►
From YouTube: Bloomington Plan Commission, December 14, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
2020.,
we
do
have
three
petitions
on
the
agenda
this
evening.
A
I'm
just
giving
you
a
just
give
a
brief
overview.
The
agenda
we'll
have
some
some
internal.
A
Business
to
take
care
of,
and
then
three
petitions
in
in
the
order
of
pod,
17-20,
mcdole
business.
A
Trustee
the
petitioner
on
that
one.
So
why
don't
we
start
with
calling
the
role.
B
Great,
let's
see
burrell
here,
herrera.
B
I
think
she
is
going
to
be
joining
us
late
yeah.
She
said
she
would
be
here,
but
a
few
minutes.
A
Late,
all
right,
so
we
do
have
some
minutes
for
approval.
The
minutes
from
our
october
2020.
A
A
All
right,
we
have
motion
in
a
second
all
in
favor
of
approving
the
october
2020.
A
Meeting
minutes
please
say:
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay
minutes
are
approved,
we'll
move
on
now.
A
To
reports,
resolutions
and
communications,
I
know
we
have
a
couple
of
things
that
are.
A
Specifically
mentioned
on
the
agenda
before
we
get
to
those
anything
else,
jackie
from
staff.
A
All
right:
well,
let's
go
to
the
first
of
those.
Then
we
do
need
to
appoint
a
hearing
officer.
A
And
I
can
speak
to
that.
A
little
bit
hearing
officer
sees
petitions
that.
B
Would
otherwise
go
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
if
they
are
simple,
pretty
cut
and
dry
and.
B
We
need
to
appoint
a
hearing
officer
alternate
because
mr
robinson
was
our
hearing
officer.
B
B
January,
but
we
just
wanted
to
fill
the
position,
we
have
a
staff
person
named
karina
pazos
and
she.
B
Is
a
planner
by
trade?
I
mean
a
planner
by
education,
but
she
also
works
on
the.
B
She
has
said
that
she
would
be
interested
in
willing
to
serve
as
the
hearing
officer
alternate.
A
A
All
right:
well,
unless
there
are
any
other
suggestions,
I
think
this
would.
D
Second,
all
right:
we
have
a
nomination
and
a
second
any
discussion
on
that.
A
Comments
or
questions
okay?
Well,
let's,
let's
call
the
role
then.
A
C
A
Item
here
to
take
action
on
this
is
the
sign
fee
amendment
which
we
have
extended.
I
think.
A
This
amendment
mike
yes,
I
do
thank
you
brad
just
very
quickly.
I
think
the
commission
is.
E
Now,
familiar
with
with
these
signed
fee
waivers
back
on
june,
8th
and
then.
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
Exact
same
program
as
it
was
three
months
ago,
there
is
nothing
new
from
the
planned
commission's.
E
Perspective
here
it's
just
an
extension.
Obviously
you
know
the
the
pandemic
has.
E
Not
slowed
down
at
this
point
in
time,
we're
hopeful
that,
with
the
news
related
to
vaccines,.
E
That
we
will
see
a
change
at
some
point
in
the
coming
months,
but
that
is
not
a
reality
yet.
E
All
right
are
there
any
questions
from
commissioners
on
on
this,
this
request.
A
All
right,
if,
if
not,
would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion?
I
think
the
request
is
just
that.
A
We
would
move
to
extend
the
waiver
of
sign
application
fees.
B
B
Just
say
that
we
will
be
doing
our
appointments
as
well
in
january,
not
just
the
hearing
officer.
B
Appointment
but
those
on
the
board
on
the
commission's
and
boards
that
this
body.
B
Helps
to
fill
so
please
do
be
thinking
about
that.
I
will
send
out
an
email
reminder
about.
B
What
those
are
if
people
might
be
interested
in
either
filling
the
same
roles
or
taking
on.
B
Something
new
next
year
we
appreciate
all
you
do
and
I
hope
you'll
give
that
some
consideration.
B
Thanks
all
right,
thank
you.
Are
there
any
other
reports
or
communications
from
commissioners.
A
All
right
seeing
none,
we
are
on
to
our
petitions.
First
up,
we
have
pud
17-20.
G
Commissioner
whistler,
yes,
so
I'm
sorry,
commissioner,.
G
G
A
H
A
roughly
100
000
square
foot
warehouse
that
is
located
along
the
switchyard
park,
so
this
is.
H
Some
overall
guidance,
the
position
has
been
working
on
some
changes
to
the
petition,
and
so.
H
They're
coming
back
for
their
their
second
hearing
here
tonight,
so
what
they're
requesting
now
is.
H
An
amendment
to
the
preliminary
plan
and
the
district
ordinance
for
the
thompson
pud.
H
To
allow
for
19
town
homes
and
104
multi-family
residences
on
this
parcel.
So,
as
I
mentioned
this.
H
H
This
site
so
they're
coming
forward
now
with
a
slightly
different
product.
H
Buildings
there
would
be
a
rain
garden
between
cities.
It's
kind
of
a
courtyard
with
two.
H
Connections
to
the
switchyard
park
to
the
east
of
this
moving
to
the
south.
You've
got
two
four.
H
And
five-story
multi-family
mixed-use
buildings,
southern
building
would
be
a
five-story
building.
H
Two-Way
access,
if
the
plane
commission
remembers
the
previous
site
plan,
had
this.
H
Entering
and
exiting
the
site
and
so
they've
also
stubbed
this
parking
area
and
and
driveway
to.
H
The
north,
where
it's
currently
been
developed,
it's
a
mini
storage
warehouse,
so
the
parking.
H
Area
has
been
stubbed
for
the
hopes
that,
if
that
property
to
the
north
redevelops
that
this.
H
H
H
Floor
with
apartments
above
that
so
another
a
couple,
more
features
of
the
prop
of
the
project.
H
The
petitioner
has
committed
that
the
mixed-use
buildings
on
this
this
would
be
buildings.
One.
H
Two
and
seven
would
be
designed
to
the
silver
lead
standards.
The
townhomes
would
also
be
designed.
H
Units
within
them,
so
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
discussing
and
working
on
with
this.
H
Petition
many
times,
especially,
was
discussed
with
the
the
last
hearing
was
how
this
project.
H
H
H
H
With
the
upper
three
floors
being
used
as
residences
to
the
north
of
this,
you
can.
H
See
one
of
the
mixed-use
buildings
that
has
the
curved
kind
of
corner
the
southeast
corner.
H
H
H
The
five-story
further
back
from
the
trail
to
help
provide
a
better
aesthetic
along
the
trail.
H
H
Find
is
a
good
attribute
of
those
two
buildings,
but
it's
something
that
we
want
to
kind
of
look
at.
H
Site
so
this
rendering
is
looking
south
in
the
foreground.
