►
From YouTube: Bloomington City Plan Commission, September 11, 2023
Description
Plan Commission Documents:
https://bloomington.in.gov/boards/plan/meetings
A
All
right
good
evening,
let
me
call
to
order
this
meeting
of
the
city
of
Bloomington
plan
commission
for
September
11th
2023.
Let
me
just
start
by
giving
a
quick
overview
of
our
agenda
tonight.
There
are
quite
a
few
things
on
the
agenda.
We
have
some
minutes
to
be
approved.
We
have
a
resolution
to
address.
There
are
one
petition
that
has
been
tabled:
that's
SP,
24-22,
Cutters,
Kirkwood,
123
LLC.
A
We
do
have
a
consent
agenda
with
one
item
on
it
this
evening,
and
then
we
have
three
petitions
that
will
be
heard
this
evening:
PUD
1823,
that's
the
Sudbury
development
Partners
LLC
PUD,
and
then
we
have
two
zoning
ordinance:
petitions
Zeo
2923.
This
is
text
Amendment
related
to
non-residential
uses
in
the
downtown
character,
overlays
and
then
zo
34-23.
A
This
is
a
text
Amendment
related
to
sign
standards,
so
that
is
kind
of
the
order
of
operations.
This
evening.
Let's
start
with
calling
the
roll.
B
D
E
B
E
B
F
F
B
A
All
right,
we
do
have
one
set
of
minutes
to
be
approved
that
are,
those
are
the
minutes
from
the
August
14th
meeting.
Are
there
any
questions
or
corrections
to
those
minutes?
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
check
it
we
need
to
call
the
roll
on
that
this
evening.
We
are
all
here
all
right,
all
in
favor
of
approving
the
August
14th
minutes.
Please
say
aye
hi
any
opposed.
A
Okay,
the
minutes
are
approved,
we'll
move
on
now
to
reports,
resolutions
and
Communications
I
know
we
do
have
one
resolution
for
consideration.
Are
there
any
other
reports
from
staff
before
we
get
to
that.
A
All
right:
well,
let's
we'll
move
on
then
to
rs35-23.
H
Thank
you,
Eric
senior
zoning
planner,
so
this
is
this
particular
item
is
on
the
agenda
because
there
was
a
negative
easement
or
what
would
be
called
today's
zoning
commitment
that
was
required
with
the
rezoning
petition
that
was
done
at
123
South
Kingston,
when
the
property
received
a
rezoning
or
a
PUD
Amendment
back
in
the
late
90s.
H
So
at
that
time,
when
the
development
came
forward,
they
were
amending
the
Pud
to
allow
for
the
march
to
move
in
here,
and
there
was
a
series
of
duplexes
that
were
anticipated
to
be
constructed
on
the
property
to
the
north
of
this.
So
with
the
Pud
Amendment,
they
required
a
landscaping
buffer
to
be
installed
between
the
Service
Merchandise
building
that
was
going
to
be
the
marsh
building
and
these
adjacent
residences.
Since
that
time,
a
couple
of
things
have
happened.
H
One
the
Pud
was
amended
again
in
2006
to
take
off
that
residential
component
to
allow
for
a
shopping
center
to
be
installed,
but
then
also
the
entire
property
was
rezoned
from
the
planned
unit
development
to
current
zoning
districts.
So
the
old
Marsh
building
was
rezoned
to
mixed-use,
commercial
or
I'm,
sorry,
mixed-use,
Corridor
zoning
and
then
the
adjacent
property
where
the
multi-tenant
center
is
was
rezoned
to
mixed
use.
Medium
scale
development.
H
So
no
no
buffer
would
be
required
currently
between
a
mixed-use
commercial
I'm,
sorry,
mixed-use,
Corridor,
zoning
district
and
mixed
use
medium
scale,
and
so
the
petitioner
is
coming
forward
to
allow
for
that.
Negative
easement
to
be
removed-
or
you
know,
as
I
mentioned,
would
be
considered
a
zoning
commitment
which
Falls
within
the
plane
commission
to
allow
for
zoning
commitments
to
be
removed.
So
they're
trying
to
clean
up
the
title
for
this
and
remove
this
negative
easement
from
the
deed.
H
A
Thank
you.
Is
there
a
representative
of
the
petitioner
that
would
like
to
add
anything.
I
I
The
negative
easement
does
create
an
encumbrance
on
the
real
estate.
We
believe
I
think,
as
Eric
has
pointed
out,
it's
duplicative
of
current
regulations
that
have
changed
in
the
20-some
years.
Since
this
negative
easement
was
required,
it
is
no
longer
necessary.
I
The
three
aspects
of
the
negative
easement
that
is
the
buffering
the
internal
buffering,
is
no
longer
required.
There
are
now
two
commercial
uses:
instead
of
a
commercial
and
a
residential
use,
so
there's
no
non
or
non-conforming
incompatible
type
uses.
There's
a
noise
regulation
requirement
that's
covered
by
a
different
ordinance
and
there's
limitations
on
truck
operations
and
unloading,
which
is
which
will
be
addressed
in
the
in
the
standards
for
the
change
of
use
for
the
new
owner
and
part
of
that
process.
I
So
all
all
issues
addressed
in
the
negative
easement
that
were
required
in
2020
or
2000
are
no
longer
necessary,
they're
covered
by
other
zoning
ordinances.
So
we
are
requesting
the
the
commission
to
terminate
that
negative
easement
and
release
the
property
and
the
chain
of
title
from
those
obligations.
F
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
We
will
move
on
then
to
the
consent
agenda.
There
is
one
item
on
the
consent
agenda
this
week,
that
is
SP
21-23,
true
storage,
LLC,
the
property
at
1701,
South,
Liberty
Drive.
This
is
a
major
site
plan.
Approval
for
a
change
in
use
in
the
mixed
use,
medium
scale,
zoning
district
is
there
anyone
who
has
questions
about
this
or
who
would
like
to
see
this
removed
from
the
consent
agenda
for
a
full
hearing.
A
All
right,
oh
I,
guess
before
we
vote
I
should
go
to
public
comment.
Is
there
any
public
comment
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
B
Yep
and
I
will
say
for
the
minutes
that
Mr
cockram
has
joined
us
Ballard,
yes,
Burrell,
yes,
seabor,
yes,.
M
A
B
A
A
This
is
Sudbury
development,
Partners,
LLC
and
Jackie.
Scanlon
is
case
manager
here
to
present.
B
Sudbury
development
Partners
LLC
petition,
PUD
1823,
which
we
have
seen
now
for
a
couple
of
months,
as
was
reflected
in
the
staff
report,
we're
kind
of
at
a
weird
time,
with
this
petition
I
would
say,
because
we're
waiting
for
some
more
information
to
kind
of
be
able
to
make
some
pretty
big
decisions
about
phasing
and
things
like
that
that
we
don't
have
quite
yet,
but
we
do,
we
did
think
it
would
be
beneficial
for
the
petitioner
to
be
able
to
get
a
little
bit
more
feedback
from
you
on
maybe
some
of
the
bigger
questions.
B
But
again
you
may
also
have
to
wait
for
some
of
the
information
that's
coming
to
be
able
to
do
some
of
that.
But
I
know
that
they
will
give
a
brief
presentation
tonight
and
then
hopefully
be
able
to
take
some
comments
from
you
as
well.
So
one
of
the
things
we
mentioned
last
month
was
that
we
were
waiting
on
a
capacity
study
that
was
being
done
by
a
consultant
through
the
city
of
Bloomington
utilities.
B
We
received
that
information
on
the
7th
so
about
four
days
ago,
for
which
was
a
large
study,
not
just
for
this
particular
site,
so
we
will
be
meeting
with
city
of
Bloomington
utilities
staff
members
shortly
to
go
over
what
the
impacts
are
for
this
site
to
be
able
to
report
that
back
to
you
and
also
incorporate
it
into
our
recommendations
for
what
meaning
to
change
in
this
PUD
proposal.
B
Excuse
me.
Additionally,
we
are
still
waiting
for
information
about
the
traffic
study,
so
the
petitioner
is
meeting
with
engineering
staff,
this
Wednesday
to
go
over
some
of
that
information,
and
we
will
expect
to
have
that
before
the
next
time.
You
see
this
petition
so
while
we're
happy
to
have
them
here
to
kind
of
it's
a
big
petition,
there's
a
lot
to
go
over
to
kind
of
go
over
some
of
that
information.
B
We
won't
be
bringing
it
back
until
we
are
able
to
analyze
those
two
big
kind
of
ticket
items,
the
utilities
and
the
traffic
impact
study
information,
so
that
we
can
make
more
concrete
information
recommendations
to
you
and
kind
of
a
more
traditional
report,
format
that
you
normally
see
breaking
down.
Each
of
the
issues
excuse
me,
so
we
are
continuing
to
meet
with
the
petitioner
again.
They
have
a
presentation
for
you
tonight.
B
Some
general
topics
we
included
were
that
we
know
that
they're
hoping
to
get
feedback
from
you
and
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
raised
by
some
of
the
neighbors
as
well,
including
off-site
flooding,
concerns
bulk
of
the
buildings
and
how
close
they
are
to
the
neighboring
properties.
B
The
unit
mix
type,
how
they're
going
to
you
know
kind
of
guarantee,
affordable
housing
across
the
scope
of
the
140
acres
and
how
will
they
be
encouraging
mid-sized,
Housing
Development?
Those
are
things
that
we
think
are
important
to
that.
B
Those
kinds
of
questions
will
have
to
be
answered,
and
you
will
have
to
you
know,
agree
to
their
proposals
for
those
by
the
end
of
this
process,
so
making
sure
that
those
are
staying
at
the
Forefront
of
the
discussion
and
again
we
plan
to
bring
this
back
to
plan
commission
after
we're
able
to
review
those
important
kind
of
framework
documents
for
the
effect
of
the
potential
effect
of
this
development
on
the
surrounding
infrastructure,
so
that
we
can
use
that
to
answer
some
questions
again
about
phasing
and
what
sorts
of
things
would
need
to
be
off-site.
B
Improvements
might
need
to
be
incorporated
with
this
development,
for
you
to
be
able
to
weigh
those.
So
that's
what
staff
has
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
I
have
been
including
the
previous
reports
again,
the
next
time
you
see,
this
I'll
probably
have
a
link
to
this,
but
it's
just
going
to
be
kind
of
a
more
traditional
report
that
you're
used
to
seeing
to
kind
of
clarify.
You
know
this
is
what
we're
talking
about
bulk,
we're
talking
about
traffic,
we're
talking
about
cars
just
so
that
it
can
kind
of
go
through
it.
B
B
I'm,
sorry,
yes,
my
Rec
I
believe
our
recommendation
is
to
continue
to
the
November
plan.
Commission
hearing
the
caveat
is,
if
they're,
not
if
we're
not
done
by
November,
we
will
continue
it
to
December,
but
I
believe
that
that's
the
expectation
of
what
the
petitioner
is
expecting
as
well,
so
we
can
just
clarify
that
with
them.
Thank.
A
You
great
thank
you.
Okay.
Is
there
a
representative
of
the
petitioner
who'd
like
to
present
tonight.
C
Good
evening
I'm
Angela
Parker
attorney
Carmen
Parker
for
the
petitioner.
Thank
you
Jackie
for
your
patience
with
us.
We've
been
working
through
a
very
long
process
and
it's
a
it's
a
sizable
project.
So
it
deserves
a
lot
of
thought
and
a
lot
of
consideration.
I
thought
it
might
be
helpful
to
do
a
couple
of
things
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Travis
vinsel
who's
here
from
Sullivan
develop.
C
We
also
have
Tyler
Ridge
here
from
The
Ridge
Group
for
the
co-developers
on
this
project
and
I
think
we
also
have
some
folks
on
Zoom
if
they
need
to
chime
in
during
during
the
meeting
as
well.
You
know
we
filed
our
original
petition
on
this
ordinance
on
May
8th,
so
it's
been
going
on
for
a
while.
We
did
some
revisions
to
that.
We
submitted
that
on
June
26th
for
the
first
planned
commission
meeting
with
you
all
on
July
10th.
C
We
did
another
draft
of
the
Pud
considerably
reducing
streamlining
and
synthesizing
a
lot
of
the
information
through
our
process
with
you
all,
with
the
neighbors
and
with
the
the
planning
staff
and
submitted
a
draft
on
July
31st.
We
have
intentionally
not
submitted
another
draft
since
then,
so
we're
looking
at
some
updates
to
information
in
your
packet
there's
some
additional
Maps
I
think
they
start
on
page
55
in
your
packet,
so
that
we're
just
putting
some
different
maps
and
charts
on
dimensional
standards
on
uses
on
parking.
C
C
C
What
we
hope
is
a
final
draft,
taking
into
account
all
the
things
that
Jackie
just
referred
to,
that
I
won't
go
through
again,
so
that
we
can
then
come
back
to
you
with
a
draft
that
we
think
will
be
acceptable
and
so
we're
hoping
to
get
there
in
November.
C
Should
we
do
that
now,
let's
go
ahead
and
hand
those
out,
so
you
can
follow
along,
but
we
thought
it
would
be
useful
and
I'm
going
to
go
through
this
really
really
super
fast,
because
I'm
not
going
to
read
it
to
you,
but
I'd
like
to
flip
through
some
things
that
we
think
are
important
considerations
for
kind
of
the
overall
picture
and
vision
for
this
project,
and
so
the
idea,
as
Jackie
pointed
out,
her
report
is
to
create
five
neighborhoods
across
this
140
acres
and
the
goals
are
affordable,
living
home
ownership
walkability
within
the
community,
the
connectivity,
the
infrastructure,
importance
of
protecting
the
environmental
features
and
all
with
a
drive
to
meet
the
expanded
housing
needs
in
our
community
over
several
years.
C
This
isn't
going
to
be
built
in
a
year
or
two
or
three
or
four
or
five.
It's
going
to
be
a
much
longer
term
project
than
that.
We
actually
are
thinking
now
we're
sort
of
projecting
out
12
to
15
years,
we'll
see
how
the
market
drives
that
and
we're
where
that
goes.
But
that
may
be
a
more
realistic,
a
more
realistic
timeline,
and
so
the
goals
of
the
project
are
community
housing
for
all
Neighborhood,
Services
and
employment
and
then
creating
that
connectivity
that
the
transportation
plan
requires
that
will
join
that
part
of
our
community
together.
C
So
so
our
our
statement
is
to
imagine
a
community
where
you
can
get
up
in
the
morning:
walk
your
child
to
daycare,
meet
a
friend
for
coffee
and
walk
cycle,
or
even
take
public
transportation
to
work
all
in
this
area.
So
the
vision
for
that
is
on
the
next
page,
thanks
Jackie
and
it
outlines
kind
of
our
idea
about
connectivity
about
affordable
living
and
this
Everest
Center,
which
is
kind
of
Our
Town
Square,
is
a
community
Gathering
space.
C
C
So
sorry,
if
you're
flipping
fast,
but
you
can
see
how
the
roads
are
designed
and
anticipated
to
be,
and
the
connections
both
internally
within
the
development
and
also
out
to
the
adjacent
areas
moving
quickly
to
Shasta
Meadow
if
you'll
go
to
the
picture,
slide
I'll
kind
of
talk
about
that
a
little
bit.
So
here's
just
some
depictions
that
we
think
a
neighborhood
focused
on
single
family,
multi-family
dwellings
will
be
in
the
west
part
of
this
Summit
District
along
the
floodway,
which
is
all
going
to
be
preserved
in
Conservancy.
C
Can
you
flip
to
the
pictures
on
that
I
thought?
If
you
looked
at
the
pictures
and
I
could
talk
about
it,
it
might
make
it
more
pleasant.
So
that's
a
neighborhood
that
really
takes
advantage
of
the
natural
Woods
that
are
on
the
south
part
of
the
district,
where
we've
got
a
lot
of
tree.
Canopy
cars
Creek
natural
features
that
will
all
be
preserved:
that's
a
transition
from
single
family
and
multi-family
to
the
South
and
the
Everest
Center
to
the
north,
which
is
kind
of
that
town
center.
C
Again,
it's
planned
to
have
both
non-residential
applications
and
some
public
uses,
including,
as
you've
heard
us
talk
about
before
a
fire
station
and
a
Trailhead
for
connectivity
on
Trails,
we're
looking
and
projecting
about
500
units
there
to
be
delivered
between
2025
and
29..
C
The
next
neighborhood
is
Sandia
place,
which
is
newly
named
more
of
an
urban
style
residential
neighborhood,
with
a
lot
of
different
residential
options.
So
a
lot
of
diversity
adds
to
the
east
of
the
Everest
Center.
If
you
can
think
about
that,
big
map
earlier
continues.
This
gridded
street
pattern
interior
blocks
for
larger
scale,
multi-family
with
limited
commercial
on
ground
floor.
So
it's
a
little
bit
more
of
an
urban
feel
again
transitioning
towards
the
Everest
District,
we're
thinking
that
neighborhood
is
going
to
have
more
density
up
to
1300
dwellings,
but
not
till
2028
to
32.
C
the
other
neighborhood
is
Whitney
Glenn.
So
let
me
introduce
you
to
Whitney
Glenn,
that's
a
small
neighborhood!
That's
going
to
focus
on
providing
transition
from
Arbor
Ridge
to
the
North
and
the
Conservancy
area
over
and
across
to
Everest
Center,
so
smaller
single
Town,
Homes,
single-family,
Town
Homes
along
the
north
side
of
the
neighborhood
and
then
some
multi-family
structures
along
Sudbury
Drive,
we're
looking
and
projecting
about
400
units
in
that
between
2033
and
2038.
C
Everest
Center
is
the
town
hub
or
the
area
hub.
It's
going
to
be
not
only
for
Summit
District,
but
the
area
Southwest
of
the
city
as
well.
So
there's
a
central
Greenway
with
an
upper
and
lower
community
Open
Spaces
that
extend
from
Sudbury
to
the
creek
and
the
central
or
Main
Street
will
host
retail
restaurants
and
supportive
services
for
the
community.
C
C
Next
slide,
so
the
last
three
three
slides
talk
about
some
of
the
overall
Concepts
one
is
respect
for
the
built
environment,
so
we
have
transition
and
incentive
maximums.
You
saw
that
top
map
at
the
last
meeting,
which
is
really
tiny
there
and
Travis
may
talk
about
this
more
about
the
step
down
and
transition
from
the
north
Arbor
Ridge
stepping
down
and
creating
some
buffers
in
transition
area
to
the
Main
Street
area
in
Everest
Center
and
the
map.
C
So
the
taller
buildings
are
at
lower
elevations
on
the
site
with
lower
maximum
building
Heights,
and
then
you
can
see
where
the
incentives
are
proposed.
Next
slide.
We
thought
an
overall
environmental
map
might
be
useful.
This
promotes
preservation
of
existing
environmental
features,
as
you
know,
we're
adopting
the
Udo
on
the
environmental
standards
for
this
development.
So
there's
preservation
of
existing
features
following
all
the
regulations
that
are
required
and
then
Trails
extending
throughout
some
of
those
areas,
and
then
we've
also
added
additional
open
areas
and
green
space
last
slide
benefits
to
the
community.
C
C
We
wanted
you
to
have
the
packet
to
take
with
you
so
that
you
could
study
it
or
if
you
have
questions
after
we
finish
our
presentation,
we're
certainly
happy
to
answer
that
and,
as
Jackie
said,
our
our
ask
tonight
is
not
for
a
vote,
but
to
use
this
as
an
opportunity
to
get
input
from
you
and
from
the
public
so
that
we
can
continue
to
improve
this
PUD
and
bring
you
one
that
we
can
pass
on
to
the
city
council.
So
I'll
turn
it
now
to
Travis
Finzel
for
some
rapid
fire
question
and
answer.
N
We've
heard
lots
of
questions
from
staff
from
you
guys
in
two
meetings
from
two
meetings
with
neighborhoods
from
input
and
everything,
and
so
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
take
a
few
minutes.
I'm
going
to
spit
out
a
question
I'm
going
to
spit
out.
Our
answer
may
not
be
a
complete
answer,
might
be
saying:
let's
refer
to
something
and
might
Inspire
more
questions
from
you,
but
I
think
it's
a
way
that
we
can
sort
of
drill
down
on
what
those
topics
are.
N
I've
got
about
25
questions
that
seem
to
be
this
common
question,
so
I'd
like
to
just
really
like
lightning
round
through
them.
So
why
is
a
PUD
appropriate?
