►
From YouTube: Bloomington Plan Commission, December 12, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Go
ahead
and
get
started,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
the
meeting
to
order
our
first
order
of
business
tonight
is
going
to
be
that
if
you
notice
our
President
and
Vice
President,
both
could
not
attend
tonight.
So
you
will
need
to
elect
among
yourselves
someone
to
chair
the
meeting
this
evening
and
Miss
St
John
has
volunteered
to
do
so.
So
we'll
need
a
motion
to
make
her
a
president
for
the
evening.
B
C
E
F
G
Welcome
to
the
plan
commission
city
of
Bloomington
plan,
Commission
meeting
for
December
12
2022.
We
have
several
items
on
our
agenda
tonight.
We
have
minutes
to
approve,
we
have
a
continued
petition,
we
have
a
consent,
agenda
item
and
a
petition
for
a
full
hearing.
Do
we
need
to
formally
call
roll
or
has
that
been
covered
in
the
vote?.
F
H
I
G
Okay,
we
have
minutes
to
approve
first
we're
in
an
unusual
situation
that
we
have
five
sets
of
minutes
to
approve
one
from
the
last
meeting,
one,
the
last
regular
meeting,
one
from
a
special
meeting
that
followed
that
and
prior
to
that,
we
had
three
other
minutes
that,
due
to
a
staff
vacancy,
were
never
approved.
Those
are
minutes
from
November,
9th
of
2020
December
14th
of
2020
and
January
11th
of
2021..
G
In
addition
to
minutes
most
recently
from
November
14th
of
2022
and
November
21st
of
2022
and
I
understand
from
Miss
Scanlon,
we
can
offer
the
Commission
in
Mike
May
weigh
in
here
too,
that
we
could
group
together
the
two
minutes
from
2020
and
the
one
from
2021
and
approve
those
as
a
group
is
that
correct,
yeah.
G
G
G
D
F
E
G
B
F
G
A
Yes,
thank
you,
Jackie
Scanlon
development
services
manager.
We
have
completed
the
2023
meeting
calendar,
which
we
call
meeting
schedule
and
project
deadlines,
and
it's
also
on
the
website
as
the
development
review
calendar,
so
that
was
distributed
to
you.
It
is
up
on
the
planning
and
transportation
webpage
as
well.
The
only
item
of
note
I
think
for
this
group.
Some
members
of
this
group
is
that
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
meeting
next
year
for
December
will
be
on
December
21st.
A
We
did
not
push
that
back
into
the
week
prior
as
we've
done
this
year,
because
the
week
prior
is
actually
Hanukkah,
so
we
elected
to
split
them
as
opposed
to
putting
both
in
the
week
of
Hanukkah,
considering
that
the
Christmas
holiday
won't
be
until
the
actual
next
week
after
after
the
21st.
So
that's
something
we
get
asked
about
quite
a
bit,
so
we
wanted
to
clarify
why
that
was
when
it
is,
and
otherwise,
if
you
see
anything
that
you
have
questions
about
our
issues
with,
please
feel
free
to.
A
G
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
now
that
Mike's
on
moving
on
to
petitions,
we
have
one
petition
that
is
continued
to
January
9th
of
2023.
That's
petition,
sp-24-22
Cutters,
Kirkwood,
123
LLC,
located
at
115
East
Kirkwood
Avenue.
That's
a
request
for
a
major
site
plan;
approval
to
construct
a
four-story
building
with
three
floors
of
residential
units
over
a
ground
floor,
parking
garage
and
retail
space
in
the
md-cs
zoning
District.
G
Sp-54-22
Warren
Whit
Hamburg
place
Chipotle
3151,
West
3rd
Street.
It's
a
request
for
a
site
plan
approval
to
allow
the
construction
of
a
2411
square
foot
restaurant
in
the
mixed
used
Corridor,
which
is
MC
zoning
district.
For
those
of
you
not
familiar
with
this
type
of
consent
item.
This
is
where
items
end
up
if
they
sort
of
like
meet
the
letter
of
the
law
and
staff
has
no
concerns
about
it.
It's
deemed
to
be
non-controversial
and
not
in
need
of
a
full
hearing.
G
Okay
scene,
nine.
Is
there
any
public
comment
on
the
consent
agenda
and
if
you
are
with
us
online,
please
signify
your
desire
to
participate
by
messaging
Ms
Scanlon
as
the
host
of
the
zoom
meeting
or
going
to
the
section
that
has
the
hand
button
I
can't
remember
where
that
is.
But
it's.
K
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
from
the
consent
agenda:
sp-54-22,
Warren,
wood,
Hamburg,
Place,
Chipotle,.
C
A
I'm,
sorry,
oh
sorry,
just
a
second
can
we
clarify
I
may
have
missed
it.
Did
you
say
with
the
conditions
included
in
the
staff
report?
Thank
you.
Sorry.
Tim.
G
Okay,
sp-54-22
is
approved,
eight
zero,
so
we
have
one
petition
tonight
for
a
full
hearing.
It
is
petition
PUD,
slash,
dp-24-21
Robert
V
Shaw,
located
at
North
prowl
Road
3500
block
of
North
Hackberry
Street.
The
request
is
the
petitioner
request,
final
plan
and
preliminary
Platt
Amendment
for
Ridgefield,
PUD
and
subdivision
section
V
and
the
case
manager
is
Jackie
Scanlon.
A
All
right,
so
this
you
may
remember
from
last
year
us
discussing
this
petition
when
it
was
first
filed.
We
have
been
working
with
the
petitioner
since
that
time
to
have
the
petition
materials
brought
up
to
the
point
where
we're
able
to
review
them
and
present
them
to
you.
A
Ridgefield
originally
is
a
plan
unit
development
from
the
early
90s
1994
and
the
petitioner
received
plan
unit
development
final
plan,
which
is
basically
like
the
site
plan
for
this
area
and
preliminary
plot
approval
for
Section
Five
in
2008.
So
you
can
see
again.
This
is
located
off
of
North
prowl.
A
The
remaining
for
the
remaining
portion
is
8.57
Acres
again,
it's
part
of
the
Ridgefield
plan
unit
development.
When
we
did
the
large
city
map
zoning
update
in
2019-2020.
We
left
this
as
a
plan
unit
development
so
that
we
could
continue
to
work
with
the
petitioner
on
finishing
this
portion.
A
You
know,
as
you
know,
we
obviously
expired
over
100
plan
planning
to
developments
this
one's
quite
old,
but
the
the
petitioner
was
working
with
us
at
the
time
to
toward
fixing
it.
So
that
is
why
it
is
still
a
PUD,
even
though
it's
unfinished
so
we're
looking
forward
to
having
it
finished
and
then
it
would
be
could
potentially
be
rezoned
once
it's
completely
built
out.
So
the
comprehensive
plan
designation
here
is
neighborhood
residential
and
the
large
majority
of
the
site
in
this
petition
is
vacant.
A
But
there
are
some
existing
single-family
dwelling
units
in
Phase
five
that
are
part
of
this
petition.
A
So
it's
a
new
final
plan.
As
I
said,
there
was
a
final
plan
approved
for
this
area
in
2008.,
some
of
section
five
has
been
built,
but
not
all,
and
so
they
need
that
final
plan
has
expired,
so
they
need
a
new
one.
This
case
has
been
an
enforcement
for
a
number
of
years
with
the
Department
again
working
with
the
petitioner
to
try
to
figure
out
a
way
to
get
this
finished
some
time
ago.
The
required
grading
permit
and
public
Improvement
permit
bonds
here
expired
and
so
about.
A
In
2019
we
were
contacted
by
some
members-
maybe
probably
actually
starting
a
couple
years
earlier,
but
at
least
since
2019
contacted
by
some
residents
here
about
city
services
and
what
they
could
do
to
get
them.
You
may
or
may
not
know
that
city
services,
such
as
trash
and
snow
removal,
are
offered
once
streets
become
part
of
the
city
once
they
become
a
city
street,
so
these
streets
can't
become
city
streets
and
until
they're
completed
to
our
standards,
and
then
the
Board
of
Public
Works
can
take
them
in.
A
So
this
has
been
on
our
radar
for
a
while
trying
to
fix
this
out
figure
this
out.
