that
we
might
not
be
able
to
answer
until
we
have
more
information
from
City
Bloomington
utilities
and
the
traffic
study?
It's
kind
of
hard
to
answer
those
questions
when
we
don't
know
the
full
impacts
on
the
infrastructure
around
this
project-
and
we
spoke
about
that
a
little
bit
last
month
that
really
those
are
going
to
be
the
two
key
things
that
we'll
need
to
analyze
and
talk
about
with
you
to
be
able
to
address.
B
You
know
what
really
is
appropriate
here.
What
can
successfully
be
built
here
not
only
from
the
developer
side,
but
just
from
being
able
to
be
physically
possible
to
not
have
detrimental
effects
on
the
areas
around
it,
so
that
includes
the
right-of-way
connections
and
then
the
phasing
is
directly
affected
by
that
as
well
and
I'll
briefly
discuss
incentives
again,
which
they
have
amended
slightly
and
the
location
of
the
different
zoning
districts.
B
So
with
this
little
table
here
when
we're
talking
about
the
Pud
organization,
this
is
what
I'm
talking
about
when
these
are
headings
from
chapter
four,
one,
two,
three
four
five
about
ten
or
eleven
here
and
the
way
that
this
PUD
has
been
designed.
Thus
far,
each
heading
has
kind
of
a
different
way
that
they
would
like
for
us
to
administrate
administer
that
section
so
for
dimensional
standards.
B
B
So
that's
what
this
table
breaks
down,
basically
so
for
dimensional
standards,
they're
saying
they
want
to
freeze
some
from
April
and
then
others
they've
laid
out
explicitly,
which
that's
pretty
the
laying
out
explicitly.
Only
some
of
a
section
is
standard.
It's
the
freezing,
the
old
Udo,
that's
not,
and
while
we
understand
why
they
want
to
do
it
and
they'll
explain
it
to
you
again,
I'm
sure
for
predictability.
B
It's
odd
for
us
from
this
seat
to
kind
of
support
that,
because
we're
only
we
want
to
be
changing
the
Udo
if
we
thought
it
needed
to
be
fixed
or
if
there
was
a
policy
change,
and
so,
if
we're
going
to
do
that
for
the
rest
of
the
city
and
not
this
140
Acres
that
feels
odd.
I
would
say
that
doesn't
quite
feel
the
way
we've
done
things
in
the
past.
So
that's
something
that
we
we're
talking
about
internally,
whether
or
not
we
would
recommend
even
recommend
approval
for
that.
B
B
Okay,
so
for
the
dimensional
standards,
parking
and
loading
site
and
building
design
incentives
and
subdivision
standards,
they'd
like
to
do
a
mix
of
the
old
and
then
their
own
standards
for
the
Environmental
and
access
and
connectivity.
They
would
like
to
just
use
the
April
2023
standards
and
for
landscaping,
buffering
and
fences
and
signs.
B
Ironically,
maybe
a
little
now
that
I've
just
given
this
speech,
they
can't
actually
that
won't
work
with
definitions,
because
they've
proposed
a
number
of
New
Uses.
So
they
need
to
propose
definitions
for
those
in
order
for
those
to
exist,
so
that
will
actually
also
end
up
being
a
bit
of
a
mix
so
which
is
standard
I'm,
not
saying
that
we
don't
want
to
make
it
seem
like
they
have
to
pick
one
or
the
other,
it's
the
freezing
of
the
old
Udo.
B
That
makes
it
more
complicated,
of
course,
as
part
of
a
PUD,
you
set
your
own
standards,
that's
the
point
of
doing
a
PUD,
but
choosing
basically
now
three
levels
of
Regulation
to
use
the
April
2023
the
Udo
going
forward
and
the
ones
they've
written
we're.
Just
we
haven't
heard
why
that's
necessary
I
guess
in
a
convincing
way.
B
B
Residential
is
the
focus
as
well
as
being
part
of
a
focus
area,
as
we've
known
for
some
time
that
this
area
was
going
to
develop,
probably
within
the
life
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
then
I
mentioned
the
Schmidt
plan,
which
is
not
a
publicly
adopted
plan,
a
plan
that
was
done
by
the
administration
to
study
this
area
in
the
on,
knowing
again
that
this
would
develop
at
some
time
so
studied
a
larger
area
than
just
this
PUD.
But
this
PUD
indicating
single-family
and
multi-family,
as
well
as
some
Town,
Homes
and
Apartments.
B
B
So
that
is
something
I
think
that
has
been
brought
up
a
number
of
times,
and
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
to
present
you
with
that
information,
and
that
may
be
something
to
get
more
information
from
the
petitioner
about
again.
We
we
discussed
this
already,
but
these
are
some
regulations
that
they
are
proposing
to
include
related
to
the
existing
Arbor
Ridge
Community
and
trying
to
kind
of
pull
back
from
that
slightly,
not
sure
that
we're
still
working
with
them
on
the
appropriateness
of
that.
B
But
that's
something
that
you
may
hear
about
tonight
and
again.
The
incentives
they
have.
One
of
the
concerns
we
had
last
time
was
that
they
were
amending
the
sustainability
incentives
and
they
are
no
longer
doing
that.
So
they
are
going
with
the
sustainable
incentives
that
are
in
the
code
and
proposing
modifications
to
the
affordable
incentives.
Still.
B
So,
for
example,
it's
just
kind
of
tedious
stuff
and
we
can
go
over
it
if
you'd
like,
but,
for
example,
the
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
widths
that
they've
proposed
are
smaller
than
what
we
require
in
the
city,
so
those
have
to
at
least
meet
what
we
have.
We
don't
allow
coals
to
sack
development,
they
aren't
actually
showing
any
on
any
of
their
Road
plans,
but
have
written
in
regulations
to
allow
them.
So
you
know
why
do
they
need
to
have
those
there
we'd
like
to
have
that
removed?
B
Also
some
of
the
setbacks
and
the
dimensional
standards
we
think
are
probably
could
be
larger,
for
example,
for
the
rear
yard
for
attached
dwelling
they're
showing
zero
feet.
Sorry,
so
not
you
know
what
is
the
reasoning
behind
having
no
setback
at
all
in
the
back
or
the
reasoning
behind
the
chosen
Heights?
So
those
are
things
we'll
continue
to
talk
with
the
petitioner
about.
B
We
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
do
that
since,
since
they
submitted
this
final
version,
so
we're
looking
forward
to
doing
that
later
this
week,
but
just
wanted
to
draw
some
of
those
things
to
your
attention
and
yeah
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
I'm
sure
they
have
new
things
to
present
to
you.
Thanks.
A
N
Absolutely
good
evening,
everyone
Tyler
Ridge
with
TRG
development,
president
of
TRG
development
and
a
managing
member
of
Sudbury
development,
Partners
LLC,
the
group
that
took
on
the
land
so
appreciate
everyone's
time
and
continuing
us
from
the
first
meeting
here
tonight.
So
we
look
forward
to
providing
additional
detail
receiving
feedback
and
going
back
to
the
drawing
board
after
tonight's
meeting
so
again
appreciate
your
time.
N
All
right,
just
let
me
know
if
you
can't
hear
me
so
in
concept.
This
is
one
of
the
last
opportunities
for
the
city
to
take
care
of
the
current
housing
needs.
It's
really
the
largest
track
left
within
City
Limits,
and
we
see
it
as
a
great
opportunity
to
take
care
of
the
city
and
the
community's
needs.
N
We
wanted
to
create
a
group
of
neighborhoods
that
promote
affordable
living,
a
various
various
of
housing
types,
home
ownership,
work
walkability,
while
considering
obviously
connectivity,
current
environmental
constraints,
infrastructure,
of
course,
and
as
Jackie
touched
on,
we
are
waiting
on
a
report
that
CBU
hired
out
a
third
party,
consulting
firm
to
basically
run
through
flow
calculations
and
stuff
Andrew,
and
his
team
understand
much
better
than
we
do.
You
can
kind
of
see
the
five
districts
and
five
neighborhoods
so
there's
five
of
each
outlined
there.
N
N
So
a
very
various,
a
very
in
all
housing
types
you
can
imagine
will
be
here
so
we're
looking
at
condos,
Town,
Homes
single
family
homes,
market
rate,
Apartments,
Workforce,
housing,
affordable,
you
name
it
we're
trying
to
show
it
or
allow
for
that
use
and
do
our
best
to
allow
room
for
that
use
and
provide
essential
housing
for
the
Bloomington
Community.
We
wanted
Neighborhood,
Services
and
employment
opportunities.
That's
kind
of
what
some
Everest
district
is
is
allowed,
for.
N
You
know
a
family
that
lives
in
the
neighborhood
to
walk
there,
maybe
see
a
movie
catch,
a
bite
to
eat
and
walk
home.
So
that's
a
big
deal
to
us.
We
think
that
would
be
something
that
would
would
be
great
for
this
community
connect
fit
connectivity
in
all
forms,
so
we
want
to
be
Transit
ready
and
Transit
friendly.
So
it's
a
big
deal
to
us:
we've
met
with
transit
authority
and
we're
you
know
actively
meeting
with
everyone
we
need
to
to
make
stuff
like
that
happen.
N
N
So
the
vision
of
summit
district
has
provide
a
sense
of
place
that
creates
a
group
of
neighborhoods
and
promotes
and
mixed-use
plan
development.
You
know
we
we're
going
to
get
into
additional.
Why?
Why
PUD
on
the
next
slide?
But
we
don't-
we
don't
see
another
way
to
do
this.
It's
currently
we
want
to
focus
on
affordable
living.
That's
one.
We
keep
hearing
Workforce
housing.
We
can't
appear
in
that
and
owner
occupied
units
which
would
drive
down
affordability
throughout
the
unit.
We
were
able
to
kind
of
continue
with
this.
N
It's
designed
to
provide
connectivity
and
benefits
that
strengthen
Community
goals.
We've
met
with
Parks
departments
we're
trying
to
create
as
much
connectivity
as
we
can
walkability
Trail
connectivity
ever
Center
will
serve
as
a
community
Gathering
space,
so
we've
shown
in
some
of
our
renderings
our
images,
large
green
spaces
for
communities
to
come
gather
whether
it's
a
concert
or
just
food
trucks,
or
you
know
anything
on
a
Friday
night.
We
foresee
that
walkable
coming
to
the
Everest
Center
and
enjoying
your
time
with
your
family.
N
So
why
PUD
and
why
we
believe
PUD
is
an
important
or
is
it
appropriate
when
we
initially
met
with
the
city
before
even
taking
on
the
land
we
were.
We
had
the
understanding
that
this
was
within
a
current
PUD.
It
is
we
were
tasked
with
going
back
and
looking
that
and
after
several
conversations
we
were
directed
not
to
amend
the
Pud
but
to
wipe
the
Slate
clean
and
start
anew.
So
that's
that's
what
we've
done
so
it
wasn't
something
we
just
kind
of
plucked
out.
It
was.
N
It
was
kind
of
a
directive
and
we
ran
with
it.
City
support
for
infrastructure
is
critical
component
for
the
development
of
this
long
vacant.
Parcel
I
know
we're
getting
a
lot
of
questions
about
density
and
height,
and
it's
a
you
know.
Double-Edged
sword
I
mean
in
order
to
pay
for
the
main
public
improvements.
Main
public
infrastructure
for
this
density
drives
that
cost
density
helps
pay
for
that
cost.
So
we
understand
the
concerns
and
we've
been
going
back
to
the
drawing
board
to
take
those
concerns
into
account,
but
there
there
does
need
there.
N
N
So
we're
touching
again
on
diversity
and
housing.
Types
occupancy
and
price
points
is
imperative
to
the
city.
That's
very
important,
something
we
we're
working
working
the
plan
and
working
the
verbiage
and
working
the
zonings
to
take
all
that
into
account.
The
comprehensive
plan
and
Smith's
visiting
plan,
which
she
touched
on
briefly
all
call
for
the
development
to
be
in
the
form
of
PUD.
N
We
incorporated
and
updated
current
goals
and
strategy
of
the
city's
planning
documents.
So
we've
been
meeting
with
staff
and
we've
been
making
the
changes
as
best
we
can
PUD
benefits
over
straight
rezoning.
So
to
do
a
PUD,
a
minimum
of
15
percent
of
your
units
have
to
be,
and,
and
it
could
be
owner
occupied
or
for
rent
have
to
be
affordable.
So
that's
something
you
have
to
do
within
a
PUD
that
Straight
Zone,
you
wouldn't
have
to
do
centralized
Community
spaces,
including
recreational
and
natural
green
spaces.
N
We
had
a
map,
she
had
a
map
up
earlier
that
showed
all
the
kind
of
set
aside
green
spaces.
It
was
it's
pretty
pretty
they're
large
I
mean
we're
taking
out
a
lot
of
this
development.
For
natural
I
mean
it's
something
we
want
to
do
we're
going
to
provide
those
green
spaces
for
the
community.
It
provides
an
enhances,
Community
level,
environmental
free
features,
so
kind
of
rolling
into
that,
and
then
public
infrastructure
for
fire,
alternative
transportation
and
Trail
connectivity.
F
Good
evening
Travis
Mensel
with
Summit,
so
we
have
five
districts
that
we're
proposing
here
and
these
districts
utilize
five
different
use
types
over
the
neighborhoods,
so
we
have
five
and
five,
but
they
don't
works
exactly
with
the
same
boundary.
So
when
you
think
of
a
neighborhood
in
our
community
of
Bloomington,
we
have
different
uses
within
the
neighborhood.
We
might
be
there
because
of
a
long
time,
history
of
an
apartment,
building
or
commercial
use
within
that
neighborhood,
but
we
also
designed
neighborhoods
that
are
not
all
one
type
of
use.
F
So
when
you
look
at
our
district
here-
and
you
can
flip
to
the
next
map,
you
see
that
these
are
the
use
types
that
are
within
those
districts.
So
most
districts
have
two
use
types
that
are
used,
which
is
similar
to
most.
Our
neighborhoods
in
Bloomington
have
a
couple
of
different
uses
that
are
used
or
districts,
and
then
we
have
ever
Center,
which
is
our
downtown
district.
That
is
just
a
single-use
district,
but
has
a
lot
more
uses
that
are
incorporated
into
that
District.
F
It
was
it's
a
little
tricky
because
at
PUD
in
Bloomington
has
a
specific
size
that
any
one
block
can
be,
which
is
smaller
than
anywhere
else
in
the
neighborhood.
If
you
take
any
zoning
District,
you
say
how
big
can
my
blocks
be,
and
you
add
those
up
it's
smaller
in
a
PUD
than
it
is
any
anywhere
else.
F
But
you
also,
then,
move
on
to
how
that
interconnects
with
the
bigger
District,
you
can
see
how
the
bigger
District
aligns
to
streets,
and
you
can
see
how
we've
driven
them
drawn
them
on
out
there
to
connect
to
the
west
north
and
south,
whether
that's
an
existing
infrastructure
or
planned
infrastructure.
A
connectivity
that
exists
within
the
transportation
plans
and
the
goals
of
the
city.
F
We
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
transition
of
the
site
and
from
the
neighbors
to
the
north,
specifically
Arbor
Ridge.
So
when
you
look
at
the
planning
documents,
it
calls
for
the
district
Center
ever
Center
to
be
located
in
this
central
part
of
the
site.
We
envision
that
the
district
Center
is
within
a
15-minute
walk
from
the
farthest
Nave
engines
of
all
the
other
neighborhoods
within
this
District.
F
So
it's
really
essential
that
be
centered
in
the
center
and
not
off
to
one
end
or
other
side,
so
that
everybody
from
the
entire
development
in
all
five
neighborhoods
can
benefit
from
Sudbury
Drive,
where
that
is
already
in
a
platted
Street
to
the
creek
is
about
a
45-foot
fall.