It
allows
for
the
benefit
of
the
community
for
infrastructure,
environmental
preservation,
affordability,
diversity
and
density
and
housing
that
we
can't
get
through
Straight
zoning.
What
about
affordable
housing?
We
have
a
commitment
to
15
to
20
percent
of
our
units
will
be
affordable
by
the
city
standards.
N
We're
spreading
those
out
through
out
the
five
neighborhoods
incentives,
we're
utilizing
the
incentives
of
the
Udo,
we're
not
proposing
to
change
those,
as
well
as
the
Hopewell
incentives
to
maximize
the
ability
to
get
affordable
and
sustainable
development
within
this
project,
affordable
housing
for
seniors,
Assisted,
Living,
lower
aimi.
We
had
a
discussion
early
on
about
different
definition
of
affordable
housing.
We've
decided
to
abandon
that
we're
going
to
stick
with
the
affordable
housing
definition.
N
That's
in
the
Udo
sustainable
development
commitments,
we're
preserving
a
total
of
43
Acres
of
this
site
and
either
preservation
or
open
space
through
zoning.
So
we're
allow
we're
taking
the
full
benefit
of
sustainable
incentives
that
we
can
we're,
also
using
the
sustainable
incentives
from
the
Udo
and
applying
it
to
this
project.
Throughout
the
entire
property
diversity
of
housing
types
we
have
five
neighborhoods
Angela
went
through
what
those
neighborhoods
are
and
what
different
standards
we
have
for
those.
N
We
have
five
different
zoning
District
classifications,
as
well
as
open
space
to
provide
for
a
real
variety
of
housing,
types
and
specificity,
as
opposed
to
going
with
one
overall
Zoning.
For
this
whole
entire
property
transition
to
existing
neighborhoods.
We
have
both
a
transitional
set
of
standards
that
specifically
apply
to
properties
near
Arbor
Ridge,
as
well
as
we
focus
development
down
the
hill
and
away
from
Arbor
Ridge,
so
that
they
can
minimize
the
impact
on
on
the
neighboring
properties,
size
of
adus.
N
We've
gone
to
this
Udo
standard
for
adus,
surface
parking
and
a
temporary
use,
so
we're
only
proposing
surface
parking
in
the
ever
Center
area
and
we're
posing
that
to
be
for
a
limited
temporary
period
of
not
to
not
more
than
three
years
so
that
we
can
have
some
surface
parking.
But
it's
not
a
permanent
solution.
Parking
setback,
we've
adopted
the
Udo
standards,
except
for
in
the
Everest
District,
where
we
have
a
smaller
setback
for
parking
standard
in
Everest
District.
N
But
we
intend
to
believe
that,
as
average
District
eventually
develops
out
all
that
parking
will
be
inside
a
building.
It
will
not
be
surface
parking
but
on
an
interim
basis,
we've
allowed
for
that
less
setback.
Environmental
concerns.
We
talked
a
lot
about
environmental
concerns.
We've
been
originally
proposed
new
environmental
standards,
but
we
believe,
as
we
continue
to
engineer
this
site,
we
can
meet
the
environmental
standards
of
the
Udo,
so
we're
going
forward
with
that.
N
That
will
be
preserving
23,
Acres
or
23
percent
of
the
side
in
in
preservation
area,
with
a
deed
restriction
as
well
as
some
additional
acres
is
just
open
space
adopting
the
Udo
standards
at
existing
standards
with
respect
to
sections
of
the
Udo
environmental
incentives,
floodplain
access
site
and
building
design,
Landscaping
lighting
signs
and
open
space
we're
adopting
the
Udo
we're
not
proposing
to
fix
it
in
time,
we're
not
proposing
to
change
it.
N
We've
identified
specific
areas
where
the
Udo
definition
matches
our
specific
definition,
but
we're
not
proposing
changes
in
all
of
those
sections
of
the
Udo
high
value
design
features.
We've
Incorporated
features
of
the
Udo
to
be
consistent
across
all
zones,
currently
in
the
Udo
design,
standards
and
H
in
the
RH
district
and
the
MN
District
in
the
MX.
District
are
different
they're,
not
the
same
we've
Incorporated
and
be
consistent,
because
this
is
a
planned
development.
N
N
We've
had
a
lot
of
questions
about
density.
What's
the
right
density,
our
five
neighborhoods,
currently
total
4
375
units,
that's
down
from
our
original
proposed
6000
units.
We
really
feel
like
this
is
the
right
number.
We
have
the
diversity
in
different
product
types
with
this
number
to
still
maintain
an
active
neighborhood
center,
but
not
necessarily
happen
to
have
6
000
units.
N
We
have
proposed
some
design
change,
some
changes
to
the
design,
dimensional
standards
of
the
Udo.
Again
we
base
those
off
of
a
section
of
the
Udo
applied
them
across
our
five
different
zones,
but
we've
really
done
so
to
encourage
one
uniformity
and
TWO
Urban
style
development,
which
isn't
always
the
case
in
our
Udo.
When
we
go
to
high
density
residential
multi-family,
that's
not
necessarily
an
urban
environment
that
we're
trying
to
create
here
appropriateness
of
tall
buildings.
N
Let's,
let's
talk
a
little
bit
about
tall
buildings,
the
RH
Zone,
our
multi-family
standard
zone
of
the
Udo
is
five
stories
and
additional
stories
with
incentives.
That's
what's
in
our
code,
then
we
go
to
any
of
our
Urban
uses
or
our
neighborhood
uses
we're
less
than
five
stories
again.
We
think
it's
consistency,
so
we've
used
that
six
story
as
our
standard
of
across
the
entire
and
then
applied
incentives
in
specific
areas,
mostly
in
the
ever
Center,
and
in
there
we've
even
said.
N
Where,
specifically,
can
you
use
those
maximum
incentives
in
order
to
use
the
maximum
incentives?
You've
got
to
do
20,
affordable,
that's
an
increase
from
the
Udo,
it's
where
it's
15.
we've
said.
It's
got
to
be
20
to
use
those
incentives
to
get
your
taller
buildings,
so
we're
not
talking
about
a
footprint
of
taller
buildings
across
the
entire
site,
we're
talking
specific
areas.
So
we
can
get
the
density.
N
That's
needed
to
make
this
project
work
reduction
in
landscaping,
impervious
surfaces
as
overall
we're,
as
we've
stated
here,
we're
putting
substantial
areas
set
aside
in
either
conservation
preservation
or
open
space.
In
order
to
do
that
and
still
get
density
and
get
smaller
footprint
structures,
we've
lowered
the
amount
of
impervious
surface
and
the
amount
of
open
space
or
landscaping,
that's
required
overall,
the
entire
project
we're
still
going
to
meet
a
lot
of
the
standard,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
on
an
individual
lot
basis.
N
It's
in
these
big
sections
of
tree
preservation
or
open
space,
that's
Community
serving
off-site
improvements.
We've
talked
a
lot
about.
What's
going
on
off
site,
we've
got
a
lot
of
studies
that
are
in
the
process
and
are
producing
things,
but
I'll
run
through
those
real
quickly
utility
capacity,
with
the
existing
necessary
improvements
to
see
that
CBU
is
contemplating
and
has
already
identified.
This
property
can
easily
have
capacity
for
5000
units.
N
We
can't
solve
everybody's
problem
again,
but
we're
going
to
make
sure,
through
local
regulations,
state
regulations
that
our
project
is
not
contributing
to
the
problem,
and
it
is
actually
probably
helping
slow
down
some
of
the
water
that
now
just
sheet
drains
off
of
all
that
land
into
the
into
the
creek.
We're
going
to
help
solve
that
problem.
Our
Engineers
are
working
that,
on
a
regular
basis,
again,
we've
got
it.
Okay,
I'm
going
to
get
there
we're
we're
going
to
have
less
than
45
percent
of
our
total
land
area
is
going
to
be
developed.
N
The
rest
of
that
is
going
to
be
set
aside
as
infrastructure,
open
space
and
and
public
space
a
traffic
study.
It's
in
the
process
we're
going
to
connect,
Sudbury
and
and
Adams,
which
is
going
to
relieve
a
lot
of
traffic
issues.
But
there's
going
to
this
development
will
have
some
others
we'll
talk
about
that
mobility
and
connectivity.
We've
connected
all
the
streets.
We
have
a
gridded
pattern.
Is
it
perfect?
It's
not
perfect,
but
we
really
think
we've
done
a
good
job.
N
There,
Adam
Street's
connections
to
the
North
and
South
there's
some
gaps
where
there
has
been
planned,
improvements
that
have
not
been
fulfilled,
we're
working
with
both
the
city
staff
and
County
staff.
To
make
sure
those
happen,
we've
talked
with
MCC
about
schools,
believe
it
or
not.
The
school
population
MCCSC
has
not
significantly
increased
in
40
years.
It's
just
moved
around
and
it's
going
to
continue
to
move
around
with
new
developments,
which
probably
will
require
redistrict
and
moving,
but
we're
having
conversations
with
them.
N
They're
aware
there
are
projects
in
the
place
and
finally
phasing
and
triggers
we're
working
on
that
we're
coming
up
with
a
matrix,
the
traffic
study
and
utility
stuff.
It
will
help
add
to
that.
So
with
that,
that's
the
fire,
lightning
questions,
I'm
sure
you
guys
have
more
questions
we're
dealing
with
all
of
these
items,
but
if
you
look
at
them
in
general,
they
come
down
to
ordinance
off-site
improvements
and
density.
A
O
My
questions
to
Jackie
I,
guess
on
on
the
packet,
where
you
lay
out
some
questions
on
page
39
and
40.
O
Did
he
address
any
of
those
questions
that
you
still
had
kind
of
in
that
lightning
round?
That
was
a
lot
of
information.
I
was
trying
to
keep
up.
O
And
then
I
guess
there's
also
the
one
on
page
38
where
reduced
parking
setbacks,
it
seems
like
they
were
saying
they're
going
to
follow
the
YouTube.
B
Yeah,
so
he
so
in
some
of
the
projects
they
don't
want
to
another
part
in
the
main,
in
the
main
commercial
part
of
the
project.
What
we've
seen
thus
far
is
that
the
parking
would
be
either
flush
with
the
building
or
just
barely
behind
it.
So
that
is
not
the
standard
that
we
use
now
right.
We
do
20
feet
behind
the
front.
B
Building
wall,
which
is
the
equivalent
of
slightly
more
than
two
parking
spaces,
is
the
width
of
two
parking
spaces,
so
yeah
so
I
mean
the
question
then
I
think
the
question
of
so
many
of
these
details
to
you
all
is,
is
the
benefit
of
the
Pud
such
that
the
things
that
they're
asking
to
vary
from
makes
sense
that
that
you
know,
there's
they're
indicating
you
know
they're
putting
aside
a
certain
percentage
of
the
property
for
environmental
constraints,
for
example.
Well,
that's
all
required
by
code.
B
B
So
what
they
would
like
to
do
is
you
know,
use
those
percentages
on.
You
know
the
east
side
of
the
development
so
that
on
the
west
side
of
the
development
they
can
have
less
Green,
Space
and
stuff
like
that,
so
I
mean
that's
kind
of
a
question
to
you
all
is
getting
development
here.
B
You
know
important
enough
that
it
outweighs
that
each
that
each
you
know
quadrant
or
each
parcel
that
ends
up
being
built
that
that
on
their
own
they
don't
have
to
meet
the
code
and
stand
with
the
code
that
it's
okay
to
review
it
as
one
large
piece
and
say:
okay
they're
putting
putting
aside
this
much.
So
we
don't
mind
that
the
impervious
is
more
in
this
area
or
we
don't
mind.
B
B
But
as
many
of
the
questions
are
in
this
type
of
development,
it's
kind
of
like
we're
asking
you
to
weigh
is
the
benefit
that
the
community
is
getting
enough,
that
it
makes
sense
that
we
give
them
these
things
that
they're
asking
for,
so
that
they
can
maximize
the
development.
You
know
they
want
to
get
as
much
out
of
it
as
they
can,
which
makes
perfect
sense,
and
we
also
need
to
try
to
make
sure
that
the
community
is
getting
as
much
out
of
it
as
it
can
and
finding
where
that
meets.
O
B
So
if
you're
just
using
a
Udo
district-
and
you
want
to
have
the
two
additional
stories
in
MN
to
go
from
three
to
five-
you
do
incentives,
they're
starting
out
at
five,
so
they're
already
getting
those
extra
stories,
then
they're
saying
or
we
can
let
someone
do
incentives
with
this
project
and
get
two
more
so
now
we're
getting
a
seven
story
project
with
the
same
percentage
of
units.
We
would
already
be
getting
in
a
non-put
situation,
but
they
do
in
one
of
their
areas.
B
They
are
proposing
that
it'll
be
20
instead
of
15.,
so
they
are
trying
to
kind
of
refine
that
so
I
mean
I.
Think
when
he
presents
it
and
says
you
know
that
yes,
in
the
RH,
for
example,
the
district
height
is
high,
it
is
high,
but
we
don't
have
Rh
everywhere.
You
know,
that's
that's
why
it
doesn't
it's.
It's
our
residential
high
density
multi-family.
B
We
don't
have
it
in
a
lot
of
places
now
because
it
is
more
intense
than
our
other
residential
districts,
so
I
just
I'm,
not
sure
that
it's
a
good
comparison
to
say.
You
know
we
have
some
districts
that
already
allow
a
lot
of
height.
We
do,
but
those
aren't
the
the
main
areas
in
in
town
that
we
see
being
developed
so
I.
B
Think
then
the
question
to
this
board,
and
then
obviously
or
to
this
commission
and
then
obviously
also
to
council-
is
that
do
we
do
you
want
to
let
those
base
numbers
be
higher
than
what
they
already
are
in
code
for
getting
the
same
percentage
of
units
that
we
would
be
getting
anyway,
so
they
have
tweaked
again,
as
I
said
in
the
one
particular
area,
so
that
it'll
be
20
there.
If
you
want
to
do
incentives,
you
have
to
do
20
of
the
units
for
the
development
and
so
I
do
think.
B
That
is
helpful,
because
that
is
the
area
where
most
of
the
development
would
likely
occur.
Most
of
the
larger
development,
so
I
think
that
that's
definitely
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
We
are
still
working
with
them
to
clarify
how
will
this
15
that's
required
by
your
PUD,
be
met?
You
know
across
the
board,
they've
said
number
of
times
that
it'll
be
spread
through
the
five
neighborhoods,
but
exactly
how
that's
going
to
be
done.
I
think
we're
still
kind
of
talking
to
them
about
that.
O
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
my
questions
to
the
petitioners.
When
you
said
you're
actually
going
to
go
with
the
Udo
always
have
to
make
sure
I'm
not
saying
the
CDO
so
with
the
Udo
that
you're
not
talking
about.
You
want
a
a
snapshot
in
time
where
we
kind
of
discuss
freezing
the
Udo
just
to
kind
of
clarify
that,
because
you
mentioned
that
a
couple
of
times
and
on
one
of
them,
you
said
you
didn't
want
it
fixed.
N
Any
anything
that's
referenced
in
the
Udo
would
just
be
referencing
the
Udo
not
fixing
it
in
time.
It
would
be
what
it
is
today
until
such
point
in
time
you
guys
determined
to
change
the
audio
to
something
else,
so
you
know
there's
some
things
that
are
in
the
play
there,
but
we're
willing
to
to
accept
that.
So
that's
how
we
move
to
propose
to
move
forward
with
a
lot
of
these
things.
That
does
mean
there
is
some
areas
that
we
moved
into
our
our
ordinance
that
we
do
want
to
fix.
O
Awesome
and
then
I
just
have
one
question
that
I
asked
you
earlier,
which
may
be
on
some
people's
mind,
maybe
not,
but
with
the
proposed
development
surrounding
this
area
that
doesn't
diminish
your
want
of
getting
this
project
to
the
finish
line
and
developed,
correct
and
I
guess:
I
won't
be
so
ambiguous.
N
The
record,
whatever
development
takes
place
on
the
counties,
land
we're
supportive
of
our
is
supportive
of
we're,
supportive
of,
and
we
does
not
affect
how
we
would
approach
this.
We
have
made
considerations
in
our
plan
of
how
connectivity
would
work
and
how
those
uses
would
work
within
our
parcel
as
well.
P
L
So
this
question
is
for
staff,
so
I
appreciate
the
five
different
neighborhoods,
but
when
we
look
at
a
PUD,
do
we
look
at
a
PUD
as
a
whole?
Is
it
the
whole
the
whole
development
that
we
are
going
to
look
at
together,
correct.
E
L
B
So
they
have
submitted
a
number
of
tables
here
which
I
believe
are
in
the
packet,
so
they
are
indicating
that
in
each
of
the
five
oh,
it's
kind
of
complicated
and
each
of
the
five
districts
that
they're
proposing
for
zoning
that
they
will
achieve
15
percent
affordable
units
in
those
areas
it's
confusing
and
Mr,
maybe
Mr
vinsel
can
clarify
because
these
aren't
actually
the
five
neighborhoods.
B
These
are
the
five
zoning
districts
so
but
I
believe
he
has
said
verbally
multiple
times
that
actually
the
five
neighborhoods
will
also
be
represented
in
the
15
percent.
Maybe
clarify.
N
So
each
neighborhood
has
more
than
one
zoning
District
in
them.
The
zoning
districts
themselves
require
a
15
compliance
with
the
affordable
housing.
So
therefore,
by
Def
by
de
facto,
you
will
have
15
in
each
neighborhood,
because
each
neighborhood
has
these
two
zoning
districts,
one
of
at
least
two
of
these
zoning
districts
within
them.
Does
that
make
sense
what
we
propose
and
we're
still
working
with
staff
is
a
ratio
by
which
you
have
to
to
True
up
right
because
we're
not
it's
not
a
one-to-one
ratio.
N
So
it's
not
one
affordable
unit
to
one
market
rate
unit.
It's
15
percent,
so
is
that
15
allows
you
to
build
85.
Is
that
7.5
allows
you
to
build
50
does
50.
Allow
you
to
require
you
to
build
how
that
goes.
But
what
we're?
What
we
are
proposing
is
some
mechanism
by
which
ever
entrances
you
sure
up
where
you're
at
both
within
each
zoning
District,
as
well
as
across
the
entire
District.
What
we've
also
allowed,
if
you
go
back
to
that
chart,
is
we're
proposing
that
you
can
get
some
carry
Forward
credit.
N
So
let's
say
one
neighborhood
has
a
lot
more
affordable
than
the
15
required.
Some
of
that
could
carry
forward
to
another
neighborhood,
but
not
all
of
the
extra
that
you
got.
Does
that
make
sense
so
again
trying
to
spread
that
out
so
that
it's
not
all
concentrated
in
one
area
that
some
of
it
gets
to
be
carried
forward?
And
then,
if
you
go
on
down
through
here,
you
see
what
incentives
can
be
applied
for
and
whether
you
can
get
double
dip
on
the
incentives.
N
As
you
know,
if
you
do
in
the
residential
Zone
District,
your
incentives
can
only
get
you.
You
can
only
use
either
affordable
or
environmental
incentives.
You
can't
use
both,
but
in
other
districts
you
might
be
able
to
use
both
incentives
at
the
same
time,
which
is
similar
to
what
the
Hopewell
project
overlay
allows
you
to
do.
N
K
I
guess
I
have
a
couple
questions.
One
I
want
to
continue
on
this
same
line
about
the
affordability
issue
and
you
know
I
I,
think
I
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
spread
the
affordability
options
across
all
the
districts.
So
there's
a
variety
of
housing,
types
that
all
include
affordable
options
and.
D
K
Understand
that
there's
an
interest
of
the
developer
here
to
assure
that
they
are
maximizing
the
potential
to
use
incentives,
but
I
guess
I,
just
wonder
how-
and
this
might
be
a
staff
question
too,
how
will
this
be
accounted
for?
I
I
can't
imagine
that
calculations
of
how
this
will
be
accounted
for.
That's
all
I
can
say
and
to
me
it
just
seems
if
it
seems.
K
N
So
I
think
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
challenge.
I
think
it's
I,
think
staff
and
not
only
planning
department,
but
other
departments
would
tell
you
that
the
current
process,
by
which
a
percentage
of
units
have
to
be
affordable,
whether
you're
getting
incentives
or
whether
you
agree
to
it,
is
a
challenge
to
manage
I
I.
N
Think
that's
just
it
is
on
its
surface
as
the
master
developer,
we're
going
to
have
to
have
ongoing
requirements
for
building
permits
and
at
every
time
we
hit
one
of
those
building
permits,
we're
going
to
have
to
have
the
ability
to
show
up
and
say
here's
how
we're
continuing
to
meet
that.