So
a
grading
permit
needs
to
be
issued
for
this
site
in
order
for
the
work
to
be
finished,
but
because
this
isn't
a
planned
unit
development,
you
can't
issue
a
grading
permit
unless
you
have
an
approved
final
plan.
A
Their
final
plan
has
been
expired
for
some
time,
so
they
can't
really
technically
do
any
work
here
until
this
petition
that
you're
hearing
tonight
is
is
resolved.
So
we
are
here.
The
petitioner
is
here
to
talk
about
those
final
plan
issues
and
then
also
to
replant
the
portion
that
only
received
prior
that
that
received
primary
plaid
approval
and
not
secondary
plant
approval.
So,
as
you'll
recall,
plats
go
through
two
stages
where
they
have
the
primary
or
used
to
be
called
preliminary
Platt.
A
That's
the
idea
of
what
will
go
there
and
then
there's
a
secondary
plat
or
used
to
be
called
a
final
plat
that
actually
creates
the
lots
and
that's
what
gets
recorded
So
in
this
image
here,
those
areas,
those
lots
that
are
grayed
out
at
the
top.
Those
went
through
the
full
planning
process
and
they
exist.
Some
of
those
have
homes
on
them.
They've
been
sold,
they're
owned
by
other
people,
the
areas
in
the
white
those
never
went
through
the
second
phase.
A
Second
part
of
the
process,
so
that
plot
was
expired,
so
they
need
to
start
that
process
over.
So
that's
the
second
part
of
what
you're
doing
what
they're
asking
for
here
so
for
the
final
plan,
as
we've
been
talking
to
the
petitioner,
they
want
to
make
a
few
changes
to
what
they
got
originally
approved
in
2008.
One
of
which
is
amending
a
tree
preservation
area
which
we'll
look
at
in
a
little
bit.
A
That's
the
darker
gray
along
the
bottom
here
amending
that
area
amending
some
of
the
existing
Landscaping
that
was
approved,
Landscaping
plan
that
was
approved.
We
need
to
confirm
and
have
them
finish,
installing
some
detention
that
was
originally
planned
in
the
lots
that
are
already
planted
and
then
some
of
the
conditions
that
they
at
least
one
of
the
conditions
that
was
put
on
in
2008.
A
They
would
like
to
change
and
then
the
second
thing
that
I
mentioned
was
the
platting,
so
those
white
Lots
here
those
were
never
created,
and
so
that
doing
the
primary
plot
here
tonight
allows
for
them
to
be
able
to
go
through
the
second
part
of
the
process,
create
those
lots
so
that
they
can
be
built
upon
and
sold.
A
They
would
like
to
reduce
the
number
of
lots,
I
believe
it's
by
six
they've
done
some
reconfiguration
here
from
the
original
plaque
that
was
shown
in
2008..
A
A
The
area
Circle
or
outlined
in
green
is
nothing's
there.
Yet
it's
totally
vacant
once
built,
then
it
will
connect
the
portion
that
has
access
off
of
prow
to
the
another
phase
of
Ridgefield.
That
is
immediately
to
the
northeast
of
here.
So
this
will
allow
vehicular
connection
all
the
way
through
from
existing
Ridgefield
to
the
east,
to
prow
Road,
as
I
mentioned,
and
you
could
you
saw
in
the
packet,
there
is
a
detention
Pond
facility
built
or
excuse
me
in
the
plans,
and
this
was
also
in
the
2008
plans.
A
The
petitioners
representative
has
been
working
with
city
of
Bloomington
utilities
to
get
comments
on
that,
because
the
pond
is
kind
of
halfway
built
at
this
point
about
what
needs
to
be
done
there
to
correct
that,
so
that
it
can
provide
for
some
storm
water
here
for
the
whole
project.
And
so
that
is
something
that
we
will
be
requiring
if
these
petitions
are
approved.
A
So
I
mentioned
that
there
are
a
few
issues
here:
we've
been
in
enforcement
for
a
while.
This
was
in
your
packet.
This
is
a
site
site
inspection
that
was
done,
I
believe
in
2020
by
members
of
planning,
Transportation
staff
at
that
time,
and
they
basically
went
out
with
the
approved
plan
to
see
what
was
built
and
what
wasn't.
A
This
is
of
note
now,
because
it
is
similar
to
the
landscape
plan
that
the
petitioner
has
submitted
with
this
petition,
which
is
part
of
the
final
plan,
and
there
are
some
issues
with
I
think
that
they
made
an
effort
to
note
the
trees
that
were
missing,
but
we
need
it
to
sync
up.
This
plan
indicates
some
areas
where
trees
are
missing.
That
hasn't
been
brought
forward
onto
the
new
plan,
and
so
we
want
to
be
able
to
present
to
you
what
what
actually
will
be.
A
You
know,
preserved
here
or
planted,
and
so
that
includes
the
street
trees.
It
includes
the
buffer
that
you
can
see
on
the
North
End,
that's
a
buffer
from
Meadows
hospital
to
the
north.
Those
are
all
privately
owned.
Properties
now
so
had
the
developer
written
into
the
contracts.
When
those
properties
were
sold
that
there's
a
buffer
there-
and
you
know
you
have
to
maintain
the
trees
that
may
have
been
something
that
could
have
been
done
at
this
point.
We
don't
know
if
that
was
done.
A
So
as
I
mentioned
before,
technically
there
shouldn't
be
any
work
happening
here,
because
they
don't
have
a
grading
permit.
They
don't
have
an
improvement
public
improvements
Bond.
However,
we
have
been
as
a
city
working
with
the
developer
in
the
last
couple
of
months,
because
there
are
a
number
of
public
Improvement
issues
related
to
the
sidewalks
and
ramps
that
exist
on
the
site.
So
the
petitioner
was
made
aware
of
those
when
this
this
report
was
done.
A
There
was
also
a
report
done
about
the
ramps
and
sidewalks,
and
earlier
this
year
he
decided
to
start
working
on
those
and
ripped
out
a
bunch
of
ramps
in
this
neighborhood.
So
you
can
imagine
that
we
get.
We
have
been
getting
a
number
of
complaints
about
that,
because
then
those
sidewalks
are
not
navigable
for
everyone
who
lives
in
this
area
now,
so
the
engineering
department
has
been
working
with
him.
A
Some
plans
were
submitted
on
the
28th
of
November
and
I,
know
I,
believe
we
got
comments
back
to
him
last
week,
so
working
with
him
to
be
able
to
approve
those
plans
so
that
that
work
can
be
finished
as
soon
as
possible
and
those
public
facilities
can
be
brought
up
to
standards
that
would
then
be
able
to
be
brought
into
the
city
into
the
city
street
Network
at
some
time
in
the
future.
A
So
these
are
all
kind
of
parallel
paths
where
we're
working
toward
making
this
site
usable,
not
only
for
not
only
to
meet
our
standards
for
the
city
but
usable
for
those
people
who
are
already
living
there
and
have
been
living
in
this
kind
of
half
construction
site
for
some
time.
A
So
this
is
the
landscape
plan
that
I
referenced
that
they
submitted.
So,
for
example,
you
know
these
trees
along
here
to
the
north,
if
the
petitioner
and
these
trees
here
on
the
east
as
well,
is
submitting
that
those
are
there
and
you
know,
can
submit
that
those
will
stay
in
perpetuity.
That's
fine,
but
otherwise
we
need
those
types
of
things
to
come
out
and
that's
something
that
you'll
have
to
think
about.
A
Additionally,
some
of
the
kind
of
freestanding
trees
that
were
supposed
to
be
kept
as
specimen
trees
are
gone,
so
just
wanting
to
verify
that
that's
all
accurate
and
then
I
think
the
the
other
one
other
issue.
We
wanted
to
raise,
for
you
is
the
tree
preservation
area,
so
you
can
see
on
the
original
plan
here,
a
large
tree
preservation
area
at
the
south
end
of
these
Lots,
so
from
lot
40
to
33.
A
Some
things
have
changed
since
this
was
first
approved
in
2008,
and
we
asked
the
petitioner
just
from
doing
site
visits
when
we
first
started
working
on
this
a
few
years
ago
to
basically
survey
this
Southern
line.
So
we
could
see
how
much
of
this
area
north
of
the
high
school
is
part
of
their
property
and
would
be
part
of
this
preservation
area,
and
are
they
actually
going
to
be
able
to
plant
trees
here
if
the
high
school
is
currently
maintaining
this?