So
as
you
move
down
the
street
between
each
block,
it's
19
to
22
feet
of
a
drop
in
this.
So
what
is
the
retail
spot?
F
You
can
see
on
our
main
street
as
we're,
calling
it
there
in
the
center
of
the
screen,
and
you
have
a
retail
spot,
that's
below
grade
at
Sudbury.
So
you
see
as
we
get
more
dense
in
the
center
of
the
site
and
our
buildings
get
bigger.
We
move
away
from
and
down
the
hill
from
the
from
Sudbury
to
the
north.
F
You
can
also
see
on
this
dick
this
picture
where
we
have
stepped
back
Additionally
the
floors
five
and
six
along
Sudbury
drive
there
to
allow
for
not
a
four-story
or
five-story
building
to
be
right
up
against
Sudbury.
If
you
also
dig
into
the
Pud
you'll
see
that
we've
limited
the
uses
along
there,
so
there
is
commercial
uses,
could
be
there,
but
you're
not
going
to
have
your
sidewalk
dining
or
your
main
entrance
to
your
commercial
spaces
along
Sudbury.
We
want
those
focused
on
Main
Street.
F
They
might
extend
back
into
the
building,
but
that's
not
where
your
main
interest
is
going
to
be.
The
main
entrance
is
going
to
be
down
on
our
main
street,
so
this
is
our
attempt
at
moving
that
back.
Currently,
in
our
plan,
we
only
have
three
blocks
in
which
you
could
exceed
the
seven
story
base
height
in
this
district
and
we're
envisioning,
those
being
between
Main
Street
and
the
creek
so
farther
away
from
Sudbury.
F
We
would
like
some
feedback
from
you
of
how
that
would
be
whether
this
additional
step
back
of
10
feet
is
appropriate
or
not,
so
that
we
can
craft
our
final
version
of
how
those
larger
buildings
could
set
on
this
site
again
we're
very
respective
of
this
transition.
We
just
need
a
little
bit
more
feedback
from
the
neighbors,
as
well
as
from
Planning
Commission
on
how
that
needs
to
look
so
that
we
can
make
sure
we
craft
that
into
our
presentation
of
the
Pud
as
well.
So
where
does
that
bring
us
to
tonight?
F
We're
still
wanting
to
hear
from
you
so
hopefully
we're
today
we'll
update
you
on
our
changes
that
we
made,
but
we
want
to
continue
to
discuss
and
hear
feedback
from
you.
And
finally,
we
would
request
that
at
your
end
of
your
meeting
tonight,
that
you
forward
us
on
to
a
second
hearing
at
your
September
meeting,
where
we
can,
you
know,
have
more
feedback
from
you
and
give
you
an
updated
document
on
our
presentation
so
to
walk
you
through
some
of
the
steps
that
we're
going
to
do
now.
F
O
Good
evening
Angela
Parker
Council
for
this
development.
We
appreciate
you
being
here
tonight
and
all
the
neighbors
who
are
here
and
we
look
forward
to
hearing
from
you.
We
were
able
to
send
to
them
our
revised
draft
a
few
days
ago,
so
hopefully
they've
had
an
opportunity
to
review
it,
but
my
task
tonight
is
to
kind
of
walk
through
that
with
you.
We've
made
a
lot
of
pretty
dramatic
changes.
Jackie
referred
to
some
of
those
and
did
a
really
nice
job
outlining
it.
O
In
fact,
I
think
she
did
a
great
job
with
the
table
to
talk
about
one
of
the
issues
that
we'd
like
to
present
and
propose
to
the
commission:
is
this
idea
of
holding
Udo
standards
in
place
for
certain
chapters,
particularly
in
chapter
four,
when
we
talk
about
development
standards,
and
so
we've
outlined
those
to
hold
standards
in
place.
As
of
the
udo's
version
of
April
20th
2023
for
the
life
of
the
Pud,
which
eventually
it
will
retire,
that's
the
goal
of
the
Pud.
O
It's
going
to
be
a
few
years
and
we
think
I
don't
know
we
hear
lots
of
different
numbers,
but
it's
probably
probably
not
going
to
be
eight
or
nine.
It's
probably
going
to
be
more
than
that.
It's
a
pretty
big
development
to
get
done
in
that
shorter
period
of
time,
so
we'd
like
to
hold
those
standards,
and
we
are
happy
to
answer
questions
and
talk
about
why
we
want
to
do
that.
We
talked
about
it
a
little
bit
last
time
as
well
and
we're
fine
with
sunsetting
some
of
those
standards.
O
O
So
if
we
walk
through
the
chapters-
and
we
gave
you
the
handout
in
advance
because
we
thought
it
might
be
helpful
for
you
to
follow
along
if
you'd
like
to
do
so-
and
I
and
I
hope
that
is
useful
in
chapter
one-
we've
outlined
these
five
new
neighborhoods
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
that
today,
because
you
can
look
at
it.
But
it
starts
on
page
30
of
your
packet
or
page
five
of
the
Pud
that's
proposed,
and
then
we
moved
our
affordable
housing
commitments
to
the
first
chapter.
O
They
were
previously
in
the
incentives
chapter.
It
made
more
sense
to
move
those
forward
and
really
talk
about
the
premium
that
we're
placing
in
this
project
on
affordability,
and
so
those
were
moved
to
page
eight
of
our
PUD,
which
is
33
of
your
packet,
and
then
we've
outlined
the
phasing
on
page,
nine
or
page
34
to
36
of
your
packet.
So
all
of
those
things
basically
got
relocated
in
chapter.
Two
is
where
we
talk
about
the
five
districts
that
reflect
the
uses
and
standards
which
we've
really
centered
on.
O
If
we
drew
from
the
Udo
on
that,
we
drew
from
the
RH
and
MN
districts
and
that's
on
page
11
or
36
of
your
packet,
and
then
we
also
did
change
the
development
standards
dimensional
standards
to
be
constant
across
the
entire
PUD.
So
that's
a
change
from
the
current
Udo
and
that's
on
page
20
or
page
45
of
your
packet.
O
Next
slide
is
on
chapter
3
and
the
uses,
and
we
have
designated
those
on
page
22,
which
is
Page
47
of
your
packet
and
designated
only
residential
uses
in
Shasta,
Meadow,
Denali,
woods
and
Whitney
Glenn.
Those
are
three
of
the
Primary
Residential
districts
or
neighborhoods
and
expanded
mixed
uses
both
in
ever
Center,
which
again
is
that
Main
Street
area
and
Blanc
place.
O
We
did
include
limited
surface
parking
and
that
was
part
of
the
staff
report.
So
I
wanted
to
just
bring
your
attention
to
that
on
page
28
of
our
PUD,
it's
page
53
in
your
packet,
but
we've
tried
to
create
some
standards
that
if
there
was
a
need
for
temporary
surface
parking,
that
it
would
be
limited
to
the
Everest
Center
and
it
would
be
limited
in
duration
and
has
to
be
shown
to
be
necessary.
O
So
it's
got
time
and
size
limitations
for
anything
and
so
surface
parking
will
eventually
Sunset
as
well
chapter
four
on
our
development
standards
and
the
incentives
we
did
make
some
changes
in
the
compliance
requirements,
which
is
on
page
33,
page
58
of
your
packet
and
also
as
Jackie
had
mentioned,
modified
setbacks
and
height
on
page
34
and
Page
59
of
your
package.
So
hopefully
that
makes
it
easy
for
you
to
locate
where
we
did
make
changes
on
the
environmental
big
changes
there.
O
We
adopted
the
Udo
and
those
standards,
and
then
we
are
working
on
specific
environmental
features
to
evaluate
and
design
that
mapping.
That
is
going
to
go
with
that
and
we
talked
last
month
about
pinpointing
specific
environmental
features
of
the
site
and-
and
we
are
very
comfortable
and
confident
that
we
are
in
compliance
with
Udo
on
floodplain
wetlands
and
riparian,
we're
still
in
the
process
of
evaluating
slopes,
trees
and
karst
features.
O
So
those
are
things
that
you're
going
to
hear
some
additional
discussion
and
we're
working
on
sort
of
pin,
pin
pointing
on
the
mapping
where
we
need
to
have
further
discussions
about
those
issues,
but
otherwise
work
toward
Udo
compliance
and,
and
hopefully
there
as
well.
We
just
don't
know
the
answer
yet.
O
In
Access
and
connectivity
we've
got
the
reference
map
with
our
approved
plan,
that's
on
page
37
of
our
PUD
and
page
62
in
your
packet.
So
we've
adopted
Udo
there
as
well
on
parking
next
slide
that
is
Page
38
of
the
Pud
and
63
of
your
packet,
adopting
the
Udo
standards,
but
but
eliminating
minimum
parking
requirements
and
then
setting
forth
consistent
maximum
parking
for
various
uses.
So
you'll
see
that
outlined
starting
on
page
38
or
63.
O
on
site
and
building
design
on
chapter
4.06.
That's
on
page
41
of
the
Pud
or
66
in
your
packet
again
adopting
the
Udo
standards.
We
did
make
some
modifications
in
that
section
and
so
you'll
see
not
only
some
changes
that
are
proposed
there
with
regard
to
design
standards,
but
also
the
transitional
standards
that
Travis
just
spoke
to
a
few
minutes
ago,
with
the
neighbors
to
the
north.
O
I
have
one
minute
I'm
talking
as
fast
as
I
can,
okay
landscaping
and
sign.
We've
adopted
those
standards,
that's
on
page
44
or
69
on
both
landscaping
and
signs,
and
also
noting
that
we're
trying
to
align
zoning
districts
from
the
Udo
with
our
five
districts
in
the
Pud.
So
there's
some
you'll
see
some
language
for
signs,
for
example
that
we're
adopting
a
particular
set
of
Udo
standards
for
the
Pud,
and
so
there
are
some
changes
with
regard
to
that.
A
couple
more
things
and
then
I
will
be
done.
O
Think
I've
got
a
couple
more
one
is
on
the
incentives
adopting
the
Udo
standard,
there's
a
table
there
to
to
see
how
they
can
be
applied
and
how
they're
different
and
so,
for
example,
if
the,
if
you
develop
multi-family
housing
with
both
of
the
incentives
in
the
MX
or
MN
District,
you've
got
to
meet
this
20
affordability,
so
we
enhance
the
15
to
20
percent
so
that
we
would
increase
the
affordability
in
that
situation.
Last
one
on
subdivisions
adopting
the
Udo
standard
and
also
set
forth
a
chart
or
a
table
of
Standards
there.
O
L
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
is
really
great.
There's
a
lot
of
great
things
about.
What's
going
on,
so
really
appreciate
it
when
you
say
me
of
course,
interested
in
affordability,
issue
and
so
I
think
it's
really
great
at
the
question.
Tell
me
about
or
say
more
about
when
you
say
the
15
is
not
concentrated
in
one.
What
is
that?
What
does
that
mean?
Can
you
kind
of
say
more
about
that.
F
F
Second
of
all,
in
the
ever
then
the
MN
and
MX
zones.
You
have
to
meet
20
if
you
want
the
incentives.
So
if
you
think
about
overall
the
entire
development
you're
going
to
have
this
ongoing
total
right
that
15
percent
have
to
be
done.
As
each
development
takes
place,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
within
the
same
apartment,
building
or
within
the
same
subdivision,
but
it's
got
to
be
met
globally
and
within
each
specific
neighborhood,
so
that
we
end
up
with
five
diverse
neighborhoods.
F
E
B
D
B
E
B
E
B
P
I
I
I
have
a
a
list,
but
I'll
start
with
environmental.
I
would
like
to
have
the
petitioners
at
least
address
some
of
the
environmental
standards
that
were
indicated
in
the
environmental
commissions
memo,
and
if
you
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
their
explicit
comment,
that
the
purpose
of
a
PUD
is
not
to
avoid
environmental
standards,
and
you
know
that
I
I
appreciate
the
sentiment
about
the
size
demands
the
very
best
environmental
planning,
not
the
minimum
and
I
wonder
if
you
could
address
that
directly.
F
Correct
yes,
so
we
are
still
working
through
our
entire
environmental
approach.
We,
since
the
last
meeting
we
have
visited
the
site
with
several
members
of
the
environmental
commission,
as
well
as
staff
to
walk
the
site
and
look
at
specifics.
So
when
we
look
at
the
overall
site
plan,
there's
some
competing
interest.
One
is
the
connectivity
of
Adams
Street,
going
through
verse
and
Sudbury
versus
the
constraints
that
are
there
specifically
slopes,
trees
and
karst.
F
Those
things
are
there
they're
fixed,
and
so
when
we
have
to
build
a
street,
we
have
to
disrupt
some
of
those
things.
We
don't
build
streets
to
the
top
of
the
hill
and
to
the
bottom
of
every
Valley.
That's
just
not
the
way
we
build
streets
for
long
term
Ada
would
not
be
able
to
use
the
sidewalks
and
bicyclists
wouldn't
allow
like
them
either.
But
you
know
sometimes
we
do,
and
sometimes
we
don't
so
we
are
working
through
those.
F
If
I
were
going
to
guess
today,
I
think
there
are
two
areas
where
we
have
a
slope
issue.
You
I
think
there
are
two
or
three
areas.
We
have
a
karst
issue
and
I
think
that
we
are
going
to
save
somewhere
between
20
and
30
Acres
of
trees,
which
is
I,
think
what
is
appropriate,
we're
going
to
do
those
in
areas
where
they
are
in
other
environmental
sense
of
areas,
but
when
we
were
walking
with
the
staff
and
with
the
environmental
commission,
we
talked
about
a
group
of
five
trees.
F
Those
five
trees
would
be
counted
in
the
canopy
because
they
are
five
trees
globed
together
they
are
five
invasive
species.
They
want
us
to
remove
those
trees.
We
don't
get
credit
for
removing
those
trees
because
they're
in
the
overall
scope
of
trees
and
when
we
count
canopy,
we
don't
count
environmentally
good
trees
versus
bad
trees.
But
yet,
when
we
come
to
save
them,
we
want
to
save
all
the
good
trees.
F
So
those
are
a
trade-off
that
we
have
to
eventually
make
and
we're
working
through
the
details
that
it
takes
over
this
size
of
a
project
on
where
those
are.
What
we
have
been
able
to
say
is
the
riparian
buffer,
the
streams
the
the
water
in
the
flood
zone
we
can
protect.
All
of
that
we
can
meet
the
standard
absolutely
in
those
areas
we
have
three
stream
Crossings
proposed.
F
Those
are
currently
will
be
complied
with,
the
DNR
and
the
process
by
which
to
have
to
do
that,
but
we
can
meet
those
standards
without
a
question
we
also
when
we
get
to
trees.
There
is
this
question
of:
what's
the
existing
canopy,
for
instance
in
our
Udo,
if
you
have
39
canopy
versus
40
percent,
you
actually
want
40
canopy,
because
you
save
a
lot
less
trees
at
40
canopy.
Then
you
do
at
39
percent,
because
we
have
breaks
in
what
we
save.
F
So
we
look
at
tree
canopy
and
this
discussion
is
going
to
come
down
to.
Where
do
we
want
that
connectivity
and
other
infrastructure
to
be?
Where
do
we
want
to
save
the
most
important
trees,
which
aren't
always
the
oldest
trees
or
the
well-established
trees,
but
they
might
be
the
trees
around
a
sinkhole?
They
might
be
a
trees
along
the
stream
that
we
want
to
preserve
and
make
a
decision
about
where
those
conflicts
are
so
I
think
we're
well
on
our
way.
F
There
I
know
that's
a
long
answer,
but
that's
how
we're
taking
the
status
report
I
would
Envision
that
between
now
and
our
next
meeting
we
will
have
our
up-and-dated
environmental
report,
because
our
environmental
Engineers
were
on
site
with
the
environmental
commission
we'll
have
that
modified
back
to
staff
and
I.