And
if
we
don't
meet
the
ordinance.
N
Therefore,
then
the
consequence
is
we
can't
get
their
next
building
permit,
and
so
that's
where
I
was
talking
about
we're
proposing
And
discussing
what
is
that
number?
You
know?
Is
it
every
10
units
we
sure
up
or
every
100
units
or
every
a
thousand
units?
I
I,
don't
know
what
the
number
is,
but
that's
how
we
would
do
it
is
that
you
would
show
you're
within
a
certain
range
and
when
you
get
to
a
certain
point,
then
you
got
to
make
sure
you
have
enough
affordable
units
to
allow
you
to
go
to
the
next
tranche.
N
I,
don't
know
any
other
way
to
do
it
and
I,
don't
know
any
other
way
than
to
say
as
a
developer.
That's
going
to
be
our
responsibility
to
show
that
those
units
are
either
there
in
some
form
of
commitment
which
again
we're
referring
to
the
Udo
and
the
Udo
has
a
way
of
of
managing
those
affordable
commitments
in
the
Udo.
So
we're
not
proposing
anything
to
doing.
We
would
manage
it
the
same
way
all
other,
affordable
projects
and
projects
that
use
those
incentives
are
done.
N
It
would
just
be
our
responsibility
to
have
this
master
spreadsheet.
That
shows
where
we
are
and
it
I
Envision
it
being
codified
every
time
a
building
permit.
Where
you
submitted
a
spreadsheet,
you
issued
a
building
permit,
so
we
were
all
good
with
those
numbers.
Now
we
go
to
the
next
one
and
and
so
forth,.
K
K
H
K
B
Well,
we're
excited
to
try
I
mean
it
is
going
to
be
complicated.
So
that's
why
I
do
think.
It
feels
a
little
tedious,
sometimes
to
people
that
were
having
all
these
conversations
and
they
don't
seem
to
we're
not
ending
these
meetings
with
like
okay,
that
one's
done
check
that
off
the
list,
because
it
is
so
complicated
because
I
mean
for
us.
Obviously
it
would
probably
be
easier
if
this
was
by
neighborhood,
not
zoning
District,
because
then
it's
just
like
this,
because
the
zoning
districts
aren't
contiguous.
B
So
the
tracking
is
slightly
more
complicated
because
we're
talking
about
you
know,
projects
in
the
r
area,
on
the
east
side,
also
on
the
west
side,
also
at
the
South,
and
also
at
the
North
that
those
four
non-contiguous
areas
affect
each
other.
It
related
to
you
know
being
able
to
develop
and
what
percentage
we're
getting
from
those
so
I
do
think
it
makes
I
understand
what
Mr
vinsel
saying
when
he
says
you
know
like
in
theory.
B
Theoretically,
it's
being
spread
across
because
all
the
districts
have
to
have
them,
but
because
some
of
the
districts
appear
in
more
than
one
place
and
that
might
not
work
out
that
way
right
where,
if
you
get
like
a
habitat
project
or
something
that
wants
to
do
all
of
their
development
in
a
certain
portion
of
R2,
and
then
you
realize
that
this
has
gone
over
the
max
for
all
of
the
R2.
So
then
the
other
portions
don't
get
any.
We
that's
just
something
that
we
have
to
you
know,
think
about
and
how
we
will
track.
B
It
is
just
yeah
we'll
have
to
figure
that
out,
and
we
do
of
course.
Obviously
the
master
developer
will
track
it
as
well,
but
you
know
they're
not
going
to
develop
the
whole
thing,
so
we
have
to
have
a
mechanism
where
we
can
track
it
because
I
mean
it'll,
probably
be
me,
but
someone
will
be
here
doing
that
and
I
know
that
Mr
Vincent
will
do
it
for
his
projects,
but
I
have
to
make
sure
that
I
can
do
it
for
the
rest
of
it.
So
that's
why
we
just
want
to
air
these
things.
B
I
think
in
these
public
meetings
that
it
is
very
complicated
and
we
we
do
are
working
with
them
and
they
are
working
diligently
to
propose
ideas
and
figure
out
a
way
to
make
this
happen
where
they
can
still
do
it
I
think
so
you
know
go
forward
and
we
can.
You
know,
feel
satisfied
that
in
10
years,
We're
not
gonna,
just
think.
Oh,
we
messed
this
up
and
we
don't
have
any
affordable
housing
here.
B
So
that's
what,
when
Mr
Mensel
is
talking
about
where's
the
threshold
so
originally
and
one
of
the
proposals
you've
seen
they
proposed
to
be
able
to
build
300
units
before
they
start
the
15.
We
think
that's
probably
too
high,
and
so
that's
a
discussion
that
we're
having
back
and
forth
with
them.
B
You
know
the
question
being
so.
Does
our
first
project
have
to
be
affordable?
It's
like
well,
where
you
know
we
haven't
said
that
yet,
but
I
mean
maybe
that
is
how
it's
going
to
have
to
shake
out.
You
know
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
we
are
weighing
because
again,
this
is
a
very
important
part
of
the
city
to
see
something
happen
here.
B
N
I
mean
we
initially
looked
at
neighborhoods
and
maybe
we'll
go
back
to
neighborhoods.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
the
housing
product
type,
the
affordable
housing
product
type
was
in
all
product
types.
Product
top
is
more
defined
by
zoning
District
or
District
uses
than
it
is
by
a
neighborhood
right.
So
that's
the
reason
we
ended
up
tying
it
to
zoning
districts.
N
Maybe
that's
not
right.
Maybe
it
is
by
neighborhood,
but
then
the
concern
would
be
you'd
have
all
of
one
product
type
in
that
neighborhood.
So
I
I
think
this
is
all
things
that
can
be
worked
out
and
as
we
continue
to
do
our
engineering
and
work
through
other
details,
the
list
of
this
list
gets
narrower
and
narrower
of
things
that
are
complicated,
that
we
have
to
figure
out,
and
you
know
we
meet
with
the
staff
every
Wednesday
and
and
are
really
starting
to
dial
in
on
these
things.
D
K
N
I
think
I
think
what
we're
all
clear
in
that
we
don't
want
to
do
or
intend
to
happen
is
to
Simply
take
15
Acres
of
this
site
put
a
deed
restriction
on
it,
say
it's
going
to
be
affordable
and
then
go
about
our
business
only
to
find
out
at
some
point
in
time.
In
the
future.
It
never
took
place
that
that
acreage
didn't
take
place
or
we
didn't
accomplish,
having
a
diverse
across
the
fight.
So
when
you
take
that
out
of
the
mix,
then
it
becomes
a
much
more
complicated
thing
to
enforce.
N
You
know
and
the
smaller
the
site
is
the
easier
it
would
be.
You
know
we
do
puds
in
Bloomington,
where
it's
one
site
and
it's
one
building,
it's
really
easy
to
say:
15
percent,
because
it's
15
of
that
one
building
and
it's
spread
across
the
building,
because
it's
all
in
that
building.
This
is
just
a
bigger
Beast.
Q
Smith,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
really
appreciating
it
fantastic
work,
and
you
know
to
figure
all
these
things
out.
I
really
appreciate
it.
So
I
think
I'm
kind
of
I
got
the
idea
of
the
overall
concept.
One
of
the
things
that
seems
to
be
missing
all
the
time
in
Bloomington,
at
least
since
I've
been
around,
is
there's
that
missing
middle.
Is
there
a
price
point
that
you
have
any
range
that
you'd
like
to
offer
about
the
single
family
dwellings?
Q
N
Given
given
the
time
period
wants
to
have
the
first
phase
come
on,
which
is
three
years
from
now
and
I,
don't
think
if
we
look
back
three
years
in
the
history
and
predicted
what
the
average
price
in
Bloomington
was,
any
of
us
would
believe
it
is
where
it
is
today,
I'm
really
hesitant
to
tell
you
what
that
price
point
is.
What
we've
tried
to
do
is
offer
a
variety
of
Developmental
standards
that
allow
for
smaller
lots
more
compact
form,
so
that
there's
the
potential
for
people
to
build
smaller
homes
in
the
future.
N
That
will
attract
that
that
missing
middle
piece
and
not
have
you,
know
Big
Lots,
that
in
the
in
the
end
end
up
with
big
houses
to
support
the
land
value,
that's
necessary.
So
that's
the
way
we
approached
it.
I
can't
tell
you
a
Pacific
dollar
figure.
We
start
saying
ever
Center
is
being
going
to
be
about
developed
in
the
2030s.
B
Commissioner
Smith,
if
I,
can
make
a
related
comment,
and
this
was
in
the
packet,
but
so
you
can
see
here
on
the
use
table,
something
that
we
talked
about
a
lot.
That's
not
the
right,
Mouse,
sorry,
something
that
we
talked
about
a
lot
with
the
Plex
conversation
and
we've
talked
about
it
with
different
rezonings.
B
Is
that
a
concern
that,
when
you
are
allowed
to
do
multi-family
everywhere,
no
one's
going
to
build
the
missing
middle
portion,
because
they're
going
to
maximize
they're
going
to
typically
what
we
see,
especially
here,
because
student
housing
is
such
a
big
Market
here
that
someone's
going
to
buy
a
property
they're
going
to
build?
You
know
with
highest
and
best
use
on
the
property,
so
something
to
think
about
when
you're
looking
at
the
zoning
districts
is
do
some
of
these.
So
these
are
the
three
main
residential,
our
rh1
and
rh2.
B
B
So
the
idea
being
that
in
the
lower
tier,
the
the
residential
districts
that
have
traditionally
geared
toward
single
family
that
you
encourage
the
missing
middle
by
having
some
sort
of
ceiling
on
what
multifamily
can
be
built
there
or
encourage
missing
middle
and
single
and
the
detached
that
people
are
interested
in
as
well,
because,
for
example
like
in
the
rh1
and
the
rh2
here
on
the
table,
you
can't
do
detached.
You
can
only
do
it
in
the
r
District.
B
N
And
and
we're
we're
looking
at
that
as
well,
which
might
shift
some
of
those
zoning
District
Lines
they're,
really
not
zoning
lines,
they're
district
lines
in
in
the
Pud,
as
we
move
forward
again
as
we're
engineering
the
site
and
we're
seeing
where
those
best
fit.
Some
of
those
lines
might
shift
a
little
bit
for
the
colors.
R
Helpful
and
I
appreciate
it.
You
guys
continue
to
refine
us
and
at
least
for
me,
the
visuals
coming
together.
More
and
more
so,
even
though
there's
already
like
the
conversation
group
conversation,
if
you
haven't
so
I
appreciate
everything's
worth
going
into
it,
I
guess
the
question
you
brought
up
was
a
discussion
with
nccsc,
so
I
think
that's
a
big
factor,
considering
the
volume
of
individuals
with
potential
abandons.
Did
they
have
any
if
you
presented
enough
to
them,
give
them
a
sense
of
okay.
This
is
a
15-year
project.
N
So
so
a
couple
of
things
on
that:
yes,
we
presented
them
with
the
numbers
and
I
think
staff
has
also
had
conversations
with
them.
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
staff,
but,
as
I
stated,
I
was
a
sort
of
a
surprise
one.
N
When
I
was
sitting
on
the
plan
commission
20
years
ago,
and
they
told
me
the
population
hadn't
changed
for
20
years
and
then,
when
I
did
some
research
and
saw
it
hasn't
changed
in
the
last
20
years
it
has
moved
around
we've
only
Built
I
believe
one
new
school
we've
decommissioned
some
schools
and
replaced
some
schools,
but
we
haven't
built
a
lot
of
new
schools
either
again
they've
just
moved
around,
so
I
think
what
you
will
see
is
they
will
adjust
to
that
again.
Given
the
Horizon
of
this
development,
that's
a
long
ways
out.
N
You
know
this
isn't
going
to
flood
the
schools
or
Summit
instantaneously.
It's
going
to
be
over
time.
They
have,
they
admit.
They
have
said
to
me.
They
have
some
schools
that
are
underutilized
now
and
they
have
some
schools
that
are
maximized
now.
So
I
think
that
this
is
a
really
hard
problem
for
us
to
conceive
but
I
think
the
experts
that
do
that
know
how
to
do
that
and
are
aware
of
this
project.
Aware
of
what's
coming
for
the
city
and
are
taking
steps
to
address
it.
R
R
Terms
of
with
the
extent
of
the
construction
is
going
to
be
necessary
jobs
and
sort
of
attention
create.
If
you
don't
know
that
I
think
it's
a
really
good.
I
would
like
to
know
because
I
think
from
General
Public
that
sort
of
doesn't
work
impact
question
over
the
course
of
you
know.
R
N
N
So
this
is
the
new
gridded
pattern.
There
are
a
couple
of
things
in
here,
as
you
can
see.
Originally
the
grid
was
not
it
was
there
wasn't
a
total
grid,
and
then
we
we've
added
this,
but
we
still
have
some
barriers.
One
is
crossing
the
creek.
We
want
to
minimize
how
we
cross
the
creek.
We
also
have
some
environmental
features
which
are
in
the
middle
of
this
of
the
Everest
District,
which
is
the
green
open
space.
N
If
you
look
at
the
zoning
that
take
away
from
that,
going
to
the
west
to
continue,
the
grid
to
weemer
requires
crossing
a
long
area
of
floodway,
which
just
doesn't
make
economic
sense
and
doesn't
really
make
environmental
sense
to
do
to
the
South.
We
have
land
that
we
don't
own,
as
well
as
the
the
creek
as
well.
N
So
this
is
our
attempt
to
continue
the
gridded
pattern
as
much
as
possible,
considering
the
constraints,
if
you
go
to
the
green
space
map
there,
now
you
back
one
now
you
can
see
where
there's
some
green
spaces
that
we're
not
protruding
through
with
streets
that
really
would
have
limited
potential
to
have
more
development
on
them.
So
you
you
could
you
could
grid
to
the
South
where
you're
going
to
get
grid
through
trees
and
if
you're,
trying
to
preserve
those
trees,
it
really
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
have
that
go
through
there.
I
believe.
N
N
We
talked
about
gritting
more
of
the
north
east
corner
to
the
north,
but
that's
a
built
environment
of
apartments
that
have
no
grid
that
comes
to
the
South.
So
we've
chose
not
to
continue
that
grid
where
it
doesn't
already
have
connectivity,
but
to
the
east,
the
par
the
parcel
owned
by
the
county.
Where
we
don't
know
what's
taking
place,
we
have
three
roads
gridded
to
continue
the
grid.
That
way
so
again,
I
call
it
the
more
gridded
pattern,
but
it's
still
not
a
perfect
grid.
B
Experiment
enough
yeah
I
mean
we
think
it's
better.
So
one
thing
we've
commented
on
and
we'll
probably
continue
too
is
you
can
see
them
here,
alleys,
so
potentially
having
more
than
they're.
Showing
here
is
something
that
we'll
talk
about
continue
to
talk
about
with
them.
B
You
know:
does
it
make
sense
to
Alley
all
of
the
you
know
larger,
more
intense
slots
in
the
middle,
or
does
it
make
sense
to
do
that
over
here,
where
it
may
be
more
residential,
and
so
that's
something
we've
been
kind
of
pushing
them
on
a
little
bit,
because
that
is
something
that
the
Udo
desires.
You
know
more
access
from
from
Alice,
so
we
do
think
it's
better.
We've
made
a
couple
of
comments
as
Mr
vinsel
said
long
term.
B
This
connection
here
probably
doesn't
make
much
sense
so
that
one
will
probably
come
out
and
though
we
would
like
to
see
more
gritting,
for
example,
in
the
South.
We
know
why
they're
not
doing
that
I
mean
that's
a
large
area
of
tree
preservation.
It
wouldn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
add
streets
for
no
reason
down
there,
so
yeah
we
do
think
it's
coming
along
and
if
not,
if
this
isn't
the
final
version,
this
is
be
pretty
close
to
what
you'll
end
up.
Seeing
they've
done.
B
Some
connections,
for
example
here
across
from
existing
right
of
way
to
continue
those
connections
as
well.
N
With
this
layout
of
grids
and
streets
on
a
high
level,
I
mean
well.
I
was
not
a
not
a
granule
level,
but
not
a
high
level.
We're
avoiding
all
the
car's
features.
That's
really
difficult
to
do
when
we're
doing
a
gridded
street
to
stay
out
of
those,
so
those
are
kind
of
the
factors
that
now
play
into
like
on
the
far
west
side.
S
K
G
This
question
thanks
for
this,
this
is
really
and
this
packet
is
I.
Agree
super
helpful.
Just
to
I
know
you
don't
know
it's
going
to
look
like
that,
but
it
does
really
help
us
Envision.
G
What
this
is
aiming
towards
in
in
thanks
for
the
comment:
Miss
Scanlon
about
the
public
good
and
because
there
are
I
agree
with
commissioner
Kinsey
a
whole
lot
of
environmental
issues
that
the
Public's
been
really
great
at
pointing
out,
and
you
all
are
attempting
to
address
and
deal
with
so
I
think
about
the
public
good
and
in
my
mind,
what
jumps
to
the
Forefront,
of
course,
is
housing
and
affordable
housing
and
Workforce
housing
and
the
comment
in
the
beginning
about
promoting
homeownership
and
then
looking
at
Shasta
Meadows
into
dollywoods
and
Sandia
place,
I'm
curious.
G
You
know
they
all
say
two
to
three
story:
homes
and
then
four-story
residential
buildings
or
up
to
four-story
buildings,
but
two
to
three
story:
homes.
Over
and
over.
Do
you
envision
those
to
be
owner
occupied
homes?
Maybe
you
can't
see
that
far
into
the
future
you're
planning
homes?
But
how
do
you
see
that?
Because
when
I
think
about
the
opportunity,
it's
really
around
people
eventually
getting
to
home
ownership
on
some
path.
N
N
Our
commitment
is
to
23
to
30
percent
of
the
units
to
be
built
for
individual
ownership.
That
doesn't
mean
there'll,
be
a
single
family
home
on
a
single
family
lot.
They
will
just
be
constructed
by
either
a
single
family
home,
a
duplex,
a
quad,
a
condo,
a
zero
lot
line,
a
shared
common
wall
whatever,
but
so
that
an
individual
or
a
group
of
individuals
can
own
a
single
living
unit
separately.
N
Metered,
all
those
things
that
need
to
go
with
that
home
ownership
is
something
that's
very
hard
to
legislate
through
an
ordinance
like
this
and
the
only
way
to
enforce
it
is
neighbor
suing
neighbor,
there's
no
ability
for
the
city
to
come
in
and
say
you
said
you
weren't
going
to
rent
that,
but
you've
rented
it
that
doesn't
work,
neighbors
have
to
sue
neighbors
neighbors
can
get
together
and
change.
Those.
G
N
Yeah,
so
can
you
talk
about
that?
What
we've
done
is
said
that
surface
parking
lots
are
allowed
in
the
ever
Center.
Those
surface
parking
lots
instead
of
being
20
foot
behind
a
building
they
could
only
be
they
would
only
have
to
be
five
feet
behind
the
building
facade
front,
but
the
idea
being
that
a
surface
Standalone
parking
lot
can
only
be
in
place
for
three
years
at
which
point
in
time
it
either
has
to
be
built
upon
with
a
building
built
upon
with
a
parking
structure
or
turned
back
into
grass.
N
But
we
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
an
opportunity
to
park
this
District,
because
we
envision
and
the
reason
we
don't
have
alleys
through
every
one
of
these
blocks-
is
having
Regional
parking
facilities
so
that
there
can
be
a
parking
garage
just
like
we
have
in
downtown
that
serves
more
than
that.
One
block
right.
Well,
when
you
do
that,
you
don't
want
them
to
be
100
feet
by
100
feet,
because
you
just
got
this
Spyro
up
right.
N
You
got
to
have
ramp
space,
so
we
want
to
have
those
they
may
not
come
with
the
First
Development.
They
may
come
with
the
third
or
fourth,
so,
in
an
interim
basis,
you
could
have
a
surface
parking
lot
that
was
on
a
standalone
basis
for
a
three-year
period.
I
think
what
we
actually
have
written
is
a
three
year
period
that
could
be
approved
with
two
one-year
extensions.
So
let's
say
somebody
came
in
and
they
were
building
it.