A
You
know
as
some
sort
of
buffer
of
their
own,
where
they're
mowing
these
areas,
because
they
are
mowed
here
on
the
north
side
of
this
fence.
So
when
you
look
at
this
plan,
the
dotted
line
with
the
X's
is
the
fence
that
runs
along
the
athletic
fields.
For
the
high
school
and
then
the
northern
line
is
the
property
line,
so
you
can
see
that
there
will
be
some
kind
of
areas
here.
A
They
meet
down
here
the
property
line
and
the
fence
to
the
west,
and
then
there
will
be
some
areas
that
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
what
the
plan
is.
They
have
I
believe
in
the
commission.
Excuse
me
the
petitioner
can
confirm,
but
the
actual
square
footage
or
acreage
of
that
preservation,
area,
I
believe,
is
being
preserved.
It's
just
being
amended.
A
A
Excuse
me
easement.
That
goes
from
the
proposed
road
to
the
school
property.
That's
something
that
was
I
believe
discussed
at
DRC
about.
Excuse
me
at
the
development
Review
Committee
level,
which
is
our
internal
meeting
with
a
bunch
of
different
departments
and
the
petitioner
about
what
safety
measures
are
going
to
be
put
in
place
to
make
sure
that
that's
okay,
since
it's
right
on
the
edge
of
the
preservation,
so
safety
for
the
pedestrians
and
then
also
for
the
preservation
of
the
trees.
A
So
those
are
just
some
things
that
we
are
hoping
to
maybe
get
some
more
information
about
tonight
again.
The
reason
the
grade
out
portion
is
included
is
because
we
do
need
to
clarify
what
some
of
the
Landscaping
actually
is,
and
it
needs
an
approved
final
plan
in
order
for
the
work
in
the
right-of-way
to
actually
be
done
so
that
the
city
can
take
take
that
in
at
some
time
in
the
future
oops.
A
So
at
this
point,
I
think
the
outstanding
issues.
This
is
the
first
of
two
hearings,
so
you'll
see
it
again
in
January.
Are
you
know
asking
the
petitioner
to
make
those
Landscaping
Corrections
I'm
sure
that
that's
something
that
they'll
be
willing
to
do?
They
can
speak
as
well
to
some
previous
conditions
of
approval
that
they
would
like
to
have
removed,
one
of
which
I
believe
is
related
to
on-street
parking
that
that
had
not
been
previously
allowed
here
and
I.
A
Think
that
that's
something
that
that
this
body
can
weigh
in
on
and
we
will
verify
that
before
next
month
and
then
the
third
is
about
some
subdivision
waivers
that
are
needed
for
this
design
so
because
this
PUD
is
quite
old
and
this
design
was
planned
in
2008.
So
this
is
the
original
design.
Here
you
can
see
that
they
plan
to
cul-de-sacs
they've
already
built
one.
The
other
doesn't
exist,
so
this
one
here
doesn't
exist
and
it
doesn't
make
code.
We
no
longer
allow
cul-de-sacs
in
this
type
of
subdivision.
A
I
can't
believe
I
just
said
cul-de-sacs
colds
to
SAC
is
how
you
should
say
that
that
we
no
longer
allow
that
via
the
Udo
without
a
waiver.
So
that's
something
for
you
all
to
consider
the
reason
to
leave
that
out
and
as
a
design
element
would
be
to
increase.
Connectivity,
of
course,
is
probably
the
main
reason
that
isn't
going
to
happen
here
either
way,
whether
you
put
a
cul-de-sac
here
or
not,
there's
nowhere
really
to
connect
to.
A
If
you
turn
this
into
a
through
Street,
could
it
be
a
stub
with
a
potential
connection
to
whatever
this
street
is
on
the
on
the
high
school
property
at
some
point
in
the
future?
Possibly
another
issue
for
us
as
the
city
is
that
maintenance
of
coals
to
SAC
is
difficult,
and
that
includes
snow
removal.
We
have
we
get
a
lot
of
complaints
consistently
over
the
years
from
the
Department
of
Public
Works,
and
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
they're
not
allowed
outside
of
a
planning
reason
is
that
they
are
difficult
to
maintain.
A
Where
do
you
push
the
snow
on
a
cold,
the
sac
that
you're
not
blocking
someone's
driveway,
so
we
are
requesting
that
it
be
taken
out,
be
redesigned
so
that
it's
not
needed.
Additionally,
there's
a
small
sort
of
Island
here
in
the
southwest
portion.
You
can
zoom
in
sorry,
and
it's
called
an
eyebrow
here.
A
That
is
also
not
allowed
by
code.
The
reason
to
put
it
in
I
mean
you
can
tell
just
by
looking
at
kind
of
the
the
angles
of
these
Lots
here.
Is
that
without
it
you
wouldn't
get
these
four
Lots
you'd
get
less,
so
it
allows
for
a
bump
out
to
allow
for
more
buildable
Lots,
which
is
a
fine
reason.
I
mean
we
want
more
housing.
We
just
also
would
like
more
consistent,
Road
design.
Again,
it's
a
maintenance
issue
getting
in
there
to
plow
or
having
the
right
type
of
equipment
to
keep.
A
These
clear
is
not
something
that
is
easy
for
the
public
works
department
to
take
care
of
so
those
issues.
We
will
ask
you
to
think
about
and
discuss
both
of
those
things
you
can
wave
and
let
them
do
this
design
and
if
you
choose
not
to
that,
would
probably
be
something
we
should
let
them
know
this
month,
so
they
can
work
on
it
for
next
month.
So
that
may
be
something
you
want
to
discuss
tonight.
A
I
will
I
did
mention
that
they
actually
reduced
the
number
of
units
or
excuse
me
the
number
of
potential
units
by
reducing
the
number
of
lots.
Already
we
were
told
that
was
just
so
they
could
be
more
marketable.
People
don't
want
this.
There
had
they've
had
a
harder
time
here,
with
small
lots
and
so
trying
to
make
them
bigger,
and
you
can
see
that
this
is
designed
for
different
products,
so
these
Lots
here
are
designed
for
single
family
detached
and
then
here
these
are
actually
just
two
large
Lots
with
duplexes
on
them.
A
This
would
have
a
total
of
66
units,
and
this
would
have
a
total
of
10
units
with
two
detached,
an
eight
attached
so
similar
to
the
previous
design,
but
slightly
different
and
then
the
last
being
the
tree
preservation
change
and
making
sure
that
we
get
enough
information
about,
what's
actually
going
to
be
done
there.
So
again,
we've
been
working
with
the
petitioner
for
some
time
to
address
all
the
issues
that
I've
discussed.
A
A
It
is
kind
of
we
understand
the
argument
that
this
has
been.
This
was
originally
designed
under
different
rules
and
that's
fine,
but
it
wasn't
built
and
pretty
much
everyone
who's
going
to
come
forward
to
you
with
a
waiver
request
is
going
to
have
a
reason
why
they
think
it's
a
good.
I
A
And
I
think
that
that's
going
to
be
the
one
here
tonight,
obviously
compliance
would
require
reconfiguration
that
deviates
from
the
design
that
they
would
prefer
to
do
so
that
might
take
time.
So
our
recommendation
is
to
discuss
here
tonight
and
then
continue
the
petition
to
the
required
second
Hearing
in
January
of
23.
thanks.
G
L
L
The
subdivision
plans
that
were
presented
tonight
are
the
plant
similar
to
the
plants
that
were
presented
in
2008
before
the
housing
market
crashed
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
it
was
never
built
out
the
way
it
was
originally
designed
and
to
make
the
subdivision
work
the
way
it
was
designed.
We
really
need
to
have
a
couple
waivers
from
standards
in
order
to
continue
the
development
and
what
what
our
plans
include.
L
Our
revised
plans
has
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
single-family
sites
by
eight
and
the
purpose,
for
that
was
to
get
what
a
little
bit
wider
Lots.
Evidently,
the
folks
that
Bob
has
built
homes
for
have
asked
for
additional
property,
larger
Lots,
and
he
sees
that
to
widen
the
Lots
will
be
an
improvement
for
the
potential
homes
that
he
could
build.