Here
you
can
see
the
four
townhome.
H
Buildings,
so
they
have
specific
awnings
that
are
shown
along
the
fronts
of
those.
H
Buildings
and
entrances-
sorry,
I'm
kind
of
moving
fast
here.
So
these
are
the
the
townhome.
H
Buildings
again,
as
I
mentioned,
the
awnings,
the
entrances
are
kind
of
tucked
back
along
the.
H
The
corner
of
the
buildings,
so
the
the
facades
of
these
buildings
facing
the
trail,
is
one
of
the.
H
Things
that
still
causes
us
some
concern
about
this
project,
as
we
we've
mentioned
in
the.
H
H
H
Detail
so,
as
we
mentioned
in
the
staff
report,
the
petitioner
did
revise
one
of
the
elevations.
H
Moving
a
little
bit
more
forward
in
the
direction
that
we
want,
we
still
want
to
hopefully
try.
H
To
get
a
little
bit
better
detail
regarding
those
pedestrian
entrances,
make
them
a
little
bit.
H
More
predominant,
you
know
not
kind
of
tucked
back.
We
want
them
to
look
and
feel
like
a
front.
H
The
the
building
south
of
hillside
drive-
this
is
the
building
on
the
south
end
of
the
site
on.
H
Which
really
does
not
promote
any
pedestrian
friendly
view
or
interaction
granted?
It
is.
H
Set
back
further
from
the
switchyard
park,
however,
we
feel
we.
We
could
certainly
make
some.
H
Improvements
to
that
building
facade,
you
know
possibly
something
mirroring
the
the
building.
H
Corner
of
the
building
creates
some
detail
and
interest,
so
we'd
like
to
try
to
get
a
little.
H
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
there
was
a
consultant
ser
plan
that
was
drawn
up
for
this
site.
That.
H
You
can
see
on
this
site
on
this
slide
right
here.
It
has
buildings,
three
four-story
and
scale.
H
The
site
plan
to
better
mirror
that
study.
That
was
done
so
we
certainly
are
very
encouraged
by.
H
That
change
in
the
site
plan,
however,
as
I
mentioned,
we
do
want
to
see
some
improvements.
H
H
Outlines
the
standards
that
are
being
held
to
this
petition
setbacks
impervious
surface.
H
Coverage
things
like
that,
so
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
is
spelled
out
and
nailed
down.
H
H
Building
along
the
south,
as
well
as
any
other
comments
regarding
the
site
plan
and
elevations.
A
There,
a
representative
of
the
petitioner,
who
would
like
to
make
a
presentation.
A
Or
add
anything
to
so
doug
bruce
is
here
from
the
petitioner.
Yes,
can
you
hear
me
yep.
A
We
got
you
doug,
okay,
hello,
so
I'm
sitting
here
with
our
civil
engineer
and
my
client.
I
And
we've
as
you've
seen,
we've
made
quite
a
few
changes
from
the
initial
plan.
I
But
the,
but
the
real
request
right
now
is
to
again
jeff
hope,
as
if
we
weren't.
I
I
I
I
I
And
those
were
all
five
and
six
story
buildings,
and
we
were
pretty
well
told
that
that
wasn't.
I
Going
to
happen
and
that
this
site,
the
mayor,
did
not
want
to
see
this
park
next
to
one
didn't.
I
In
2015,
nothing
was
ever
filed,
the
numbers
never
worked
and
the
project
just
went
away.
I
Board
of
mcdonald
neighborhood
and
showed
them
our
site
plan
of
just
all
single-family
homes
and.
I
And
at
that
time
they
really
liked
it.
So
we
moved
forward
and
met
with
planning
that
spring.
I
Of
the
spring
of
2020
or
I'll
say
early
2020
january
february,
and
then
we
were
kind
of
told.
I
That
no,
we
want
to
see
more
density
here.
You
know
we
need,
we
need
to
see
you
add
some
density.
I
Then
we
filed
in
august
or
filed
in
june
july,
and
we
had
our
august
hearing
and
some
people.
I.
I
Think
in
the
mcdonald
neighborhood
were
upset
because
we
had
gone
away
from
the
single
family.
I
The
street
they're
behind
us
directly
to
the
west
of
us.
We
tried
to
incorporate.
I
A
request
that
was
brought
up
at
our
at
our
first
hearing
with
you
back
in
I
think
august
10th.
I
I
Udo
has
for
affordable
housing.
We
also
wanted
to
look
at
again
a
a
different
type
of
housing.
I
I
I
I
I
I
And
kind
of
a
raised
porch
towards
the
beeline
trail.
But
that's
why
we
decided
we
wanted
to.
I
Hear
this
this
evening
as
well,
I
mean
we've
been,
you
know.
We
had
our
first
hearing
in
august.
I
Just
been
it's
it
to
me,
it's
kind
of
gotten
us
away
from
the
original
request
of
what
we're.
I
I
Front
doors
and
porches
face
the
park
either,
but
this
has
kind
of
put
us
where
we
are
now.
J
Get
approval
then
we'll
come
back
and
get
work
with
the
staff
and
come
up
with
an.
J
L
That
the
petitioners
just
provided-
and
I
wonder
if
jackie
or
eric
staff
could.
L
L
L
That
sure
so
I
can
weigh
in
and
then
eric
can
jump
in
and
add
or
correct
anything.
Yes,.
B
B
A
hundred
percent
accurate
we
we
do
try
to
avoid
that.
However,
in
this
case
and
in
other
cases,.
B
We've
seen
lots
of
detail
was
presented
and
what's
a
problem
in
this
situation,.
B
Is
that
when
you
are
amending
the
preliminary
plan
in
order
to
add
uses.
B
So
they
can
do
that
and
that's
fine,
but
what
typically
happens
in
a
beauty
of
this
size
similar.
B
And
so
that
is
kind
of
how
this
one
has
has
worked
out.
So,
whether
or
not.
B
B
Important
and
needs
to
be
taken
as
a
front
for
longer
than
two
weeks
and
at
this
point.
B
We
just
don't
feel
comfortable
that
the
development
standards
that
are
in
the
existing.
B
Pud
would
would
get
that
so
either
they
can
propose
some
along
those
lines
or
show
us.
B
B
Their
parameters,
parameters
for
building
because
they
have
not
said
you
know
and
again
eric-
can.
B
B
Like
this
often,
what
happens
is
the
the
drawing
that
they've
showed
you
kind
of
stands
in
for
that.
B
None
of
that
has
been
done,
so
we've
been
treating
it,
and
so
maybe
we
shouldn't
have.
B
B
Stood
in
as
the
development
standards
for
what
could
come
through.
But
yes,
if
they
don't
want.
B
B
Condition.
But
because
we
actually
felt
that
we
were
kind
of
repeatedly
making
it
clear
that
the.