Think
we'll
get
some
feedback
on
that.
I
I
Yes,
thank
you.
The
other
question
I
have
is
about
I'll.
Just
do
a
couple
here
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
somebody
else.
The
the
other
question
I
have
is
about
the
request
to
freeze
to
use
April
20th
as
the
freeze
date
for
this
and
and
how
did
that
come
up
and
and
I
would
love
the
staff's
impression
too
about
what
are
the.
What
are
the
problems
with
doing
that
and
what
what
trepidation
or,
if
there's,
a
favored
approach
to
doing
something
like
this?
F
Of
questions
so
I
think
the
the
most
appropriate
one
to
talk
about
when
we
talk
about
freezing
is
the
sidewalks
okay.
The
Udo
has
several
widths
of
what
sidewalks
are,
and
we
saw
last
month
that
you
granted
variances
to
the
city
of
Bloomington
on
their
sidewalks,
with
in
a
development
that
the
city
of
Bloomington
is
doing,
because
it
wasn't
consistent
and
I
believe
that
the
sidewalk
width
and
the
tree
plot
widths
in
the
city
of
Bloomington
over
the
next
15
years
will
change
again.
I,
don't
know
which
way
they're
going
to
go.
F
I,
don't
think
we're
hung
up
on
whether
that's
five
foot
and
six
foot
or
six
foot
and
five
foot,
but
we
want
to
know
that
they're
there
and
we're
there
for
the
consistent
long
period
of
time.
So
that's
what
we're
asking
for
is
take
the
code
that
we're
adopting
and
over
the
life
of
this
PUD,
which
has
an
expiration
or
15
years
in
Sunset
that
we
fix
that.
So
we
know
because
we
believe
that
the
people
that
want
to
live
in
this
development
and
our
residents
want
predictability.
F
They
want
to
know
that
if
it's
going
to
take
five
years
to
build
out
and
there's
a
commercial
building
coming
in
next
to
them
that
it's
going
to
be
built
to
the
same
standards
that
their
sidewalks
built
to
we've
all
been
in
neighborhoods
and
seen
sidewalks-
that
don't
get
built
along
certain
lots
for
sometimes
years
right
and
then
they
come
back
and
all
of
a
sudden,
The,
sidewalk's,
Wider
or
narrower
or
tree
plots
different.
We
don't
want
that.
We
want
predictability.
F
We
want
to
make
sure
that
if
you
can
put
a
sign
up,
your
sign
is
the
same
size.
It's
predictable
for
the
entire
period,
if
you're
going
to
have
a
parking
lot
of
an
office
building
that
there
is
a
requirement
of
the
number
of
parking
spots
that
go
with
that
office,
building,
that's
consistent
over
the
entire
build
out
of
our
development.
F
F
That's
when
you
get
the
200
Page
document
or
the
120
page
document
that
we
had
a
month
ago,
because
we
wrote
those
specific
we're
good
with
adopting
what's
in
the
Udo,
but
we
want
to
fix
it
so,
instead
of
rewriting
it
and
having
a
whole
bunch
in
there
we're
saying
one
paragraph
fix
it
for
what
it
is
now,
if
it's
good
for
the
city
of
Bloomington
now
and
if
I
were
going
to
build
a
PUD
or
a
development
on
a
One,
Acre
Site
somewhere
in
Bloomington.
This
would
be
the
rules.
F
Just
give
me
the
ability
to
say
I'm
fixing
that
for
a
period
of
time-
and
we
know
that
that's
what
it
is,
there's
others
that's
going
to
change,
and
so
we
haven't
fixed
those
for
a
period
of
time.
But
that's
our
approach.
I
know
it's
not
easy.
It's
going
to
be
hard
for
us
to
utilize.
It's
going
to
be
hard
for
staff
to
do
it,
but
we
also
don't
want
to
say
that
you
go
to
building
this
development
and
you've
got
this
whole
series
right
of
judios,
because
you
could.
F
B
B
B
Not
work
here
and
you
know
kind
of
how
is
this
still
benefiting
the
community
in
this
case,
you
know,
it's
mostly
seems
just
for
ease
of
administration
by
the
petitioner
and
some
of
the
things
that
they've
mentioned
that
they're
worried
about
like,
for
example,
getting
a
site
plan
developed
with
four
buildings
on
it,
but
it
takes
you
three
years
to
build
it
and
the
regulations
change
that
doesn't
matter
once
you
have
a
site
plan
and
you
start
building
you're
vested
and
you're
good.
So
that's
that's
a
non-issue
what
we
are
concerned.
B
You
know
what
they
would
like
to
do
and
we
I'm
sure
lots
of
developers
all
over
town
would
like
to
do.
This
is
get
an
approval
and
then
have
it
be
good
forever,
even
if
the
ordinance
changes
I,
don't
necessarily
think
that
we
agree
that
a
PUD
allows
you
to
do
that
that
that's
the
intent
of
a
PUD
is
to
say
any
site
plan.
We
do
in
this
area
now
for
the
next
20
years.
We
want
to
use
these
regulations
just
so
it
can
be
predictable.
B
B
B
It's
just
for
their
own
ease
of
you
know,
being
able
to
maybe
Market
or
develop
them,
but
I
I,
just
don't
know
that
that's
a
real
I,
don't
know
that
it's
actually
that
much
easier
I
mean
you
know
that
we
update
the
Udo
every
year.
We
don't
make
large
changes
in
our
development
standards
that
we
think
warrant.
That
kind
of
kind
of
freezing.
Also,
this
type
of
petition
sets
precedent.
We
don't
want
every
PD
that
comes
in
here
now
to
say:
here's
seven,
you
know
of
your
420
page
Udo.
B
We
want
to
lock
in
375
pages
of
it.
We
just
want
to
have
these
couple
little
things
that
we're
willing
to.
Let
change
that
just
isn't
what
the
Pud
process
is
for
it's
for
if,
for
some
reason
our
regular
districts
aren't
working
for
you
or
our
regulations,
then
you
say
why
and
propose
a
change,
and
that's
not
really
what
we're
getting
here.
So
we
are.
You
have
been
pushing
back
with
them
on
this.
You
know
and
Mr
venzel
says
well,
we'll
just
write
it
all
in
and
it'll
be
300
Pages.
B
B
If
you
know
that
things
could
change
or
that
you
know
you
it,
it
is
incentive
them
to
to
them
to
keep
going
if
they
are
have
a
feeling
that
these
things
could
change
in
the
next
10
years
with
the
new
Administration,
we
better
go
ahead
and
make
sure
we
get
this
built
under
the
rules
we
have
now.
That's
so
switching
that
and
letting
them
freeze
the
rules
for
15
years
or
in
perpetuity
until
the
beauty
is
built
out.
It's
like
a
disincentive
from
our
perspective
to
continuing
the
development.
I
F
F
They
know
whether
or
not
there
can
be
lights
on
the
side
of
their
neighbor's
homes.
They
know
whether
or
not
there
is
going
to
be
a
sign
in
their
front
yard.
They
know
whether
or
not
there's
going
to
be
a
billboard
in
these
different
zones.
If
we
change
the
law
or
there's
a
Court
ruling
that
says
something
about
how
that
goes,
we
could
have
an
issue
here.
We
don't
want
that.
We
want
predictability,
that's
what
we're
asking
for
we're,
not
asking
to
avoid
the
rules.
B
I'll
just
add:
a
part
of
puds
are
great
for
the
petitioner
and
are
supposed
to
also
be
great
for
the
community,
but
part
of
the
thing
they
take
on.
Is
they
can't
ask
for
a
variance,
you're,
writing
your
rules
and
saying
this
is
how
we're
going
to
rule
this
is
what
we're
going
to
build.
So
what
he's?
When
he's
talking
about
the
sidewalks
For
Hopewell
he's
talking
about
a
waiver,
that's
done
through
a
subdivision
process
and
you
all
are
allowed
to
do
those.
B
If
someone
were
to
develop
in
this
development
and
not
like
the
regulations,
that
would
be
like
a
district
ordinance
change
that
has
to
go
back
to
council.
So
I
mean
they
have
to
decide
what
they
want
to
be
done
here.
So
I
mean
it
is
a
big
deal.
I
mean
this
is
why
lots
of
people
don't
do
puds,
they
work
within
the
code
and
we
want
to
be
helpful
to
them.
This
is
a
huge
project.
I
E
B
It's
written
into
your
PUD
right,
so
if
you
have
something
written
in
your
PUD,
then
that's
your
PUD
regulation
and
that's
regulated
by
planned,
commissioning,
Council
and
Mr.
Rooker
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
if
you're
saying
what
we
have
said
in
the
past,
is
that
that's
an
ordinance
you've
now
written
an
ordinance
for
your
for
your
site,
and
this
group
is
what
these
groups
are.
What
oversee
that.
So,
if
you
want
to
change
those
things,
you
have
to
go
back
and
change
them,
because
it's
not
the
typical
Title
20
Udo
regulation.
A
B
So
site
plans
last
for
a
year
and
then
you
can
ask
for
an
extension
or
two
of
six
months,
either
one
or
two
extensions.
So
typically,
so,
basically
you
pull
a
permit
within
your
year
and
then
you're
vested
as
long
as
your
permit
is
good.
So
we've
seen
at
property
I
mean
some
of
them
last
for
a
very
long
time,
because
as
long
as
they
have
an
open
and
good
building
permit
with
the
building
department,
then
the
site
plan
is
still
good.
So.
F
Think
this
is
a
10
to
15
year
development
process.
That's
why
we
are
sun.
Setting
these
at
15
years.
The
way
the
Pud
works,
it's
90
percent
developed
is
what
point
in
time
the
Pud
retires.
So
it
could
be
a
long
time
and
we
don't
anticipate
coming
in
with
a
massive
site
plan
that
gets.
You
know
the
whole
thing
down.
We
think
this
will
come
as
neighborhoods
and
small
sections
and
that's
where
we're
asking
for
consistency
and
I
I
think
that
what
staff's
missing
is.
F
If
we
defer
to
the
Udo,
then
it
is
a
variance
process.
If
the
sidewalks
are
the
Udo
process
and
we
have
an
existing
sidewalk
of
four
and
we're
not
in
the
Pud
ordinance
we're
operating
in
the
Udo,
we
would
be
asking
for
a
variance.
We
would
be
going
through
the
variance
process
because
we're
acting
within
the
Udo
and
that's
what
we're
saying
we
don't.
We
don't
want
to
have
to
come
to
you,
because
the
Udo
changed
and
we're
acting
within
the
Udo
for
the
sidewalk.
F
F
That's
the
ordinance!
If
that
ordinance
is
dictating
that
and
we
change
the
signs
and
they
all
have
to
be
crimson
and
cream
in
Bloomington,
then
I'm
going
to
come
for
a
variance
because
that's
the
process
in
the
Udo.
So
that's
what
we're
trying
to
avoid
to
be
having
to
come
to
the
Udo
for
a
variance
when
it's
the
standard
that
we
tried
to
establish
initially.
B
I
just
want
to
yeah
I'm,
just
gonna,
if
the
ordinance,
if
the
Pud
is
silent
on
something
that
lives
in
the
Udo,
then
that
is
the
Udo
process
and
you
can
request
a
variance
from
that.
If
they
don't
address
signs
at
all
but
say
our
underlying
zoning
District
here
is
MM
and
then
they
come
in
for
a
sign.
That's
too
big.
They
can
request
a
variance
for
that
sign.
B
If
they're
saying
we
want
to
use
the
Udo
regulation
from
April
23
2023
they're
like
codifying
that
into
their
into
their
PUD,
so
those
things
I
believe
and
Mike
will
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
are
not
going
to
be
very
intelligible
because
they're
part
of
the
Pud,
you
should
only
put
things
in
the
Pud
you're
sure
sure.
If.
F
M
Tag
we're
talking
about
code
and
regulations,
but
as
we
go
through
and
we
might
have
a
chain
well,
second
generation,
maybe
retail
space
or
Office
Space
and
and
looking
at
the
list
of
uses
and
we're
in
a
PUD
and-
and
we
want
to
and
the
use
that
we
want
to
propose
is
not
there
and
you
typically
in
a
in
a
PUD.
We
would.
We
would
do
a
request
to
add
that
use
to
it.
But
since
they're
mirroring
our
current
zoning,
how
would
that
be
addressed?
Good.
B
Question
so
they
have
included
some
language
and
legal
has
not
reviewed
this
yet,
but
they
have
included
some
language
that
is
similar
to
language
in
the
Udo.
That
indicates
if
a
land
use
isn't
explicitly
in
the
table,
then
it's
up
to
the
director
to
make
a
determination
According
to
some
standards
that
we
have.
So
that's
something
we
have
in
the
Udo
if
you're
proposing
something
that
we
can't
find
an
exact
match
for
then
Mr
director
Robinson
can
find
something
similar
so
they're
proposing
to
carry
that
in
okay.
M
Q
Q
What
specifically
do
you
see,
kind
of
going
in
there
for
commercial
retail
spaces
and
also
the
opportunity
for
not
just
these
neighborhood
develop
the
developing
neighborhoods
around
here.
But
do
you
see
it
as
something
that
a
lot
of
the
West
Side
residents
of
Bloomington
could
also
access
and
use
because
I
think
that's
part
of
the
density
issue?
I
think
in
the
height
issue
also
has
to
take
into
account
I
think.
F
So
so
far
we
have
our
list
of
things
we'd
like
to
see,
which
is
lots
of
entertainment
and
active
space,
but
we
have
had
interest
from
medical
office.
We've
had
hotelier
interest,
Senior
Living
interest
that
we
all
see
focused
in
that
in
that
ever
centered
District.
So
we
see
entertainment
services,
small
Services
daycare,
Banks
those
kind
of
things,
as
well
as
larger
Community,
servicing
entertainment
type
things,
hotels,
medical
office
and
senior
living
and
assisted
living.
M
F
So
we
don't
have
a
threshold
to
say
we
would
we
would
start
building
or
sell
a
commercial
lot
or
part
of
a
commercial
lot.
After
X
we
have
put
in
a
phasing
schedule,
that's
in
the
PD
that
talks
about
starting
from
the
west
and
the
East,
and
essentially
setting
goals
of
the
number
of
units
so
that
we
weren't
developing
skipping
all
over
the
site.
L
Smith
another
one
for
Mr
fencil,
don't
sit
down,
I,
I,
just
I
kind
of
know,
I,
I
kind
of
guess.
What
you're
thinking
tell
me
what
the
Practical
effects
would
be.
If
you
know
there
were
interruptions
in
Udo
or
the
new
Administration
is
going
to
come
in
and
if
everything's
different
for
a
developer.
What
what's
the
Practical
like
implications
of
that?
What
does
that
mean
so.
F
L
F
I
think
it
would.
It
would
thus
cost
us
more
money
which
in
turn
increases
the
cost
of
the
project
and
increases
the
cost
of
housing
in
Bloomington.
Yes,
it
would
take
longer
to
develop
I.
Think
the
more
important
thing
is
we
might
lose
some
develop
some
potential
clients
that
will
go
whether
that's
to
another
place
in
Bloomington
or
go
somewhere
outside
of
Bloomington.
F
You
know
if
someone
came
to
me
and
said:
I
would
like
to
do
X
and
I
say.
Well,
that's
an
amendment
of
the
PD
in
general,
they're
going
to
say,
but
I
have
to
do
that
somewhere
else
be
it.
You
know
along
the
69
Corridor
and
that
might
make
a
decision
of
where
they
chose
to
put
their
investment
and
that's
what
we
would
hate
to
see.
G
K
B
Just
sure
I
think
it.
It
just
depends
on
the
content
right.
So
we've
seen
PUD
amendments
where
they
request
a
waiver
of
second
hearing.
They
go
to
plan
commission
once
and
go
to
council.