L
L
It
is
0.8
acres.
In
its
overall
area.
We
maintained
that
the
existing
trees
that
are
in
there
probably
are
like
black
Oaks
and
black
locust
and
other
I
can't
think
of
the
term,
but
trees
and
plantings.
We
really
don't
want,
and
the
city
won't
allow
invasives.
L
We've
added
a
sidewalk
around
the
cul-de-sac
and
the
eyebrow
to
add
connectivity
within
the
subdivision,
and
then
we
are
widened
the
roads
from
20-foot
pavement
to
28
to
allow
on-street
parking
on
one
side.
The
current
subdivision
with
the
20-foot
roads
is
providing
or
is
problematic
for
the
people
living
there,
because
they
have
no
place
for
overflow
parking
if
they
have
guests.
So
the
idea
would
be
to
then
have
wider
pavement
and
allow
parking
on
one
side.
L
Let's
see
with
regard
to
the
road
design,
we
want
to
maintain
the
proposed
Road
alignment
with
the
50-foot
right-of-way,
as
well
as
the
eyebrow
and
cul-de-sac,
as
originally
designed
to
maintain
access
to
the
proposed
Lots
on
the
Southwest.
Those
were
a
single
family
residential
on
the
eyebrow
area
and
then
the
proposed
on
the
Southeast,
which
are
Condominiums
and
without
the
cul-de-sac
we
won't.
L
We
won't
be
able
to
access
each
of
the
units
without
extremely
long
driveways
and
then
just
one
comment:
I'm
from
Milwaukee
and
grew
up
in
a
neighborhood
that
had
cul-de-sacs
and
they
never
seemed
to
have
problems
plowing
snow.
L
So
we
would
like
to
see
that
continue
and
it
would
also
I
guess.
I
also
need
to
note
that
on
winter
Suite,
which
is
a
road
that
runs
from
the
lower
eye
eyebrow
and
goes
up
toward
toward
the
north
Northeast,
there's
a
force
main
that
was
constructed
to
serve
the
lift
station
that
serves
a
collection
of
Wastewater
for
this
subdivision
and
CBU
has
accepted
that
forcement
already.
So
if
we
have
to
do
some
road,
reconfiguring,
reconfiguring
or
right-of-way,
rework
that
Force
main
may
be
a
problem.
L
Let's
see
with
regard
to
the
environmental
concerns
and
tree
preservation,
we've
modified
the
shape,
as
as
everyone
knows
now,
but
we've
preserved
that
0.8
Acres
and
then
we'll.
We
propose
the
supplement
it
with
the
right
type
of
plantings,
to
ensure
proper
density
and
and
also
with
regard
to
the
landscape
plan
overall
will
confirm
what
what
trees
have
been
planted,
especially
on
that
Northern
edge
with
Meadows
and
any
other
private
property
areas,
so
that
we're
in
sync
with
the
plans.
L
So
our
landscape
plan
is
up
to
date
and
in
sync,
with
what's
in
place,
there
were
several
trees,
I
guess
that
were
blown
over
over
time
that
were
to
be
preserved
but
I,
guess
historically,
if
you
look
back,
this
was
a
cow
pasture,
so
cattle
were
grazing
this
area
and
walking
around
the
roots
and
so
forth.
So
I
don't
know
the
specific
Lots,
but
there
were
several
hackberries
that
over
time
either
split
or
blew
over
in
storm
events
and
one
even
crashed
on
a
house.
L
L
And
then,
let's
see
with
regard
to
the
detention
Basin,
that
Basin
was
built
in
2008
and
it
was
built
per
design
and
the
only
thing
we
we
didn't
do
we
used
just
regular
turf
grass
and
did
not
plant
the
native
special
mix
and
CBU.
We
corresponded
with
Phil
peden,
who
is
now
the
assistant
assistant
director
of
cvu,
about
that
detention
Basin,
and
he
is
fine
with
the
Basin
that's
in
place,
except
he's
asking
us
to
restrict
the
flow
on
the
out
out
the
discharge
pipe.
Essentially,
it's
a
15
inch
pipe.
L
He
wants
us
to
block
the
lower
six
inches
so
that
that
first
flush
rainfall
goes
through
the
under
drain
system,
as
opposed
to
running
just
through
the
outlet
control
structure.
So
we
can
amend
or
reconstruct
our
Outlet
control
structure
to
correct
that
and
address
Phil
peden's
concerns
and
in
addition,
he
had
concern
about
functionality
of
the
underground.
Is
it's
still
working
properly,
so
he's
asked
that
it
be
monitored
to
make
sure
that
that
Basin
dries
within
48
hours
after
a
storm
event,
so
we
will
commit
to
that.
But
it's
it's
its
shape
its
volume.
L
Everything
is
in
compliance
and
we
have
correspondence
the
email
from
philipped
in
June
22nd
of
this
year,
just
asking
for
that.
One
condition
that
we
improve
the
outlet
control
structure
and
then,
with
regard
to
the
connectivity
between
our
subdivision
and
Bloomington
High
School's
North's
campus,
where
we
actually,
we
have
the
past
shown
in
the
wrong
location.
We
wanted
to
it
to
run
more
through
that
South
East
portion
that
we
extended.
L
We
had
it
on
the
edge,
but
it
should
be
inbound,
we'll
detail
it
and
assure
that
it's
yeah
so
Jackie's
zooming
in
on
that
Eastern
Edge.
It
really
should
be
running
toward
the
corner
of
the
high
school
campus
as
opposed
to
so
it
would
shift
slightly
to
the
West,
but
we
will
make
sure
it's
safe
and
that
that
the
tree
preservation
is
intact
and
will
prepare
a
detail
to
address
that
and
then,
with
regard
to
lighting.
L
Evidently
the
there
was
a
commitment
to
put
Lighting
in
the
first
phase
and
it
never
was
was
done.
We
will
work
with
City
engineering
and
Duke
Energy
to
come
up
with
a
street
lighting
plan
for
the
subdivision
and
then
make
sure
it
meets
City,
Engineers
expectations
and
then
it's
designed
by
Duke,
who
would
ultimately
take
it.
Take
it
over
for
Street
lighting,
see
I,
think
I.
Think
I've
addressed
everything.
I
wanted
to
landscape
Corrections
will
will
address
that
by
as
building
or
verifying
the
existing
conditions.
L
On
the
revisions
to
our
conditions,
we
want
to
widen
the
street
for
this
additional
street
parking
and
then
we
need
those
waivers,
two
waivers
for
the
cul-de-sac
and
the
eyebrow
and
then,
as
far
as
the
existing
sidewalks
and
ramps
go,
we've
went
out
did
as
built
surveys.
We've
come
back
with
a
redesign
and
we're
working
with
City
engineering
to
make
sure
that's
compliant
and
we'll
work
through
that
until
we
have
it
right
and
then
Bob
Mr
Shaw
will
Implement.
Those
improvements
and
Bob
is
here
tonight
with
me
to
add
any
thoughts.
L
G
Thank
you
very
much,
so
we're
back
to
the
Commissioners.
Are
there
any
oh
I'm?
So
sorry,
my
apologies.
M
I'm
Rob
Robert
Shaw,
and
it's
been
14
years
since
I
was
in
front
of
this
group
and
it's
changed
I,
don't
think
any
of
their
group
from
2008
are
are
here
anymore,
and
the
staff
has
all
changed
so
for
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
me,
I
built
a
lot
of
subdivisions
I
built
over
in
Autumn
Hills,
which
is
over
there,
buying
Richland
Plaza
and
when
I
say
I
built
I
mean
I,
built
the
streets
underground
and
sidewalks
things
like
that,
because
some
of
those
were
done
for
other
people
back
when
I
was
Contracting.
M
I
built
the
last
phase
of
Varsity
Villas
I
built
Cedar
Creek
I
built
Matlock
Heights,
which
is
the
red
apartments
by
the
car
wash
there
on
Matlock
I
built
stone
Lake,
which
is
a
condo
development.
That's
been
I've,
been
building
there
for
25
years,
I
built
Brentwood
by
the
country
club
I
built
a
subdivision
in
front
of
it.
I
built
Willowbrook
on
Maple
Maple
Street
I
built
everything
at
Stone
Lake,
which
is
where
the
the
hotels
are.