B
Schmidt
associates
and
have
a
more
professional
opinion
weigh
in
to
get
those
ideas
going
so.
B
That
that
was
kind
of
our
intent
to
put
it
to
put
it
on
to
january,
and
we
also
wanted
to
note.
B
Past
but
we
did
want
them
to
be
able
to
come
here
and
kind
of
explain.
You
know
that
hey,
we
are.
B
B
B
As
opposed
to
trying
to
continually
discuss
it
with
them,
without
your
input.
A
Eric
anything
to
add
no,
I
think
jeff
jackie
kind
of
synopsized
that
pretty
well.
A
Okay,
okay,
any
other
questions.
Well,
as
a
follow-up
to
that,
I
guess
a
question
for
the.
M
M
M
To
do
to
set
out
standards
and
and
approach
it
simply
as
the
reason
issue,
but
with
a
set
of.
M
Your
preference
here
well
part
this
is
doug
bruce
part
of
what
I
would
say
is
we
we
did
submit.
I.
I
Don't
work
or
or
don't
how
do
I
want
to
say
it?
Don't
yeah,
don't
front.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A
You're
suggesting
that
the
amendment
the
thompson
track,
epud
amendment
zoning
rules.
A
That
are
in
the
packet
page,
17,
18,
19
and
20.
It
is
it
your
suggestion
that
those
should.
A
Should
be
sufficient
to
stand
in
as
the
as
the
development
standards.
I
I
I
I
A
And
and
so
maybe
just
a
follow-up,
then
for
for
staff
either
for
jackie
or
for
eric.
H
Yes,
brad,
I
can.
I
can
certainly
address
that
so,
while
the
the
petitioner
has.
H
Outlined
zoning
district
standards
for
for
some
of
the
parcels
here,
some
of
our
concerns
have
been.
H
H
H
H
Can't
recess
it,
you
know
the
so
the
the
detail
that
has
been
submitted
with
the
rendering.
H
H
Those
standards,
so
that's
that's
one
of
our
concerns,
as
I
also
mentioned
with
the
the
southern.
H
H
H
H
A
D
Additions
corrections
adherences
to
the
the
proper
zoning
could
that
be
done
at
that
level
if.
D
H
What
leaves
the
final
plan
commission
review
is
the
same
thing
that
we're
showing
to
the
city.
H
D
In
one
meeting,
or
do
they
have
two
before
they
move
it
on
to
council,
it
certainly
depends
on.
H
More
complicated
petitions,
like
the
trinitas
petition,
the
motel
six
petition.
You
know
those.
H
Were
two
hearings
at
the
land
use
committee
before
going
back
to
the
full
council.
H
So
it
just
depends
on
the
complexity.
You
know
certainly
with
this
particular
project.
H
Of
expectation
for
that,
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
this
looks
as
great
as
it's
going
to.
H
Get
because
city
council
is
going
to
have
the
same
expectations
that
the
plane
commission
does.
B
Understand
doug's
position
but
with
when
eric
is
mr
person's
position.
But
when
eric
is
reviewing.
B
You
know
he's
identified
some
areas
that
he
thinks
might
not
work
and
so
we're
hesitant.
B
B
And
have
them
be
as
complete
as
possible,
especially
in
a
beauty
situation.
As
you
know,.
B
B
B
N
Can
the
amendment
amendment
be
moved
forward
with
a
writ
written.
H
Yes,
you
I
mean
you,
you
could
have
conditions
of
approval
that
would
need
to
outline
you.
H
The
standard
that
needs
to
be
changed.
We
have
time
to
look
at
it
and
review
it
and
make.
H
H
To
the
sharing
the
screen
so
that
I
can
show
you,
rather
than
describe
it.
H
These
portions
of
the
town
home
that
face
the
the
trail.
H
Look
like
sides
of
buildings,
you
know
it's
not
looking.
You
know
when
you
look
at
this
building.
H
H
Look
and
feel
you
know
if
there
is
a
way
to
say
you
know,
put
the
put
the
entrance
in
the
center
of.
H
H
Affect
the
entire
building
and
the
feel
of
it
does
that
help.
B
B
Can
tell
it's
the
front
it
has.
You
know
architectural
details
that
a
side
of
the.
B
B
B
Is
a
more
level
of
expertise,
someone
weighing
in
from
schmidt
with
more
better
a
better
way.
B
B
Lines
making
it
obvious
that
these
are
units
that
front
on
the
b
line,
but
that
didn't.
B
Happen
so
then
we
were
are
thinking
of
trying
to
think
of
a
better
way
to
communicate
with
the.
B
Applicant
to
make
that
happen,
and
we
think
that
possibly
engaging
schmidt
schmidt
could
do
that.
A
F
Sorry
I
have
two
questions,
so
one
is
just
maybe
a
silly
question,
but
just
so
I'm
clear.
F
So
that
it's
very
specific,
no,
I
think,
oh
sorry,
go
ahead.
So
if
so,
if
the
district
standards.
H
That
we
knew
would
accomplish
what
we
were
trying
to
accomplish,
but
this
is
this
is
kind
of
where.
H
F
H
Helpful
to
supplement
the
the
standards
that
show
here
is
a
building
that
will
be
built
to.
H
F
That
that's
what
staff
prefers
and
that
mr
bruce
has
articulated
that
they
can
change
those.
H
H
F
F
Two
floors
there
that
that
really
wasn't
quite
to
the
airpoint
that
you
would
want
is
that
right.
H
H
But
yes,
okay!
So
if
I
can
just
ask
the
petitioner,
if
you're
willing
to
also.
I
Well,
so
what
I'll
say
about
that
building?
There's
some
problematic
issues
with
that
building.
I
I
I
Northeast
corner,
so
it
really
almost
slopes
from
west
to
to
drops
towards
east
towards.
I
I
I
Allowed
us
to
add
some
parking,
because
that
is,
you
know
that
area
is
where
we're
going
to
have.
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
You
mean
by
detail,
or
is
it
strictly
within
the
building
itself,.
H
Provide
areas
for
residences
to
be
facing
the
trail
so
whether
that
or
I
mean
balconies.
H
Spaces
and
mr
bruce
showed
that,
on
on
one
of
the
elevations
that
we
got,
you
know
ground.
H
Floor
patio,
you
know,
if
it
accessed
the
units
you
know
could
be,
could
be
fine.
You
know.
H
A
Okay-
let's
go
to
commissioner
kate.
M
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
tracking
the
next
steps,
because
if,
if
petitioner
is
going
to.
M
Further
guidance
for
what
the
office
is
looking
for,
rather
than
kick
it
back
to
the
comm.
M
Trying
to
provide
some
more
specific
guidance
about
exactly
what
the
office
is
looking
for
in.
M
The
city's
looking
for
is
that
right,
yes,
so
you'll
recall
that
the
schmidt
associates
we've.