You
have
to
do
first
reading,
but
you
don't
actually
go
to
that
meeting
and
then
second,
a
second
reading
a
council,
so
it
would
depend
on
the
complexity
of
the
question.
I
think
is
similar.
It's
similar,
I'm,
sorry
I
think
it
could
be.
It
would
not
be
I,
don't
think
if
it
was
not
something
complex.
B
K
F
Yeah,
so,
let's
step
back
a
little
bit
and
say,
let's
say
we
were
going
to
Zone
this
property
one
land
use
that
we
would
have
out.
There
would
be
probably
be
RH.
It
would
probably
be
residential
high
density
to
get
as
much
density
as
we
could
get
there
and
not
worry
about
mixtures,
so
the
entire
site,
the
entire
site,
if
we
did
one
District
we'd,
also
have
to
do
one
District,
because
we
don't
have
Parcels
or
streets
to
divide.
F
It
would
be
five
stories
and
with
incentive
six,
because
that's
what
is
buy
right
in
the
RH
Zone,
so
we've
chose
not
to
do
that.
We've
chose
to
have
higher
buildings.
Smaller
buildings.
We've
chose
to
spread
that
density
out.
So
we
have
variation
so
across
the
street
from
Sudbury,
which
is
a
planted
Street
we're
proposing,
as
we
step
down
the
hill
to
start
with
buildings
that
are
four
stories
with
us
additional
step
back.
F
K
K
K
So
so
I'm
thinking
about
just
the
impact
of
that
on
the
community
as
Mr
Ridge
mentioned
this
impacting
for
the
better,
are
affordable
housing
needs.
So
the
6
000
units
is
that,
like
a
fairly
good
number
because
six,
you
know
900
units
15,
it's
a
substantial
number
of
affordable
housing
units.
I
have
questions
too
about
how
this
is
done,
but
just
that
is
a
fact
and
as
an
impact
on
the
community.
Can
you
just
talk
about
that?
Is
that
right
is
it?
Is
it
right
to
assume
that
we
might
see
900,
affordable
housing
units.
F
F
Six,
thousands
a
little
Mushy
Mushy.
What
is
that
we're
probably
more
like
about
five
thousand
truthfully,
that's
about
where
we're
falling
right.
Now
we're
continuing
to
look
at
all
the
different
pressures
that
are
putting
on
us.
So
we
think
we're
about
five
thousand,
so
it'd
be
a
little
less
than
900.
But,
yes,
that's
that's
where
we're
looking!
F
Okay,
while
we're
on
affordable
housing,
one
of
the
things
we'd
like
feedback
from
is:
is
there
extra
incentive
currently
affordable
housing?
You
get
that
incentive
at
120,
Ami
and
less
so
if
the
homeowner
or
renter
is
at
120
of
Ami,
you
get
that
credit
for
that
being
affordable.
What
we
have
explored
in
the
Pud
is
getting
additional
credit
if
you
go
lower.
So
if
you
go
to
70
or
60
Ami,
do
you
get
additional
credit,
or
is
that
the
same
as
doing
one
at
180
at
120.?
F
The
other
thing
we've
explored
is
incorporating
something
for
seniors
and
especially
in
like
a
senior
long-term
facility
is,
if
they're
on
Medicaid,
so
that
somebody
is
paying
for
them
that
they
we
get
some
credit
for
those
units
too,
so
that
there's
an
incentive
to
provide
more
than
just
affordable
at
that
120
level.
But
maybe
we
can
get
some
down
at
60
percent
Ami
and
maybe
we
can
get
some
other
forms
of
housing
other
than
just
a
strict
rental
or
apartment
that
can
occur
count
for
some
of
that.
F
So
we
would
like
some
feedback
on
that.
That's
not
something!
That's
currently
in
the
process.
Some
of
the
incentives
in
the
tro
do
allow
for
a
little
bit
of
incentive
to
get
below
the
120
I'll.
Let
Scott
or
Jackie
speak
more
to
that.
It's
there,
but
it's
not
been
utilized
a
lot.
So
that's
what
we're
again
trying
to
provide
the
tools
in
the
toolbox
to
do
that.
F
B
R
F
If
you
had
a
an
entity,
they
came
in
and
said
part
of
our
residents
are
dedicated
to
that
in.
In
general
terms,
those
are
people
that
would
also
qualify
as
being
less
than
120
Ami.
So
we're
not
saying
they
get
a
full
credit
as
a
full
unit,
but
maybe
they
get
a
half
unit
credit
again
trying
to
provide
diversity
and
different
options
that
currently
aren't
available.
K
Okay,
those
can
change
a
lot.
Those
populations,
though,
in
a
senior
facility
and
I,
think
people
trying
to
make
those
profitable
also
change.
What
they're
willing
to
take
as
Medicaid,
so
to
rely
on
that
to
get
incentive,
seems
I'm,
not
sure,
that's
a
great
thing
to
do,
because
that
can
change
pretty
quickly,
but
especially
in
that
market,
which
is
very
volatile
and
difficult
to
even
sustain
it,
not
in
this
space.
So
I
don't
know
if
I'd
want
those
to
count
but
I
understand
your
comments.
F
J
I
think
a
few
just
really
quick
questions
and
one
maybe
just
sticking
on
the
affordability
and
it
actually
Commissioners.
Smith's
questions
got
me
going
so
by
so
it's
by
neighborhood
at
least
15
percent
affordable.
So
how
does
that
happen?
If,
like,
let's
say,
the
first
site
plan
comes
forward
and
it
is
a
four-story
Condo
building,
that's
market
rate?
Is
that
possible,
or
does
that
first
thing
have
to
have
at
least
15
percent,
affordable.
F
So
what
we
have
proposed
is
is
twofold:
one
fold
is,
300
units
can
be
built
before
any
affordable
units
have
to
be
built,
so
the
project
could
come
in
and
sort
of
get
kick-started.
We
could
start
having
some
development
take
place.
That
is
two
things.
One
is
allows
that
to
Kickstart,
but
two
most
affordable
government
programs
have
a
much
larger
lead
time.
If
you
wanted
to
apply
for
a
lie.
F
Tech
low-income
housing,
tax
credit
program
through
the
state
of
Indiana,
you
would
apply
next
July
of
2024
and
you
would
find
out
in
November
if
you
got
it
and
you
would
have
to
start
construction
by
the
following
November.
So
that's
a
long
lead
time
and
that
would
probably
be
like
62
units.
So
all
of
a
sudden,
you
got
62
units.
Well,
how
does
that
equate
to
15
of
what?
So?
What
we're
doing
is
twofold.
F
One
is
300
units
off
front,
and
then
you
start
after
meeting
it,
and
then
you
have
to
make
sure
you're
equalizing
at
every
250
units.
So
you
know
you're
going
to
have
an
affordable
project
and
it's
gonna.
It's
not
going
to
be
15
to
out
of
a
hundred
it's
just
the
mask's,
never
going
to
work
that
easy
right.
So
it's
going
to
be
62,
affordable
units
of
which
32
brought
your
last
200
units
into
compliance,
and
now
you
have
an
extra
40
to
go
or
whatever
you
know
so
you're
going
to
play
this
game.
F
So
you
true
it
up
at
every
250
units
you
got
to
stay
within
that
and
those
would
be
platted
and
deed
restricted
at
that
point
in
time
or
whatever
form
of
mechanism
we
decide,
is
the
appropriate
whether
it's
a
deed
restriction
or
some
other
kind
of
agreement.
So
those
would
come
in
at
that
point
in
time.
In
a
perfect
world,
we
would
sell
two
plots
of
land.
F
One
would
go
to
an
affording
housing
housing
developer
and
one
would
go
to
you
know
a
market
rate
developer
and
they
would
start
at
the
same
time
I'm
just
not
very
optimistic
that
that's
the
way
it's
going
to
work.
So
that's
how
we're
proposing
to
bridge
that
you
know
maybe
the
250
in
the
unit
or
the
300
units,
not
the
right
number,
but
that's
where
we'd
love
to
have
some
feedback.
But
you
know
we
don't
think
it's
a
one-to-one.
F
J
I
I
appreciate
that
there's
a
process
to
make
sure
we're
not
saving
all
of
the
affordable
or
something
like
that
until
the
end
and
who
knows
what
happened?
Okay,
my
next
question
I
think,
is
to
staff
and
in
in
the
concept
of
like
locking
in
Udo
standards.
So
I'm,
not
a
Udo
expert
I
might
try
to
be,
but
so
one
of
the
standards
that
might
be
proposed
to
lock
in
is
like
so
parking
and
so
in
the
one
is
like
number
of
electrical
charging
stations
per,
and
it's
like
four
percent.
J
J
Yes,
okay
and
then
another
question
I
actually
really
appreciated
the
pre,
the
cross-section
slide
of
the
the
building
Heights
that
was
prepared
and
where
it
shows
you
know,
maybe
a
four
story
with
setback
six-story
Frontage
along
Sudbury,
as
opposed
to
the
12
the
potential
for
a
12
story
and
wanting
to
tear
it
down
as
it
goes
farther
away.
But
does
the
proposed
language
in
the
ordinance
require
that
or
is
this
just
in
concept,
an
idea
of
what
would
be
proposed.
F
So
Jackie
and
I
have
not
talked
about
this
in
detail.
We
can
on
Wednesday,
but
I
would
say
that
our
current
ordinance,
that's
in
front
of
you,
contemplates
the
additional
step
back
along
Sudbury.
It
does
not
and
requires
it.
It
does
not
contemplate
moving
the
greater
density,
the
greater
massing
on
down
to
this.
What
I
would
call
the
south
side
of
what's
labeled
here
is
Main
Street
that
is
not
contemplated.
F
F
I
Right
just
one
more
quick
one
I
know
we
want
to
hear
from
from
the
public
the
the
other
question.
There
were
a
bunch
of
things
in
Jackie,
scanlon's
presentation
about
the
number
of
units.
I
think
we
answered
that
one,
but
there
were
a
couple
others
in
the
first
slide
you
raised.
One
was
about
cul-de-sacs
and
whether
you
know
I
mean
they're
a
cul-de-sac
specified
in
the
subdivision,
design
standards,
but
I
don't
see
any
need
or
purpose
of
cul-de-sex
I'm
wondering
why
that's
included
in
there
and
there
were
a
bunch
of
other
things.
B
That
yeah
talked
about
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
widths.
Again,
you
know
we
have
done
in
other
PUD
situations
where
we
have
they've
included
cross-sections,
so
in
in
this
example,
we
could
include
in
this
case
include
cross
sections
in
the
district
ordinance
from
the
Transportation
plan
and
then
that's
something
we
could
do
with
that
close
to
SAC
and
then
alleys
in
the
current
access
table
or
the
current
subdivision
table.
It
doesn't
require
alleys
anywhere,
and
we've
talked
about
that
a
couple
of
times.
F
So
alleys
are
only
required
in
traditional
residential
subdivisions
in
the
Udo.
They
are
not
required
in
the
RH
districts
or
in
the
commercial
subdivision
districts
that
we
use
in
the
Udo.
So
that
was
our
basis
of
our
two
of
our
design
was
more
commercial,
so
we
have
planned
alleys.
Billy
ponco
is
here
our
architect
on
our
town,
homes
and
single
family
lots.
We
are
planning
alleys
for
those.
F
If
we
determine
at
some
point
in
time
at
one
of
these
streets,
that's
a
gridded
is
not
going
to
go
through.
The
result
is
a
cul-de-sac,
I
mean
or
we
don't
have
a
gridded
pattern.
So
that's
why
we've
included
them
in
there.
You
know
I
think
that
when
we
look
at
our
Links
of
cul-de-sacs
of
being
at
200
or
400
feet,
that's
not
a
really
long
call
to
SAC
we're
not
anticipating
that.
B
I
think
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
cul-de-sacs
are
actually
they're
only
allowed
in
the
commercial
industry,
commercial
employment
subdivisions
that
we
have,
which
are,
if
you
think
of
like
the
oh.
What's
that
one
down
on
tap
Mill
Creek,
it's
large
lots
that
are
for
commercial
or
industrial
or
employment
I
mean
they
allow
block
lengths
of
like
300
feet.
You
know
what
what
we
have
thought.
B
This
development
was
going
to
be
and
based
on
the
discussions
and
the
drawings
and
stuff
and
the
requirement
the
Pud
of
block
perimeter
maximum
of
1400
feet.
That's
a
Like,
a
downtown
standard
right,
so
350
feet
is
pretty
standard
for
a
block
face
in
Bloomington
right
now.
I
know
it
was
said
earlier
that
that's
small,
but
it's
small.
B
If
we're
talking
about
Suburban
development,
but
it's
not
small
for
talking
about
Urban
and
if
we're
talking
about
making
this
area,
be,
you
know
a
little
commercial
node
destination,
then
we
need
to
be
talking
about
Urban,
Design
and
cul-de-sac.
Isn't
part
of
that
we
did
kind
of
leave
it
open
and
haven't
made
a
big
deal
about
it
because
we
hadn't
seen
you
know
kind
of
final
roadway
design,
but
we've
seen
a
number
of
roadway
designs
from
them
now,
and
none
of
them
contain
those.
So
we
would
rather
just
not,
we
don't
want
to
include
them.
B
K
Think
probably
some
of
us
would
have
an
expectation
that
when
it
com
comes
down
to
it,
those
are
worked
through
I
think
it's
just
good
to
say
that
I
know
some
of
the
comments
here
say
that
it's
currently
being
worked
on,
but
some
of
them
are
just
you
know,
ending
with
question
marks
so
to
the
extent
that
those
can
be
addressed
later
with
staff
that
helps
us
out
a
lot.
So.
F
I
think
that
if
we
haven't
specifically
addressed
something,
that's
because
this
is
the
first
hearing
of
this
proposal,
even
though
you
guys
saw
it
a
month
ago.
This
is
the
first
hearing
and
we
are
continuing
to
work
on
things
Wednesday.
We
will
meet
at
10
A.M
and
there
will
be
new
things
that
we
will
hear
from
staff
and
we'll
show
staff
new
things
that
are
based
on
the
feedback
that
we're
continuing
to
get
so
because
we
haven't
answered
something:
isn't
that
we're
ignoring
it?
F
We
actually
have
books
into
staff
and
make
sure
you
guys
have
Stephanie
already
have
it
a
detailed
list
of
all
the
comments
from
the
DRC
meeting
staff's
proposal
and
last
month's
meeting,
where
we've
gone
through
and
say
working
on
it
solution
agree,
disagree
to
go
right
down
the
list,
and
so
we
will
forward
that
to
make
sure
staff
hasn't.
They
can
forward
it
to
you,
because
we're
trying
to
systematically
address
each
of
those
I
mean
and
I'm
hopeful
that
staff
would
agree
that
that's
the
case,
great.
K
F
K
A
A
Okay,
we
will
then
go
to
public
comment.
So
public
comment
on
PUD
1823.
If
you
are
here
in
the
chambers
and
you'd
like
to
make
comment,
you
can
just
step
up
to
the
podium,
make
sure
to
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
you'll
have
up
to
five
minutes
to
make
comment.
If
you
are
joining
us
online,
please
look
for
the
reactions
button
on
the
your
Zoom
software
and
then
raise
hand.
A
P
E
P
My
concern
is
pretty
much
the
same
things
I
put
in
my
letter.
I've
heard
an
awful
lot
of
things
from
the
developer.
It
sounds
great.
It's
a
little
bit
of
Pie
in
the
Sky
I.
Think
I
pointed
out
that
if
you
take
that
136
Acres,
it
divides
down
to
a
quarter
of
a
mile.
This
will
be
the
largest
project
ever
done
in
Bloomington
and
will
set
the
scale
for
any
other
projects
that
might
come
along.
We're
talking
put
in
roughly
15
000
people
into
a
quarter
of
a
mile.