M
The
motels
along
the
bypass
I
developed
all
that
land
there
and
I
didn't
build
the
motels,
but
everything
else
in
there
I
built.
So
then
I
built
Hoosier
court
at
Henderson,
which
is
down
there
next
to
Black
Lumber,
which
was
a
mobile
home
court
and
I
I,
built
that
I
built
a
mobile
home
court
at
Rogers
and
Rockport
and
about
a
dozen
other
things
that
I
forgot
about
tonight.
So
I
I
know
how
to
build.
M
Unfortunately,
when
I
started
this
subdivision,
the
housing
market
crashed
I
had
spent
over
a
million
dollars,
and
my
banker
calls
me
up
and
says:
stop
I
can't
give
you
the
money.
Urban
Union
who
I
banked
with
it,
went
under
Monroe
County
Bank,
where
I
was
in
the
top
five
borrowers
in
that
bank.
They
got
in
trouble
and
they
couldn't
lend
to
me.
People
State
Bank,
banked
with
couldn't
lend
to
me
Bloomfield
State
Bank
that
I
bank
with
couldn't
lend
to
me.
So
I
went
through
some
rough
times.
M
I
had
on
top
of
that
I
had
about
five
million
dollars
worth
of
beach
houses
down
in
Gulf,
Shores,
Alabama
and
I.
Had
the
deep
water
Horizon
spill
and
lost
a
million
dollars
in
in
Lost
Revenue
down
there,
because
people
weren't
going
down
there
on
vacation
because
of
the
OS
pill.
So
as
to
this
development,
I
talked
to
Lee
Hess,
which
I
in
in
the
plans
it
said.
I
should
talk
to
him
to
get
approval
on
the
street
trees.
He
came
out.
We
met
there
on
site.
M
He
agreed
that
I
could
use
crab
apples
and
and
Oaks.
On
the
other
side.
They
we
used
columnar
Oaks,
because
the
planning
staff
at
that
time
in
2008
made
me
shrink
the
streets
from
24
to
20
feet
wide,
and
this
was
done
by
the
staff
and
the
staff
put
the
eyebrows
in
those
cul-de-sacs.
Not
me,
we
didn't
do
that,
I,
don't
like
them
either,
but
that's
what
the
way
this
was
designed.
M
This
particular
design
had
was
approved
and
there
were
a
few
conditions
in
there
and
unfortunately,
during
the
time
that
this
was
being
done,
some
of
the
standards
changed,
and
so
some
of
the
things
that
were
done
were
not
they're,
not
they're,
not
liked
or
acceptable.
Today,
but
this
was,
this
design
was
just
approved.
The
way
it
was
now
Bill
told
you
about
this,
whole
area
was
cow,
pasture
and
I,
don't
know
if
any
of
you
know
about
cows,
but
they
rub
on
the
trees.
M
They
scratch
themselves,
they
get
in
the
shade
of
the
tree,
they
walk
on
the
roots
and
all
these
old
Maples
were
damaged
and
and
they
were
Hollow
trees
and
they
just
were
not
healthy.
Trees.
I
had
one
on
lot,
two
that
was
a
real
tall,
a
Hackberry
and
it
fell
on
a
on
a
person's
new
home
and
I
had
to
come
in
and
as
an
emergency
and
take
that
tree
off
of
their
house
and
then
repair
the
roof,
because
it
was
my
tree.
It
was
on
my
lot
lot
between
lot,
one
and
not
two.
M
A
number
of
other
trees
were
taken
down
by
the
residents
up
there
because
they
feared
the
trees
because
they
were
in
bad
shape
and
I
took
pictures
of
all
these
trees
that
I
saw
taken
down
so
that
I
could
show
the
staff
that
they
were
dead
or
dying.
The
two,
the
ones
along
the
other
thing,
I
didn't
hear
mention
but
I'm
hard
of
hearing-
is
that
that
Pro
Road
and
it's
not
proud
it's
Pro
road
is
owned
by
the
county.
The
county
come
came
in
and
took
some
trees
down.
M
That
was
were
not
my
doing,
but
they
have
a
right
they're
in
there
right
away
and
they
came
up.
They
said
we're
going
to
take
these
two
big
Maples
down
here
at
the
entrance
to
the
subdivision,
I
I
said:
oh
I
appreciate
it
because
they're
dead,
they're,
Hollow
I
mean
I,
took
a
set
of
plans
and
stuck
them
Makuta
was
there
and
I
stuck
them
inside
the
tree
and
I
said:
look
it's
completely
yellow!
Oh,
it's
got
a
lot
of
life
in
it.
M
Well,
the
county
didn't
think
so
so
they
took
them
down
because
they
were
blocking
line
site
and
they
were
dead
or
they
were
dying.
So
I
we're
trying
to
work
this
out.
But
the
other
thing
I
want
to
tell
you
is
that
cul-de-sacs
are
loved
by
the
kids
up
there
in
the
cul-de-sac
at
the
top
that
that's
already
been
built.
They
have
a
basketball
goal
at
the
edge
of
the
cul-de-sac
and
the
kids
play
basketball
out
there.
M
They,
the
little
kids
ride
their
bikes
because
it's
a
dead-end
street,
and
so
the
parents
feel
like
it's
safe
for
them
to
do
that,
and
it
has
proved
to
be
that
so
having
that
cul-de-sac,
while
it
may
cause
a
snow
plow
driver
to
have
a
little
trouble,
it's
it's
a
it's
a
good
thing
and
it's
all
been
graded
and
and
planned
for
that
particular
design.
I'd
just
like
to
finish
it.
You
in
looking
at
the
drawing
you'll,
see
there's
three
cul-de-sacs
already
been
built.
M
So
what's
the
harm
in
having
one
more
cul-de-sac
to
finish
this
out,
the
other
thing
is
they've
required
me
to
change
from
Roll,
curb
to
square
curb
and
I
I.
They
say
that's
easier
to
maintain,
but
the
thing
that
people
forget
is
the
reason
why
roll
curb
was
built
in
the
first
place.
It
costs
more
money
because
it
takes
more
concrete,
but
the
reason
why
that
was
done
is
so.
M
You
could
put
a
driveway
at
any
point
along
that
and
you
don't
have
to
tear
out
curbs
to
get
in
to
build
a
driveway,
and
the
other
thing
is
the
snow
plows.
Instead
of
hitting
the
curb
a
square
curb
where
they
they
tend
to
do
damage
and
we'll
knock
those
down
on
a
roll
curb
the
end
of
the
blade
will
just
ride
up
and
it
won't
cause
any
harm.
M
G
E
I
L
E
N
You
probably
stay
up
there,
I
guess
it
was
mentioned
during
the
staff
report,
so
I
think
it's
a
fair
question
to
give
you
a
a
chance
to
address
it.
N
They
were
talking
about
eliminating
the
kova
sack
so
like
not
to
put
you
on
on
the
spot,
but
if
you
had
to
reconfigure
that
design,
what
are
they
asking?
I
guess
what
we're
looking
at
now,
what's
being
proposed
for
you
to
give
up
to
reconfigure
that
design
and
eliminate
the
Kozak
I
feel
like
it's
a
fair
question.
L
Maybe
the
if
we
look
at
the
eyebrow
cul-de-sac
we'd,
we
could
lose
roughly
three
lots
just
without
mapping
it
out
properly,
because
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
access
it's
really
like
a
pie
shape.
So
it's
very
difficult
to
maintain
the
fifth
I
think
we
we're
supposed
to
have
a
50
foot
width
minimum
along
that
right-of-way
Edge.
So
if
we
essentially
made
a
90
degree
turn
you've
and
pull
all
those
lines
forward,
you
can
see
that
you'd
end
up
with
maybe
a
loss
of
two
to
three
lots
and
then
in
the
in
the
condominium
area.
L
If,
if
we
reoriented
all
the
units
and
May
probably
combine
the
driveways
so
when
they
ran
out
to
the
street,
you
have
a
single
driveway.
Some
of
those
driveways
could
be
a
hundred
or
more
feet
long.
L
So
that
could
I
mean
that
might
be
a
challenge,
but
there
there
could
be
some
reconfiguring
to
do
that
and
then
we'd
have
multiple
driveways
along
that
section
of
of
winter
Suite.