N
But
okay,
we
got
a
little
bit
of
time
that
staff
could
approve
so
five
years,
Max
three
years
at
a
time
that
you
could
have
the
surface
parking
lot,
so
yeah
we're
losing
a
little
more
land,
it's
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
street,
but
the
idea
this
is
a
temporary
use.
How
do
we
maximize
that?
Small
I
also
believe
it's
limited
to
50
parking
spots?
Is
that
right?
N
So
if
we're
not
talking
massive
parking,
we're
talking
about
there's
an
apartment
building
or
a
commercial
building
built,
there's
not
enough
parking
within
that
building
soon
there
will
be
a
regional
parking
facility
that
will
take
that
and
an
interim.
You
can
build
a
50
car
surface
parking
lot
for
three
year
period.
B
Think
about
the
setback,
but
it's
not
quite
the
same
thing.
These
are
parking
lots
on
Lots,
where
there's
nothing
else,
and
so
we
understand
that
their
plan,
you
know
the
basic
you
know,
30
000
foot
plan
is
to
allow
those
types
of
lots
so
that,
as
the
developments
build
up
around
them,
then
there
is
enough
demand
for
garages,
and
so
we
are
including
have
talked
to
them
about
including
a
time
limit
right.
So
you
know
if
something
happens
and
the
market
goes
down
and
you
can't
build
those
other
buildings.
B
This
has
to
come
out
anyway.
So
it's
like
a
risk.
It's
a
risk
to
them
to
have
that
be
included.
It'll
have
to
either
be
built,
something
has
to
be
built
there
or
taken
out,
and
you
know
turned
to
Green
Space,
because
obviously
we
don't
allow
Standalone
service
parking
lots
to
be
built
new.
Thank
you.
N
That
makes
sense.
So
I
can't
speak
and
say
I'm
guaranteeing
you
parking
on
every
street
as
you,
every
subdivision
comes
along,
but
in
most
canases
the
way
we've
currently
designed
it.
It's
on
both
sides
of
the
street.
It
is
required
in
the
ever
Center
to
have
parking
on
both
sides
of
the
street.
It
can
be
parallel
or
it
can
be
angled
parking.
N
I'm
not
saying
we
couldn't
it's
just
designing
it
out
and
making
sure
that
we
have
enough
space
for
the
the
multi-use
trail,
the
five
foot
tree
plot
the
street
and
the
living
unit.
On
the
other
side.
That's
that's
why
some
of
the
residential
subdivision
types,
if
you
choose
to
use
it,
might
not
required
on
both
sides.
We
Believe,
most
places
will
have
it
on
both
sides.
That's
how
we've
conceived
it,
but
I
just
want
to
I'm
just
trying
to
be
transparent.
I,
don't
know
that
it's
required
on
the
hall.
M
N
B
It
says:
there's
a
separation
requirement.
N
Yeah,
so
so
it's
service
blocks
shall
be
Ingress
and
egress
right
away.
It
shall
be
a
minimum
of
600
feet:
separation
between
any
two
surface
Lots.
So
that
basically
means
you
could
only
have
one
every
other
block.
N
T
M
Okay
and
then,
and
then
just
because
I,
like
numbers
at
one
point
you
had
listed
when
I
think
you
went
through
the
Q,
a
section
how
many
total
and
I
added
up
all
the
numbers
on
our
little
sheets
and
they
were
slightly
different,
but
big
picture
either
4475
or
4
375
is
the.
R
R
K
Okay,
the.
K
F
L
N
So
originally
the
what
you
see
is
the
blue
r
right.
There
was
an
MX
District,
so
we
changed
that
to
in
our
district
and
it's
a
town
home
style.
So
once
we
change
that
to
an
R
District,
this
the
height
comes
down
on
those,
as
well
as
the
require
lot
size
requirement,
as
well
as
what
subdivision
you
can
use
when
you're
developing
that
piece
so
that
all
plays
into
that
up
there,
then,
if
you'll,
move
to
the
slide
about
the
transition.
N
Then
we
went
and
added
additional
standards
that
are
specific
to
facing
Sudbury
and
how
tall
those
buildings
could
be
before
they
need
a
step
back
and
that
step
back.
So
you
can
see
there
the
purple
areas,
that's
where
we've
limited
the
height
in
the
half
a
block
facing
Sudbury,
and
so,
if
you
look
at
the
small
depiction
on
the
top,
if
you're
imagining
you're
standing
in
the
back
on
that
picture,
yeah
Jackie
there
you
go,
make
it
bigger.
So
you
can
see
it.
N
If
you
imagine
you're
standing
on
Sudbury
and
you
look
at
that
four-story
building
across
the
street,
you
will
never
be
able
to
see
the
taller
buildings
because
they're
going
to
be
out
of
your
line
of
vision
out
of
your
view,
shed
because,
as
you
look
up,
you're
going
to
look
be
looking
way
taller
than
the
building
down
the
hill.
A
If
you
would
like
to
make
public
comment,
if
you're
here
in
the
chambers
just
step
up
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
for
the
record
you'll
have
up
to
five
minutes
to
make
your
comment.
If
you
are
joining
us
online,
just
click
on
the
reactions.
Button
click
on
the
raise
hand,
option,
and
we
will
recognize
you
to
the
best
of
our
ability
in
the
order
that
your
hands
have
been
raised.
U
I'm
Ted
Frick
I
live
in
Weimer,
Road
I
wrote
a
letter
with
my
wife,
I
hope,
you've
seen
it
in
the
packet
and
I
just
want
to
bring
a
little
bit
of,
hopefully
a
little
bit
of
reality.
The
situation
after
I
saw
the
packet
from
the
last
meeting
in
August.
There
was
a
very
significant
email
from
Steve,
Smith
I,
don't
know
Steve,
but
he's
a
professional
engineer.
Surveyor
has
been
around
a
long
time,
he's
retired
and
he
made
the
point
of
he
didn't
think
people
were
realizing.
U
As
you
can
see
yeah
on
the
screen
there
that's
a
picture
of
largely
what
is
going
to
be
Shasta
Meadow
in
the
current
plan.
Okay,
it's
a
hillside.
U
I
took
that
about
halfway
up
our
property
up
the
hill.
If
you
look
at
Arbor
Ridge
and
the
trees
behind
it,
the
tall
trees
behind
Arbor
Ridge,
that's
about
2500
feet
or
roughly
half
a
mile.
Just
to
put
this
into
perspective,
we're
looking
at
a
half
a
mile,
that's
about
25
acres
or
so
that
looks
grassy
and.
U
Using
Steve
Smith's
comparison,
this
would
be
about
two
of
the
Kmart
projects
in
size,
two
of
them,
okay,
at
340
units
per
project,
or
multiply
that
times
two
680
units.
Okay
on
roughly
that
Hillside,
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
to
your
attention.
It's
a
big
place.
I've
lived
on
women
Road
for
46
years
and
I
know
the
area
very
well.
I've
walked
most
of
it
at
one
time
or
another.
It's
quite
hilly
and
the
other
thing
I
just
want
you
to
think
about.
U
While
this
picture
is
up
here
is
I
was
trying
to
imagine
what
a
10-story
building
would
look
like
on
the
top
of
the
hill.
Okay,
that's
where
ever
Center
is
it's
one
of
the
highest
points?
I,
don't
think
it's
an
accident
that
it's
called
Everest
Center
since
most
of
these
neighborhoods
are
named
after
mountains
like
Mount,
Shasta,
Denali
and
so
on.
U
It's
roughly
800
feet
above
sea
level
right
there
above
Arbor
Ridge,
that's
one
of
the
highest
points
in
Bloomington
and
if
we're
going
to
put
five
or
seven
or
ten
story
buildings
up
there,
they're
going
to
be
pretty
high
up
in
the
air,
and
so
I
was
just
trying
to
imagine
what
that
would
look
like
the
developers
saying
they're
going
to
move
those
downhill,
so
they
won't
see
seems
so
tall,
but
Arbor
Ridge
is
way
up
high
to
begin
with
so
I
I,
just
don't
know
what
that's
going
to
look
like
now.
U
I
was
looking
at
previous
plans.
They've
changed
they've
changed
them,
some
in
the
new
layouts
and
so
I'll.
Take
that
into
account.
The
second
thing
I
want
to
talk
about
is
drainage,
very
concerned
about
that
I.
Don't
know!
If
you
look
at
the
picture
there,
you
see
kind
of
a
Groove
going
down
diagonally
from
the
top
right
to
the
lower
left.
That's
a
ravine!
When
it
rains
hard
water
comes
gushing
down.
There,
I
mean
a
lot
of
water.
You
can
see
how
much
it's
rained
by
the
amount
of
water
going
down
that
Hill.
U
U
U
U
The
last
thing
I
want
to
talk
about
is
traffic,
and
mostly
the
problem
right
now
with
weemer
road
is
you've
got
one
way
out
to
the
north
one
way
out
to
the
South.
If
you
want
to
go
somewhere
else,
and
you
don't
have
any
other
choice,
there's
stop
signs
on
two
busy
thoroughfares
West
Bloomfield,
Road
and
Tap.
Road
traffic
can
back
up
and
it
can
take
a
while.
So
we
don't
have
any
choice
when
you're
talking
about
the
grid.
U
F
V
Hi
y'all,
my
name,
is
Amy
Countryman
and
I
have
lived
in
Bloomington
for
a
pretty
long
time
and
I
ride
my
bike,
pretty
much
every
Saturday
down,
Weimer
Road
from
my
house,
down
to
the
farmers
market
there
at
the
Woolery,
Mill
and
I've
just
every
every
time,
I
ride
by
it
I
just
I,
see
that
land
and
I'm
always
struck
by
how
beautiful
it
is.
I,
don't
know
if
y'all
have
been
out
there.
V
I've
never
walked
on
it,
but
it's
it's
just
gorgeous
with
the
creek
and
the
fields
and
there's
big
old
trees
on
there
and
I.
Just
felt
like
I
just
wanted
to
come,
give
a
another
perspective
on
this
project.
V
Thank
you
to
Dave,
Askins
I,
think
I
read
that
there
were
going
to
be
6
000
people
living
over
there
and
my
heart
broke
a
little
bit
and
you
know
I
hear
now
it's
down
to
like
4
375,
but
I've
lived
here
long
enough
to
remember
when
Bloomington
had
a
lot
more
forests
and
a
lot
more
farms
and
a
lot
more
Wild
Spaces
than
it
does
now.
V
I
don't
know
if
anybody
remembers
that,
but
I
do
well
the
tree,
sitters
lost
and
so
did
the
trees
and
so
to
the
creek
and
the
fields,
and
this
one
probably
will
too
but
I
just
I,
just
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
like
I
just
want
to
take
a
moment
to
try
to
be
a
good
citizen
and
to
try
to
ask
you
all
to
use
the
power
that
you
have
to
think
about
the
health
of
our
community
and
of
our
planet
in
the
bigger
picture,
one
of
one
of
the
books
that
I'm
reading
right
now
is
this
one
by
Scott,
Russell
Sanders.
V
It's
called
the
conservationist
Manifesto
and
he
lives
here
in
Bloomington,
and
he
said
something
that
that
actually
made
me
want
to
come
here
and
talk
tonight
that
I
read.
He
said:
good
citizenship
begins
with
the
right
conduct
of
one's
own
life
and
one's
household,
and
then
it
stretches
out
to
embrace
one's
community
and
the
surrounding
watershed.
V
Only
by
taking
on
responsibility
for
the
well-being
of
your
place,
can
you
become
a
good
citizen
of
a
state
and
Nation
or
the
planet,
and
that
just
moved
me.
You
know
because
I
feel
like
in
this
community,
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
care
a
lot
about
this
place
and
I
feel
like
we're
losing
a
lot
right
now
with
how
much
development's
Happening,
Here
and
I
know.
I
know
people
need
homes,
I'm
real
grateful
to
live
in
a
home,
but
you
know
in
this
book
Scott
Russell
Sanders
on
his
opening
his
opening.
V
Essay
he
talks
about
Browns,
Woods
and
I.
Just
wanted
to
read
you
something
that
he
said
because
I
think
it
applies
to
this
place
too.
V
He
said
the
arguments
for
turning
Brown's
Woods
into
the
Canterbury
House
Apartments
are
familiar,
people
need
somewhere
to
live,
people
need
jobs.
Investors
deserve
a
return
on
their
Capital.
The
city
must
grow.
We
can
always
think
of
reasons
for
subduing
land
to
our
desires,
but
whatever
the
arguments,
the
upshot
is
that
the
felling
of
Brown's
Woods
has
diminished
our
Commonwealth
and
those
who
live
here
after
us
will
inherit
a
Grimmer
grimier
place.
V
The
Red,
Oaks
and
shag
bark
hickories
have
no
such
chance,
nor
do
the
dogwoods
and
dog
tooth
violets
the
blood
root
and
the
chanterelles.
These
neighbors
have
no
say
over
the
future
of
the
neighborhood.
They
write.
No
checks
cast
no
votes,
they
have
no
voice
in
how
we
use
the
land
unless
some
of
us
speak
up
for
them.
As
the
tree
sitters
have
tried
to
do.
V
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
all
the
answers,
but
I
just
wonder
what
it
will
take
for
us
as
a
community
to
recognize
that
caring
for
each
other
means
caring
for
the
Earth
and
when
I
saw
that
map.
That
was
up
there.
That
was
the
satellite
picture
and
there
was
all
the
development
all
around,
and
then
there
was
that
big
beautiful
green
space
in
the
middle
I
saw
a
really
different
possibility,
a
really
different
opportunity
for
us,
as
a
community.
V
F
W
Hello,
my
name
is
Steven
shot,
I
went,
1620,
Weber
and
I.
Just
quickly
was
just
makes
Point
there's
another
our
property.
We
have
a
creek
coming
through
the
property
and
that
that
Pro,
that
Creek
is
basically
right
off
from
the
apartments
that
are
back
behind
the
wapahati,
where
the
old,
where
that
pawn
shop
that
there's
an
enormous
amount
of
water
coming
down
through
there
when
it
rains
and
where
the
other
gentlemen,
his
picture
is
basically
where
that
Ravine
comes
down
all
the
now
we're
adding
more
roads.
Coming
down
that
Hill.
W
I
don't
know
if
anyone
can
actually
comprehend
how
much
water
that
is,
if
you
sit
watch
it
it's
like
watching
the
Grand
Canyon
or
something
the
way
the
water
is
churning
up,
it'd,
be
fatal
for
a
kid
or
an
adult,
and
as
I
see
the
map,
there's
actually
a
proposed
pedestrian
walkway
going
right
through
right,
where
that
Creek
is.
It
is
not
even
on
the
map.
W
So
that's
basically
my
biggest
concern
there
like.
How
are
we
going
to
add
roads
coming
down
a
hill
towards
a
FEMA
flood
zone
and
improve
the
drainage?
How
is
that
going
to
happen?
That's
part,
I,
don't
know
it's
coming
the
waters
coming
back
the
other
way
and
how
do
I
put
it?
I
don't
want
to
go
on
a
tangent,
but
this
happened
before
we
own
the
property,
the
free
Wing
family
when
they
took
the
Twin
Lakes
became
one
wake
and
the
water
just
got
routed
through
her
property,
and
really
nobody
ever
did
anything
about
it.
W
The
way
I
could
tell
there's
a
culvert
there.
It's
forces
the
water
to
turn
30
degrees
to
go
underneath
Weimer
and
when
it
rains,
you
can
watch
the
water
sooner
or
later,
there's
not
going
to
be
a
road
there
and
now
you're
going
to
add
more
water.
Coming
that
way,
somebody
really
needs
to
take
a
look
at
that.
W
That's
all
sorry,
I,
don't
want
to
be
able
to
be
a
thorn
at
anybody's
side,
but
there's
a
lot
of
water
there
and
there's
just
there's
ideas
proposed
for
that
exact
area
like
right.
There,
like
obviously
nobody's
booked
nobody's
been
down
there
nobody's
paid
any
attention
to
it.
I
do
I
hope.
Someone
else
does.
Thank
you.
Bye.
X
Hi
I'm
Rachel,
Noble
I
live
on
weema,
Road
and
first
I
want
to
thank
Angela
and
Travis
for
meeting
with
the
neighborhood
last
week.
That
was
very
helpful.
X
One
of
the
things
about
this
format
is
we,
the
public,
ask
questions
and
it's
the
end
of
the
meeting.
Nobody
ever
actually
answers
the
questions
and
Travis
was
very
honest
and
correct
and
saying
his
responsibility
as
far
as
what
he
does
about
the
water
on
their
property
is
what
they're
concerned
about,
and
then
it
ends
at
that
line.
That's
the
edge
of
their
property.
They
will
follow
rules
and
laws
and
whatever
they
have
to
do.
But
my
question
to
you
I
guess:
I'm
going
to
stop
asking
them.
X
If
you
approve
this
project,
what
are
you
going
to
do
to
help
the
people
on
Weimer
Road,
when
we
have
water
coming
at
us
from
every
direction
and
what,
if
it
doesn't
work,
we
did
the
Twin,
Lakes
and
I'm?
One
of
the
people
who
can
attest
to
the
city
walked
away
from
the
problem
they
created.
You
approve
this.
They
do
what
they're
supposed
to
do,
what,
if
it
doesn't
work,
who's
going
to
help
us
and
unfortunately,
as
we
all
know,
Weimer
is
divided
between
city
and
county.
X
The
water
problem
is
a
city
in
a
County
and
the
new
development
and,
as
Steve
said,
it's
the
apartments
behind
us.
You
know
there's
a
pipe
in
Kent,
Lawson's
property
that
comes
from
the
apartments
that
are
there.
It
goes
into
our
Creek
before
my
house
and
it
floods,
Mark's
house,
but
it's
like
the
city
did
that
and
letting
the
water
come
to
a
Creek
in
front
of
like
five
or
six
houses.
X
Steve
has
done
an
incredible
job
since
he
bought
his
property
they're
used
to
when
I
bought.
My
property
in
92
be
a
lake
to
my
neighbors
to
the
right,
a
lake
in
front
of
three
houses
he
has
dug
out
and
done
such
a
good
job,
getting
the
water
flowing
again
on
his
property,
and
just
since
this
all
started
I'm
thinking,
hey
I,
haven't
seen
that
Lake
every
time
it
rained
there
was
a
lake
and
there's
not
a
lake
anymore,
because
he's
done
such
a
good
job.
X
If
this
doesn't
work,
he's
back
to
it's
coming
at
his
house
and
we
have
a
lake
in
front
of
all
of
our
houses
again
so
I
guess
I'm
asking
you
to
answer
to
us.
If
you
approve
this,
what
is
the
city's
responsibility
to
make
sure
that
it
works
and
if
it
doesn't
work,
are
you
going
to
be
there
to
help
us
figure
out
how
to
make
it
work?
Thank
you.
S
My
name
is
Vivian
pernish
I
help
homeowner
on
Weimar
Road.
Thank
you,
Travis
and
Angela
for
meeting
with
us
on
Wednesday.
We
had
about
an
hour
and
15
minutes.
You
answer
a
lot
of
questions
and
I
hear
it
heard
it
really
clear
from
you,
as
Rachel
has
said,
that
you
will
follow
all
local
state
city
and
state
and
federal
regulations
on
storm
water
prevention.
S
Given
that
I've
done
some
research
on
it,
I
understand
that's
the
most
you
can
do,
which
you
know
that
I
heard
that
loud
and
clear,
but
as
Ted
has
pointed
out
in
his
letter
after
Lake
Weimer
was
taken
down
at
the
Wapahani
Bike
Park
flooding
has
worsened
on
that
southern
end
of
Weimar
Road,
so
the
city
has
had
a
track
record
of
making
things
worse.
Alima
wrote:
how
do
you
assume
that
we
will
trust
you
all
and
everybody
else
here
that
this
will
not
make
matters
worse?
S
So
that's
just
one
comment
and
also
in
my
previous
letter,
which
Jackie
has
so
kindly
included
again
in
this
packet
that
the
state
has
not
even
realized.
Lake
Weimer
is
not
there.
So
somehow
it's
still
listed
as
a
water
body,
so
I
just
don't
know
if
there's
a
miscommunication
somewhere
who's
really
responsible
of
making
sure
the
removal
of
a
damn
that
damn
is
not
making
things
worse
and
you're,
not
adding
you
know
more
storm
water,
drainage,
I
mean
I
I
like
Travis's,
optimistic
thinking
that
you
you
will
help
reduce
that
problem.
S
But
time
will
tell
because
you
know
yes,
so
that's
one
another
thing
exactly.
If
you
don't
mind,
can
you
go
to
page
55
of
this
meetings
packet?