P
In
a
square
mile,
so
this
project
is
well
over
and
realistic.
I
was
disappointed.
The
developers
still
coming
and
giving
us
nebulous
figures.
Forty
five
hundred
six
thousand-
oh
fifteen
percent-
might
be
for
low
income
or
moderate
income
or
whatever,
but
it
could
be
higher.
I
want
concrete
numbers,
I
want
to
know,
he's
talking,
3
000
units.
Let's
take
a
look
at
the
infrastructure,
we're
going
to
talk
about
schools
assuming
a
25
percent
of
six
thousand.
Have
two
children
you're
talking
almost
another
2500
school
children
developed
throughout
the
county.
P
Take
a
look
at
Summit
Elementary
School.
Could
it
take
a
sudden
influx
of
300
students?
What's
that
going
to
cost
the
city
I,
don't
think
anybody
has
addressed
what
the
overall
cost
that
this
project
is
going
to
produce
in
the
city
to
picking
up
the
cost
of
high
roads
in
the
future,
the
cost
of
sidewalks
in
the
future?
That's
not
going
to
be
done
by
some
Association,
that's
going
to
be
done
by
the
city.
The
other
part
I
think
is
unrealistic.
P
Is
that
if
you
drive
around
the
city
and
you
look
at
this
concept
of
mixed
business
and
housing,
most
of
the
stores
are
empty?
They
have
been
empty
for
years,
especially
on
the
corner
of
Third
Street
in
Paterson
and
I
drive
through
the
city,
and
you
can
see
it
today.
Coming
home,
I
watched
the
fire
truck,
try
to
get
from
Second
Street
up
on
Weimar
Road,
it
bottomed
out,
who's
going
to
build
Wayne,
Monroe,
the
city
and
the
county
I'm.
P
Only
a
newcomer,
the
old
people
told
me
it's
20
years
and
they
still
can't
figure
out
what
they're
going
to
do
with
the
road.
So
I
don't
think
that
the
long-term
effects
are
being
looked
at.
It's
great,
the
other
thing.
Hud
developments
are
pretty
good.
The
plan
for
the
part
that
the
commission
came
up
with
a
couple
of
years
ago
is
right
for
the
size
of
the
area.
The
other
issue
is
when
you
talk
about
mixed
income
per
se,
50
percent
of
the
communities
in
the
country
work
the
other
50
percent.
P
P
The
other
person's
got
a
goal
of
I
want
to
have
advanced
math
I
want
to
have
French
I
want
to
have
this,
so
it's
it's
very
hot
in
that
kind
of
community
to
come
up
with
good
census
and
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
is.
It
requires
an
awful
lot
of
thought.
The
traffic
study
it
hasn't
been
done
yet,
but
in
2019
13
000
cars
roughly
went
down
Tap
Road
how
many
more
cars
were
going
to
go
down.
P
Tap
Road,
once
Friday
morning,
I
tried
to
go
from
Wilmer
on
the
tap
the
five
minutes
that
I
was
there.
Some
35
cars
went
back
and
forth.
That's
less
than
five
minutes.
35
cars
that
was
around
eight
o'clock,
try
to
get
onto
Tap
Road
between
7,
30
and
9,
try
to
get
on
to
2nd
Street
from
Weimer.
At
the
same
time,
it's
a
five
to
ten
minute
process
to
get
onto
those
two
streets.
P
So,
all
in
all
we're
looking
at
dumping
a
tremendous
amount
of
traffic,
an
awful
lot
of
people
and
then
again
the
fire
station
is
great.
But
what
about
a
police
substation?
What
about
something
having
to
be
done?
Probably
for
the
school
down
that
area,
environmentally,
all
the
runoff
where's
it
going
to
go.
It's
got
to
commit
to
some
storage
system.
P
G
B
S
I'm
I
worked
at
a
utility
company
for
38
years
in
construction,
I
built
pipelines,
and
things
like
that.
So
I
know
what
I'm,
what
I'm
talking
about
anytime
you
blast
or
anytime
you
hold
Ram
or
Split
Rock
when,
especially
when
you
blast
and
split
raw
Rock,
don't
blow
up
or
it
doesn't
blow
down
it
blows
out
and
that's
how
that's
how
you
get
it
broke
up
now.
S
The
thing
being
is
that
when
you
do
that
you're
shifting
Rock
you're
blasting
it
but
you're
also
shifting
that
rock
to
go
sideways
and
I
live
right
there
at
the
enter.
It's
almost
the
entrance
to
Arbor,
Ridge
and
they're
going
to
build
that
street
there
and
you
know
they're
going
to
take
Dirt
away
from
that
street.
You
know
there's
going
to
be
Rock
there
and
they're
going
to
have
to
break
it
and
and
when
they
break
it
it's
you
know,
I've
seen
it
before
it.
S
S
S
Another
point
is:
is
that
I
live
right
along
where
Sudbury
is
going
to
go
along
and
you're
going
to
have
drainage
problems,
because
because
it's
all
going
to
be
concrete
and
whatever
blacktop,
it
doesn't
matter,
but
you
have
drainage
problem
there.
Well,
whenever
you
build
a
whenever
you
build
a
road,
you
put
a
crown
in
it,
so
that
the
water
will
run
off
to
the
sides
and
and
go
down,
usually
the
ditches
and
I
guess
my
concern
is:
is
Howard:
how
are
they
going
to
drain
that
road?
S
A
T
T
Thoughtful
development
is
the
first
thing
that
comes
to
mind
for
me:
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
they
are
considering
what
the
neighbors
think
and
feel,
because
these
folks
most
of
them,
are
in
their
senior
years.
It's
an
unintentional
senior
community,
they're
great
neighbors
to
each
other
and
I'd
like
to
see
that
continue
into
this
neighborhood
I.
Think
stepping
it
up
to
three
to
four
stories
right
in
the
back
of
their
condos
is
probably
not
real
appropriate
and
maybe
that
could
be
shifted
somewhere
else.
T
T
There
are
comments
about
Weimer,
Road,
Tap
Road,
one
lane
improvements
that
were
on
this
target
list
and
I
hope
that
you
look
into
those
I
haven't
seen
any
of
those
really
have
happen,
and
that's
concerning
I.
Don't
think
you
can
really
depend
on
Adams
to
be
your
primary
entrance
and
I
know
that
part
of
breaking
away
is
actually
a
private
drive.
It's
not
a
city
street,
so
these
are
just
some
comments
that
I
wanted
to
share
and
I.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
U
I,
consider
it
a
jewel
in
a
sinking
array
or
a
shrinking
array
of
green
spaces
in
this
community.
So
my
concern
is
that
every
protection
be
made
to
to
protect
that
particular
piece
of
of
green
I.
Don't
know
if
any
of
you
have
ever
walked
through
that
area.
The
trees
are
amazing.
The
animals
are
amazing.
The
fungi
is
out
of
this
world.
U
It
is
one
of
the
most
beautiful
places
in
this
area,
I
think
and
it's
so
accessible
to
everyone
and
I'd
like
to
just
make
sure
that
it
maintains
its
healthy
life
and
to
remember
that
ecosystems
don't
respect
property
boundaries
and
that
we
don't
I
I
hate
to
see
it
looked
at
that
way.
You
know
just
because
you
decide
to
make
a
green
space
on
the
other
side.
Of
that.
U
That's
that's
good,
but
I
think
that
you
need
to
have
a
clear
understanding
before
you
plan
that
of
what's
going
on
on
the
other
side
and
I,
don't
know
I'm
not
used
to
doing
public
speaking
and
so
I
hope
I
made
some
sense.
I
appreciate
the
time,
and
it's
really
obvious
to
me
that
the
environmental,
Council
or
commission
is
really
interested
in
making
sure
that
the
environment
is
protected
and
I
I
appreciate
that
and
I
wish.
U
V
V
I
want
to
also
Echo
what
somebody
said
earlier
that
this
is
a
thoughtful
development
we
have
a
group
here
and
as
I'm
listening
to
this
project
and
I
spent
some
time,
I
spent
more
than
a
couple
hours
reading
through
the
documents
in
advance
of
the
meeting
tonight.
And
what
struck
me
is
how
thorough
and
how
thoughtful
the
developers
are
in
this
process.
V
There
have
been
a
lot
of
projects
that
have
been
proposed
and
I
think
I
moved
to
Bloomington
in
2014,
and
that
was
not
long
after
Smallwood
was
developed
down
the
road
and
I
think
when
we
think
of
developers.
We
have
a
bad
taste
in
our
mouth,
because
we
think
of
a
monolithic
structure
that
has
four
walls
and
houses
as
many
humans
as
possible
for
as
cheap
as
possible.
That's
not
the
case
here.
That
is
not
what
development
can
be
and
from
my
position,
it's
not
what
development
should
be.
V
The
lived
experience
within
the
built
environment
I
do
believe
that
that
is
possible
and
I
think
we're
going
to
see
that
and
I
think
we
hear
that
from
these
developers
tonight
and
I
really
want
to
enter
that
into
the
public,
Consciousness
and
I
respect
that
and
I
really
admire.
That
I
also
want
to
say
that
I
know
that
housing
is
such
a
complex
topic.
V
It's
started
long
long
ago
before
any
of
us
had
any
control
over
the
context
that
we're
operating
in
within
right
now
and
there's
lots
of
books
and
there's
lots
of
thoughts
about
what
did
we
do
wrong
when
it
came
to
zoning?
We
know
that
zoning
and
situations
like
this
have
been
terribly
exclusionary
in
the
past.
V
A
lot
of
urban
thinkers
are
now
looking
at
density
as
a
solution
to
a
lot
of
our
environmental
issues
and
a
lot
of
our
social
issues
that
we
have
seen
from
monolithic
zoning,
single
family
houses
used
to
be
the
American
dream.
I,
don't
believe
that
has
to
be
true
anymore.
I,
don't
believe
that
that
has
to
be
set
in
stone
and
I.
Think
I
read
some
comments,
some
letters.
That
said,
hey,
we
hope
that
you
approve
the
previous
PUD
well,
that
PUD
was
what
I
understand
approved
in
1999.
V
V
G
W
Yeah,
my
name
is
Vivian
furnish.
I
was
here
at
the
July
10th
hearing,
I'm,
sorry
Brad.
You
weren't
here
missed
talking
to
you,
but
I
I.
Think
I
got
a
lot
of
my
questions
across
to
the
commission
and
staff
at
the
July
10th
hearing
I
questioned
the
density.
The
density
question
still
stands
from
the
hearing
tonight.
The
maximum
unit
numbers
is
5000,
as
I
heard,
which
is
still
very
dense.
So
if
you
follow
the
calculation,
Mr
John
Scott
has
done
or
I've
done,
or
other
people
have
done
in
their
public
comment.
W
That's
still
over
10
to
that's
about
one
percent
of
our
city
bloomington's
land,
but
10
10
to
15
of
the
future
units.
So
it
is
extremely
dense.
Unprecedented.
It's
on
a
very
large
site
of
you
know
very
large
site.
I've
heard
the
word
precedence
used
by
Jackie
Legacy
this
site.
It
just
is
humongous,
so
the
density
does
not
really
doesn't
sit
right.
It's
you
know,
I,
that's
another!
That's
definitely
a
question.
I
still
want
answers
for
also
the
gentleman
just
that
spoke.
Tom
I,
don't
believe
you
can
speak
for
everyone
and
I.
W
Don't
yes,
yeah
I
think
I.
Think
but
Johanna
hinted
that
single
family
home
is
not
what
Americans
are
looking
for.
I,
don't
know.
If
there's
studies
on
that
I,
don't
know
if
that
City
Bloomington
has
done
new
housing
study
or
public
opinion
research
on
that
we
have
to
look
at
it,
but
Mr
Tron,
Enright
Rudolph
was
asking
for
single
family
that
map
with
a
single
family
word
on
it.
That's
from
the
Schmidt
visioning
plan,
that's
what
I
was
seeing.
So
why
is
that
Vision,
implancing
single-family
home
when
you
all
are
designing
duplexes?
W
You
know
triplexes
four
to
six
story
residential
buildings,
so
that
part
is
very
confusing.
Also
I
disagree
with
you
Tom
on
how
this
petition
or
how
the
petitioners
respectively,
I'm
just
going
to
point
out.
Some
facts
have
respected
community.
So
in
the
Udo,
as
Jackie
has
pointed
out
to
me,
I
called
Jackie
today
to
confirm
if
my
understanding
was
correct,
my
understanding
was
incorrect.
W
W
If
you
truly
respect
Community,
why
have
you
not
organized
the
meeting
for
the
other
people,
because
Arbor
Ridge
only
you
know,
represents
a
small
percentage
at
the
land
they
intersect
this
site?
What
about
the
other
people
about
the
people
on
Lima
Road,
who
are
people
north
of
Allen,
where
you're
suggesting
your
connection
to
be
Tree,
Lane,
Curry
Lane?
What's
the
other
one
I
can't
remember,
but
those
are
all
connections
into
Allen
Street
and
you
know
Weimar
Road
and
Allen
Street
to
Second
Street
are
the
two
worst
intersections
in
Bloomington.
W
Have
you
driven
on
those
I?
Don't
know
if
you
have
and
those
are
critical
concerns.
Those
are
elephants
in
the
room
that
nobody's
addressing
you're
you're
talking
about
you
have
received
interest
from
hotels,
senior
living
and
what's
the
other
medical
medical
facilities
do
they
know
that
those
intersections
are
terrible
medical
facilities,
senior
livings,
all
cater
towards
people,
that
with
illnesses
or
a
senior
do
you
I
mean
I,
just
can't
imagine
like
John
Scott
has
talked
about.
It
takes
five
to
ten
minutes
during
rush
hour
to
get
onto
Second,
Street
or
tap
Street.
W
Tap
Road
from
Weimar
or
and
same
goes
with
Alan.
That's
just
super
dangerous
I
mean.
Are
you
considering
those
before
you
I
mean
advertise
this?
Do
they
even
know
that
that's
the
condition
of
the
road
further
Jillian
has
asked
a
question
about
environmental
issues.
You
said
you
are
very
sure
that
you
have
done
all
your
research
for
floodplain,
Wetland
and
riparian,
but
why
are
those
information
not
in
the
speeding
packet?
W
Why
can't
we
see
it
and
what's
what
are
your
plans
for
karst
slopes
trees
and
in
my
letter
to
the
plan
commission
dated
August
9th
this
past
Wednesday?
If
asked
about
cars
features
in
the
city
of
bloomington's
2003
environmental
resource
inventory,
it
has
said
that
cars
features
were
only
studied
or
the
only
thing
that
was
listed
in
the
report
was
surface
cars
features,
but
they
have
said
Subterranean
or
subsurface.
Car
speakers
are
worthy
of
an
investigation
also
in
the
same
report.
W
They're
talking
about
a
long-term
study
on
the
environmental
Futures
and
in
the
city
of
bloomington's
2016
is
that
16
comprehensive
plan
or
18.
they've
updated
the
previous
plan
because
they've
talked
you
know.
Time
has
changed
it's
time
to
update
and
replace
the
previous
plans.
So
if
that
warrant
an
update,
why
have
we
not
seen
a
new
resource
inventory,
plus
it's
all
related
topic?
Okay,
after
the
removal
of
the
dam
at
Wapahani
at
Weinberg
Lake?
Have
they
done
a
study
on
the
Wetland?
Has
the
lake
has
changed
into
a
wetland?
W
How
is
that
doing
the
runoff
storm
water
from
Millennium
apartments,
from
Arbor
Ridge
from
our
road,
all
downhill
through
that
FEMA
floodplain?
If
you
look
at
the
petitioners
map,
thank
you
for
providing
those
I've
looked
at
those
we
Monroe
south
side
of
wema
road
is
a
FEMA
floodplain.
So
are
you
not?