B
Used
in
the
past
for
architectural
comments
on
petitions,
and
so
yes,
we
would
just
send
them.
B
Our
standard
request,
and
then
we
have
a
basically
they
send
us
a
form
with
comments,
and
so
we.
B
B
Fairly
quickly,
I
mean
obviously
it's
about
to
be
the
holidays,
but
we
because
it's
not
a.
B
Full
review-
and
they
have
seen
some
of
it
already.
I
think
that's
what
we
would
prefer.
B
B
Last
week
after
final
revisions-
and
you
know
if
that
can
be
if
they
can
continue
to
work
with
eric.
B
And
satisfy
his
concerns,
you
know,
then
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
wait
for
outside
input.
B
But
but
what
he's
saying
here
at
the
meeting
does
sound
like
he
has
a
better
idea
of
what
we.
B
Were
looking
for,
and
so
you
know
it's
possible
that
that
could
be
done
without
schmidt,
but
we.
B
Would
definitely
reach
out
to
them
immediately
and
see
if
they
could
offer
some
suggestions.
H
All
the
doors
you
know
certainly
patios
along
the
ground
floor
with
doors
you
know,
might
be
a.
H
Security
concern
for
them
for
the
ground
floor
units,
but
petitioner
probably
addressed
that.
M
I
Where
this
site
falls
along
the
park,
that's
about
where
the
bocce
ball
and
some
of
those.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I've
replaced
the
chairs
on
the
front
porch
a
few
times
already,
so
you
know
that
area
right
now.
I
Belongings,
I
guess
that's
the
easiest
way
to
say
it.
So
I
don't
know
about,
I
mean
you
know
again.
I
I
M
M
M
I
might
have
some
concerns
about
that
entrance
being
right
onto
the
trail,
even
though
the
idea.
I
I
M
I
I
L
Pages
that
begin
on
17,
where
is
less
conflict
or
where
there's
no
conflict?
How
about
that.
L
B
B
Trying
to
get
at
so
at
this
point
and-
and
we
always
do
think
when
something
goes
to.
B
Council,
even
if
it's
a
reason
for
something,
that's
that's
this
visual-
that
that's
this
visible.
B
Too,
that
that's
just
the
nature
of
the
beast
here
and
but
yes,
we
want
the
written.
A
All
right,
thank
you
any
further
questions
from
commissioners.
Yes,
commissioner,.
O
So
jackie
just
to
clarify
as
well
so
before
this
reaches
the
council,
the
the
expectation
is
to.
O
Have
by
that
time,
the
new
renderings,
the
new,
the
new
requirements
that
you
have
been.
O
Requesting
is
that
we
would
like.
We
would
like
to
bring
this
back
to
you
on
at
the
january.
B
Meeting
with
new
new
standards
and
new
drawings
that
address
the
issues
eric's
identified
so.
O
And
based
on
the
changes,
then
we
will
proceed
with
the
the
decision
from.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
we
will
go
now
to
public
comment.
So
if
you
are
here
from
the
public
and
you'd.
A
Like
to
make
comment
on
pud
17-20,
the
way
to
do
that
would
be
to
click
on
the
participants.
A
A
Your
comment
we'll
do
our
best
to
get
those
answered
once
we
get
back
to
our
agenda
so.
A
Thank
you
if
you're
having
any
trouble
raising
your
virtual
hand
feel
free
to
just
turn
on
your.
A
A
A
So
we'll
go
back
to
back
to
the
commission,
so
at
this
time
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate.
L
2021
planned
commission
meeting
for
hearing.
M
O
Might
want
to
have
by
for
the
january
11th
meeting
yeah
I
I
I
agree
with
that.
A
A
Our
in
our
january
meeting,
so
let's
have
some
some
final
discussion
here
before
we
vote
on
that.
A
Motion
and
I
think
yeah,
if,
if
if
we
can
just
make
it
as
crystal
clear
as
we
possibly
can.
A
What
what
the
expectation
should
be
for
this
next
meeting
so
that
we
can
keep
this
moving.
A
As
best
we
can
any
anyone
want
to
begin.
Final
final
comments,
commissioner,
st
john
go
ahead.
F
To
one
or
the
other,
okay,
I
would
like
to,
may
I
say
something:
yes
go
ahead,
commissioner,.
N
N
A
final
planning
decision
this,
what
we're
deciding
here
is
just
a
lane
land
use
and
the.
N
N
We
are
all
they
need
to
set.
Is
this
we
need
to
know
is
the
standards
of
what
each.
N
Building
is
going
to
provide
so
because
the
final
approval
for
the
preliminary.
N
N
To
be
so,
I
understand,
when
eric
talks
about
a
feel
which
is
hard
to
describe
a
feel
of
what
this.
N
N
Going
to
a
manned
here,
and
as
long
as
it
is
clear
what
the
intent
of
those
buildings
are.
N
And
and
eric
and
and
the
petitioner
can
work
that
out,
that's
all
we
need
correct.
B
Yes,
and
no,
I
don't
know
exactly
if
you
want
me
to
answer
the
question.
Yes,
it
is
it's
a
rezone
100.
B
But
the
development
standards
that
we
do
have
aren't,
because
this
is
a
plan
unit,
development.
B
And
we
can
work
with
them
on
on
goals
for
the
plant
plan,
unity,
development,
this
one
being
a.
B
So
we
see
that
in
the
rendering
they've
given
and
they
say:
oh
yes,
we'll
fix
it,
and
that
and-
and
I.
B
L
I
mean
I
I
just
want
to
say.
I
really
appreciate
the
work
that
that
doug
bruce
and
colleagues.
L
L
L
We
have
to
be
clear
about
what
this
allows
and
it's
unfortunate.
If
it,
you
know,
it's
gone
back
and.
L
Forth
several
times
here,
but
I
understand
we
all
have
there-
are
lots
of
visions
for
what
this.
L
Property
should
be
could
be,
we
want
it
to
be,
and
it's
both
exciting,
but
also.
L
M
M
M
Desire
to
have
integration
and
petitioners
concerns
about
safety
and,
and
I
raised.
M
M
One
and
then
the
other
is
the
parking
and
whether
there
is
any
further
ability
to
integrate.
M
Attention
in
this
next
round,
well,
those
are
those
are
the
big
things
you
know,
as
you.
H
Mentioned
there
are
just
a
few
holes
that
are
in
these
standards
that
need
to
be
addressed.
H
Either,
to
satisfy
the
concern
regarding
the
pedestrian
entrance
or
or
just
general.
H
Are
anti-monotony
standards
that
conflict
with
what's
proposed
in
their
multi-family
district.
H
That
they
didn't
address,
so
they
need
to
address
that
they
need
to
address
materials.