A
really
good
question
you
raised
there
I
didn't
really
think
about
that.
You
know,
of
course,
not
the
professional
here
at
all,
but
on
that
zoning
requirements
list
where
you
have
all
the
r
rrh
rh2.
So
if
you
look
across
so
those
first
five,
our
rh1
rh2
mixed
mnmx
on
the
second
to
the
last
line,
dwelling
multi-family
is
allowed
across
all.
S
S
Buildings
just
like
the
Canterbury
Apartments,
perhaps
or
something
even
more,
more
dense.
So
if
those
possibilities
are
now
removed,
then
that's
you
know
that
might
be
a
possible
in
the
future.
So
I
agree
with
what
Jackie
has
asked
earlier
to
make
our
less
to
have
fewer
choices
or
maybe
rh1,
to
have
fewer
choices
so
that
you
have
more
diverse
housing
options,
because
if
a
multi-family
dwelling
works
so
well
in
terms
of
you
know
your
return
during
investment,
then
there's
no
incentive
for
somebody
to
not
use
that
in
the
future.
S
So
that's
just
one
question
and
if
that's
the
case,
then
you're
really
encouraging
a
large
percentage
of
rentals
and
that
does
not
encourage
homeownership,
like
Karen
has
pointed
out
in
my
in
our
letter
to
the
plan
commission
last
month
on
page
96
of
this
packet
again
as
Browns
was
and
me
as
a
newer
resident
to
Bloomington,
we've
only
moved
here
seven
years
ago,
I
had
no
idea
that
bronze
was
with
such
a
controversy
back
20
years
ago.
S
So
thank
you
so
much
Amy
for
just
you
know,
bring
some
reality
and
pointing
us
to
what
has
happened
there.
People
has
toiled
over
that
decision
I'm
sure
20
years
ago,
and
now
all
you
see
for
Browns
Woods
is
that
Parks
and
Rec's
page
in
their
plan,
where
this
area
is
not
suitable
for
development.
This
is
so
full
of
cars
features,
and
this
is
not
even
suitable
for,
like
a
wreck
facility,
you
know,
Twin
Lakes
is
not
going
to
make
this
into
a
trail.
S
Instead,
it's
just
left
alone
as
a
piece
of
woods
which
I'm
sure
was
a
lot
larger
back
then
so
I
really
don't
know
what
happened
there.
I
don't
know
what
conversations
took
place
but
yeah
I.
Think
today,
in
you
know
the
next
few
months
will
be
another
opportunity
for
us
to
to
not
have
to
not.
You
know,
possibly
to
avoid
some
mistakes
we've
made
in
the
past
if
there
were
any
so
also
just
some
questions,
Travis
and
Angela
answer
a
lot
of
questions.
S
Our
questions
on
Wednesday,
the
environmental
study,
as
they
stated,
was,
was
submitted
to
the
city
already,
and
it's
just
now
been
made
public.
The
environmental
study
you
said
it
was
submitted
two
months
ago
is
that
right,
yeah,
so
two
versions
has
not
been
made
public
I'm.
Just
asking.
Can
that
be
made
public
to
us?
S
That's
one.
The
traffic
study
also
they've
stated
that
that
will
not
be
conducted
at
this
level,
so
we'll
have
to
they'll
have
to
wait
till
this
is
recommended
to
the
city
council
and
that's
when
we'll
have
the
traffic
study.
Is
that
true
I'm
just
asking
and
therefore
is
that
enough?
All
these
triggers
of
phasing
won't
be
available
for
us
at
November
meeting.
Is
that
even
realistic
for
us
to
expect
a
boat
so
I'm
thinking?
You
know
we
want
more
studies
to
be
made
public
before
a
decision
is
made.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
we're
going
to
go
now
to
online
comment
and
we'll,
and
once
we've
heard
from
the
online
commenters
we'll
come
back
to
comments
here
in
the
chambers.
B
B
A
T
Hi,
my
name
is
Deb
keekin
I
am
a
resident
at
Arbor
Ridge.
First
of
all,
I
want
to
acknowledge
and
thank
the
petitioner
for
addressing
many
of
the
questions
we
have
raised
so
far
it.
It
really
helps
to
get
answers
to
our
questions
and,
on
a
personal
level,
I'm
very
happy
to
see
that
the
density
is
going
down,
but
I
think
it's.
We
still
have
a
little
bit
ways
to
go
before
it
will
feel
like
a
reasonable
and
comfortable
for
this
part
of
town.
We're
not
downtown
I
know
you
want
an
urban
walkable.
T
Your
marketing
language
is
very
pleasant,
but
it
doesn't
seem
very
practical
to
us
who
live
on
this
side
of
town
where
nothing
is
walkable
now,
and
that
means
to
make
a
walkable
neighborhood.
Everything
has
to
like
arrive
at
the
same
time
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
I'm,
not
very
optimistic
that
that
will
happen.
T
So
that's
just
an
opening
comment
of
mine,
but
we
have
witnessed
a
little
bit
of
a
pivot
toward
asking
the
city
what
they
are
going
to
do
to
control
the
surrounding
area
and
and
certainly
those
the
folks
on
Weimer
Road
have
a
a
very
vested
interest
in
that.
T
But
so
do
the
rest
of
us
because
we
travel
through
that
area
and
the
traffic
study
is
supremely
important,
because,
if
you're
going
to
have
this
many
more
people,
then
even
if
the
road,
even
if
the
roads
we
have
now
are
a
little
bigger
and
there's
a
couple
of
more
roads
within
the
development
to
get
around
I.
T
Don't
see
any
information
forthcoming
from
the
city
and
or
County
on
how
the
roads
that
give
us
access
into
this
new
development
will
be
must
be
improved
before
the
development
can
really
take
hold
because
it
would
be
if
traffic
is
difficult.
Now
it
will
be
terrible
if
there's
more
and
more
people
trying
to
get
through
this
area
on
these
very
narrow
and
already
dangerous
intersections.
So
I
I'm
going
to
cast
my
vote
and
say
please
the
city
and
the
city
in
conjunction
with
the
county.
T
Are
you
know
before
there's
any
groundbreaking
and
I
also
want
to
just
end
by
saying
I
really
appreciate
all
the
work
the
staff
is
doing
and
the
council
members
are
doing,
because
this
is
a
complicated
mess.
The
the
affordable
housing
situation
is
a
challenge
and
I.
Don't
envy
you
to
have
to
figure
out
how
to
keep
track
of
all
that,
because
the
timing
of
those
affordable
houses
and
their
availability
is
going
to
be
very
important
to
the
people
who
need
them
right
now.
T
B
We
only
have
had
one
so
far
if
you'd
like
to
make
a
comment
on
our
online,
please
raise
your
virtual
hand
or
send
a
message
to
Jacqueline
Scanlon
the
host
great.
A
Y
Thank
you
and
my
apologies
for
budding
in
a
little
earlier.
I
want
to
basically
I'm
pleased
that
the
developer
is
listening
somewhat.
However,
the
density
is
still
too
great.
I,
don't
believe
that
when
the
city
created
the
idea
of
the
Pod
development
and
its
zoning
a
few
years
ago,
that
envisioned
creating
a
city
within
a
city
I
believe
what
they
were
interested
in.
Creating
was
an
environment
of
housing.
Y
The
different
types
that
would
create
a
neighborhood
that
would
blend
in
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
43
4370
is
a
lot
better
than
over
six
thousand,
but
the
density
is
still
too
great
and
I'll
refer
back
to
the
letter
that
I
wrote
talking
about
the
issues,
the
density,
the
building
height,
the
parking
and
environmental
requirements
and
traffic.
Some
of
these
are
slowly
being
addressed,
but
they're
not
being
addressed
quick
enough
and
that's
the
whole
issue.
Y
Y
They
never
knew
existed
and
there's
a
lot
of
nice
inexpensive
homes
there
that
people
are
have
a
lot
of
pride
in
I'm,
not
sure
they
realize
that
that's
going
to
affect
them,
because
the
traffic
is
going
to
be
going
by
their
streets
too.
So
all
in
all,
my
simple
request
is
that
the
developer
look
at
it
the
city,
look
at
it
and
refine
what
they
really
want.
Y
A
Z
Across
1604
Weimer
Road,
just
another
person
expressing
my
exact
same
sentiments.
What
Amy
said
a
lot
of
us
feel
that
exact
same
way
been
here
over
30
years
now,
self-employed
in
this
town,
it's
a
great
town,
I
make
a
great
living
just
being
a
handyman
in
this
town
and
I
appreciate
all
the
new
business
that
does
come
in
on
a
commercial
residential
aspect.
It's
great
for
business.
It
is
booming
and
there
are
certain
things
that
sometimes
we
say
just
because
you
can
build
it
there
should
you
build
it
there.
Z
Z
The
more
input
from
the
town
itself
saying:
here's,
what
our
true
needs
are,
but
a
city
within
a
city
that
just
doesn't
bode
well
for
many
of
us
as
Ted
mentioned
about
the
waterways,
as
you
can
see
that
in
this
town
it
is
amazing
how
this
domino
effect
goes
all
the
way
down
to
Clear
Creek
Trail
people
that
are
not
even
here
that
are
further
Downstream.
Are
going
to
be
impacted
greatly,
you
got
rid
of
the
Twin
Lake,
we're
down
to
one
kind
of
smaller
Pond.
The
eutrophication
in
that
pond
is
increasing
dramatically.
Z
Z
Oh
absolutely
this
is
going
to
impact
us
greatly.
It's
going
to
flood
part
of
our
land
when
we
had
that.
First,
major
rain
after
they
got
rid
of
the
wapa
Honey
Lake
right
across
the
whole
area,
then
the
Beavers
added
insult
to
injury
and
they
blocked
part
of
our
Creek
and
then
the
whole
cornfield
off
the
side
became
more
like
a
wetland.
Well,
the
city
came
in
and
undid
the
Beavers
yay
and
then
the
water
got
to
flow
again,
but
it
was
comical
on
how
much
of
a
retaining
pond
was
naturally
occurring.
Z
So
the
water
is
saying
to
itself
guess
what
I
like
to
go
somewhere.
Naturally,
and
every
time
you
do
something
you
kind
of
just
move
it
down
down
the
stream
literally,
and
it
just
compounds
the
interest.
So
it's
very
disconcerting
to
hear
that
this
much
more
water
is
going
to
be
coming
us
once
again.
The
Topography
of
the
land
doesn't
really
bode
well,
as
we
look
at
how
it's
been
utilized
in
the
past
yay,
it's
a
coin
field
be
nice.
Z
AA
My
name
is
Vicki
Pollard
I
was
here
last
meeting
and
I
have
some
of
the
same
concerns
as
Amy,
but
right
now
what
I'm
thinking
when
I'm
sitting
here
listening
to
everyone
talk
I
feel
like
we're
looking
at
time
as
though
it
doesn't
change
things
and
we're
looking
at
great
changes.
The
city
has
a
climate
change
study
that
I
I've
been
trying
to
get
through
we're
looking
at
this,
as
though
things
aren't
going
to
get
worse
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
water
that
we're
going
to
see
flowing
through
our
city.
AA
That's
just
not
the
way
it's
going
to
be
and
we're
thinking
that
this
could
you
know
everybody's
worried
about
water
rushing
here
and
there
I
don't
blame
them.
It's
not
going
to
get
better
and
you
can
you
can
sit
here
and
say
that
you
know
you're
going
to
take
every
precaution
to
control
the
flow
of
water
throughout
the
city,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
the
way
it
is
now
in
not
very
much
time.
AA
So
I
hope
you'll
think
about
that
and
I
hope
you
can
live
with
the
decision
that
you
make
at
the
end
of
the
day.
I,
don't
envy
you
I,
don't
envy
you
being
in
your
position,
but
I
I.
Just
think
this
is
all
a
big
mistake
and
I
think
we
need
to
think
about
doing
something
else
with
that
land
that
was
that
was
given
to
us
all.
AA
I
mean
ownership
is
one
thing,
but
it's
just
not
okay
for
one
group
of
people
to
do
things
that
are
going
to
to
bring
so
much
misery
to
the
rest
of
us
in
the
name
of
of
fixing
a
problem
that
this
isn't
even
going
to
fix.
This
is
not
going
to
fix,
affordable
housing.
This
isn't
going
to
fix
low-income
housing,
which
is
what
we
really
need.
AA
E
Hi,
my
name
is
Susan
welsan
I
live
on
Weimer,
Road
and
I've,
been
in
another
meeting,
all
night,
so
I'm
not
sure,
what's
been
discussed
tonight,
but
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
my
neighbors
have
talked
about
drainage
and
traffic
issues.
So
I
won't
go
back
over
that.
But
I
would
like
to
ask
a
question
to
the
city
and
the
planning
commissioners.
E
When
do
you
see
improvements
for
weema
road
coming,
Weimer,
Road
and
Allen
intersection
are
some
of
the
most
dangerous
places
in
town
and
I
know
they've
been
on
the
City's
map
for
a
long
time
for
improvements,
but
it's
it's
never
happened
over
the
decades
to
build
something
of
this
magnitude
and
this
density
of
Road
on
this
road.
You
really
need
to
improve
the
infrastructure
first,
so
I
would
like
the
Planning
Commission
to
ask
the
city
to
ask
the
transportation
department.
E
A
Right
anymore,
in
the
chambers
here:
okay.
That
concludes
our
public
comment.
We're
now
back
to
the
commission
for
any
final
comments
or
emotion,.
O
Yeah
I'll
just
speak
quickly
about
the
critical
drainage
area
which
we're
actually
trying
to
not
refer
to
just
as
a
critical
watershed.
The
Westport
Clear
Creeks,
Clear,
Creek,
Watershed
or
critical
drainage
area
that
we
refer
to
it
in
Monroe
County.
We
actually
have
more
strenuous
storm
water
water
release
rates
because
we
have
identified
this
as
a
very
important
area
to
you
know,
try
to
mitigate
any
type
of
adverse
impacts
and
there
has
been
occasional,
flash
flooding
down
south
in
the
Clear
Creek
area.
O
So
I
do
understand
their
concerns
and
I
did
want
to
bring
that
up,
and
that
could
be
something
the
city
could
entertain
as
having
more
of
a
strenuous
release
rate.
It
I
think
we
at
the
county
were
in
working
with
the
drainage
board
and
the
storm
water
program
have
addressed
these
concerns.
By
doing
things
of
that
nature,
not
going
to
say
it's
a
fix-all,
and
but
it's
a
it's
a
way
to
maybe
look
at
that.
O
It's
also
adjacent
to
seeking
Creek,
Watershed
or
drainage
area,
so.
L
Yeah
I
I
do
pay
attention
to
what
Vivian
has
brought
up
on
page
55
on
the
chart
that
if
every
zoning
has
dwelling
multi-family
allowed,
it's
permitted
it's
highly
likely
that
the
that's.
What
will
happen
in
those
zones
in
every
zoning?
So
that's
something
that
I
think
we
should
look
at
the
r
zoning
I
mean
if
that
is
excluded
from
our
zoning.
It
could,
you
know,
give
a
little
relief
in
that
sense.
L
I
think
that's
something
that
you
should
look
at
as
as
a
developer,
otherwise,
because
you
have
good
intentions,
but
this
is
a
multi-year
project.
You
might
not
be
the
person,
that's
going
to
be
there
10
years
from
now
or
15
years
from
now,
I
think
we
need
to
think
ahead.
We
need
to
think
you
know
what
can
prevent
things
from
changing
the
vision
you
have
now
that
might
change
into
something
completely
different,
so
just
a
caution
there.
Thank
you.
AB
Or
okay,
so
to
the
developer,
we've
heard
a
lot
about
the
neighbors
thoughts
on
weemer
road.
But
yet
you
guys
are
a
property
owner
on
weiner,
Road
and
you're
res
soon
to
be,
residents
will
have
access
to
Winger
road.
So
you
know
what
are
your
thoughts
on
how
Weimar
Road
affects
your
development
and
what
are
your
thoughts
and
any
solutions.
N
So
when
you
have
an
infill
development
like
this
one,
you're
forced
to
acknowledge
lots
of
mistakes
and
lots
of
things
that
haven't
been
done,
lots
of
things
that
could
be
done
over
a
long
period
of
time,
whether
we're
in
developing
a
lot
in
the
center
of
Bloomington.
We
say:
well,
why
wasn't
there
a
wider
Street?
Why
was
there
not
a
wider
sidewalk?
Why
was
there
not
on
street
parking
there?
Well,
it's
not
wide
enough.
It
wasn't
there.
We've
always
wanted
it
it's
in
our
plan,
but
we
don't
have
the
money
to
pay
for
it.
N
So
when
we
look
at
this,
we
have
those
same
kind
of
things.
We
have
Weimer
Road
partially
in
the
county
partially
in
the
city.
There's
plans
that
it
need
an
acknowledgment
that
it
needs
to
take
place.
There's
puds
that
have
triggers
that
say.
Certain
things
will
take
place.
Yet
here
we
are
today,
and
it
hasn't
happened
right
if
there
was
a
magic
wand
to
wave
I'm
sure
that
everybody
up
there
and
everybody
in
the
Departments
and
and
us
would
wave
it
and
take
care
of
it.
N
That
can't
happen
so
we're
continually
faced
with
those
kind
of
things.
What
would
we
like
to
see?
We
would
like
to
see
improvements
at
both
ends
of
weima
Road,
a
bigger
bridge
and
a
new
road
there,
but
that's
not
in
the
cards
to
say
that
this
one
development
can
handle.
All
of
that.
We
believe
that
the
increasing
connection
of
atoms
will
help
eliminate
a
lot
of
traffic.
That's
currently
on
wemur,
as
well
as
most
of
this
development
will
use
that
Ram
about
or
that
stop
light
to
the
north
to
access
out
of
this
property.
N
Is
that
going
to
solve
the
weema
road
problem?
Probably
not
so
I
think
what
we
see
it
as
it
is
the
built
environment
that
we're
part
of.
We
believe
that
this
is
the
appropriate
place
for
this
type
of
development.
Will
it
increase
traffic
on
Weimer
Road,
initially,
probably
not
with
the
development
of
Sudbury
and
Adams
and
I'm,
assuming
that
a
lot
of
people
that
currently
use
weemer
will
probably
use
those
other
connections
to
avoid
the
stop
signs
and
backup,
but
over
time,
Weimer
Road
needs
to
be
improved
and
I.
N
Don't
think
that
that
is
something
that
is
the
burden
of
only
this
development,
but
it's
a
long-term
plan
same
with
other
infrastructures
via
that
storm
water,
storm,
sewer,
water,
schools,
those
are
Community
problems,
Community
issues
that
we
addressed
holistically,
not
on
an
individual
basis
and
I.
Think
that
when
you
look
at
this
development-
and
you
look
at
the
infrastructure
that
is
part
of
within
this-
and
the
benefits
that
come
from
that
overall,
that's
why
this
is
a
PUD.
That's
why
we're
going
through
this
process?
N
That's
why
this
is
not
a
subdivision
that
goes
to
plaque
committee,
but
six-month
process
that
comes
through
planned
commission
and
city
council
to
get
us
there.
I
don't
have
all
the
answers
today,
but
I
think
that's
the
way
I
would
address.
Weimer
road
we've
heard
some
new
questions
today.
I
don't
have
the
fire
answers
to
get
back
to
you
on
those,
but
we
will
get
back
to
you
on
some
of
those
new
things
that
we've
addressed
that
we've
heard
tonight
as
questions
as
well.
G
This
is
for
staff,
so
when
the
the
utility
study
it's
been
done,
is
that
right,
the
drainage
yeah,
so
we'd
expect,
of
course,
to
hear
about
that
at
the
next
meeting
and
is
any
of
that
made
public
before
we've
had
some
comments
about.
When
can
we
see
that
study?
Has
any
of
that
made
public
before
that
meeting
or.
J
G
G
And
the
same
with
the
traffic
study
too,
then,
and
then
maybe
this
is
unusual.
I
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
a
lot
about
drainage,
but
it
continues
to
sound
like
a
pretty
complicated
problem
here
and
I
understand
from
the
petitioner
that
all
efforts
will
be
made
to
comply
with
state
and
local
laws
around
that.
However,
when
you
do
interpret
that
utility
study
and
bring
that
information
to
us,
is
it
enough
that
we
hear
it
from
you
or
like?
Could
we
entertain
that?
B
Great
question:
so
the
study
was
done
by
a
third
party
through
an
agreement
or
you
know,
through
a
contract
with
CBU,
but
I.