Are
you
going
to
ensure
that
this
is
not
going
to
make
that
even
worse
in
the
storm
water,
as
everybody
else
has
talked.
W
X
Is
Rachel
Noble
I'm,
one
of
the
one
of
the
road
people
that
talked
to
you
last
time?
Vivian
is
my
neighbor
and
she
expressed
a
lot
of
my
concerns,
but
you
know
we
Monroe
on
the
Second
Street
and
says
no
trucks.
For
a
reason.
There
was
a
weight
limit
on
the
one
car
at
a
time
bridge
on
the
other
end
and
I
really
appreciate
you
guys
addressing
and
talking
about
the
cars
I
brought
up
and
the
problems
I
would
like.
X
Vivian
would
like
to
know
if
that's
going
to
be
made
public,
because
I
would
like
to
know
that
you
guys
are
learning
a
lot
but
we're
the
neighborhoods
affected
by
it
when
they
built
Sudbury
Road.
As
I
told
you
last
time
the
water
shears
down
the
road
and
it
finds
that
Creek,
which
is
my
property
so
and
then
the
developer.
When
I
tried
to
address
it,
made
some
little
drainage
hits
over
there,
but
they've
all
filled
in
and
my
husband
tries
to
dig
them
out.
X
So
are
you
guys
going
to
do
drainage
around
those
offices
that
are
already
there?
I
would
like
to
see
the
plan
again:
Fort
Sudbury
Lane,
Road,
whatever
it
is,
and
all
the
new
traffic.
Where
is
all
of
that
drainage,
as
as
you
brought
up?
Where
is
that
drainage
going
it's
going
into
my
Creek
and
my
Creek
backs
up,
and
then
I
would
like
to
know
that
that
is
really
truly
being
addressed
in
this
course.
X
I
would
really
like
to
have
available
to
the
public
what
you
guys
are
learning
environmentally,
because
it
does
affect
all
of
us.
It
affects
Lake
Monroe,
that
is
water,
that
goes
to
Lake
Monroe
and,
as
Vivian
brought
up
when
they
did
the
wetlands
at
Wapahani
for
a
long
time
it
sheared
across
the
road
that
Creek
is
not
being
cleaned
out
and
maintained,
and
you
guys
are
going
to
put
more
in
there.
So
I
would
like
to
please
ask
you
that
you
keep
addressing
that.
X
And
again
it
like
Vivian,
said,
and
everybody
else
has
said:
have
you
ever
tried
to
be
on
weemer
make
a
left-hand
turn.
The
rule
is
for
me
is
if
it's
after
four
o'clock
illegally
cut
through
the
apartment
complex
and
go
to
the
light
to
get
out,
because
you
can't
get
out.
You
cannot
turn
left
unless
John
Scott
said
you
can't
turn
left
off
a
weemer
onto
tapro.
There's
this
times
of
the
day
you
can't
so
the
first
area
that's
being
developed
is
as
the
one
that
butts
Weimer
Road
Shasta.
Is
it
I
believe?
X
X
So
again,
I
really
appreciate
the
improvements,
and
it
does
look
so
much
more
acceptable
from
the
last
time.
But
I
really
ask
you
to
remember
that
some
of
us
have
been
there
a
long
time
and
just
like
I
told
you
last
time
when
Twin
Lakes
was
built
and
everyone
didn't
listen
to
the
environmental
concerns
and
a
big
lake
now
drains
into
what
was
the
runoff
Pond,
which
was
a
little
tiny
Creek,
which
is
the
one
that
goes
by
my
house
now,
you're
again
this
what
five
or
six
of
us
that
were
affected
by
that.
X
A
Y
Road
resident
my
thoughts
are
for
strictly
Weimer
Road,
the
inability
of
the
construction
equipment
to
actually
function
on
Lima
Road
without
causing
hazardous
conditions
for
any
other
driver.
The
width
on
Weimer
road
is
inadequate
for
service
vehicles
to
pass
by
side
by
side
the
side
foliage
pushes
the
vehicles
towards
the
center
line.
If
you
are
going
from
south
to
North,
the
road
just
cannot
handle
that
volume
of
construction
traffic.
Y
It's
going
to
tear
it
apart,
so
basically
you're
kind
of
saying
we're
going
to
take
on
a
very
large
expense,
just
with
Weimer
road
to
support
a
facility
to
go
in
I
like
the
idea.
I
think
what
you're
going
to
do
is
is
good,
but
some
of
it,
the
height
elevations
behind
on
the
North
East
Side,
Way,
Too,
Tall
you're,
actually
going
uphill,
and
when
you
have
a
six
seven
story.
Building
that
you
commented
on
I'm
going
to
go,
that's
the
same
as
that
building
right
across
you,
walk
out
those
doors
and
you're.
Y
Looking
at
a
six
seven
story:
building
that's
really
uncomfortable
for
any
other
low-level
homes
in
that
area,
just
wrong
feel
for
the
neighborhood
set
them
much
further.
Back
we
used
to
have
Twin
Lakes,
then
one
Lake
went
away
and
as
Rachel
mentioned
that,
then
the
remaining
Lake
had
to
go
and
absorb
all
of
that
remaining
water
that
Twin
Lakes
used
to
be
so
you're
down
to
one
Lake.
Well,
unfortunately,
with
the
new
construction
that
has
gone
on
the
development,
there's
no
way
the
creek
can
handle
the
volume
of
water.
Y
So
when
the
eutrification
happened
to
that
retaining
pond
itself,
the
eutrification
is
filled
up
to
such
a
level.
That
now,
when
we
have
this
torrential
rains
that
come
in
you've
seen
these
hard
storms,
it
fills
up
and
nothing
flat.
Then
that
runoff
comes
right
down
the
creek
itself
shoots
across
this
now
flood
plain.
We
didn't
have
a
flood
plain
before
by
the
way
until
Twin
Lakes
got
zapped.
Y
It's
just
going
to
cause
a
problem
for
somebody
else,
and
then
the
city
and
the
county
are
going
to
have
to
do
something
to
excavate,
make
larger
runoff
drainage
capacities
just
to
handle
the
runoff,
because
Wapahani
is
gone
too.
When
Wapahani
went
away,
guess
what
the
water
cascaded
right
across
the
road
the
road
became
soft
brand
new
blacktop
that
was
down
was
now
completely
deteriorated.
Money
down
the
drain
literally,
so
please
look
at
the
water
runoff,
the
construction
usage
on
that
road,
maybe
consider
making
weima
Road
a
road
stub
I
like
the
idea.
Y
If
you
went
straight
down,
wema
Road
you
get
to
Harvey's
new
gravel
driveway.
That
was
done
for
the
tower.
Keep
your
construction
traffic
running
straight!
There's
no
homes
or
anything
that's
going
to
be
bothered
by
the
construction
traffic
and
you've
now
cut
off
the
S
curve,
which
is
horrendous.
No
trucks
are
going
to
make
it
through
that
s-curve
with
regular
car
traffic.
So
stop
the
road
down
at
the
end
of
Wapahani,
make
that
more
of
a
roundabout
get
rid
of
the
s-curve
completely
and
then
have
the
other
part
of
Tap
Road.
Y
Excuse
me
Weimer
road
coming
off
of
tap,
let
it
go
straight
and
be
the
construction
path
for
the
new
construction,
potentially
Lots
safer,
and
you
don't
have
as
many
people
when
you
actually
Dead
End
weema
Road
at
Wapahani.
That
would
save
a
lot
of
people
time
and
money
at
that
point
nothing's
about
it.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Z
Okay,
my
name
is
Deb
Pekin
I'm,
a
resident
at
Arbor,
Ridge
and
I'd
like
to
Echo
everything,
Vivian
said
and
Rachel
said
and
John
said,
and
I
have
one
question
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I've
seen
this
in
the
material,
maybe
I
missed
it.
I
could
have
easily
overlooked
it.
But
what
is
a
unit?
What
does
that
actually
mean?
Is
it
what
qualifies
as
a
unit?
Because
6
000
people
would
be
kind
of
dense,
but
not
too
bad,
but,
as
John
pointed
out
12
to
15
000
people
would
be.
Z
Z
So
why
are
we
treating
it
like
it's
another
downtown
I.
Don't
understand
that
point
of
view.
I
do
understand
the
financial
intent
to
pay
for
the
cost
of
this
development
by
increasing
the
number
of
units
whatever
that
means
and
the
people
in
the
area,
but
the
balance
is
severely
out
of
whack
for
this
and
I
I
Echo.
All
of
the
comments
of
my
neighbors
around
me.
The
other
problem
which
has
also
been
mentioned,
is
Weimer
Road,
Tap,
Road
and
Allen
Road.
Z
All
of
these
are
barely
wide
enough
for
two
regular
cars
to
pass
so
people
who
are
driving
like
a
big
pickup
truck,
there's
it
we
I
it's
scary,
if
you're,
if
you're
passing
them
so
and
and
as
far
as
I
know,
Weimer
is
half
City.
Half
County
tap
at
that
point
is
that
city
is
that
County
Allen
is
even
narrower
than
the
others.
So
how
can
we
just
assume
that
we
can
increase
traffic
to
these
areas
without
first
improving
drastically
all
three
of
those
arteries?
Z
You
know
main
ways
in
and
out
of
this
neighborhood
the
work
has
to
be
done
to
make
it
accessible.
First,
not
after
you
start
building
stuff,
you
can't
create
a
walkable
town.
If
you
don't
have
businesses
in
place
where
people
can
get
jobs,
so
you
got
to
do
that.
Concurrently,
it's
the
same
idea.
We
have
to
have
the
adjacent
areas
to
the
development
taken
care
of
before
we
can
start
being
comfortable
with,
what's
being
built
in
the
development
and
I.
Z
The
development
plot
that
we
have
to
think
about
the
city
is
responsible
for
all
of
the
adjacent
areas:
access
the
neighborhoods,
the
people
who
live
there,
the
safety
of
the
roads,
because
boy,
yeah
tap
and
getting
on
and
off
tap
and
second
from
lemur
is
a
challenge
on
an
early
morning.
Good
day
and
I
haven't
even
begun
to
think
about
the
water
I
want
I
will
also
reinforce
water.
Water
goes
everywhere.
I
AA
E
F
AA
AA
I
am
somewhat
concerned
that
the
environmental
Commission-
maybe
they
toured
it
informally
or
a
few
times,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
I've
seen
you
know
there
was
a
placeholder
in
the
packet
from
last
time
and
it
seems
like
there's
still
a
placeholder
this
time.
If
I'm
tell
me
if
I'm
missing
something,
but
I
would
really
like
to
to
have
the
environmental
commission's
thorough,
thorough
discussion
of
this
proposal
and
I'm
not
trying
to
embarrass
anybody.
There
I
know
that
they're
short-handed,
but
it's
important,
they
exist
for
a
reason.
AA
I
would
like
to
have
their
expertise.
Just
like
we
had
this
comprehensive
environmental
inventory
in
2003
done
by
the
city.
That's
Exquisite!
If
you
haven't
looked
at
it,
I
I
urge
you
to
do
so
and
if
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
through
the
furnishes
letter
in
your
packet
completely
I
urge
you
to
take
time
with
it.
AA
It's
thoughtful.
It's
not
filled
with
opinion.
It's
grounded.
In
fact,
this
area
is
riddled
with
karst
and
natural
springs
and
environmentally
sensitive
territory
and,
under
normal
circumstances,
I
would
think
most
developers
would
be
loathe
to
build
on
such
a
just
such
a
spot,
but
I
suspect,
there's
a
dearth
of
inventory
left
over
in
Bloomington
with
all
the
big
tall
buildings
that
have
been
going
up
so
now
the
you
know
just
have
to
eyeball.
What's
left,
oh,
this
looks
like
a
good
opportunity.
Karst
be
damned
we'll
we'll
find
ways
around
it.
AA
Climate
change
is
a
real
thing
and
so
I'm
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
quality
of
the
Watershed,
the
amount
of
runoff,
and
although
there's
this
discrete
boundary
I
will
also
add
that,
just
because
you
dump
something
in
a
discrete
boundary,
you
have
all
that
karst.
It
will
go
down
into
all
these
underground
cave
systems
that
pop
out
in
what
what
jurisdiction
I
couldn't
even
tell
tell
you
if
you
use,
die
and
did
some
testing
and
had
people
with
phds.
AA
Look
into
this
we'd
know
more
and
if
we
knew
more
I
would
feel
much
better.
It's
one
thing
to
like
what
you
see
and
it's
one
thing
to
like
what
you
hear,
but
it's
a
whole
other
thing
when
you
have
evidence
to
back
up
the
decisions
that
you're
making
that
are
going
to
affect
Bloomington
for
many
decades
to
come,
because
you're
setting
precedence
right
now,
your
jobs
may
feel
a
little
roped,
depending
on
how
long
you've
been
in
service.
But
I
would
just
remind
you
I
hope
that
you
will
be
thoughtful
and
careful.
AA
AA
I
guess
that's
pretty
much!
What
I
would
want
to
say
is
if
you
haven't
spent
time
with
the
furnishes
section
of
your
packet
I
urge
you
to
do
so
because
there's
a
lot
there,
that
that
is
going
to
be
remain
remaining
unsaid,
because
folks
only
have
a
five-minute
discrete
amount
of
time
and
it's
hard
to
get
all
that
out.
I
will
surrender
my
remaining
17
seconds.
Thank
you.
A
AB
Should
I
live
on
Weimer,
Road
and
first
I'll
start
out
and
say:
Viv
and
I
are
very
serious.
We
we
invite
you.
Well
you
tell
us
if
you're
willing
to
get
together
with
us
and
we'll
work
out
to
get
all
the
neighbors
together
on
our
road
and
and
north
of
there
I
mean
I
mean
that
okay
and
we
can
pull
that
off.
We've
done
that
something
like
that
before.
So
we'd
really
appreciate
that.
Okay,
thank
you
think
globally
act
locally.
She
stole
my
line.
AB
That's
how
I
was
going
to
start
my
little
talk
here.
That's
been
around
that's
kind
of
been.
You
know
the
catch
word,
the
watchword
for
the
environmental
movement,
certainly
all
my
life,
so
that's
a
half
a
century
and
and
it
makes
sense
you
know
that
to
come
to
terms
that
there
are
real
big
Global
issues,
but
really
we
can't
deal
with
those
we
can
only
deal
with
those
locally.
AB
You
know
that
we
all
know
that
okay,
but
that
even
that
does
not
just
continence
it's
even
it's
even
different
fields
across
town
from
each
other.
Okay,
you
know
what
it
sounds
like.
A
good
answer
on
one
may
be
a
very
terrible
answer
to
a
problem
on
the
other
side
of
town,
all
right.
Okay,
so,
let's
just
you
know,
let's
the
elephant
in
the
room.
AB
Let's
be
honest,
you
know,
mayor
Hamilton
and
the
board
have
been
pushing
the
density
ideology
to
deal
with
climate
change,
okay
and
and
I
use
that
term,
because
that
that's
that's
been
an
ideology.
That's
making
the
rounds
now
for
about
10
years
and
that
almost
every,
if
you
do
a
Google,
Search
and
look
on
all
manner
of
of
media,
you
can
easily
see
that
this
is.
These
battles
are
going
on
in
every
major
city
and
small
cities
and
everything.
E
AB
You
know
what
there
there
tends
to
be
people
who
want
to
say
that
the
way
to
solve
climate
change
is
density
and
density
of
population.
So,
if
you
wonder
where
this
is
coming
from,
this
is
where
it's
coming
from
okay-
and
this
is
clearly
in
the
city's
documents-
just
go
to
the
city
and
look
at
the
documents-
it's
right
there,
okay,
so,
but
yet
there's
so
many
people
in
this
town.
Who
don't
understand
that
that
is
where
this
is
coming
from?