C
Okay,
all
right
any
other
comments,
I'll
offer
my
own.
I
suppose
this
is.
A
I
think
it
sounds
like
we're
not
far
off
and
it
sounds
like
we
certainly
could
have
had.
A
Language
crafted
before
this
meeting
that
would
have
addressed
the
issues
I
I
certainly.
A
You
know
the
reality
is
that
we
we
have
to
have
we.
We
have
to
be
able
to
describe.
A
What
is
permitted
in
words?
We
can't
have
a
system
that
just
requires
petitioners
to.
A
A
A
system
that
that
works,
that
that's
and
we
we
run
the
risk
and
I
think,
we're
already
getting.
A
Dangerously
close
to
designed
by
committee
here
and
and
and
the
primary
reason
that
I'm
not.
A
Pushing
hard
to
move
this
along
for
the
council
now
is,
if
we
did
forward
this
to
council.
A
Without
those
things
being
specified,
you
would
end
up
with
a
design
by
committee
situation.
A
There
really
just
isn't
any
reason
why
we
couldn't
have
had
these.
These
standards
spelled.
A
Encourage
staff
in
the
future
to
to
just
you
know,
start
there
and
and
try
to
get
a
list
of.
A
A
If
we
were
requesting
a
re-zone
to
an
existing
standard
to
an
existing
zone,
if
we
were.
A
A
Works
if
we
have
to
have
final
renderings
before
before
every
zone
that
we
consider.
A
That
that
just
doesn't
work-
and
I
get
that
this
is
a
special
property,
but
but
it's
also,
I
think.
A
A
bit
of
a
a
slippery
slope:
if
we
make
this
our
practice
every
time,
so
I'm
gonna
do
my
best
to.
A
Looking
forward
to
that,
so
with
that
jackie,
would
you
call
the
role
please.
B
Okay,
so
that
petition
is
continued
to
the
january
hearing
and
we
will
work
with.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
We
are
now
on
to
the
next
petition,
which
is
0-2-3-2-0
bill
c.
A
A
A
H
Thank
you
brad,
sorry
about
that.
Fortunately,
I
didn't
didn't
get
very.
H
Far
there,
so
yes,
as
you
mentioned,
this
is
a
request
from
the
bill
c
brown,
revocable,
trust.
H
For
the
property
at
3100,
west
fullerton
price,
so
the
petitioner
is
requesting
to.
H
A
planned
unit
development
in
the
mid-1980s,
not
much-
has
happened
on
the
site
other
than.
H
For
the
development
and
construction
of
I-69,
so
the
aerial
photograph
that
you
see
kind.
H
Of
reflects
the
grading
and
disturbance
that
was
allowed
on
the
site,
and
that
was
accomplished.
H
H
That
would
extend
through
the
site,
so
the
the
comprehensive
plan
designates
this
site
as.
H
Employment,
the
pud
was
improved
with
a
a
mix
of
uses,
mostly
center,
around
centered
around
the.
H
Manufacturing
park,
zoning
district-
the
useless,
was
carefully
discussed
at
that
time.
At
the.
H
Rezoning
restricted
hotels,
restricted
retail
uses
was
predominantly
manufacturing
and
you.
H
H
Ramp
and
on-ramp
provides
easy
access,
not
just
for
people
within
the
community,
but
for
regional.
H
Employment
as
well
so
as
we
discussed
with
the
last
hearing,
the
comprehensive
plan
designation
of.
P
The
petitioner,
when
we
talked
last
meeting
one
of
the
questions
I
asked
when
when
was.
P
Finally,
voted
to
to
move
this
on
to
this
meeting,
you
know:
what's
going
to
be
different,
if
we.
P
P
Her
challenge,
I
would
say,
and
while
the
position
itself
has
has
not
changed
since
we
looked
at.
P
And
got
frustrated
each
level.
You
know,
87
acres
is
a
large
track.
P
P
P
P
P
P
On
that
we
looked
at
a
because
staff
doesn't
like
spl
zoning
lots,
they're,
not
illegal.
There's.
P
P
P
P
P
If
you
don't
like
it,
there
are
significant
construction
problems
with
a
two
lot
subdivision.
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Want
they
want
tax
abatements?
The
council
has
confronted
tax
payment
issues
repeatedly.
P
Monroe
county
council
as
well
the
commissioners
they
want
their
infrastructure
in
place,
they're.
P
P
P
P
Bill
brown
is
his
trust
and
bill's.
The
property
owner
of
this
bill
is
not
a
novice
of
this.
P
P
P
P
P
A
permitted
use
in
the
mc
zone,
but
those
I'm
or
again
I
would
submit
if
you
go
back
and
look.
P
P
P
P
P
Become
mcme,
you
know
we
tried
offer
some
other
things.
Even
last
time
we
talked
yeah,
there's.
P
P
P
Fervor,
I
understand
that
a
lot
of
these
meetings
are
very
calm,
very,
very
mild.
I
understand
that.
P
P
P
M
Mr
carmen
just
said
about
the
the
distinction
between
me
and
mc
in
terms.
M
M
But
but
is
there
the
ability
to
identify
a
list
of
things
that
that
both
sides
could
agree.
M
You
know
yeah
we're
not
going
to
look
to
use
mc
zoned
property
for
these
purposes
and
and.
M
Move
forward,
and
I
I
appreciate
your
response
to
eric
on
the
on
the
issue
of
the
ability
to.
H
The
same
thing
you
know
the
hotel
isn't
allowed
use,
that's
something
that
he
has
said.
H
H
Certainly,
a
lot
of
those
tiff
funds
were
used
for
switch
yard
park
and
other
projects,
but.
H
The
conditional
use
approval
process,
you
know
there
are
certain
set
criteria
that
are
outlined.
H
For
the
conditional
use
approval,
so
it
could
be
approved
as
part
of
that,
so
it
is,
it
is.
H
A
possibility
the
restaurant
is
listed
as
a
permitted
use
within
the
me
district.
H
H
To
come
in
and
develop
the
site,
you
know
it's
there
to
serve
the
other
uses
on
the
site.
B
B
B
We
feel
is
misplaced.
We
we
think
that
we
have
to,
and
in
turn
are
recommending
to
you
and
will
to.
B
Again,
you
know
not
to
say
that
the
concerns
he's
raised
aren't
may
be
valid,
but
this.
B
Isn't
quite
the
venue
for
those
that
happened
and
and
obviously
the
council
decided
to.
B
P
Uncomfortable
trying
to
give
the
assurance
to
a
prospective
large
developer
of
the
training
center.
P
P
A
better
comfort
level,
better
assurance
to
to
the
perspective
developer
that
the
mixed
use.
F
Thanks
eric,
I
wanted
to
have
you
weigh
in
the
petitioner,
mr
carmen.
F
Staff
would
support.