Don't
know
why
we
couldn't
ask
the
professional
at
CBU
who's
doing
that
actual
analysis
or
Tender
to
that
study
to
be
here.
So
we.
A
I
was
going
to
suggest
the
same
thing
but
recognize
the
the
petitioner
to
to
to
answer
the.
N
Question
so
the
study
was
completed
late
last
week,
staff
and
us
both
got
the
study
late
last
week
we
did
have
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
CBU
and
we've
had
continuing
conversations
like
at
five
o'clock
today.
N
Regarding
that
study,
both
our
utilities
Engineers,
as
well
as
cbus
Engineers
as
well
so
I
would
anticipate
that
yes,
CBU
would
be
happy
to
speak
to
it
as
well
as
they'll
continue
to
be
a
dialogue,
so
I
would
Envision
at
the
next
meeting,
given
the
conversation
about
both
storm
water
utility,
as
well
as
sewer
utility
capacity
that
our
Engineers
will
be
here.
To
answer
some
questions
and
present
you
with
it's
one
thing
for
me
to
stand
up
and
say
we
can
do
this
many
sewer
hook-ons,
but
to
help
add
to
that
from
a
technical
basis.
N
I
understand
the
report
on
a
high
level.
I,
don't
understand
it
in
the
details
and
I
think
they
could
help.
Add
to
that
both
our
engineer
as
well
as
cbu's
engineer.
G
Thank
you
and
I
actually
do
have
something
for
the
petitioner.
I
do
agree
with
commissioner
Burrell
that
and
I
understand
it's
a
PUD,
there's
public
good
and
there's
a
lot
of
things
wrapped
up
into
this.
That
maybe
aren't
what
we
typically
see.
But
not
you
know.
We
don't
typically
see
the
the
multi-family
dwelling
listed
as
permitted
under
everything.
G
And
when
we
look
at
our
Udo,
you
only
get
to
permitted
with
RM,
which
I'm
not
I,
can't
remember
what
RM
stands
for,
but
R1
through
R3,
it's
not
even
available
and
duplexes
are
conditional,
but
but
the
rest
of
it
is
not
so
even
the
plexes
until
you
get
to
R4
so
anyway,
for
me,
I
think
that's
going
to
be
really
hard
to
get
behind,
seeing
that
permitted
in
all
four
five
of
those
because
it
is
listed
under
the
residential.
So
that's
just
you
guys
are
so
great
about
asking
for
feedback.
K
O
Simple
one
because
I
heard
some
comments
today
from
the
public
and
I
think
this
would
be
good
to
go
over
just
one
more
time,
and
this
is
to
you
Jackie,
just
kind
of
the
process,
regardless
of
where
the
plan
commission
finds
themselves
at
the
end
of
this
petition.
There's
a
next
phase.
So
if
you
could
just
kind
of
go
over
the
process
of
how
this
approval
will
take
place
for
denial,
sure.
B
So,
at
the
end
of
the
plan
commission
process,
the
plan
commission
will
make
a
recommendation
to
council,
because
this
is
a
request
to
rezone
to
plan
unit
development,
which
ultimately
is
the
council's
decision.
So
you'll
make
a
recommendation,
approval
with
conditions,
denial
or
no
recommendation.
We
have
seen
those
go
forward
as
well.
Hopefully
we
will
have
an
actual
recommendation
and
then
that
will
go
to
council
and
they
we
certify
its
Council
within
10
days
and
then
within
90
days
of
that
they
have
to
make
a
decision
or
your
decision
stance.
B
And
so
then
that
sets
the
zoning
and
the
rules
for
this
land.
And
then
the
petitioner
will
start
the
process
of
subdividing
and
you
know
bringing
forward
developments
for
the
different
sections
and
as
those
developments
come
forward,
development
plans
and
a
PUD
will
come
to
plan
commission
as
site
plans.
F
A
You
I've
got
a
few
comments.
Unfortunately,
I
think
the
the
staff
recommendation
is
that
we're
going
to
they'd
like
to
see
us
continue
this
to
the
next
meeting,
which
I,
unfortunately
won't
be
able
to.
A
Meetings
out,
sorry,
okay,
well,
hopefully,
I'll
be
back
by
November,
but
a
couple
of
things
I
want
to
recommend
for
that
for
the
next
meeting,
regardless
just
first
of
all,
I
think
20
to
30
percent
ownable
seems
Seems
like
a
pretty
low
threshold.
A
Maybe
that
seems
lower
than
it
is
just
because
of
the
density
of
the
the
multi-family
is
so
much
greater
than
the
ownable
units.
So
I'd
really
like
to
see
maybe
a
different
look
at
that.
A
What
what
what
percentage
of
the
footprint
do
you
expect
is
going
to
be
ownable
by
the
occupant
versus
what
percentage
of
the
footprint
do
you
expect
to
be
purely
rental
units
I'd
really
like
to
see
the
petitioner
also
just
really
geek
out
on
the
water
at
the
next
meeting,
I
mean
I
know
that
there's
probably
a
lot
of
details
that
your
engineers
look
at
and
say
you
know
this
is
too
technical
for
a
public
meeting.
A
I
would
just
say
just
really
err
on
the
side
of
just
give
us
everything
you
got
right,
I
mean
how
will
it
be
collected?
How
will
it
be
diverted
retained?
Where
is
it
going
to
go?
Give
us
I,
don't
know
millions
of
gallons
per
minute,
whatever
you
got
like,
there's
there's
clearly
a
a
a
hunger
in
the
public
to
really
understand
exactly,
what's
going
to
be
happening
with
water
and
and
on
the
staff
side.
A
If
we
can
get
somebody
from
utilities
to
to
to
talk
about
that
as
well
and
then
and
to
talk
about
from
a
legal
perspective,
what
are
the
recorded
commitments
in
terms
of
water
retention
and
and
and
what
happens
if
those
commitments
are
met
right?
What
is
the
what's?
The
enforcement
look
like
and
then
also
if
we
could
have
some
some
additional
explanation
of
what
is
the
the
long-range
Transportation
plan
say
about
about
Weimer
Road,
you
know
what
what
can
be
expected
there,
even
if
we
don't
have
specific
timetables.
A
You
know
what
is
the
vision
for
that
the
city
Administration
has
for
that
yeah
and
then
the
but
yeah
the
the
traffic
and
Environmental
Studies
I
know
that
they're
accessible,
but
that
really
just
means
somebody
has
to
request
to
see
them
if
we
just
put
them
in
the
packet
next
time,
so
that
they're,
just
so
that
they're
online
for
everyone
to.
A
A
So
I
think
what
we
should
see
is
at
least
the
skeleton
of
a
rubric
that
sort
of
includes
the
limits
on
that
housing
type
mix
and
on
affordability
right,
and
it
should
just
be
by
phase
obviously
phase
one.
The
first
building
that
gets
built
is
going
to
throw
everything
out
of
whack.
A
It's
always
it's
a
it's
going
to
be
skewed
to
whatever
that
is,
but
you
know,
if
we
just
say
for
each
phase,
you
know
no
building
permit
will
be
issued
for
a
project
that
would
cause
the
total
percentage
of
affordable
to
drop
below
X
or
the
total
percentage
of
particular
housing
type
to
go
above.
Why,
and
you
know,
the
range
can
be
wide
in
phase
one,
but
as
you
get
to
the
Future
phases,
that
range
needs
to
get
narrower.
You
know
to
what
we
expect
the
ultimate
goal
to
be
I.
A
Don't
expect
we're
going
to
have
final
numbers
on
that,
but
if
we
could
at
least
you
know,
start
to
see
that
take
shape,
you
know
and
just
kind
of
see
what
you
know,
what
we,
what
we
expect
that
commitment
to
look
like
in
terms
of
putting
it
on
paper,
yeah,
I,
think
I,
think
that's
all
I'm
really
hoping
to
see
I
think
I
think
it's
been
some
great
great
discussion
and
I
really
appreciate
the
way
petitioner
and
the
public
have
engaged
on
this.
A
It
looks
like
there's
a
real
honest
conversation
going
on.
So
that's
that's
encouraging
appreciate
it
any
other
comments
or
emotion:
oh,
go
ahead!.
G
Two
comments
back
to
the
affordable
housing
made
me
think
Brad
when
you're
talking
about
commissioner
Whistler,
that
I
think
the
the
density
does
occur
in
all
the
neighborhoods,
but
it's
the
it's
the
zoning
District,
so
the
r
District
I
think
should
be
protected
from,
but
but
within
that
within
the
first
neighborhood
I
forget
what
it's
called.
G
There
is
density
there,
so
I
I
guess
I
want
to
clarify
what
I
was
talking
about,
which
was
that
our
district,
which
is
all
over
the
place
that
I
think
the
our
district,
should
not
have
that
multi-family
that
those
blue
areas
really
are
protected
within
each
neighborhood
anyway,
and
the
second
thing
is
I
think
it
would
be
interesting
to
hear
from
the
city
what
the
goals
and
values
are
around
affordable
housing
and
how
it's
built
out
here
and
what
you
would
like
and
clearly
you'd
like
the
whole
thing
to
be
affordable
or
Workforce,
which
it
will
not
happen
in
in
many
ways.
G
You
know.
Well,
anyway,
it's
not
going
to
happen,
but
but
what
would
you
make
a
statement
that
seems
like
actually
workable?
Knowing
that
a
developer
is
going
to
walk
away
from
something
that
is
well,
not
all
developers,
but
it
would
be
tough
if
it
was
just
all
affordable,
so
I
think
just
we
talked
about.
G
Oh,
it
needs
to
be
built
first,
maybe
it's
a
certain
percentage
like
what
would
work
for
the
city
I
think
if
you
can
put
some
bullet
points
to
that,
it
might
help
Advance
this
whole
conversation
around
affordable
and
the
developer
could
kind
of
think
about.
If
that
would
work
for
them,
because
I'm
not
in
my
mind,
I
think
about
what
the
value
is,
but
I'm
not
really
sure
what
the
value
is
in
terms
of
the
order
of
things
and
how
much
and
where
and
like,
is
it
valuable
that
it's
spread
out
everywhere?
G
Is
it
valuable
that
is
built
first
and
just
what
are
all
the
different
ways
to
think
about
it?
I'm
sure,
there's
quite
a
few
more
so
I
think
that
might
be
an
interesting
point
of
view
to
hear
from
what
the
city
would
like
around
that.
So
that
was
it
and
I'm
happy
to
make
a
motion
of
people.
O
O
15
years
we
just
had
this
discussion
at
the
ordinance
Review
Committee
for
the
county,
about
putting
in
like
a
10
increase
per
year
for
renewals
for
performance
bonds,
because
the
cost
of
construction
material
keeps
going
up
and
if
we
don't
address
that
and
I
think
a
public
commenter
asks.
How
are
you
going
to
ensure
that
some
of
these
improvements
take
place?
That's
typically
in
the
form
of
a
performance
bond
if
they
walk
away
so
for
a
project?
That's
looking
at
10
years
to
complete.
O
We
should
have
this
discussion
at
some
point
and
I
guess
there
are
some
conversations
at
the
state
level
where
you
can't
hold
up
building
permits
and
such
if
there
is
a
performance
spawn
on
record,
so
that
limits
the
ability
of
the
City
to
you
know,
hold
them
accountable,
not
saying
that
this
developer
plans
to
walk
away
or
anything
but
I
do
think.
That's
very
important
to
have
this
conversation
at
some
point.
K
I
appreciate
all
of
these
suggestions,
and
the
last
one
I
have
is
one
that
one
of
the
commenters
raised
today
about
the
understanding,
the
implications
of
climate
change
and
taking
that
into
consideration.
K
M
A
All
right
that
motion
passes,
we
we
are
on
then,
to
the
next
petition
on
our
agenda,
that
is
zo
Dash,
29-2-3.
A
B
A
I
would
yes
be
happy
to
let's,
let's
recess,
it
is
eight
o'clock.
Let's
come
back
at
eight,
oh
it's
just
after
you
come
back
at
805..
Thank
you.
Reconvene
thanks.
AC
AC
U
B
So
we
are
looking
at
0
2923,
a
proposal
requested
by
the
plan
commission
to
look
at
the
language
related
to
non-residential
ground
floor
standards
in
certain
parts
of
the
downtown
zoning
District.
B
B
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
information
here
about
that
which
we
talked
about
last
month,
us
bringing
forward
some
of
that
previous
information.
So
staff
of
the
department
did
a
walking
survey
of
the
blocks
that
appear
on
figure
48.
So
here
is
as
a
reminder.
What
figure
48
is.
B
These
are
the
areas
that
these
are
the
specific
blocks
that
are
affected
by
this
rule,
which
currently
is
that
50
of
the
total
ground
floor
area
of
buildings
located
along
these
street
frontages
she
shall
be
occupied
by
non-residential
primary
uses
and
that
enclosed
parking
garages
shall
not
count
toward
the
required
non-residential
use.
That's
the
standard
that
currently
appears
in
code
and
at
the
time
in
Spring,
we
were
discussing
potentially
looking
at
that
at
that
requirement.
B
After
we
had
discussed
it
briefly,
I
think
in
the
Udo
update
is
when
it
came
up
so
again,
staff
did
a
walking
survey
of
those
blocks
and
identified
278
non-residential
spaces
and
that
16
were
vacant.
So
at
that
time,
in
Spring,
some
were
under
construction.
16
were
completely
vacant,
which
is
a
less
than
six
percent
vacancy
rate
for
those
areas.
B
So
it
did
include
spaces
that
could
be
used
as
commercial,
which
I
think
is
part
of
the
concern
about
this
requirement
is
that
do
we
have
too
much
commercial
space
in
the
city
dedicated
to
commercial
in
the
city
with
our
regulations,
but
in
this
case
of
the
16
that
also
included,
for
example,
the
fire
station,
which
is
not
currently
occupied
or
the
election
center,
which
is
only
occupied?
B
You
know
during
certain
parts
of
the
year,
and
then
we
also
were
able
to,
because
we
have
a
number
of
real
estate.
Experts
in
the
group
were
able
to
identify
some
of
the
locations
and
that
people
were
familiar
with
oh
hold
on
that's
the
wrong
thing,
sorry
that
people
were
already
familiar
with
and
that
were
vacant
for
other
reasons.
B
So
again,
not
you
know,
a
super
I
would
say
scientific
survey,
but
definitely
an
observational
survey
done
by
staff.
So
again,
here
is
figure
48.
We
walked
every
single
one
of
these
blocks
and
then
we
found
the
areas
with
the
red
dots
were
had
buildings
with
vacant
spaces
in
them.
B
B
So
for
so
you
can
see
that
here
under
20030
B5
d,
so
that
is
something
that
also
regulates
use
on
the
ground
floor,
so
obviously
Courthouse
Square.
You
can
understand
why
that
regulation
was
written.
The
majority
of
the
lease
spaces
or
buildings
in
the
courthouse
Square
are
on
the
courthouse,
Square
and
so
wanting
to
have
Vibrant
Community
oriented
use
is
there
from
commercial
to
having
retail
and
Commercial
and
restaurant
uses
available
in
those
areas,
but
it's
a
large
chunk
of
figure
48..
B
So,
even
if
we
change
the
regulation
in
those
areas
ground
floor,
dwelling
units
would
not
be
allowed.
So
then
what
is
going
there
that
isn't
non-residential
and
is
not
a
parking
garage.
So
again,
when
looking
at
these
empty
spaces,
they
obviously
change
over
time.
You
know
we
can
identify
here
at
the
northwest
corner
of
7th
and
Morton.
There's
now
a
commercial
space
at
least
there
we
have
a
building
permit
currently
for
the
southwest
corner
of
7th
and
Morton.
B
You
know:
we've
seen
some
some
uses
along
the
courthouse,
Square
buildings,
even
change
over
or
vacant
for
a
short
amount
of
time
and
then
refilling
and
some
of
these
are
still
open.
So
that
is
the
data
that
we
looked
at
in
Spring.
B
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
to
talk
about
that
in
a
little
bit
more
detail.
Another
question
that
came
up
last
month
was
why
to
link
the
proposal
for
the
allowance
of
reduced
non-residential
to
the
use
of
incentives,
so
just
highlighting
here
in
writing
what
we
talked
about
last
month
on
one
hand,
it
could
increase
the
value
of
the
incentives
to
a
developer
while
increasing
the
positive
outcomes
of
development.
B
If
they
are
multi-family
and
trying
to
get
additional
stories,
then
they
could
take
advantage
of
the
reduced
non-residential
space,
allowing
the
flexibility
which
we
think
is
behind
this
request
in
the
first
place
from
the
plan,
commission
is
a
search
for
more
flexibility.
So
again
the
department
agrees-
and
we've
talked
about
this
over
time
and
we've
even
we've
made
changes
to
the
Udo
in
the
last
few
years
to
reduce
the
amount
of
commercial
space
required,
wired
or
non-residential
space.
B
Excuse
me
in
different
parts
of
town
and
that's
something
that
we'll
probably
look
at
again
within
the
next
year,
but
this
area
highlighted
by
figure
48,
is
we
think
kind
of
the
core
of
the
pedestrian-oriented
commercial
that
we
have
here
in
town,
and
you
know
if
we're
trying
to
encourage
people
to
use
the
downtown
more
regularly
or
for
more
purposes.
We.
We
don't
necessarily
think
that
allowing
more
residential
uses
on
the
ground
floor
is
meeting
that
purpose.
B
So
we
have
prepared
the
amendment
that
we
prepared
was
based
on
again
the
request
from
plan
commission,
and
we
would
be
adding
what
is
here
in
bold
that,
if
use
of
either
or
both
of
the
incentives
listed
in
2004
110
is
approved,
the
minimum
percentage
shall
be
reduced
to
30
percent.
At
no
time
shall
the
required
non-residential
use
occupy
less
than
a
thousand
five
hundred
square
feet
of
the
ground
floor
area,
and
that
would
be
the
change
that
we're
proposing
to.
We
think
meet
the
needs
of
those
who
were
interested
in
this
change.
O
So
from
kind
of
your
comment,
this
is
what
planning
had
thought
would
address.
Some
of
the
planned
commissions
concerns
or
requests
to
look
at
the
minimum
percentage
for
commercial
use
and
reducing
it.
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
is
this
what
planning
supports
completely
outside
of
the
request
from
the
plan
Commission.
B
I
would
say
the
great
question:
the
planning
and
transportation
department
doesn't
see
a
need
to
make
of
this
change.
You
know,
based
on
the
data
that
we
were
able
to
gather
in
spring
in
any
of
the
real
estate
professionals
on
the
board
on
the
commission
can
correct
me,
but
a
less
than
six
percent
vacancy
rate
for
this
area.
I,
don't
think,
is
alarming
and
we
don't.
We
don't
really
know
that
we
can
identify
an
impetus
or
an
issue
that
we're
trying
to
address.
B
Do
people
who
own
property
want
to
be
able
to
use
it
for
the
most
advantageous.
Financial
use,
of
course,
would
changing
these
regulations
help
that
be
possible
probably,
but
we
are,
as
we
always
as
I've,
now
saying
a
ton
of
these
meetings.
You
know
trying
to
weigh
competing
interests.
We
want
the
properties
to
be
viable,
we
want
them
to.
B
You
know
we
want
people
to
be
interested
in
redeveloping
in
these
areas,
but
we
also
need
to
and
are
trying
to
weigh
the
public
interest
of
being
able
to
use
these
areas
and
having
them
be
useful
to
more
than
just
the
property
owner.
You
know,
that's
not
something.
We
do
all
over
town,
but
I
do
think
that
is
important
here,
so
I
think
the
department
Outlook
would
be
that
we
don't.
B
We
don't
see
evidence
that
it
needs
to
change,
but
if
it
is
important
enough
to
the
majority
of
the
people
on
this
commission
to
change
it,
we
think
that
the
going
to
30
with
a
with
a
maximum
or
with
a
minimum
amount
is
the
most
appropriate
way
to
go
about
that.
AB
Research
of
the
the
30
did
we
look
at
just
a
scenario
of
like
again
what
what
is
the
potential
maximum
that
could
be
on
a
on
a
future
development.
I
guess
my
thought
is:
if
that's
a
you
know,
looking
at
a
site,
you
know
I
mean.
Is
that
a
could
it
be
8
000
square
feet?
Could
it
be
five?
I
guess?
That's
that's
a
number
that
would
concern
me.
