►
From YouTube: Bloomington Plan Commission, April 10, 2023
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
To
order
this
meeting
of
the
city
of
Bloomington
plan
commission
for
April,
10th
2023
start
by
giving
it
just
a
quick
overview
of
the
agenda
tonight
we
have
one
petition
that
was
tabled
to
a
future
meeting:
that's
SP,
2422
Cutters,
Kirkwood,
123
LLC;
that's
the
property
115
East
Kirkwood
Avenue.
So
that
will
not
be
heard
this
evening.
We
do
have
a
consent
agenda
with
one
petition:
that's
sp0922,
the
Bloomington
Redevelopment
commission
property
at
617,
North,
Madison,
Street
and
then
three
petitions
to
be
heard
tonight:
pudd
DP
2421.
A
This
is
Patricia
Robert,
V,
Shaw
property
at
North,
prowl,
Road,
3500,
block
of
North
Hackberry
Street.
We
then
have
sp0923
core
SVA,
Bloomington,
Plato,
two
LLC
property
at
2038,
North,
Walnut,
Street
and
then
finally,
zo
1223
amendments
to
Udo,
chapter
3,
use
regulations
related
to
chicken
flocks
and
chapter
four
development
standards
and
incentives.
Amendments
there
as
well.
So
we
will
get
to
all
of
that
shortly.
But,
let's
start
by
calling
the
roll.
B
C
Seabor
here
cockram
he
will
be
a
few
minutes
late.
Sorry
about
that
Kinsey
here,
karadki.
D
E
A
A
D
A
Yes,
thank
you.
Those
minutes
are
approved,
we'll
move
on
now
to
reports,
resolutions
and
Communications.
Are
there
any
reports
or
resolutions
or
Communications
from
staff
this
evening.
C
No
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
reports
tonight.
Thanks
all.
A
Right,
any
reports
from
Commissioners
go
ahead.
F
F
We
were
trying
to
model
good
practice
by
offering
any
input
or
or
information
from
those
meetings
when
we
are
charged
with
participating
in
them
and
I
just
want
to
offer
one
thing
from
that
meeting
these
these
meetings
are
held
not
about
monthly,
so
they're
on
a
Friday
afternoon
and
this
meeting
the
most
recent
meeting
actually
for
March
was
actually
quite
interesting,
because
there
was
a
great
deal
of
discussion
around
some
State
funds
that
were
going
to
support
some
enhancement
projects
on
State,
Route
45.
And
what
struck
me
about
this?
F
These
particular
developments
is
how
much
I'll
just
frame
it,
as
perhaps
misunderstanding
or
people,
aren't
aware
necessarily
that
Third
Street
is
a
state
route.
Therefore,
it
is
funded
through
State
Transportation
funds,
and
it's
not
something
that
the
city
controls
or
the
county
controls.
F
It's
really
a
state-funded
project
and
it
was
surprising
to
me
that
not
only
I
won't
necessarily
suggest
that
members
of
the
the
committee
didn't
understand
that,
but
there's
definitely
a
lack
of
awareness
over
who
controls
what
and
I
think
some
of
the
developments
that
the
state
is
proposing
to
invest
in
at
the
intersection
of
3rd
and
45,
and
you
know
basically
Third
Street
is
really
quite
interesting
and
something
that
I
think
will
help
us
with
some
of
the
traffic
congestion
and
other
issues
that
are
have
been
of
concern
as
we
continue
to
develop
along
Third
Street.
F
G
A
comment
building
on
commissioner
Kinsey's
theme
of
clarification,
I've
seen
in
a
couple
campaign
Pieces
by
a
mayoral
candidate,
and
then
I've
heard
from
some
other
folks
that
there
might
be
an
assumption
that
if
someone
is
appointed
by
the
mayor
on
this
plan,
commission,
which
I
am
one
of
those
along
with
other
folks
here,
not
everyone,
of
course,
that
somehow
then
the
mayor
tells
us
how
to
vote
and
controls,
how
we
vote
and
those
kinds
of
things
and
I
just
want
to
state
that
I've
never
been
asked
by
the
mayor's
office.