Could
you
just
talk
about
that
potential
position
for
this
87
acre.
H
H
H
H
Where
we
had
split
zoning
and
we
made
every
effort
to
fix
that
when
we
updated
the
zoning
map.
H
Because
it's
just
it's
it's
very
impossible
to
measure
a
step
back
from
online.
It
doesn't
exist.
H
H
N
May
I
ask
a
question
about
so:
there
are
87
acres.
Can
it
be
subdivided
and
different.
N
Parcels
be
different
zones,
so
it
can
be
subdivided,
but
the
entire
property
would.
H
Still
have
one
zoning
district,
regardless
of
how
many
ways
you
split
it
up.
So
if
he
came
forward.
H
H
H
H
H
A
Okay:
let's
go
to
commissioner
kate
yeah
thanks
eric
what
about
the
restaurant
limitation.
M
Issue
is
there
any?
Is
there
any
flexibility
on
that,
or
is
that
a
hard
and
fast
2500
square
feet.
M
Designation
by
providing
jobs
and
employment,
but
is
there
any
flexibility
in
terms
of
the.
M
Before
the
restaurant
limitation,
so
so
that's
a
good
question.
You
know
the
the
2500
square
foot.
H
H
H
Square
feet
you
know,
I
will
also
point
out
that
we
were
initiating
amendments
to
the
udl.
H
Something
that
could
be
amended
and
changed
and
revised,
so
we
haven't
really
had
to
put
this.
H
Into
application
yet,
but
you
know,
I
think,
it's
possible
that
there
are
a
couple
different
ways.
B
G
And
the
development
has
to
support
that
in
some
way.
So
as
this
is
encouraged
to
be.
B
There's
probably
a
lot
of
history,
I'm
not
sure
if
we're
the
group
to
to
have
the
details.
B
B
And,
as
eric
mentioned,
a
lot
of
that
money
was
used
on
the
park
and
used,
obviously
for
other.
B
Projects
as
well,
whether
or
not
there
was
a
tif
located
out
here,
I'm
not
sure
that.
B
With
other
you
know
other
boards
and
groups,
but
yeah,
of
course
it
does
have
an
effect
and.
B
Should
have
had
at
the
comprehensive
plan
stage
at
that
level
and
our
current
comprehen.
G
B
Robinson
can
weigh
in
if
he
wants
to,
as
he
was
the
manager
of
that
division
for
a
number
of
years.
B
But
basically
the
comprehensive
plan
window
is
30
years
and
the
long
range
planning
team.
B
Of
the
department
tracks,
the
benchmarks
that
are
set
out
in
the
plan
to
see
if
it
is
being.
B
Successful
and
then
they
also
track
as
you're
saying
you
know,
real
life
real
life
and
how.
B
Right
now
and
then,
additionally,
as
I
mentioned
before,
a
member
of
the
public
who
owns
property.
B
Or
doesn't
any
member
of
the
public,
I'm
sure
could
recommend
a
comprehensive
plan
change.
B
And
because
of
the
way
this
conversation
keeps
happening,
or
you
know
what
we're
kind
of
circling.
B
B
A
All
right
any
other
questions.
L
This
period
between
the
last
and
current,
we
didn't
get
any
specific
comments
from
them.
H
H
The
amount
of
land
for
that
use
is
is
not
great.
You
know
there
is
certainly
significant
amounts.
H
H
P
Yes
and
I'll
have
I
have
some
other
things
like
say,
but
I
assume
brad.
Do
you
want
to
get
through.
P
Festival
yeah:
I
think
that
would
be
most
efficient.
Any
other
questions
from.
A
Commissioners,
I
guess
I've
got
one
question.
Maybe
this
is
for
staff
or
or
I
think
the.
A
F
So
well
so
the
petitioner,
you
know
with
they
they
filed
a
request
to
rezone
the
property.
H
Them
to
read
the
entire
property
and
then
make
a
recommendation
to
the
playing
commission.
H
H
B
Will
come
out
if
you
know
the
first
quarter
of
2021
and
we
in
the
draft
zoning
map
right
now.
We.
B
Me
so
that
will
that
is
what
would
happen
so
if,
if,
if
you
did
recommend
denial.
B
Then
yes
eric's
right,
they
could
definitely.
They
could
definitely
consider
other.
P
P
P
P
P
P
The
retail
sites,
by
the
way
are
employment
uses.
I
mean
there's
very
little
in
the
mu
emcee
uses.
P
P
P
O
Let's
do
something
related
with
the
with
the
information
about
changes,
since
the
first.
O
Hearing
that
we
have
on
page
42,
regarding,
in
our
first
hearing
the
the
petitioner.
O
Rational
since
the
last
time
that
we
we
heard
this
in
in
and
now
there
was.
P
P
P
C
Is
accurate,
it's
hard
to
administer,
but
the
it
just
you
know,
I
think
again,
we
are
kind
of
getting.
B
B
Make
sure
that
we
are
remembering
that
the
base
is
that
that
we
don't
agree
that
the.
B
That
the
district
is
as
close
to
you
know
employment,
as
mr
harmon.
B
B
Zoned
commercial
at
that
time-
and
I
know
that
as
people
who
live
here,
we
sometimes
say.
B
B
You
know,
obviously,
this
hasn't
developed
over
time.
I
think
to
ignore
that
that.
B
Uses
and
this
area,
this
intersection
of
our
you
know
at
fullerton
and
69,
is
appropriate.
B
Have
anything
to
do
with
that?
But
just
because
of
the
characteristics
of
this
area.
A
Addition
of
use
restrictions
change
the
petition,
in
other
words,
if
we
were
to
forward.
B
Recommend,
for
example,
if
you
recommended
approval,
I
don't
mike,
wouldn't
mr
carmen.
B
It
may
come
up
in
the
hearings
and
have
something
worked
out
at
that
stage.
A
Mr
would
you
like
to
weigh
in
on
that
only
to
confirm
what
jackie
said
great.
Thank
you.
A
Again,
if
you
want
to
make
comment
on
this
petition,
the
the
thing
to
do
is
at
the
bottom
of.
A
Q
Q
To
mix
use,
we
support
zoning
flexibility
and
we
want
to
work
that
works
for
the
property
that.
Q
Enables
the
development
to
benefit
the
community?
In
addition,
the
bed
supports
maintaining.
Q
An
adequate
inventory
of
land
zone
for
employment
use
and
development,
the
fullerton
pike
ped,
has.
Q
Dedicated
through
street,
connecting
fullerton
pike
in
the
medical
park
to
the
north
end.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Out
that
the
market
has
changed
substantially,
the
people
that
we
talk
to
out
there
in
the.
Q
A
If
we're
having
trouble
with
a
microphone,
feel
free
to
post
your
com
post,
your
comments
in.