B
Well,
so
we
tried
to
look
at
properties
that,
for
example,
some
along
Kirkwood
that
could
be
redeveloped
and
what
size
those
properties
are
and
whether
or
not
30
would
give
I'm
not
sure.
If
I'm
answering
your
question,
so
let
me
know
would
give
a
viable
amount
of
square
footage
for
use
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
we
put
in
the
1500
minimum.
O
B
That,
if,
for
some
reason,
you
were
redeveloping
a
parcel
that
was
quite
small
and
you
did
the
incentives
and
then
you
were
hoping
to
go
to,
you
know
a
number
that
that,
from
what
we've
seen
in
other
developments,
no
one
is
developing
commercial
space.
Is
that
small
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
go
that
low?
That's
why
we
put
the
kind
of
Flora
1500
in
to
capture
to
make
the
smaller
Lots
still
viable.
E
B
AB
So
the
1500
I
think
is
a
good
number
for
a
floor,
but
I
guess
my
thought
is
a
maximum.
You
know
is
there
because
that
would
concern
me
of
putting
you
know
just
personal
experience,
I
just
leased
out
5
000
square
feet
and
we
in
order
to
get
at
least
we
had
to
go
about
half
of
what
I
feel
the
market
value
is
in
order
to
fill
that
building,
which
made
it
a
challenge
and
obviously
the
the
investor
or
the
owner
of
the
building
was
not
thrilled
with
where
the
market
was
today.
AB
Now
we
can't
control
the
market,
but
you
know
I,
guess
that's.
My
concern
is
if,
if,
if
the
size
and
again
I
haven't
ran
the
math-
and
you
know
just
looked
at
those
properties,
but
is
there,
is
there
a
scenario
where
there
could
be
a
maximum
amount
or
not
a
maximum
but
a
an
acceptable
maximum
amount?.
B
B
Think
I
don't
think
that
we
have
found
that
in
what
we
saw,
that
it
is
possible.
Are
there
one
or
two
Parcels
here
that
could
possibly
be
redeveloped
like,
for
example,
if
we
go
to
redevelop
the
there
have
been
discussions
about
redeveloping
the
city
parking
lot
at.
D
B
And
Lincoln
is
that
you
know
is
that
too
much
it'll
depend
on
the
owner
and
you
know
what
they're
wanting
to
do.
But
what
quote?
Unquote
too
much
is
I
think,
but
for
the
most
of
the
parcels
in
this
area.
Again
we
haven't,
we
haven't
found
yet
that
the
50
is
unreasonable.
So
I
don't
think
we
would
say
that
there
are
Parcels
in
here
that
the
30
is
unreasonable,
and
this
again
is
something
that
we
have
had
variance
requests
for.
A
B
AB
B
Yeah
I
think
yes,
I
mean
it
again,
I
think
it
depends
on
who's,
developing
it
and
what
their
goals
are.
You
know
for
that
because,
let's
see.
B
Even
that
parcel,
which
is
a
quarter
of
a
city
block,
is
so
it's
about
17
000
square
feet,
so
30
percent
of
that's
only
five
thousand
square
feet,
and
you
know
when
we
spoke
with
you
about
some
other
Lots,
where
we
were
having
questions
from
Property
Owners.
You
know
you
said
it
might
take
me
eight
months,
but
I'm
gonna
find
somebody
to
go
in
there.
I
mean
people
want
to
go
here.
You.
B
So
yeah
I
think
we
think
it's
feasible,
but
it's
maybe
not
flying
off
the
shelf.
AB
G
Go
ahead,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand,
so
those
two
new
buildings
that
went
up
I
think
it's
third
and
and
Grant
two
one
on
each
side
of
Grant
and
I
believe
it
was
reported
that
Cold,
Stone,
Creamery
or
coffee
shop
couple
things
are
going
in
there.
So
if
this
was
adopted,
those
spaces
I,
don't
know
how
big
they
are,
but
potentially
spaces
like
that,
where
developers
are
putting
in
Fairly
large
that
we
saw
here
fairly,
large
multi-family
residential
buildings
were
required
to
put
something
on
the
ground
floor.
G
D
G
F
B
So
those
are
in
a
similar
situation
to
they
are
also
quarters
quarter
lot
sizes,
so
they're
also
about
17
000
square
feet.
So
assuming
that
they're
building
edge
to
edge
which
they're
not
you,
know
the,
if
they
maxed
out
those
Parcels,
then
they
30
of
that
would
be
just
over
five
thousand
square
feet
of
commercial.
Okay,
I'm
sorry
I
have
to
stop
saying
it:
it's
not
commercial,
it's
non-residential!
B
So
it's
it's
non-residential,
it's
not
something
where
only
your
residents
can
use
it
and
it
can't
be
a
parking
garage,
so
it
doesn't
have
to
be
commercial.
This
is
something
we
we
just
get
into
the
habit
of
saying
commercial.
Not,
but
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
other
social
service
uses.
Things
like
that
are
those
people
are
those
uses
going
to
be
able
to
pay
rents
on
Kirkwood?
B
Maybe
not
so
it
typically
becomes
something
more
commercial,
but
there
are
a
wide,
a
wide
array
of
uses
that
could
go
in
these
spaces
that
aren't
residential.
A
So
I
got
a
question.
This
all
just
seems
a
little
bit
needlessly
complex
to
me.
I
guess
I'll
preface
this
with
a
bit
of
a
statement.
My
concern
has
never
been
that
the
the
the
regulation
is
onerous
and
is
present
is
is
preventing
projects
from
from
happening,
because
it's
it's
just
not
feasible
in
the
market.
That's
not
my
concern.
My
concern
has
always
just
been
50
seems
arbitrary.
50
is,
is
necessarily
going
to
prevent
a
certain
type
of
space
from
being
built.
A
If
I
think
about
you
know
little
spaces
like
a
little
coffee
shop
on
the
corner
or
a
little
place
like
The
Alley
Bar.
That
is
just
a,
but
you
know
you
you've
all
heard
of
a
hole
in
the
wall
right.
We're
not
gonna
have
any
holes
in
the
wall
because
you're
going
to
have
half
of
the
building
has
to
be
non-residential
or
commercial.
A
So
you're
going
to
see
what
we
see,
which
is
just
you
know,
big
spaces
carved
out
that
are
hard
to
carve
up
into
smaller
spaces
that
are
rentable
by
small
businesses
and
and
prevent
that
sort
of
you
know
cool
quirky
little
little
spaces
from
occurring,
and
so
my
question
is:
why
can't
we
just
say
non-residential
uses
including
ground
floor
parking
must
be
20
feet
behind
the
front
building
face,
and
that's
it.
B
I
think
well
for
us
than
that
precludes
larger
uses
like
just
like
we've
talked
about
here
before
or
I
said
earlier
tonight
in
this
town.
B
What
we
see
is
that
multifamily
makes
you
the
most
money,
and
we
talked
about
projects
like,
for
example,
the
project
at
11th
and
Morton,
where
under
the
previous
planned
commission
rules,
they
could
do
waivers
and
they
did
and
they
let
them
build
them
as
convertible
units
that
maybe
they'll
be
commercial
someday
and
they've
been
residential,
the
entire
time,
the
more
space
we
give
in
our
potential
developable
space
to
residential
we're
not
going
to
get
that
back.
So,
if
you're
in
your
building
20
feet
back,
is
a
thousand
square
feet
or
whatever
that's
never
gonna.
B
If
all
of
the
development
is
to
that
regulation,
there's
never
going
to
be
room
for
a
restaurant
or
something
bigger
because
they
need
more
space.
So,
on
the
lots
that
are
bigger,
maybe
those
lots
should
be
available
for
uses
that
need
more
space.
I
mean
like
the
alibar
is
a
fun
example
because
they're
their
own
tiny
lot.
B
If
people
built
smaller
buildings,
we
would
get
a
lot
more
smaller
spaces,
but
they
don't
want
to
they
want
to
max
out
and
make
everything
as
big
as
they
possibly
can,
and
because
of
that,
we
need
to
have
a
regulation
that
allows
for
different
size
developments,
because
what
we've
seen
is
that
everything's
going
to
be
maximized,
which
I
mean
makes
sense
so
I
think
I,
don't
know
to
me:
that's
why
we
have
the
regulation.
I
mean
alibar
covers
100.
On
the
ground
floor,
that's
more
than
is
required.
B
B
B
I'll
just
say,
and
then
we
can-
you
can
say
whatever
you
like,
but
this
is
the
same
conversation
as
the
multi-family
and
all
of
the
art
districts
in
the
Pud.
Here
it
seems
like
if
we
don't
cap
things.
If
we,
if
we
we
aren't
going
to
get
a
bunch
of
different
kinds
of
development,
we
aren't
going
to
get
it's
going
to
not
a
developer
is
unlikely
to
say:
oh
I'm,
going
to
go
ahead
and
just
make
some
more
of
this
space
non-residential
in
case
I
can
fill
it
with
a
restaurant.
B
Later
they're
just
gonna
fill
it
with
parking
or
you
know
a
workout
room.
We
can't
see-
or
you
know,
they're
going
to
use
it
in
whatever
way
as
cheap
as
the
fastest
for
them
to
get
a
return
on
it,
which
is
fine,
and
so
we
feel
like
the
regulation
or
I
mean
I.
Think
the
regulation
is
intended
to
kind
of
hold
space
for
some
things
that
maybe
aren't
going
to
be
most
desirable
to
the
developer,
but
could
be
useful
for
the
community.
I
mean
I,
understand
what
you're
saying
but
I
do
think.
B
That's
why
it's
not
I
think
that's
the
more
philosophical
reason
why
it's
not
so
simple,
and
then
we've
also
talked
about
in
the
past,
especially
with
the
older
buildings
where
this
area
is.
B
You
know
you
get
those
a
little
bit
more
complicated
designs
where
the
stairwell
to
the
upstairs
is
there
and
then
that's
in
the
way,
also
or
for
different
reasons.
It's
hard
to
just
delineate
that
20-foot
line
because
of
the
current
designs
of
the
buildings
but
I
think
it's
the
more
philosophical
reason
as
well.
A
L
The
developer
will
have
to
do
some
incentives
that
will
be
approved
in
order
for
them
to
get
the
30
percent
and
you
put
listed
on
20
point
zero,
four
point:
110:
what
are
those
incentives
off
the
top
of.
B
Your
head
great,
so
those
are
the
affordable,
housing
and
sustainability
incentives
that
we
see
developers
using
in
order
to
have
ADD
floors.
There
are
other
options,
you
know
you
can
have
reduced
setbacks
and
things,
but
we
don't
see
much
of
that
to
have
larger
floor
plates
or
more
floors
on
their
buildings,
and
so
this
is
basically
saying
hey
if
you're
already
going
that
route.
This
is
just
like
another
bonus
that
you're
getting
that.
If
you
want
to
do
less
commercial,
you
can
I'm
sorry
less
non-residential.
G
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
examples,
because
it
helps
me
understand
so
if
one
were
to
look
at
the
Uptown
Cafe
restaurant
at
a
very
busy,
highly
desirable
corner
or
yeah
near
the
courthouse,
so
trying
to
think
how
many
square
feet
that
first
floor
would
be.
But
when
you
talk
about
that
developers
would
be
inclined
to
put
in
residential.
Are
you
suggesting
that
the
owner
of
that
building
could
take
the
Uptown
restaurant
and
take
70
percent
of
the
restaurants,
starting
with
the
back
going
forward
and
turn
it
into
something
that
is
residential
leaving?
G
Maybe
it's
30
percent?
Maybe
it's
20
feet.
I,
don't
know
the
20
feet
sounds
arbitrary
to
me
too,
but
I
get
what
you're
trying
to
do
there
is
that
what
you're,
suggesting
that
those
kinds
of
properties
could
turn
into
this
small
narrow,
little
small
coffee
shop
in
the
front
and
the
developer
might
and
I
get
I
know
you
don't
necessarily,
but
are
you
presenting.
B
U
T
B
F
Q
V
D
B
That
could,
yes,
that
that
would
be
something
so
in
other
locations,
especially
those
outside
of
the
courthouse,
Square
I
think
it
would
be
easier,
and
the
idea
would
be
that,
yes,
how,
whatever
commercial
they
have
there,
potentially
they
could
just
make
it
smaller
and
then
turn
the
back
into
some
sort
of
private
use,
which
maybe
that's
fine
I
mean
that's
what
so
like
we've
talked
about
last,
you
know,
commissioner
cochrom
had
a
lot
of
great
questions.
B
Last
month
it
was
kind
of
like
that
is
the
point
of
of
you,
you
all
of
this
commission
to
weigh
what
are
we
trying
to
get
out
of
this
area
and
if
you
know
on
the
one
extreme,
if
it's
we're
trying
to
incentivize
commercial
but
not
require
it,
then
we
just
shouldn't
require
it.
You
know
what
I
mean.
Then
we
just
take
it
out.
If
we're
trying
to
make
it
as
flexible
as
possible
for
developers,
then
we
just
take
it
out.
B
But
if
we're
trying
to
ensure
on
the
chance
that
there
are
developers
who
will
just
make
the
entire
thing
private,
if
we're
trying
to
ensure
some
public
space,
then
we
do
something
like
this
or
like
Mr
Whistler
said
you
know
some
sort
of
guarantee
that
a
portion
of
the
front
is
still
available
for
public
use.
Even
if
it's.
G
AB
I
would
support
what
commissioner
Whistler
was
talking
about
because
it
feels
like
it
would
be
satisfying
the
the
need
to
have
walkable
space
and
retail
space
on
the
main
level,
and
then
possibly,
we
could
offer
incentives
to
a
developer.
If
they
want
to,
you
know,
add
you
know
commercial
square
feet,
it
could
be
so
if
they,
if
they
say
hey,
we'll,
come
in
and
we'll
put
5
000
square
feet,
it
could
be
possible.
They
could
get
incentives
by
encouraging
them
to
do
that.
AB
If
we
had
to
use
see
in
the
downtown
that
we
wanted
to
attract.
If
we
wanted
a
grocery
store
to
go
downtown
an
85
000
square
feet,
we
might
be
able
to
incentivize
the
developer
to
want
to
attract
them,
and
then
they
could
benefit
from
offering
and
taking
the
risk
of
of
adding
more
square
footage
in
the
downtown,
but
but
to
support
commissioner
Whistler
I
think
by
just
having
a
say,
20
feet
or
whatever
that
number
might
be.
It
would
still
give
us.
You
know,
retail.
On
the
main
level.
AB
So
on
the
courthouse
overlay,
the
entire
first
floor
has
to
be
non-residential.
It.
AB
B
So
residential
support
of
things
like
the
office
or
the
workout
room,
or
something,
though
those
can
be
on
the
ground
floor,
they
can't
be
in
the
front
so
non-residential
uses
the
percentage
that's
required
to
be
non-residential
also
includes,
like
residential
supportive
I
mean
if
you
have
a
gym
in
the
front,
that's
open
to
the
public.
That's
fine!
If
it's
only
open
to
your
users,
then
that's
then
that's
defeating
the
purpose
of
of.
D
O
B
Okay,
so
Kirkwood
Manor,
so
it's
hard
because
they
were
proved
under
an
old
code,
so
they
have
waivers
available
and
improved
at
different
times.
You
know
with
different
different
people
on
the
bodies
and
also
different
I,
don't
know
kind
of
style
of
what
was
being
developed,
downtown
slightly
different
priorities
of
getting
new
things,
I
think
so.
You're
talking
about
the
one
I'm
sorry
my
over
near
Wonder,
lab
the
Kirkwood
I
think.
Is
that
all
done?
Yes,.
O
That's
the
Kirkwood
and
then
the
one
kind
of
caddy
corner
right
there
on
Kirkwood
and
Morton
next
to
the
beeline.
Is
that
Madison
right
there.
B
Yeah,
okay,
so
now
Brad's
office
is
in
there,
okay,
okay,
because
in
the
March
meeting
I
said
there
was
no
non-residential
there
and
he
said
that's
where
my
office
is
and
I
don't
know
what
the
percentage
is
in
that
building,
but
I
do
think
the
Kirkwood's
a
good
example
where
it's
just
it's
just
private
as
well.
B
Yes,
Kirkwood
is
at
Madison
in
Kirkwood,
yeah,
yeah
and
then
now
the
name
is
escaping
me
because
thank
you.
The
Foundry
was
built
along
the
B
line
and
does
have
some
non
non-residential
in
it
as
well.
O
B
It's
a
great
question:
I'm,
not
sure
the
answer
so
again,
because
it
was
approved
under
the
old
code.
The
plan
commission
could
have
given
waivers
to
those
percentages
as
opposed
to
getting
variances.
B
Similarly,
you
see
that
with
the
Monroe
County
Parking
Garage
across
the
street
here
approved
under
the
waiver
system.
That
again
we
don't
do
anymore,
so
doesn't
have
any
not
you
know
this
is
the
compromise.
Is
the
windows
that
you
know
see
into
the
wall?
That's
a
stairwell
with
stairwell
with
the
back,
and
sometimes
they
change
the
art
on
there
and
otherwise
it's
just
a
garage.
B
I
do
think
you
know,
as
we
discussed
last
week,
I
mean
you
can
see
other
locations
where,
where
it
seems
like
there
isn't
a
lot
of
good
interaction
on
the
ground
floor
and
especially
in
this
part
of
downtown,
the
code
is
trying
to
encourage
that
and
I'll
point
out
that
you
know
we
used
to
require
more
non-residential
city-wide
and
then,
when
we
did
the
update
in
19
in
2019
2020.
B
You
can't
do
units
within
the
first
20
feet,
that's
through
all
of
the
all
of
the
overlays
in
the
downtown
and
really
kind
of
focused
on
trying
to
make
this
area
viable
and
acknowledged
at
that
time
and
I
think
we
probably
have
more
to
do
that
commercial
across
town
that
there
is
probably
too
much.
B
You
know
we
hear
that
quite
a
bit
and
that
some
of
that
will
need
to
be
converted
over
time
and
that
as
new
buildings
are
built
on
the
periphery
or
not
right
in
the
heart
of
downtown,
that
those
don't
have
to
have
as
much
commercial
as
we
used
to
require.
O
Of
expand
on
why
I
was
bringing
that
up
and
I
guess
that
was
just
kind
of
a
different
ordinance,
a
different
time,
a
different
process
to
get
that
what
we
would
now
consider
a
variance
instead
of
a
waiver
I
I.
Think
if
we
move
too
quickly,
we
might
see
more
developments
like
this
and
you
know
being
born
and
raised
in
Bloomington,
and
you
know
going
by
those,
or
at
least
one
of
those
sites
pretty
much
daily.
O
You
know
someone
I
lost,
knowing
that
there
is
kind
of
a
a
use,
that's
non-residential
on
the
bottom
like
office,
space
or
something
open
to
the
community.
It
would
be
I
think,
a
shame
if
we
lost
the
opportunity
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
have
this
type
of
streetscape.
You
know
that
is
driven
off
of
like
commercial
uses
and
office
spaces,
or
it
sound
like
public
spaces
as
well
and
start
having
more
and
more
developments.
O
Look
like
this
I
know
they
have
to
go
through
incentives
and
things
and
I
think
those
incentives
are
great.
But
that's
why
I
was
curious
about
these
two
build
outs
because
they
fall
in
into
the
overlay
that
we
were
looking
at
and
also
that's
the
reason
I
asked
planning
what
they
were
thinking
about.
This
proposed
change
and
from
my
understanding,
they're
trying
to
fix
a
problem
that
doesn't
exist
right
now
and
I.
O
Don't
really
know
what
the
future
will
hold,
but
I
do
know
that
I,
like
that
kind
of
open
Community,
feel
with
that
being
kind
of
a
more
of
a
shared
public
space
on
the
ground
floor,
and
if
we
change
it,
it's
going
to
go
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
go
backwards
and
once
they
maximize
the
use
of
that
development,
I
I,
don't
see
them
wanting
to
switch
it.
So,
as
you
guys
know,
I'm
not
a
and
gals
that
I'm,
not
a
voting
member
here
but
I
do
think.
K
The
idea
of
creating
space
for
smaller
depth
and
Cozier
types
of
of
non-residential
space,
but
I
just
I,
worry
about
what
we
will
lose
in
the
vibrancy
of
of
a
downtown
community
that
is
available
to
all
people,
so
I,
I
I
think
I
was
generally
in
favor
of
more
flexibility
when
we
started
this
conversation,
but
I'm
not
persuaded
that
this
will
help
us,
so
I
think
I
would
go
back
to
staffs
what
we
had
originally
I
I,
don't
see
another
option
here:
I,
don't
I
do
like
the
idea
of
making
an
incentive,
so
attaching
incentives
makes
it
slightly
more
attractive
because
I
think
that
helps
us
get
more
of
other
things
we
want,
but
I
I
probably
share
some
concerns
that
we
might
lose
more
by
conceding
this,
particularly
given
what
it
seems
like
as
a
you
know,
less
than
six
percent
vacancy
I.