K
N
Yeah,
thank
you
so
much
I
think
that's
a
good
for
us
to
consider
as
we
kind
of
ponder
everyone's
decision
here.
So
thank
you.
G
F
Do
you
so
at
the
intersection
of
Hedge
Apple
and
winter
Suite?
It's
the
T
intersection
there.
If
you
zoom
in
and
and
look
at
the
sidewalk
connections,
I
guess
my
my
question
is:
could
you
speak
to
how
a
pedestrian
would
walk
around
the
corner
instead
of
crossing
the
street?
And
this
is
a
question,
a
kind
of
a
design
detail
that
typically
gets
worked
out
later
later
in
the
stage?
F
C
L
So
what
what
we
probably
would
do,
then,
is
if
we
could
maybe
modify
the
ramps
that
are
on
the
radii
and
then
have
a
crosswalk
that
would
come
across
with
a
ramp
on
either
side.
One
would
be
the
northeast
corner
of
31
and
the
other
would
be
the
northeast
corner
of
the
tree
preservation
area
and,
if
need
be
like
we
did
in
Ivy
Chase.
If
we
had
to,
we
could
narrow
the
road
in
that
very
near
that
specific
segment.
L
F
Yeah
I
mean
the
my
concern
right
now
is
that
those
two
Northern
Corners
a
pedestrian
has
to
enter
the
street,
even
if
they're
not
trying
to
cross
the
road.
A
F
Right
and
I
and
I
think
maybe
the
question
ultimately
is,
is
you
you
maybe
have
some
Solutions
in
mind
and
for
the
next
planned
commission
meeting.
If
you
could,
if
they're
take
a
look
and
if
there
needs
to
be
an
update
to
the
right
of
way,
then,
and
if
not
maybe
show
us
what
it
would
look
like.
Yes,
we'll
do
and
then,
while
we're,
at
least
in
that
area,
I
had
a
question
about
the
The
Pedestrian
connection.
That's
shown
just
to
the
south
of
there.
I
I
think
those
are
really
valuable.
F
L
High
School
North
on
their
campus
right.
You
know
we
could
look
into
I,
could
talk
with
Sam,
cleaner
or
the
folks
over
at
MCCSC
and
see
how
we
can
make
that
connection
and
that's
right
on
that
bend
by
the
road
near
the
stadium
right.
L
L
F
If
the
adjacent
owner
was
willing-
and
you
were
able
to
make
a
connection,
I
think
that
would
be
great.
One
of
my
concerns
is
that
it's,
it
looks
from
your
grading
plan
really
steep
from
where
the
That
Sidewalk
connection
ends,
and
so
it
looks
as
though
you'd
have
a
concrete
sidewalk
that
ended
in
a
really
steep
grass
hill.
So
I
was
just
curious.
If
you
looked
at
alternate
alternate
locations
where
that
could
actually
be
more
accessible.
L
I
F
The
the
eyebrow
I
I
can
understand
that
the
reason
it's
there
is
so
that
you
can
get
access
to
more
Lots,
so
you
can
have
more
lots
and
I
think
there's
certainly
a
benefit
to
that.
It
seems
like
it.
It
kind
of
operates
as
a
it's.
Basically,
a
private
driveway,
that's
publicly
maintained,
and
so
one
question
I
have
is
who
maintains
That
central
island
is
that
is
there
grass
in
that
Island.
L
There's
grass
we
could,
we
could
do
without
it
if
that
would
be
an
option,
there's
an
eyebrow
up
to
the
north,
but
it
it's
really
just
like
a
half.
A
cul-de-sac
essentially
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
have
that
Island
now
I'm
going
to
forget
what
your
first
question
was.
Yes,
it's
there
to
make
sure
you
have
more
access
to
driveways,
but
the
maintenance
of
that
would
probably
have
to
be
part
of
the
homeowners
association,
just
like
the
maintenance
of
the
detention
basin.
F
L
F
Yes,
okay,
I
mean,
if
it's
a
curve,
there's
of
course
different
criteria
that
it's
going
to
need
would
need
to
meet.
What
following
up
on
that
is
a
did
you
evaluate
just
taking
that
East-West,
Street
and
intersecting
with
prowl,
instead
of
ending
it
there
and
then
those
those
lots
that
you've
had
to
blister
out
for
could
just
shift
around
and
connect
to
that
East-West
Street.
L
L
F
Okay,
that's
my
last
question
for
now.
Thank
you.
G
I
A
Agreement
right
so
the
issue
and
Mr
rigor
could
probably
I
mean
the
issue
is
that
they
would
have
to
change
this
reconfiguration
of
lots
in
this
corner,
because
the
four
entrances
you
get
there
now
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
and
Mr
riggert
pointed
out
that
there's
a
50-foot
lot
with,
but
really
and
I
tried
to
cover
this
in
the
report.
But
it's
kind
of
awkward
in
the
Pud.
C
The
eyebrow
Island
I
mean
is
that
something
that
you,
the
petitioner,
would
like
to
see
it
Go
and
well.
I
A
Then,
like,
as
Neil
has
kind
of
alluded
to,
there
are
design
standards
that
the
city
has
about
Road
design.
So
you
know
we
don't
when
someone's
building
a
new
road,
you
can't
just
have
like
a
little
bulb
bump
out
in
the
middle
so
that
you
can
have
a
few
extra
Lots
wherever
you
might
choose
so
I
think
the
idea
would
be
in
Mr.
A
Yeah
and
for
us
well
and
I
said
this:
before
I
mean
they
already,
they
took
out
eight
Lots
because
they're
trying
to
make
them
bigger
if
they,
if
they
had
taken
out
Lots
because
they
were
redesigning
these
roads
to
meet
City
standards,
then
maybe
they
would
be
at
the
number
that
they're
at
now.
They
maybe
they
would
have
only
had
to
lose
the
eight.
So
you
know
they
reduced
the
Lots
because
they
made
a
marketing
Choice,
which
is
fine,
but
then
to
say:
oh
we
don't.
We
can't.
A
We
can't
meet
City
standards
because
we
don't
want
to
reduce
the
Lots.
It
kind
of
doesn't
makes
as
much
sense
to
staff
I.
Don't
think
we
understand
the
perspective,
and
we
see
you
know
understand
that
you
guys
may
give
them
the
waivers.
We
are
just
internally
really
trying
for
any
subdivisions
that
come
forward
to
have
them
meet
as
much
of
the
code
as
possible.
We
saw
that
with
Ivy
Chase,
it's
hard
with
these
old
ones.
A
That's
why
we
I
think
are
doing
a
better
job
now
than
we
were
doing
14
years
ago
of
telling
people
you
know
develop
within
the
window
of.
What's
Allowed
by
code,
otherwise
you're
expired
and
you
have
to
start
over
because
then
we're
having
these
discussions,
where
they
kind
of
see,
feel
you
know
almost
illogical
in
some
way,
because
this
was
designed.
A
You
know
14
years
ago,
under
a
completely
different
set
of
rules,
and
then
you
all
have
to
decide.
Are
we
going
to
let
them?
Okay,
there's
just
this
last
one.
You
know
because
it
makes
sense
in
the
area
or
we're
going
to
hold
them
to
new
standards
and
and
they
feel
like
they
shouldn't
be.
So
it's
just
an
awkward
situation.
G
N
Just
one
comment
is
I.
Think
some
direction
from
the
playing
commission
would
be
very
valuable
because
it
sounds
like
the
presenter
has
their
kind
of
configuration
of
lots
and
their
layout,
and
it
sounds
like
staff
has
their
kind
of
ideal
way
of
the
configuration
and
a
lot
and
they're
asking
for
a
pretty
significant,
a
change.
N
If
you
know
they're
not
going
to
get
the
plan
commission
support
and
if
it
seems
like
this
is
going
to
be
continued,
so
it
can
give
them
time
to
evaluate
if
anyone
wants
to
maybe
kind
of
give
some
direction,
I'm
a
non-voting
member.
So
obviously
the
way
I
feel
about
it.
It's
not
that
substantial
to
give
him
sound
Direction
by
things.