A
The
chat
and
and
I'll
be
happy
to
read
them
into
the
record
and
and
for
the
public
to
hear.
A
B
E
A
Back
to
the
commission
and-
and
I
think
we'll
entertain
a
motion
at
this
time-
is
there
anyone.
A
Ready
to
make
a
motion
if
we
want
to
wait
to
hear
mr
rooker's
response
before
we
make
one.
A
Yes,
commissioner,
I
don't
want
to
make
a
motion
that
I
want
to
understand.
I
want
to
make
sure
that.
M
And
the
other
would
be
to
turn
around
and
for
the
recommendation
to
approve.
But
with
some.
M
Conditions
that
would
omit
certain
types
of
activities
from
that
nc
rezone.
M
Parcel
if
we
conclude
that
there
are
some
activities
that
shouldn't
be
on
there
sorry
go.
A
Ahead,
we
could
also
forward
this
to
the
council
with
no
recommendation,
but
that's
also
an
option.
A
M
B
Mean
you
would
obviously
have
to
add
some
findings,
because
our
findings
support
a
negative.
M
A
Probably
afford
it
with
with
a
recommendation
that
that
was
a
little
bit
more
broadly
worded.
A
And
encouraging
council
to
adopt
only
once
additional
restrictions
were
agreed
to.
B
E
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
you,
mr
whistler,
just
to
confirm,
in
the
event
that
the
proposal
receives.
E
Thank
you,
okay,
commissioner.
Sandberg.
D
D
D
D
As
possible,
with
with
with
the
developers
and
the
land
owners
in
making
sure,
we
get
the
absolute.
D
Land
being
at
such
a
premium
having
nothing,
there
does
nothing
for
our
community
either.
D
Work
cut
out
for
us
in
terms
of
just
the
letter
of
the
law
again,
but
I'm
I'm
hopeful
that
again.
D
D
G
So
jackie
or
eric
or
mike,
so
I
agree
with
you
on
sending
a
proposal
if
we
decided
to.
G
Of
just
punting
it
to
the
to
the
city
council,
it
would
be
mr
carmen
and
the
department
coming.
B
To
an
agreement
about
what
what
uses
they
want
to
restrict
and
then
they
would
propose
a.
B
Zoning
commitment
with
those
restrictions
in
it,
so
you
would
be
able
to
see
what
those
were.
B
So
then,
when
it
went
to
council
it
would
be
that
the
plan
commission
was
going
against
staff.
B
Approval
and
here's.
Why-
and
this
is
what
strict
restrictions
you
thought
were
appropriate.
G
To
to
have
those
discussions
before
it
goes
through
to
city
council,
yes
correct,
so
yeah,
so
I.
A
A
That
our
best
option
would
be
to
continue
this
to
our
next
meeting,
to
give
an
opportunity.
A
A
A
The
desire
of
a
majority
of
the
commission-
yes,
no
I'd-
rather
see
this
move
on
than
having.
A
All
right,
thank
you
any
other
questions.
I
think
yes,
commissioner
sandberg.
O
We
are
sending
this
with
the
with
negative
assessment
from
from
the
department,
so
I.
B
Rezone
and
those
are
set
out
by
ordinance,
and
you
have
to
find
that
they're
true,
so
we.
B
B
Findings,
for
so
would
it
involve
like
an
extra
extra
meeting
for
that,
but
because
how
can
we.
O
Get
together
and
determine
like
our
position
would
be
that
we
found
different.
O
B
B
Here
shortly,
someone
would
move
to
the
hearing
indian
to
move
the
petition
to
be
heard
again
in.
B
B
M
M
M
Council
is
that
not
an
option?
No,
mr
worker
can
chime
in
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
believe
for.
B
A
re-zone
ray
zones
are
different
than
some
of
the
other
petitions
they
see
and
it
needs
I'm.
B
Not
sure
how
much
they
can
change
a
petition
for
re-zone,
I
think
yeah
sorry
go
ahead
mike
no.
E
Just
to
jump
in
that
that's
accurate.
It's
not
like
a
text
amendment
which
I
think
is
what.
E
E
E
E
B
Level
they
the
reasonable
conditions
that
they
use
to
and
other
types
of
petitions
for.
B
A
straight
razon
request:
they,
they
cannot
add
those.
So
so,
in
that
case
with
this,
with
this.
O
The
negative
assessment
we
won't
have
to
make
any
addiction
we
we
won't
have
to
make
any
any.
A
A
Three
options,
but
if,
if
what
I'm
hearing
is
correct,
we
can
either
just
forward
this.
A
A
A
Continue
to
the
january
meeting,
with
the
the
recommendation
to
staff
that
that
they
or
to.
A
Those
are
the
options
in
front
of
us,
so
looks
like
mr
kinte
has.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
A
A
Use
variances
right
so
so
that
would
be
limited
to
those
things
that
are.
A
Commissioner,
k
yeah,
I
will
just
a
comment
first,
which
is
I'm
also
a
little
bit
sort
of.
M
Torn
here
between,
on
the
one
hand,
feeling
as
though,
what
has
been
described
as
the
desired.
M
M
Particularly
at
this
time
feels
extremely
important
in
terms
of
developing
a
property.
M
And
we've
heard
from
the
bedc
on
this
too,
to
to
be
able
to
to
make
a
go
of
this
property.
M
Which
is
sort
of
sat
there
for
for
quite
some
time?
I
don't
know
that
I'm
I'm
entirely
persuaded.
M
That
what
petitioner
wants
can't
be
done
within
the
confines
of
our
existing
udo,
but
it
seems.
M
In
the
comp
plan,
but
it
seems
like,
and
what
we're
effectively
talking
about
is.
M
The
following
things
are
not
going
to
be
part
of
this
if
we
re-zone
it
to
mc,
and
that
seems
well.
M
You
know
like,
although
I
hate
generally
to
kind
of
keep
pushing
projects
off
and
mr
carmen
can.
M
Decide
what
he
wants
to
do,
I
guess,
but
I
that
seems
like
it
would
be
worthwhile,
perhaps
to
try.
M
To
get
some
clarification
of
whether
there
really
is
the
ability
to
come
to
terms
there.
M
To
continue
this
and
to
we're
really
not,
I
mean
we're
denying
it
with
the
understanding.
A
Because
it
seems
that
the
council
does
not
have
the
authority
to
amend
it
once
it
gets
to
them.
M
O
If
I
can
ask
you,
after
the
second,
but
so
the
definition
of
continuing
this
would
be
having
a.
O
A
To
continue
this
to
our
january
hearing,
and
I
think
we've
made
it
pretty
clear
that.
A
Petitioner
as
to
which
restrictions
he's
willing
to
commit
to
as
as
deed,
restrictions,.
O
In
in
and
and
mr
carmen,
you
can
tell
me
here
that
that
this
this
option
is
not
the
option.