R
But
after
you
know,
staff
and
Jacqueline
I
appreciate
you
guys
doing
that.
You
know
door-to-door
kind
of
looking
to
things
and
you
know,
knowing
of
vacancy
rates
that
low
I
do
believe
you
know,
The
General,
commercial
Market
is
is
going
to
be
shifting
radically
I,
don't
think
we're
there
yet
I
think
over
the
next
several
years.
We
need
to
be
open
to
this
conversation
coming
back,
but
not
being
there
and
not.
You
know
if
it's
not
broke.
R
That
kind
of
thing
no
need
to
really
address
it
at
this
point
in
time,
but
yeah
I
do
appreciate
yeah
you
guys
looking
into
this
I
did
a
little
more
research,
myself
and
I.
Think
the
numbers
are
stronger
than
I,
can't
even
thought
from
the
beginning,
so
I
think
if
we
could
just
continue
to
look
at
the
data
as
it
you
know,
changes
and
I
will
say
being
on
the
zoning
appeals.
R
Commission,
we
had
a
hearing
on
the
Hayes
building
and
a
vote
on
that,
while
I
was
in
the
minority
in
my
vote,
I
believe
that's.
The
reason
for
the
bza
to
exists
is
to
hear
cases
like
that,
where
exceptions
do
need
to
be
made,
and
that
body
then
allows
to
vote
on
things
like
that.
So
I
think
if
we
leave
it,
you
know
the
way
it
is
for
me
right
now.
That
makes
sense
thanks.
L
I
think
the
way
sorry.
G
G
We
live
in
well,
I,
don't
know
technically
what
the
term
is,
but
it's
not
a
big
city
if
it's
a
smaller
town
that
hopes
to
continue
to
grow
and
Thrive
and
the
downtown
is
Central
to
that
with
all
due
respect
to
the
mall
and
some
of
the
area
other
areas
around
the
community,
the
north
side,
the
South
Side
West,
Side
they're
all
trying
to
do
a
lot
of
things.
G
The
downtown
is
core,
and
this
is
this:
isn't
even
all
of
what
I
might
in
my
definition,
consider
the
downtown
it's
a
very
specific
protected
part
of
the
downtown
and
so
I
have
absolutely
no
interest
in
changing
this
I
think
the
numbers
would
support
the
that
we
don't
need
to,
and
that's
really
how
I
feel
about
it.
L
I
think
the
planning
department
did
a
very
good
job
here,
because
This
what
they
proposed
is
they're,
not
changing.
Nothing
is
changing,
I,
don't
think
people
are
going
to
go
and
quit
commercial
space
or
whatever
and
add
incentives,
so
they
can
make
it
smaller,
so
they
can
I,
don't
think
that
will
happen.
This
is
for
new
build.
L
I,
don't
think
it
will
affect
what
exists
at
this
point
because
nobody's
going
to
go
and
spend
money
to
to
create
incentives
to
reduce
the
the
you
know,
non-residential
space,
so
I
think
it's
a
pretty
elegant
way
that
they
came
up
with
what
they
have
here.
I,
don't
think
there
will
be
a
lot
of
change.
That's
what
I
believe.
P
B
A
great
question:
I
am
not
sure
if
we
talked
about
that
in
this
spring.
Let
me
see
if
I
have
anything
written
down,
I
would
say
if
any
hold
on.
J
B
If
there
was
more
than
that,
it
would
be
a
very
small
number
I,
just
I
can't
I,
don't
so
that
the
thing
is
that
before
2019,
the
regulation
was
just
different,
and
so
there
are
spaces
that
may
be
smaller
or,
like
I
talked
about
those
convertible
spaces
and
like
that,
for
example,
we
saw
that
that
if
we're
trying
to
encourage
non-residential
that
didn't
work
because
they've
been
residential,
this
whole
time
and
they'll
probably
never
go
back.
P
And
it's
still
on
the
developer,
I
mean
if
it's.
If
they
have
5
000
square
feet,
they
can
you
look
at
whatever's
at
the
corners
at
Washington
and
third
Da
Vinci
and
a
Ramen
place
are
in
there.
They
just
created,
so
we've
got
a
cozy
Ramen
place
and
a
and
a
larger.
B
AB
Yeah
I
guess
I
guess
my
concern
I'm
a
firm
believer
of
protecting
this
area
and
having
retail
on
the
main
level.
I
I
think
my
my
fear
is
knowing
that
it's
hard
to
make
the
numbers
work.
Will
it
slow?
You
know
investment
down
in
our
downtown,
so
I'm,
very
appreciative
of
the
developers
and
investors
that
come
and
invest
in
our
downtown,
but
will
it
I
guess
I'm
looking
for
that
formula
that
won't
that
will
still
encourage
them
to
want
to
invest
in
our
downtown
and
won't
give
them
pause.
AB
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
factors
that
are
that
play
into
that.
We
have
a
higher
interest
rate
now.
Material
costs
are
a
lot
higher.
So
there's
a
lot
of
things
out
there
that
are
making
it
really
hard
to
make
the
numbers
work
and
I.
Don't
want
this
code
to
hinder
that
I
guess
I'm
look
and
it
might
be
30,
it
might
be
50.,
I,
guess,
I'm!
Looking
for
a
scenario,
that's
not
going
to
I
guess
slow!
The
investment
in
our
downtown
I'm,
not
sure
what
that
is
so.
P
One
other
question
since
I'm,
still
in
my
first
year,
I'm
playing
commission
how
much
Partnership,
if
any,
do
we
have
with
something
like
Economic
Development
to
encourage
like
rent
subsidization
or
things
like
that
for
businesses
that
do
want
to
occupy
commercial
space
in
the
downtown
core.
B
I
would
say,
as
a
body
this
body
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
direct
contact
with
them,
but
most
of
the
people
on
this
board
will
you
included,
serve
on
other
boards
and
commissions,
and
some
of
those
are
more
I
would
say,
economic
focused,
and
so
you
know
we
can
always
improve
those
connections,
and
then
you
know
we
work
with
ESD,
of
course,
on
a
lot
of
things,
and
you
know
that's
obviously
something
that
we
would
be
interested.
You
know
in
doing
as
well.
B
In
this
case
you
know
we're
trying
to
be
responsive
to
some
concerns
we
were
being
responsive
to
concerns
in
a
you
know,
requests
that
we
heard
from
plan
commission
once
we
got
the
data,
then
I
think
we
kind
of
fall
back
on.
Does
this
need
to
be
changed,
but
as
Mr
cockram
says,
if
things
are
changing
over
time
and
this
is
becoming
a
hindrance,
that
would
be
something
we'd
be
happy
to
look
at
or
looking
at
other
options
to
help
fill
those
spaces
with
other
departments.
R
R
Think
keeping
this
on
the
radar
and
I
don't
know
how
that
would
work,
but
like
something
we
can
maybe
dress
on
a
yearly
basis,
based
on
revisiting
what
you
guys
did
on
the
walk
around,
but
also
like
where
we
could
kind
of
pull
markets.
The
numbers
from
like
Chris
is
talking
about.
You
know.
If,
if
it's
leading
towards
a
greater
hindrance,
then
we
readdress
it
yeah.
B
I
think
that
would
be
something
you
know
in
our
jobs.
Sometimes
we
have
only
have
time
to
be
reactive,
but
that
is
something
I
think
we
have
improved
on
in
the
last
few
years
trying
to
be
proactive
about
these
about
issues
of
concern.
You
know
to
the
commissions
or
community,
and
that
would
be
something
that
we
could
definitely
do.
B
You
know
try
to
check
the
check,
do
our
kinds
of
checking
annually
and
also
having
you
know
the
help
of
the
professionals
on
the
commission
to
do
that,
checking
as
well,
so
that
we
could
you
know,
then
someone
could
give
a
report
or
something
like
that
yeah.
We
would
definitely
be
open
to
that.
Okay,
thanks.
A
Any
other
comments,
questions
yeah
I
would
just
say
that
I
six
percent
vacancy
doesn't
sound
like
a
lot,
sounds
like
everything's,
great
and
working
as
it
should.
A
But
if
you
look
at
the
buildings
that
have
been
built
recently
and
we
think
about
the
corner
of
7th
and
Morton,
there's
a
I
think
a
beautiful
restaurant
space.
That's
been
sitting
there
vacant
for
how
many
years
now
and
we
even
allowed
ground
floor
residential
on
that
building,
but
we're
basically
talking
about
making
it
the
law
of
the
land
that
you
have
to
build,
something
that
we
know
is
not
going
to
be
used
and
I
just
I.
Just
can't
can't
be
on
board
with
that
I.
A
A
All
right,
the
motion
is
to
forward
this
to
the
council
with
a
positive
recommendation
and
we
have
a
second
so
Jackie.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll
sure.
B
F
Q
A
Motion
dies
so
we
are
then
we
can
entertain
another
motion.
If
so,
if
we
do
nothing
since
that
didn't
pass.
G
I
A
All
right,
we
have
one
more
item
on
our
agenda
this
evening.
We
have
six
minutes
before
9
p.m
and.
J
J
At
9
30
pm,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
with
the
pending
petition,
you
do
have
the
option
of
suspending
that
rule
by
unanimous
vote.
If
you
do
not
suspend
the
whole
by
unanimous
vote
for
rules,
do
require
you
to
schedule
a
special
session
within
one
week
day
to
take
it
up
behind.
A
A
All
right:
well,
let's,
let's
get
cooking,
then
all
right
next
up
is
our
final
petition
for
the
evening.
This
is.
B
A
B
Away
so
Zeo
3423
another
a
text-
Amendment,
oh
I'm,
just
realizing,
there's
an
error
in
the
packet.
Okay,
sorry,
here
we
go
this
text
amendment
is
related
to
a
request
that
we
worked
on
with
the
legal
department
to
prepare
a
text
amendment
that
will
require
removal
of
certain
off-site
and
on-site
freestanding
signage
over
a
period
of
time.
Here
shortly
in
the
future
beginning
in
five
years,
the
planning
and
transportation
department
we
used
to
do
annual
surveys
of
billboards
in
town.
B
Putting
up
new
Billboards
in
town
has
been
illegal
for
decades.
What
we
would
what
you
would
probably
typically
consider
a
billboard
off-site
or
on-site
a
large
sign
and
the
last
survey
that
the
department
did
was
in
2014
and
documented
47
billboard
locations,
so
sometimes
those
have
more
than
one
sign
face
on
them,
but
47
locations
in
town.
B
We
know,
for
example,
that
the
a
couple
of
the
Billboards
have
been
removed,
one
on
West
3rd
Street,
where
the
extra
space
storage
went
in.
They
did
not
continue
their
lease
with
Lamar
and
that
sign
was
removed
and
I
believe
one
more
since
2014..
B
So
again,
we've
been
tracking
the
lawful
non-conforming
signs.
Since
the
late
80s,
at
least,
and
the
proposal
sets
forth
a
path
to
remove
these
lawful
non-conforming
signs
in
order
to
further
meet
the
intent
of
the
science
standards
in
the
Udo,
those
standards
include
avoidance
of
unnecessary
proliferation
of
signs,
providing
developments
with
appropriate
identification,
creating
a
consistent,
streetscape,
maintaining
and
enhancing
the
aesthetic
environment
of
the
city,
eliminating
potential
hazards
to
modus
motorists
and
pedestrians,
resulting
from
sign,
clutter
and
generally
promoting
health
safety
and
Welfare
of
the
residents
of
the
city
of
Bloomington.
B
So
to
be
clear,
this
is
for
freestanding
signs
only
so
wall
signage
signs
that
are
on
buildings
is
not
part
of
this
proposal,
as
well
as
signs
that
have
gone
in
and
met
the
sign
requirements
of
the
Udo.
Those
are
also
not
included,
so
this
is
for
lawful,
non-conforming
signs
signs
that
were
erected
before
the
zoning
code
and
that
meet
certain
requirements.
B
So
here
we
have
the
actual
language
so
for
off-premise
signs
we
would
be
looking
at
signs
that
are
not
public
signs
or
multi-tenant
signs.
So
you
can
think
of
some
large
multi-tenant
signs
like
on
West
Third
for
those
developments.
Those
signs
are
lawful,
non-conforming
they're
gigantic,
but
those
are
not
included
in
this
requirement.
So
this
is
like
a
one
use.
B
Billboard
sign
so
freestanding
signs
exceeding
100
square
feet,
and
then
we
are
proposing
again
to
amortize
them
over
a
period
of
three
years
based
on
the
zoning
District
in
when
in
which
they
are
located.
I'm.
Sorry,
that's
for
the
hundred
square
feet.
I'm,
so
sorry
is,
for
on-site.
Signage
again
freestanding
only
not
on
a
building
and
then
off-premise
signage
is
35
square
feet
and
again
to
be
amortized
based
on
those
zoning
District
over
three
years,
so
I'm
just
going
to
quickly
go
through
like
a
really.
B
There
are
Billboards.
There
are
a
lot
of
billboards
in
this
town
and
these
are
the
types
of
billboards
that
would
be
affected
by
the
regulation.
So,
for
example,
here
is
a
poll
sign
at
eagleston
and
third,
that
houses
to
two
billboard
faces
that
would
be
affected
by
this
regulation.
B
advertising.
You
know
an
off-premise
business
as
many
as
most
of
our
Billboards
do
we
have
them
on
West
Third
again,
I
mentioned
the
one
that
was
removed
at
Extra,
Space
Storage,
almost
directly
or
sorry,
just
up
the
block
from
these
signs
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
and
I
think
probably
most
people
think
of
South
Walnut,
where
there
are
quite
a
few
signs.
You
can
see
six
panels
here
too
in
the
distance
and
the
four
in
the
foreground
along
this
drive
as
well.
We
do
have
some.
B
These
are
the
types
of
signs
that
would
be
captured
for
the
on
premise:
signage,
two
Billboards
here
attached
to
the
side
of
the
comedy
attic
as
well
as
this
billboard
here
sometimes
advertises
for
blooming
Foods,
so
it
would
actually
meet
either
regulation
of
on
on-site
or
off-site
so
coming
forward.
With
this
amendment
in
response
to
Administration
desire
to
see
the
regulations
of
the
sign
code,
be
sorry,
not
the
regulations
but
meeting
the
intent
more
in
the
community
by
getting
rid
of
these
large
signs
and
I
can
answer
any
questions.
Thanks
are.
AB
Firm
The
Comedy
attic,
so
so
it
could
be
and
I
think
you
answered
this
question.
I
just
want
to
confirm
it.
It
does
not.
The
sign
can
advertise
just
whatever
it
does
not
have
to
be
associated
with
the
business.
That's
located
in
the
building.
B
G
B
Yeah
right
so
I'm.
Sorry,
thank
you
for
clarifying
that.
So
the
on-premise
signs
that
are
advertising
a
business
on
site,
the
only
ones
being
regulated,
are
freestanding
and
only
if
they're
over
100
square
feet
100
square
feet.
If
they're
on
the
building,
then
they're
not
being
regulated
at
all.
So
these
that
I
showed
here
on
this
side
of
the
comedy
attic
they
don't
advertise
for
the
comedy
Attic
So.
They
are
off-premise
signage,
because
they're
advertising
like
in
this
instance
for
like
Burger,
King
or
something
so
those
are
off-premise
signage.
B
I
think
we
just
thought
the
issues
could
well
a
couple
things
what
we
usually
do
in
the
text
amendments,
but
we
did
not
do
with
the
50
just
because
it
was
coming
from
you
guys,
I
think,
as
we
usually
put
in
a
request,
a
waiver
of
second
hearing
and
then,
if
you
don't
want
to
do
that,
we
just
move
on
I
mean
we
just
have
the
second
hearing.
K
Guess
I'm
surprised
that
there
aren't
any
billboard
owners
who
are
here
present
to
oppose
this
and
I.
Just
wonder
if
we
have
any
perspective
from
you
know:
businesses
that
either
I
don't
know
how
all
the
billboard
signs
are.
You
know
they're
owned
and
whether
the
comedy
attic
or
any
other
building
owner
gets
a
cut
of
that
I.
Don't
I,
don't
know,
but
I'm
surprised
that
nobody
is
here
to
say
anything
to
oppose
this
ordinance
or
change.
A
K
B
Most
of
the
Billboards
in
town
are
owned
by
Lamar
Advertising,
not
all
of
them.
There
are
very
few
that
aren't,
but
most
are
owned
by
them.
The
vast
majority
I
don't
know
that
I,
don't
believe
it
has
happened,
but
Mr
Rooker
can
correct
me.
There
I
don't
know
if
there's
Outreach
made
to
interested
parties
that
was
not
done
by
our
department
when
this
was
proposed.
P
J
AB
J
AB
I
mean
okay
and
then
I
have
another
question
just
just
to
be
clear:
the
phasing
what
I
know
you
just
described,
but
could
you
just
describe
it
once
again,
what
triggers
it
and
then
how
is
it
phased
out.
E
Sure,
let's
see
hold
in
just
a.
B
B
So
the
phasing
is
based
on
zoning
District.
So
by
January
1st
of
2029,
there
are
seven
zoning
districts
where,
if
you
have
a
sign
in
that
District
that
meets
the
requirements
one
of
these
two
requirements,
then
that
sign
has
to
come
down
so
based
on
the
40s.
We
looked
at
the
47
from
2014,
and
so
that
would
be
10.
10
would
come
down
the
first
year.
B
Then,
by
January
1st
of
the
second
year
we
add
an
additional
eight
zoning
districts,
that's
additional
13
signs
and
then
January
22nd
of
the
third
year,
which
is
2031.
We
add
three
more
districts,
and
then
that
is
the
remaining
24
signs.
So
by
The
End
by
the
beginning
of
2031,
they
would
all
be
down.
O
A
I
I
think
that
is
a
reasonable
suggestion.
I
was
going
to
suggest
something
else,
which
is
that
this
feels
like
something
that
deserves
a
little
bit
more
public
input.
We
haven't
contacted
the
businesses
either,
who
own
manage
or
rent
the
billboard
space
I
think
it
really
warrants
an
opportunity
for
additional
input.
A
So
my
recommendation
will
be
that
we
just
continue
this
to
a
second
hearing
at
our
next
meeting
and-
and
we
can
do
that
quickly
and
be
out
of
here
before
9
30
and
have
a
chance
for
more
interested
parties
to
come
and
give
their
input
at
our
next
meeting.
AB
Only
because
I
mean
I
recently
was
in
a
transaction
where
there's
a
a
10-year
lease
with
a
landowner
to
lease
that
billboard
space
that
would
go
beyond
2029
I,
said
I,
guess
that
that's
a
concern
of
how?
How
would
that
be
handled
by
the
parties
involved?
I
so
I
would
agree
with
commissioner
Whistler.
A
Okay,
we
will
go
then
to
public
comment
on
0-34-23.
Is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
make
comment
comment
on
this
petition?
A
All
right
we're
back
to
the
commission,
then,
and
again,
as
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
there's
no
public
comment,
I
think
I
would
I
would
like
to
see
us
continue
this
to
to
a
second
hearing
and
but
would
entertain
any
motion
that
anyone
would
like
to
make.
G
Completely
support
that
I,
don't
like
Billboards
at
all.
There's
I
can't
think
of
one
that
I
like,
but
I
do
like
the
public
process,
and
it
does
feel
like
there
hasn't
been
enough
input
from
the
people
that
this
really
financially
impacts.
So
I
will
motion
that
we
move.
A
J
A
Thank
you,
I
think
all
right.
So
the
motion
is
to
deny
the
request
for
waiver
of
the
second
hearing
and
to
continue
this
to
a
second
hearing
at
our
October
meeting:
correct
yeah,
okay,
final
comments:
yep.
AB
So
I
recently
spent
time
in
Vermont
and
I
did
not
realize
this,
but
they
do
not
allow
Billboards
in
the
entire
state
was
kind
of
nice.
Actually
a
beautiful
state
by
the
way,
so
I'm
not
opposed
to
it
at
all.
I.
Just
think
that
there
are
businesses
and
leases
that
it
could
affect,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
thorough
about
the
decision.
A
All
right,
if
there
aren't
any
more
comments,.