AB
Okay,
you
don't
have
to
be
a
climate
denier
to
have
problems
with
that
ideology.
Okay,
I,
don't
deny
climate
change.
Okay,
but
I
have
a
I
can
see
a
lot
of
problems
with
the
density,
ideology,
okay
and
and
I
would
love
to
sit
around
and
talk
about
that.
Okay,
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
lot
more
discussion
about
this
issue
in
this
town
and
I.
Don't
see
much
of
it
really.
Okay,
I
see
it
being
pushed
and
it's
basically
it's
our
way.
The
highway.
Okay
and
I!
Think
that's.
What
is
that's?
AB
AB
AB
Even
if
density
was
the
answer,
it
doesn't
mean
density
is
the
answer
every
place
you
can
put
it
right,
it
couldn't
possibly
be
the
answer
just
in
any
every
single
field
that
you
can
find,
and
my
My
ultimate
argument
where
all
is
leading
to
is
I,
really
think
this
is
a
rotten
place
to
put
density.
Okay,
if
you
look
at
the
property,
it's
you
know,
a
karst
feature
isn't
just
about
avoiding
a
sinkhole
right.
AB
The
sinkhole
is
simply
a
sign
of
a
host
system
underneath
all
right
and
and-
and
you
start
messing
with
that-
oh
my
gosh
you're
going
to
have
problems
all
right
and
so
and
they
are
going
to
have
to
break
rock
I
mean
if
you're
going
to
have
that
you're,
basically
creating
a
city.
This
isn't
a
this,
isn't
a
housing
track.
AB
It's
a
city
they're,
creating
a
city
and
so
yeah
they're,
going
to
have
to
put
water
they're
going
to
have
to
sewer
they're,
going
to
have
to
put
all
this
stuff
and
break
rock
and
break
all
that
cars
to
have
all
that
stuff,
not
only
roll
down
the
hill,
but
it
actually
go
down
to
the
water.
This
is
a
serious
environmental
issue.
You
this
had
better,
be
really
thought
through
serious
or
this.
This
is
going
to
be
an
embarrassment
to
this
city
down
the
road.
AB
AC
AC
AC
Our
reservations
from
these
projects
still
apply
we're
not
objecting
to
this
development
out
of
nimbyism,
but
we
have
concerns
about
the
runoff,
the
flooding,
the
sensitive
environment,
the
cart
cars,
topography.
Everything
previous
neighbors
had
mentioned.
The
Culvert
on
wema
road
has
collapsed
more
than
once,
which
really
brought
traffic
on
this
road
to
a
halt.
I
want
to
Echo
that
the
density
is
much
too
high,
especially
given
the
narrowness
of
Weaver
Road,
the
sharp
turn
onto
weemer
from
Second
Street,
the
Steep
curve
through
Wapahani
and
the
one
Lake
bridge
that's
closer
to
Woolery.
AC
Someone
mentioned
the
blastic,
the
previous
developer,
on
the
Sudbury
property
I
think
found
out
pretty
quickly
that
drilling
on
the
stone
in
this
area
doesn't
get
you
very
far
and
they
resulted
to
blasting
and
I
remembered
being
out
in
my
garden
and
literally
feeling
the
Earth
shake
under
my
feet
as
all
that
blasting
was
going
on
and
I
did
wonder
about
what
kind
of
structural
damage
that
was
doing
to
buildings
in
this
area.
The.
AC
AC
Yeah,
and
also
when
I
listened
to
the
previous
meeting,
I
was
struck
by
the
talk
about
meeting
with
the
neighbors
and
I
think
only
the
people
who
live
in
Arbor
Ridge
have
met
with
the
developers
and
I
wondered
why
they
didn't
reach
out
to
the
people
who
live
on
Weimer
Road
or
the
people
who
live
farther
up
closer
to
Bloomfield,
Road
and
I.
Just
want
to
emphasize
something.
One
of
the
council
members
told
me
in
the
previous
rezoning.
They
agreed
that
the
density
was
too
high.
The
flooding
was
a
major
issue.
R
Hello,
my
name
is
Stacy
shonk
I
am
also
an
adjacent
property
owner
on
Weimer,
Road
and
I.
Believe
most
of
my
most
of
the
surrounding
residents
have
also
basically
stated
the
main
concerns
that
we
have
mostly
regarding
the
runoff
and
additional
flood
risk
to
our
property
that
this
could
potentially
or
most
likely
will
potentially
cause.
R
Also
the
blasting
during
development
of
this
property
is
very
concerning
to
us.
So
we
would
like
to
have
some
additional
details
with
that
and
would
also
very
much
welcome
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
the
developers
with
other
Weimer
Road
and
surrounding
residents
most
concerned
with
the
runoff
and
additional
flooding
risks.
The
property,
especially
along
those
of
us,
along
Weimer,
Road
and
I,
believe
they
have
already
spoken
stated
the
concerns.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
the
time.
A
Okay,
if
you
are
on
zoom-
and
you
still
would
like
to
make
a
public
comment
again-
just
look
for
that
reactions,
button
and
click
the
raise
hand
button
or
send
a
chat
message
to
Ms
Scanlon,
and
we
will
do
our
best
to
recognize
you
and
again.
If
there's
anyone
else
here
in
the
chambers,
I'd
like
to
make
comment,
Now's
the
Time,
please
just
step
up
to
the
podium
and
state
your
name.
B
A
C
C
This
goes
back
to
the
first
time
this
was
presented,
and
actually
it
goes
along
with
one
of
our
public
commenters.
We
need
a
breakdown
of
what
type
of
units
I
feel
like
units.
Just
in
itself
is
a
little
vague.
You
know
options
to
buy.
You
know
commercial
space,
single
family
dwellings.
You
know
this
really
goes
with.
You
know
the
triggers
and
the
phasing
I
had
it.
You
know
asked.
If
maybe
we
could
get
more
detail
on
that
we
just
have
the
same
figure
so
I'm
still
at
a
loss.
C
I
think
they
very
well
know
the
predictability
of
what
they're
proposing
but
I,
don't
think
we
know
the
predictability
it
has
to
work.
Both
ways
also
I'm
very
happy
that
we're
going
to
protect
our
flood
plain
and
our
riparian
buffer
there's
been
a
lot
of
attention
brought
to
those
I'm
going
to
just
kind
of
cite
something
real
quick.
It's
from
the
local
technology
assistant
program
the
necessary
for
updating
local
development
standards.
C
Basically,
it
talks
about
having
a
non-adverse
impact
on
our
floodplains
and
the
costs
that
the
City
or
other
developers
have
to
bear
to
replace
any
kind
of
taking
of
that
flood
plain.
There's
a
very
nice
ordinance
in
Hamilton
County.
That
discusses
this
in
detail.
If
we're
ever
looking
at
what
we
need
to
do
to
be
proactive
of
protecting
our
flood
Plains,
not
just
in
this
particular
situation
but
across
the
city.
C
I
I
So
there's
I
think
there's
a
whole
I
mean
there
are
a
batch
of
issues
and
questions
that
were
raised
in
the
packet
around
those
roads.
That
I
think
would
help.
The
public
also
understand
stand
what
the
plans
are,
so
whatever
we
can
do
to
get
more
specific
about
how
weemer
and
ideas
for
discussions
with
atoms.
That's
part
owned
by
the
county
and
there's
just
a
lot
there
that
I
think
we
could
help
people
feel
better
about
or
address
some
of
those
concerns
if
they
were
done
a
little
bit
more
thoughtfully
to
respond
to
those
questions.
I
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
to
put
on
the
staff
or
petitioners
just
to
have
some
more
discussions
about
that
topic,
but
given
the
predominance
of
that
as
a
concern
that
the
residents
nearby
have
and
people
driving
in
that
area,
we
have
to
see
more
on
this.
So
that's
one
thing:
I
want
to
at
least
get
out
there
for
next
week's
our
next
next
month's
meeting,
if
not
before,.
K
I
would
Echo
those
comments.
It's
just
trying
to
understand.
I
know
for
myself
just
trying
to
understand
the
process
of
that
I
feel
like
somewhere
along
the
way.
There
was
a
conversation
that
the
the
ex
the
roads
are
developed
later
once
there's
an
and
really,
you
know
more
about
this,
commissioner
seabor,
but
just
to
understand
that
process
where
roads
are
improved
because
of
density
and
need
and
traffic
problems,
and
all
of
that.
So
yes-
and
the
second
thing
is
that
car's
topography
of
which
I
do
not
pretend
to
be
an
expert.
K
It
keeps
getting
brought
up
and
so
I
don't
think
the
public
maybe
understands
that
enough.
Maybe
the
statements
were
accurate
about
this
site,
but
maybe
they
aren't
I'm
not
suggesting
they
aren't
I,
just
don't
know,
and
so
I
think
for
someone
to
actually
give
that
a
little
more
attention
would
be
great,
because
that
is
brought
up
repeatedly
by
people
who
live
there
and
people
who
know
a
lot
environmentally
and
then
the
third
thing
is
I
think
you
have
to
go
meet
with
the
other
neighbors.
K
J
I
know
that
they
are
working
on
formulating
a
traffic
impact
study
that
would
study
the
existing
conditions
of
a
large
part
of
the
transportation
Network
in
the
area,
in
addition
to
the
development's
potential
impact
to
that,
so
we
can
understand
it,
and
so
they've
been
coordinating
with
with
the
city
staff
on
that,
and
so
that
will
be
a
forthcoming
thing.
That
will
be
a
part
of
the
discussion
as
this
project
moves
forward.
Likewise,
I
know:
they're
communicating
with
CBU
and
other
utility
impacts
and
there's
there's
a
lot
of
I
guess
just
information.
J
That's
still
forthcoming
coordination,
I,
would
say,
is
actively
happening,
and
so
it's
just
hard
to
get
too
in
too
much
into
specifics
right
now,
but
just
know
that
that
is
happening
and
I
think
just
to
maybe
Echo.
All
the
comments
thus
far
is
in
the
I
think
in
the
staff
report.
It
mentions
a
lot
of
really
good
questions
and
dialogue,
and
so
I
think
certainly
happy
to
continue
this
in
another
meeting,
not
exactly
sure
if
that's
a
continuation
of
the
first
or
second
I,
don't
I.
Just
personally
do
there's
so
much
to
this
I.
J
L
Yeah
I
just
want
to
say
thanks
to
the
idea
that
it's
an
ongoing
process
that
you're
going
to
take
all
this
information
and
still
work
it
and
keep
working
on
it
and
have
subsequent
meetings
because
I
know
you
know
the
people
living
near
need
kind
of
this
ongoing
dialogue
to
kind
of
understand.
What's
going
on
so
do
so
do
I
and
and
at
some
point
it'll
come
before
Council
and
I
know
that
working
through
all
these
issues
and
kind
of
honing
and
refining,
it
is
really
great.
A
A
A
I
One
more
request
for
the
next
time.
We
gather
to
talk
about
this
and
it's
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
a
couple
things
that
were
raised
today.
That
I,
don't
think
we're
adequately
covered.
One
is
the
Schmidt
plan
discussion
and
where
that
stands,
and
what
influence
that
has
at
all.
If
any
and
the
second
is
about
you
know,
I
realize
I'm
super
impressed
with
the
Public's
investment
in
understanding
all
this,
and
particularly
several
of
you
who
have
really
gone
additional
miles
to
study
this
I'm
super
impressed.
I
I
If
we
could
cover
some
of
those
basic
details
about
how
this
works,
I
mean
this
to
me,
is
a
real
process
element
and
and
when
we
get
to
a
15-year
or
more
process,
I
think
those
things
are
really
important
to
understand
how
they
affect
the
development
moving
forward.
So
anything
we
can
do
to
help
all
of
us
understand
the
timeline
and,
with
such
a
large
time,
Horizon
how
this
will
work.
A
Yeah
just
to
follow
up
on
that
I
think
it
seems
like
there
may
be
some
some
public
perception
that
this
is
it
that
one.
This
is
just
a
one
and
done
kind
of
approval,
so
it
might
be
good
in
the
next
presentation
to
just
talk
about
how
what
the
what
the
opportunity
for
public
input
and
public
meetings
will
be
as
we
look
at
individual
site
plans
and
and
as
this
would
get
built
out
still
looking
for
that
motion
or
more
comment,
I.
E
K
Actually
do
have
a
final
comment
which
I
made
at
the
last
meeting
at
this
time,
which
is
that
I
really
appreciate
the
public
input.
It's
thoughtful,
intelligent,
it's
respectful,
it's
insightful
and
I.
Think
it's
just
really
commendable
that
you
all
are
out
here.
I
understand
why
you're
out
here
and
you're
passion
and
it's
about
where
you
live.
M
D
A
All
right
that
motion
passes-
and
we
will
be
back
here
in
a
month
to
here-
I
hear
this
once
again.
Thank
you
all
for
your
time.
We
do
have
one
more
petition
on
the
agenda
this
evening.
Feel
free
to
stick
around
may
not
be
as
fun
as
this
one,
but
we
do
have
one
more
and
that
is
zo-29-23.
That's
the
text,
amendments
to
the
Udo
and
we
have
once
again
Jackie
Scanlon
two
percent.
B
B
B
Me
see
if
I
can
zoom
Zoom,
so
this
is
the
memo
that
was
in
your
packet
zo2923
when
we
did
the
annual
update
in
the
spring
of
23.
One
of
the
things
that
we
took
out
for
further
review
was
amending.
The
regulation
related
to
first
floor
non-residential
downtown
required
space,
and
so
this
is
us
bringing
that
back
as
plane.
Commission
asked
us
to
do
so.
B
48
shall
be
occupied
by
non-residential
primary
uses
listed
in
table
3-1
as
permitted
or
conditional
in
the
MD.
Zoning
District,
as
those
permitted
or
conditional
uses,
are
modified
by
those
prohibited
uses
listed
in
subsection
two
below,
and
then
this
is
the
new
portion.
If
the
incentives
listed
in
2004
110
are
approved,
the
minimum
percentage
shall
be
reduced
to
30
percent.
B
The
discussion,
as
planned
commission
was
interested
in
discussing
about
discussing
whether
or
not
to
change
the
regulation.
So
I
can
answer
any
questions
for
those
that
don't
know
a
text
Amendment.
The
plan
commission
would
be
making
a
recommendation
to
council
who
would
make
the
ultimate
decision.
Thank.
B
B
If
I
have
it
here
and
then
it
was
interesting
because
those
some
of
the
people
who
were
in
the
meeting
of
you
all
who
have
expertise,
knew
of
some
of
those
locations
where
they
were
just
being
sat
on
it
wasn't
that
they
couldn't
be
filled.
It
was
that
particular
owners
chose
not
to
or
for
other
reasons
like
that,
meaning
we
did
that
because
we
were
trying
to
figure
out.
You
know
changing
that
regulation.
Is
there
an
impetus
to
do
that?
Is
there
a
reason
to
do
it
or
is
the
50
working?
B
K
I
B
I
B
P
B
Would
say
most
of
our
downtown
developments
are
going
to
use
incentives
it's
hard
because
since
we've
changed
the
sustainable
development
incentives
to
basically
require
more
because
we
came
to
you
and
said
we
thought.
Maybe
the
threshold
was
too
low.
So
a
number
of
the
developments
that
we
have
seen
proposed
or
built
are
under
the
old.
B
Thank
you
and
I
can
bring,
you
I
will
I'm
sorry
the
packet
is
thin.
I
can
send
you
that
information
from
the
stuff
we
did.
This
is
a
two
hearing
process,
so
we
will
come
back
in
September
I,
don't
believe
we
requested
a
waiver
of
second
hearing
for
this
petition.
I'm
looking
at
the
legal
Mike.
Does
that
sound
wrong
to
you
I?