P
Okay,
no
actually
we're
getting
two
different
things
across.
I'm
sorry.
P
A
Make
our
final
comment
here,
I
think,
maybe,
if
you
could
just
briefly
try
to
summarize.
A
D
I
was
going
to
give
mr
carmen
his
first
wish
and
just
go
ahead
and
recommend
the
sending
it
to.
D
Council
with
the
denial
and
take
your
chances
with
them,
but
I
think
this
makes
it
probably.
F
R
Other
opinions
expressed,
I,
I
still
have
some
concerns
kind
of
echoing
staffs
about.
A
Commissioner
cockroam,
I
was
fortunate
to
be
a
part
of
conversations
when
this
when.
G
It
went
through
the
height
of
our
market
through
1819.
I
think
section
five
was
done
in.
G
October
of
18.,
so
it's
been
battle
tested
on
the
market
and
still
current
with
the
current.
G
Uses
still
undeveloped,
so
I
support
looking
at
adding
some
additional
uses
to
this
property.
L
The
the
process
of
testing
the
conditional
use
issues,
I
respect
the
fact
that
the.
L
L
L
M
Yeah,
I
guess
I
would
just
encourage
that
discussion
with
mr
carmen
and
staff.
M
M
M
Achieving
the
flexibility
in
this
other
way,
so
I
really
see
this
as
a
conversation
to
try.
M
To
fully
flesh
out
what
is
it
we're
looking
for
the
we
on
both
sides
and
and
is.
M
There
a
prospect
of
getting
that
done.
Without
this
reason,
and
if
there
isn't.
M
Then,
just
being
very
clear
on
what
what
shouldn't
be
in
that
reason.
And
why.
A
At
these
at
these
these
zones,
and
even
at
the
comprehensive
point
I
mean,
we
said
earlier-
that
we.
A
Shouldn't
expect
another
cook
to
come:
develop
a
property
like
this.
We
couldn't
even
expect.
A
The
actual
cook
to
develop
a
property
like
this
ever
again,
the
whole
world
has
changed
and.
A
The
days
of
big
companies
building
big
properties
to
house
hundreds
of
employees.
A
Is
in
the
past,
and
and
so
we
need
to-
we
need
to-
we
need
to
adjust
our
policies
to
to
reflect.
A
A
Our
comp
plan
and
our
zoning
codes,
but
we
need
to
do
that-
I
think
that's
that's
pretty
clear.
A
S
Yes,
I
am
all
right,
take
it
away
all
right.
Thank
you.
S
There
we
go,
this
petition
is
for
the
property
located
at
on
the
intersection
of
east
3rd
street.
S
S
Two
puds
pud
70,
which
is
century
village
and
pud
21,
which
is
baker
stevens.
The
portion
of
these.
S
Beauties
that
are
within
the
er
are
highlighted,
are
are
being
considered
for
the
rezone.
S
The
portions
outside
of
the
highlighted
areas
will
remain
within
their
respective.
S
Puvs,
the
surrounding
uses
here
include
commercial
and
multi-family
to
the
north.
S
To
the
east
and
commercial
uses
which
will
remain
in
the
pud21
to
the
west,
so
the
petitioner.
S
S
S
Or
areas
uses
that
take
advantage
to
of
the
proximity
to
other
land
uses
more
intense
land.
S
Uses
as
well
as
lower
use
a
lower
density,
neighborhood
neighborhood
re
uses
as
well
as.
S
Urban
services,
the
the
area
should
incorporate
mixed
mixture
of
uses
and
increased
activity.
S
S
S
Be
developed
with
in
the
future
rezoning
this
site
to
mc
would
and
rezoning
the
site
to
mc
would.
S
The
petitioner
has
shown
a
conceptual
site
plan
which
could
support
five
buildings.
Three.
S
Residential
and
one
mixed
use
along
third
and
one
large
self
storage
use
on
the
sub
southern.
S
Portion
of
the
lot
there,
the
conceptual
site
plan
would
provide
or
is
showing
a
mixture
of.
S
S
Plan
the
mc
district
would
allow
for
a
variety
of
expanded
uses,
most
notably
multi-family
along.
S
A
heavily
traveled
portion
of
the
city,
so
the
with
a
zoning
map
amendment
the
commission.
S
Is
supposed
to
review
and
and
make
recommendations
on
the
following
the
comprehensive
plan.
S
Designates
that
these
properties
as
urban
corridor
and
neighborhood
residential.
S
S
Urban
urban
corridor
designation
is
believed
to
be
the
one
that
most
aligns
with
the
petition
site.
S
S
The
site
is,
is
undeveloped
and
is
in
primary
location
for
a
mixture
of
commercial.
S
S
S
P
And
be
a
lot
briefer,
I
hope,
but
I
need
to
clarify
a
couple
points
and
we
think
of
this.
P
Transit
rental
type
use
has
professional
office
building,
it
has
an
office
building.
P
A
number
of
years
and
there's
been
successes
in
there,
but
restaurants
have
been
hit
hard
as.
P
That
this
is
one
of
those
puds,
that's
on
the
the
staff
initiated
rezoning
and
I
believe
the.
P
P
P
P
P
P
What
we'd
look
to
multiple
building
development
to
come
out
of
this,
but
the
carve
also
I
do
want.
P
P
And
I
understand
that
so
it's
not
that
they're
in
opposition
to
the
mc
zoning,
but
in
terms
of
the.
P
P
P
P
L
Of
the
the
ability
to
have
the
tower
there,
so
that
makes
sense
staff.
Do
you
have
any.
L
Or
permitted
use
later,
I
don't
know
what
what
your
stake
is
on
that
no,
so
staff
has
no
no
stake.
S
They
weren't
included
in
this
petition
just
by
misunderstanding
between
the
petitioners.
S
Representing
mr
carmen
and
I
so
they've
they're
completely
removed
from
the
petition.
S
So
long-term
potentially,
but
that
they
will
be
a
conditional
use.
It's
already
on
the
property.
S
So
it'd
be
lawful
non-conforming.
They
wouldn't
have
future
issues,
they
wouldn't
have
had.
S
M
S
Correct
post
this
petition,
they
will
not
change,
they
were
excluded
as
as
well.
S
As
any
of
the
developed
portions
of
the
the
century,
village
pud
so.
S
S
Petition
they
can
remain
under
the
old
puds
rules
where
they
are
not
a
conditional
use.
A
Any
final
questions
comments
or
a
motion.
As
a
reminder,
the
recommendation
from
staff
was
to.
A
Waiving
the
second
hearing,
with
one
condition
of
approval,
that
a
tree
preservation,
easement.
A
A
A
Well,
this
is
too
easy
all
right,
let's,
let's
just
call
the
roller
okay
sandberg,
yes,.