N
Some
direction
would
be
helpful,
so
they
they
know
what
to
anticipate
and
if
everyone's,
like,
hey,
let's
reconfigure
the
lodge,
then
that
gives
them
to
something
go
on
or
if
you're
like
I
feel,
like
you
know,
due
to
this
being
one
of
the
final
phases
of
this
old
subdivision
from
2008,
then
maybe
you're
more
amenable
to
support
the
waiver
requests,
but
I
think
some
direction
would
be
very
helpful.
G
So
I
just
have
one
question
for
staff
to
just
clarify:
there's
a
required
second
hearing
or
we
could
vote
and
not.
A
I'm,
just
looking
at
what
our
options
are,
if
someone
wants
to
make
a
motion
hearing
for
the
subdivision,
the
final
plan,
technically,
you
could
approve
now
because
they're
one
petition,
we
would
just
we're
recommending
that
you
see
them
as
one
and
that
they
both
go
in
January
I.
Think
if
there
are
things
you
want
to
see,
you
can
ask
them
to
present
those
things
to
have
those
ready
for
January
along
the
lines
of
what
Mr
Enright
Randolph
said.
A
You
know
if,
if,
if
the
majority
of
you
are
on
the
fence
about
the
waivers,
maybe
they
could
present
you
an
exhibit
of
what
they
could
do
here?
You
know
that
needs
code
and
then
maybe
then
you
would
decide
in
January,
okay.
This
is
too
much
I
think
we
should
give
them
the
waiver,
or
vice
versa
and
say
this
looks
better,
come
back
in
February
with
a
fully
flushed
plan
and
we'll
prove
it.
You
know
I
think
you
I
think
we
just
or
to
just
to
be.
A
You
know,
Fair
the
reverses
this
you
know
we're.
The
majority
of
us
are
happy
to
issue
the
waivers
and
then
making
that
clear
tonight
as
well,
so
that
they
know
they
don't
have
to
kind
of
go
down
that
road.
I
think
those
my
opinion
would
be.
Those
are
your
options.
H
E
A
G
A
If
you're
on
this
send
me
a
message
or
raise
your
Zoom
hand,
send
a
message
to
Jacqueline
Scanlon
and
we'll
get
you
on
the
list.
A
O
Thank
you
very
much
good
evening.
Everyone.
My
name
is
Sue
scambaluri
I'm,
the
city
council
representative,
representing
District,
Two
I'm,
also
a
resident
of
Ridgefield,
which
is
to
the
east,
the
condo
community,
that
is
to
east
of
this
development.
O
O
That
particular
area
that
particular
neighborhood
has
invested
a
great
deal
of
money
in
remedying
drainage
issues
in
the
area
and
have
asked
that
I
express
concern
that
this
plan
to
certainly
take
that
into
account
and
that
it
be
designed
in
a
way
such
that
rainwater
and
runoff
and
and
so
forth,
does
not
interfere
with
the
work
that
has
already
been
done
in
Ridgefield
Village.
So
I
would
offer
that
thought.
O
There's
a
second
item.
That
was
a
question
that
was
posed
to
me
that
I
didn't
know
the
answer
to,
but
that
had
to
do
with
construction
traffic.
Once
construction
begins
in
this
new
development,
is
there
a
way
to
encourage
construction
traffic
to
come
into
the
area
through
prow
Road,
as
opposed
to
through
winter
Suite,
since
that
that
may
damage
some
of
the
roads
already
in
existence?
So
I
would
just
ask
those
questions
and
and
share
those
points
on
behalf
of
the
neighborhood
Ridgefield
Village.
Thank
you.
G
C
I'd
like
to
raise
the
question
that
from
the
public
to
the
petitioner
regarding
your
drainage
plan
and
also
the
construction
entrances,
how
that's
going
to
work
once
it's
in
place.
If
you
could
address
that,
please.
L
Construction
traffic
would
most
likely
come
off
of
prow
road
because
that's
where
the
crusher
is
and
we
could
working
with
Mr
Shaw,
probably
limit
access
through
the
existing
neighborhood
to
the
north
East,
so
I
think
we
can
handle
construction
traffic
and,
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
all
the
drainage
from
our
development
goes
to
the
detention.
Basin
I
believe
you're,
going
up
a
hill
toward
the
Northeast,
so
I
I
wouldn't
anticipate
any
Collective
rain
water
storm
drainage
to
go
into
the
subdivision
to
the
Northeast.
B
A
You
can't
approve
the
waivers
tonight.
The
waivers
are
associated
with
the
subdivision
and
that's
required
two
hearings.
Sometimes
you
can
weigh
that
second
hearing,
but
they
didn't
ask
for
that
when
they
filed.
You
know
last
year
because
I
think
probably
because
it's
such
a
big
project,
just
anticipating
that
we
would
just
do
the
two
and
have
the
longer
discussion.
A
So
you
the
what
I
was
saying
was
that
technically
the
final
plan
can
be
approved
in
one
hearing,
but
because
it's
in
a
PUD,
where
they're
really
so
intertwined
that
it
kind
of
wouldn't
make
sense
to
approve
the
final
plan
tonight.
Because
then,
if
you
do
require
changes
to
the
subdivision
next
month,
then
they
won't
be
in
sync
anymore.
So
you
will
some.
We
will
need
a
motion
to
continue
to
the
request
to
the
January
hearing.
It'll
just
be
I.
A
J
Michael
Rooker,
City
attorney
I
think
that's
right,
I
mean
I'm
going
to
be
a
little
bit
more
blunt,
maybe
I
think
Jackie's
being
kind.
I
I
think
it
would
make
the
way
you've
described
a
check.
It
wouldn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
not
to
continue
everything
until
the
January
hearing.
So
is
that
fair
to
say,
Miss,
Scanlon.
A
So
the
so
the
final
play
Landscaping,
showing
where
the
sidewalks
are
those
types
of
things.
That's
what
the
final
plan.
So
technically
you
you
could
approve
that
and
the
general
layout
in
the
layout
of
the
Lots,
but
the
actual
design
of
the
lots
and
the
roads
is
part
of
the
plat
and
so
are
the
waivers
and
those
have
to
go
in
January.
So
we
you
making
a
motion
tonight.
A
It
would
kind
of
wouldn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
be
clear
about
what
you'd
be
approving
and
we
would
also
recommend
against
it
anyway,
even
if
it
was
just
one
final
plan,
because
we
do
want
to
have
those
Landscaping
things
clarified,
especially
because
there
are
other
owners
now
involved,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
you
know
like
Mr,
Shaw
points
out
and
we've
been
working
with
them
for
quite
some
time.
You
know
some
trees
that
were
died
died
some
trees
that
were
allowed
by
previous
Urban
forest
or
Forester.
A
We
know
all
of
those
things
and
we
aren't
asking
for
those
things
to
be
replaced
that
we,
you
know
have
some
of
those
ships
have
sailed,
but
we
still
need
the
plan
that
they're
asking
for
to
be
accurate
and
clear
so
that
we
aren't
doing
this
again
later,
so
those
type
those
things
specifically
related
to
the
landscape
plan.
A
I'm
sorry
to
the
final
plan,
aren't
finished
yet.
So
we
would
just
ask
that
you
continue
the
whole
petition,
pudd
DP
2421
to
January,
and
then
let
them
know
what
your
expectations
are.
Of
that.
Do
you
want
to
see
another
schematic
if
they
were
making
the
subdivision
waiver
things
compliant,
or
are
the
majority
of
you
saying
we're
okay
with
this,
but
you
need
to
clarify
the
things
that
were
raised
here
or
raised
by
staff.
Otherwise
does
that
is
that
is
that?
Okay,
thank
you.
K
I
guess
how
feasible
is
this
to
ask
I
guess
Mr
rigor
to
be
able
to
come
with
an
by
next
month
with
plans
that
are
compliant
under
what
the
city
planets
are
are
asking
for,
so
we
could
put
them
side
by
side.
I!
Guess
that's
what
I'm
looking
at
is
like.
Is
there
a
way
we
can
get
another
set
of
plans,
put
them
side
by
side,
but
with
what
you've
proposed
in
2008?
So
we
know
the
what
the
look
would
be.
The
layout,
like
the
exact
number
of
lots,
you're
going
to
lose.
L
I,
don't
think
it's
feasible
with
the
holidays.
Okay,
you
know
we'll
lose
two
weeks
for
sure
and
I.
Don't
know
how
we'd
get
it
write
it
around
that
quickly,
so
that
may
I
mean
honestly
may
not
be
feasible.