B
Don't
remember:
Jackie
yeah
I'm,
looking
at
the
legal
in
my
it's
not
in
there,
so
I
think
we're
planning
to
come
twice
so
I
can
send
you
that
information
that
we
discussed
at
that
special
session
I
may
be
using
the
wrong
term
for
you
to
review
again.
If,
if
you
want
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
do
the
amendment.
B
So
in
this
instance
you
could
you
could
do
the
affordable
housing
incentives,
so
30
percent
of
units
at
a
certain
Ami
or
lower
in
perpetuity,
and
you
get,
for
example,
additional
stories
or
you
can
do
the
sustainability
incentives,
there's
a
list
of
six
and
you
have
to
do
them
all.
So
it's
related
to
like
green
or
vegetated,
sorry,
vegetated
or
solar
root
or
vegetated
or
white
roof
solar,
some
kind
of
parking
requirements
of
having
a
certain
percentage
of
your
parking
covered.
B
So
different
regulations
like
that
and
you
basically
have
to
build
them
into
the
building.
In
some
cases
you
may
not
be
able
to
do
that.
So
there's
a
second
option
for
a
green
incentives
where,
if
you
can't
for
whatever,
for
whatever
reason
on
your
site,
you
can't
meet
those
six
you
can
seek.
You
can
see
certification
from
something
like
Green,
Building,
Council
or
other
recognized
groups,
and
if
you
get
that,
then
you
can
also
get
incentives.
And
again
that
is
while
there
are
some
related
to
setbacks
and
things.
M
I
I
guess
I'm
also
interested
in
the
you
know.
We
we
asked
the
staff
to
examine
this
issue
or
consider
it
so
for
me,
there's
a
there's,
also
a
concern
of
you
know
among
this
body.
What
do
we?
What
do
we
think
about?
Is
this
really
achieving
the
concerns
that
were
expressed
when
we
talk
about
the
vacancy
in
downtown,
particularly
space,
and
whether
we
want
to
see
more
use
of
incentives
to
reduce
the
percentage
of
non-residential
I
mean?
Is
this?
Is
this
achieving
what
we
hope.
Q
I
think
to
me:
that's
what
this
allows
for
and
I
think
we
need
that
in
terms
of
the
the
commercial,
the
repurposing
of
the
Redevelopment
moving
forward
in
the
next
two
to
three
years,
just
in
the
commercial
space,
especially
retail
office,
and
how
repurposing
I
think
is
going
to
be.
You
know,
kind
of
a
part
of
some
of
the
vacancy
issues
that
commercial
real
estate
is
already
starting
to
be
impacted,
and
that's
from
what
I've
seen
and
read
and
researched
going
to
trickle
out.
Q
K
X
A
Nope,
okay,
we
will
then
go
to
public
comment
on
z029-23
if
you
are
here
in
the
chambers
and
would
like
to
make
comment
just
step
right
up
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
and
give
us
your
comments.
If
you
are
online
click
on
that
reactions,
button
click
on
the
raise
hand
option,
and
we
will
try
to
recognize
you
in
the
order
that
you
have
raised
your
virtual
hand.
V
And
I'm
sorry
that
I
missed
the
first
part
of
this.
Somebody
pulled
me
out
and
we
were
chatting
about
the
previous
proposal.
I
am
very
curious
by
what
we're
talking
about
here
and
I.
Like
your
comments,
commissioner,
Ballard
about
adding
flexibility
to
our
commercial
space,
I
want
to
say
what
I
said
earlier:
I
really
like
Bloomington
I
think
this
is
a
great
City
I've
moved
here
in
2014
and
I
casually
like
armchair.
V
I
think
some
areas
of
the
Udo
have
restricted
and
constrained
possibilities
and
potentials
for
what
can
be
built
in
the
community,
and
so,
if
we're
talking
about
giving
more
flexibility
in
more
more
spaces
as
I
was
hearing,
the
last
part
of
this
comment.
Section
I
was
thinking
of
the
Village
Deli
Redevelopment
program,
I
mean
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
V
It's
probably
more
than
50
percent
commercial
on
the
first
floor,
but
I
think
that
holding
any
new
project
to
any
type
of
very
rigid
expectation
and
requirement,
it
limits
the
potential
and
it
limits
the
capacity
for
impact
and
it
limits
the
viability
for
people's
lived
experience
in
that
built
environment
and
so
I
think
the
the
market
is
wise
because
it's
Anonymous
and
I
think
in
our
downtown
area.
The
market
is
showing
us.
We
don't
need
all
that
commercial
space.
V
That's
there,
I,
don't
know
if
that
contradicts
what
one
of
the
staff
reports
was
just
now,
but
I
do
see
a
lot
of
vacancies
in
those
required
commercial
buildings,
especially
on
South
Walnut,
there's
a
small
apartment
building
that
still
has
stickers
on
the
sides
of
the
Windows
like
they
were
brand
new
windows,
but
they've
been
built
for
three
or
four
years
now
and
there's
I,
don't
think!
There's
anybody!
That's
going
to
move
into
that!
First
floor:
commercial
space.
What
does
that
do
that
raises
rents?
What
does
that
do
to
affordability
in
this
town?
V
G
A
B
AD
I
I
just
reiterate
to
the
to
the
plan
commission.
It
is
hard
enough
to
develop
downtown
when
you
look
at
all
the
other
development
at
the
Kmart
side
or
some
of
the
other
larger
student
housing
developments,
where
the
amount
of
density
you're
given
in
sort
of
more
of
like
either
Greenfield
or
sort
of
Redevelopment.
AD
It
is
a
challenge
to
want
to
continually
put
your
money,
downtown
and
and
and
and
be
an
investor
downtown,
and
so
for
most
of
us,
the
retail
space
is
it's.
It's
usually
not
a
huge
economic
driver.
Yes,
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
have
vibrant
storefronts,
but
the
square
footage
is
debatable
and
there's
nothing,
there's
nothing
that
staff
has
presented,
there's
nothing
that
I
see
where
there's
any
magic
formula
for
what
size
of
square
footage
makes
for
a
viable
business.
AD
AD
So
how
about
encourage
us,
as
as
Real
Estate
Investors,
to
invest
in
downtown
and
make
this
so
that
there's
at
least
some
flexibility
that
is
tied
to
something
that
is
realistic,
whether
it's
it's
market
economics
or
whatever,
but
rather
than
us
just
sort
of
making
up
what
it
is
that
we
think
is
viable.
It
seems
to
me
we
it
would
behoove
us
to
have
a
board,
such
as
the
the
plan
commission
actually
consider
the
whole
of
this
and
determine
whether
or
not
whatever
square
footage
is
being
presented,
is
viable
and
is
good
for
the
community.
AD
I
I,
like
that
kind
of
flexibility,
and
we
used
to
have
some
of
that
I
feel
like
we
swung
totally
the
other
way.
When
we
did
the
revisions
to
the
Udo
and
I'd
like
to
see
more
more
discretion
with
the
planned
commission
to
to
look
at
each
of
these,
if
you
look
at
this
grid
of
buildings,
we
have
so
many
different
buildings.
We've
got
a
handful
of
vacant
Lots,
so
it's
not
one
size
fits
all
and
I'd.
Ask
you
to
consider
that
as
you
move
forward.
Thank
you.
A
E
B
Well,
I
think
again,
based
on
the
conversation
we
had
at
the
previous
meeting
about
this
topic.
There
is,
you
know
it's
interesting
to
hear.
Mr
Lloyd
say
we
haven't
shown
anything
because
we
haven't
seen
anything
that
indicates.
This
is
an
actual
problem
like
something
that
Mr
Whistler
said
about
another
issue.
We
were
discussing
we're
looking
for
a
pro
we're
trying
I'm
not
going
to
say
it
right,
it's
the
thing,
I'm,
so
tired,
it's
the
thing
where.
B
You
we're
proposing
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem.
What
is
the
problem
we
looked
around
and
there
there
aren't
downtown
vacancies.
So
why
are
we
reducing
the
area
so
that
those
uses
that
can
go
into
those
spaces
are
now
limited?
Like
you
can't
put
in
a
rush,
you
know
you
can't
put
in
as
big
of
a
restaurant
in
a
space
that
you
otherwise
could.
B
Who
is
that
helping
in
the
community
it's
helping
the
developer
be
able
to
tailor
what
they
are
wanting
to
do,
but
it's
not
necessarily
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan
of
the
downtown.
You
know
vibrancy,
so
I
would
say
that,
based
on
our
previous
discussions,
you
know
some
members
of
the
commission
did
want
to
see
something
else
proposed.
So
one
thing
that
we
felt
was
still
Fair
toward
the
goals
of
the
community.
M
My
thought
is
in
the
retail
environment
as
today,
rents
are
lowering
I
just
signed
three
leases
that
are
pretty
to
me
below
Market
rent
in
order
to
get
them
in
this
area.
It's
becoming
less
as
an
investment
opportunity
and
more
as
in
amenity,
the
building
I
think
developers
would
like
to
see
retail.
They
want
a
vibrant
downtown,
but
it's
it's
less
of
a
square
footage,
that's
going
to
support
the
building,
and
so
that's
some
of
the
challenges
you
run
into
definitely.
B
B
So
we're
still
we're
trying,
as
we
always
are,
with
everything,
to
balance
the
goals
of
having
a
viability
in
people
who
can
actually
develop
downtown
and
help
make
it
vibrant
and
then
also
how
to
get
be
vibrant
for
the
people
who
spend
time
down
there
so
yeah.
In
this
way
we
felt
like
if,
if
the
percentage
was
less,
we
would
still
be
working
towards
some
of
those
goals
in
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
yeah
we're
open.
B
M
I
mean
I
do
want
a
vibrant
downtown.
The
challenges
is
behind
the
scenes
when
you're
running
the
numbers-
it's
not
just
the
market,
it's
the
cost
of
material,
the
cost
of
land,
the
cost
of
financing.
It
makes
it
hard
to
just
even
develop
a
property
many
times
these
developers
don't
even
break
even
until
two
or
three
years
after
it's
done,
and
so
we're
trying
to
encourage
people
to
to
you,
know,
renovate
and
or
build
new
buildings.
M
B
Sure
and
I
think
so
ours,
our
the
other
side,
is
at
what
cost.
How
far
do
we
go
to
say
our
prior
is
our
prior
is
our
only
priority
making
getting
new
buildings
then
we
should
just
take
it
out
and
just
let
them
all
be
apartment
complexes,
because
that's
what
people
would
that's
what
I'm
that's
the
market
of
the
little
that
I
know
about
the
market.
B
But
that's
why
we
have
to
write
the
regulation
to
guarantee
something
we
just
you
all
have
to
decide
what
that
something
is
if
the
50
is
to,
if
the
market,
if
the
situation
of
the
community
is
changing
enough,
that
the
50
isn't
working,
then
we
have
to
decide.
You
know
what
to
change
it
to
basically.
So
this
is
our
proposal,
and
we
understand
that
it.
It
might
change,
of
course,
and
we're
happy
to
help
figure
that
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
B
K
I
One
more
question:
I'm
I'm
a
little
uncertain
about
the
incentives
and
whether
this
is
going
to
help
us
achieve
what
we
want
is
some
flexibility
and
I
wonder
if
any
other
considerations
were
given
to
either
other
approaches
and
I
and
I
guess
I
mean
making
things
I,
guess
it
would
be
conditional
or
what
else
could
there
be?
Was
there
any
other
anything
else
considered
so.
B
B
Okay,
any
of
those
things
could
be
written
in
I
mean
it's
basically,
whatever
you
know
that
you're
all
all's
consensus
is
to
make
the
recommendation
to
council.
We
felt
like
you
know,
incentives
is
kind
of
already
baked
into
the
Udo
and
something
that
we're
trying
to
encourage
people
to
do,
and
if
it
is
accurate
that
people
are
trying,
you
know
to
do
less
than
the
50
in
these
areas
that
maybe
this
would
also
be
an
incentive
to
use
the
incentives
and
get
get
the
other
incentives.
As.
I
B
And
I
can
have
for
you
next
month
as
well,
but
I
do
believe.
Basically
for
first
of
all,
it's
not
the
entire
city,
it's
not
even
the
entire
downtown.
It's
just
those
areas
in
the
figure
that
I
showed
earlier
and
of
development
we've
seen
in
those
areas.
Many
of
them
use
incentives
anyway.
So
this
would
be
kind
of.
B
I
A
Yeah
I'll
just
make
a
quick
comment.
I
think
this
is
a
I
think,
there's
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
I
I,
like
kind
of
the
the
formula
here
I,
think,
is
a
little
bit
more
reasonable
right,
reduce
it
to
30
percent,
but
you
know
put
a
minimum
on
that.
I
I
think
that's
kind
of
a
reasonable
approach,
I
frankly,
I'm
not
sure
that
tying
it
to
the
incentives
is
really
necessary.
A
But
if
you
can
fit
some
units
in
behind
that
or
if
you
fit
more
parking
in
behind
that,
that's
not
visible
from
the
street
like
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
think
we
need
anything
in
the
code
that
to
to
discourage
that
I
have
no
problem
with
that
I!
Don't
I,
don't
think
it.
It
I
mean
it
that
only
helps
build
more
more
housing
stock
and
so
I'm
just
you
know
again
it's
our
step
in
the
right
direction.
It's
not
exactly
what
I
would
have
done.
K
Yeah,
so
I
do
have
a
comment.
I
do
wholly
believe
this
is
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem.
I,
don't
think
the
data
supports
a
change.
The
vacancy
rate-
hopefully
we
will
see,
is
very
or
the
occupancy
rate
is
very
high.
It's
this
core
part
of
downtown
I.
Don't
there
have
been
just
looking
at
these
streets?
K
There
have
been
so
many
new
buildings
that
have
gone
up
here
in
the
last
five
years,
so
people
are
building
and
if
they're
building
and
the
retail
space
is
occupied,
I
don't
see
the
problem
with
how
it
is
now
I
do
see
a
problem
with
changing
it.
In
my
opinion,
I
think
it
would
be
a
mistake.
No
one
goes
downtown
to
walk
by
apartment,
doors
or
Lobby
entries
of
apartment
buildings.
They
don't
it's
boring
it
there's
no
activity,
there's
no
way
for
them
to
engage
unless
they
know
someone
who
lives
there.
K
So
I
very
much
do
not
support
a
change
in
this
I
think
we're
throwing
around
the
word
flexibility
for
developers
and
it
sounds
good,
but
I
don't
think
it's
needed,
I,
don't
think
they're
struggling
and
there's
a
lot
of
area
outside
of
this.
That
can
be
developed,
but
this
is
really
really
core
downtown
and
I
think
we
all
agree.
We
want
a
vibrant
downtown
and
to
me
this
speaks
exactly
to
diminishing
the
vibrancy
downtown
by
removing
space
where
the
public
can
engage
so
I
won't
be
supporting
this,
but
I
will
be
supporting
that.
K
M
Is
there
still
some
opportunity
to
develop
in
the
downtown
in
in
this
next
month?
I
will
look
at
those
properties
it's
few,
but
there
is
some
opportunities
and
see
how
this
would
affect
it,
or
even
our
current
code,
just
just
to
look
at
because
even
there's
a
certain
amount
of
square
footage,
it's
just
hard
to
lease,
even
if
it's
in
the
downtown
area
it
just
makes
it
so
I'd
like
to
know
that
number
and
I'll
I'll
do
that.
Research
myself,
but
I'd
also
like
to
know
some
more
numbers
too.
C
I
wasn't
sure
if
I
was
going
to
weigh
in
but
I
decided
to
I
think
is
very,
very
important
that
we
do
incremental
changes,
because
if
we
jump
the
gun,
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
harder
to
work
backwards
and
try
to
you
know
provide
this
space.
That's
already
required
so
to
Mr
whistler's
point:
you
know
it
might
be
the
step
in
the
right
direction,
but
I
think
we
should
be
very
cautious
and
take
very
incremental
steps.