Yeah
thanks
for
asking.
C
So
what
kind
of
set
of
plans
that
would
would
be
that
you
expect
to
see
in
the
next
meeting
a
full
landscape
plan.
A
Just
a
correct
landscape
plan:
yes,
what
is
what
they're
actually
going
to
be
able
to
do
because
I
think
my
main
main
concern
hold
on
just
a
second.
K
A
They
don't
have
any
control
over
that,
so
maybe
they
are
still
there,
but
based
on
previous
conversations,
I,
don't
think
that
they
are
so
I
want
that
to
be
accurate,
so
that
when
I'm
sending
my
enforcement
staff
member
out
to
do
final
occupancy,
they
don't
come
back
and
say:
oh
they're
supposed
to
be
15
trees
here
and
there's
two
and
then
it's
like
this
is
what
God
approved
so
just
detail,
just
making
sure
going
through
this
landscape
plan
again
and
making
sure
that
this
is
actually
accurate.
A
A
lot
of
the
other
things
from
the
previous
plan
have
been
removed
or
fixed,
but
that
one
jumped
out
at
me
and
just
making
sure
you
know
again
like
he
said
they
have
to
move
that
pedestrian
path.
It's
not
right
where
it's
going
so
then.
A
What
will
that
do
to
the
tree
preservation
area
and
something
else
that
I
think
needs
to
be
a
little
bit
more
detailed
in
the
landscape
plan
potentially
is
like
they're
saying:
oh
Mr
riggert
said
that
they
would
supplement
with
natives.
Well,
how
many
to
what
density
who's
going
to
review
that
like
we?
We
need
to
come
to
an
agreement
about
that
for
the
tree,
preservation
area
and
and
we'll
if
we'll
propose
something
for
next
month.
A
But
it
would
be
more
helpful
to
us
if
they
could
tell
us
exactly
kind
of
what
their
ideas
are.
I
mean
the
plans
do
list
some
trees,
but
not
a
not
at
a
density
or
what
they're
so
kind
of
getting
some
more
details
about
that,
because
it's
basically
it's
a
site
plan,
and
so
we
need
to
know
what
exactly
they're
planning
to.
A
And
I'll
say,
of
course
we
want
to
see
this
done.
It's
been
on
the
agenda
and,
like
everyone
gives
me
a
hard
time
about
it
for
over
a
year,
but
I
want
it
to
be
done
right
and
I.
Don't
feel
comfortable,
always
with
the
idea
that,
just
because
something's
really
old,
we
need
to
just
like
Let
It
Go,
but
maybe
sometimes
we
do,
and
that's
just
like
a
personal
thing.
A
So
you
know
if
Commissioners
would
feel
more
comfortable
with
an
exhibit
showing
that
what
that
meeting
code
just
is
not
possible
here,
you
could
continue
it
to
February.
We
could
give
more
time.
I
mean.
The
reason
we're
here
now
is
because
we
gave
a
deadline
that
said
we're
taking
this
in
December
you,
you
can
give
us
new
plans
or
we're
going
to
recommend
denial,
because
we
know
we
knew
that
we
needed
to
get
keep
the
ball
rolling,
so
meaning
I.
A
Don't
think
that
they're
waiting
for
this
approval,
like
it
has
to
be
done
on
January,
you
know
in
the
middle
of
January,
if
that's
something
that
the
majority
of
you
feels
like
would
make.
You
feel
more
comfortable
about
approving
the
waiver
an
extra
month
from
staff's
perspective
to
to
know
that
you're
making
the
right
decision
would
I
think
would
be.
You
know
fine
with
us
or
helpful
to
us,
but
again
it's
totally
up
to
you
guys.
We
understand
that
it's
a
awkward
situation.
A
G
G
So
we
can,
we
can
improve
it,
as
is
now,
and
then
it
will
come
back
in
January
for
the
rest
of
the
waivers.
A
E
J
In
January
and
then,
if
additional
time
were
required
from
the
petitioner
to
to
prepare
items
that
the
plan
commission
would
want
to
see,
it
could
be
continued
from
January,
then
again
until
February,
with
no
problems.
So
unless
the
petitioner
were
specifically
requesting
a
continuance,
all
the
way
to
February
I
think
it's
fine
just
to
continue
it
to
January.
You
haven't
lost
anything.
H
H
G
A
B
A
In
the
interest
of
your
time
and
their
time,
if
you
did
a
straw
poll
or
whatever
among
yourselves,
do
you
want
to
see
an
exhibit
indicating
that
they
can't
meet
code
and
then,
if
four
or
five
of
you
say
that
and
thinking
how
there
are
two
who
aren't
actually
here,
that
could
be
helpful
to
them.
You
don't
have
to
do
that.
Of
course
they
can
prepare
whatever
they
want
before
January.
To
try
to
convince
you
to,
you
know,
recommend
approval
that
that
I
would
suggest
that
you
give
them
as
much
information
as
you
can.
A
J
Would
be
just
fine,
a
petitioner
Commissioners?
You
could
also
indicate
in
your
comments,
which
you'll
have
the
opportunity
to
make
right
now
before
voting
on
the
motion.
If
you
have
any
thoughts
about
what
you
would
like
to
see,
I
think
one
commissioner
Smith
has
already
mentioned
his
perspective
on
the
issue,
so
you
could
do
that.
You
could
do
a
straw
poll.
You
have
a
number
of
ways
to
communicate
with
the
petitioner.
G
G
G
B
So
the
petitioner
obviously
followed
Direction
in
08.
We
did
as
they
were
asked
you
know,
followed.
The
planning
staff
followed
the
Planning
Commission
at
the
time
and
I
really
respect
that
08
was
incredibly
unfortunate
and
14
years
in
passing
is
very
unfortunate,
but
at
times
I
don't
even
really
feel
the
Market's
truly
recovered
yet,
and
yet
it's
changed
again,
even
by
the
time
period
that
you've
had
it.
B
On
that
we've
gone
through
this
process,
interest
rates
have
gone
up
and
the
Market's
changing
again
I
would
lean
towards
finishing
the
project
as
it
was
presented
and
and
followed
in
the
beginning.
It
would
keep
the
same
feel
of
what
they've
already
created
and
then
I
would
like
to
see
a
full
plan.
So
then
we
could
possibly
approve
it.
So
that
is
the
direction
I
would
probably
head
towards.
F
For
the
next
meeting
personally
I
like
seeing
a
drawing
that
that
matches
what's
proposed
in
order
to
feel
comfortable
with
it,
so
there's
been
a
few
things
that
we've
already
discussed,
that
that
might
change.
One
thing
that
was
mentioned
was
the
streets
are
planned
to
have
parking
on
one
side
of
the
street,
but
we
haven't
seen
which
side
of
the
street,
and
that
has
implications
on
intersection,
design
and
and
geometry,
and
just
just
making
sure
it
doesn't
have
to
be
fully
fully
done.
F
I
personally
support
showing
you
know
showing
us
why
it's
not
possible
to
be
compliant
I,
don't
think
you
have
to
go
all
the
way
through
full
design.
I
can
look
at
that
area
where
the
cul-de-sac
is
and
say,
yeah.
How
else
would
you
get
these
Lots
in
here
without
it,
but
something
to
illustrate
why
it
wouldn't
be
possible
to
be
compliant
I
think
would
be
beneficial.
G
Okay,
I
would
add
to
that
I
I
believe
having
an
accurate
landscape
plan
would
be
good
before
the
next
meeting.
I
think.
Maybe
commissioner
copper
mentioned
this,
but
I'm
not
sure
about
the
pedestrian
issues
with
the
sidewalk
and
what
that
would
look
like
yeah
I
think
those
are
but
but
I
do
certainly
would
like
to
get
this
move
forward
for
the
petitioner,
because
so
much
of
it
is
already
built
out
and
I
kind
of
agree
with.
G
Commissioner
Cochran,
let's
just
you
know,
get
this
done,
but
just
a
few
more
things
to
work
out
there
and
although
it
seems
like
14
years
and
it's
forever,
it's
so
close
so
close
to
the
Finish
Line,
we
can
just
get
this
done.
That
would
be
great.
So
those
are
my
thoughts
and
seeing
none
other.
We
can
call
the
roll.