How
to
vote.
G
In
fact,
when
I
got
the
request
to
be
on
this
commission,
I
first
said
no,
because
I
didn't
want
to
invest
the
volunteer
time
and
that's
the
other
part
where
you
know
a
lot
of
us
are
volunteers,
but
I
I
decided
not
to
be
so
rash
and
kind
of
look
into
it
and
ask
that
question
if
I
would
ever
be
pressured
by
the
mayor's
office.
How
to
vote-
and
they
said
I
was
told
no
and
I
said
great,
because
I'm
I'm
out
when
that
happens,
I'm
not
interested
in
that.
G
So
for
the
time
I've
been
on
this
and
I
really
don't
remember
how
long
it's
not
as
long
as
some
people
here,
I've
never
been
asked
or
told
how
to
vote
by
the
mayor's
office.
I
mean
it's
a
process
us
plan
commission
granted.
Ultimately,
reports
to
Administration
petitioners
are
here.
Members
of
the
public
are
here
and
it's
a
big
process,
so
I
personally
and
I
think
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
vote
on
the
merits
of
what
we
hear
and,
and
then
it
goes
on
to
the
next
step
in
the
process.
G
So
I
did
just
want
to
clarify
that
for
people
who
maybe
have
seen
that
in
election
material
and
and
think
that
to
be
true
thanks,
thank.
A
Think
there
is
a
lot
of
confusion
about
that,
but
I
would
I
would
certainly
Echo
that
I,
don't
think
it's
any
secret
that
the
mayor
and
I
disagree
on
many
things,
and
yet
I
am
a
mayoral
appointment
and
have
never
never
been
told
how
to
vote
and,
like
you
said
it
would
be
no
reason
to
tell
me,
because
we
do
no
good,
but
I
do
hope
that
yeah
that
the
members
of
the
public
understand
that
this
is.
A
You
know
we're
all
here,
appointed
by
different
bodies
and
representing
different
particular
appointing
bodies,
but
we're
all
expected
to
be
independent,
thinkers
and
I.
Think
we
all
are
so
appreciate
that
any
other
Communications
or
reports
from
commissioners.
A
For
those
of
you
who
don't
know
anybody
who's
curious
about
this
consent
agenda
is
there's
typically
an
agenda
where
there
are
petitions
that
are
either
already
sort
of
meeting
the
precise
letter
of
the
law
or
otherwise
really
are
non-controversial,
and
so
we
kind
of
consider
those
as
a
package,
but
we
definitely
have
an
opportunity
to
dig
deeper
into
those.
So
there's
one
petition
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
A
All
right,
seeing
none
back
to
the
commission
is
there
a
motion
to
approve
the
consent
agenda.
F
A
One
I
have
one
question
on
this:
sorry
before
we
call
the
roll
on
that
is,
is
this
a
property
within
the
trades
District
all
right.
A
Okay,
all
right
so
I'll
I'll
abstain
from
this
vote
since
I
do
have
some
economic
interests
in
the
in
the
trades
District,
but
I
think
we
can
go
ahead
and
call
the
roll
great.
C
Cockram,
yes,
in
just
let
the
minutes
reflect
Mr,
Cochran
and
Mr
Enright
Randolph
both
joined
Deering
reports;
Kenzie;
yes,
Co
Radke;
yes,
Smith;
yes,
St
John;
yes,
yes,
Whistler,
Epstein
and
Ballard.
Yes,.
E
C
D
A
Right,
okay,
moving
on,
we
will
now
move
to
our
petitions.
For
the
evening
we
will
begin
with
puddp
24-21
petitioner,
Robert
V
Shaw
I.
Believe
we've
got
Jackie
Scanlon
to
present.
C
C
This
petition
has
been
seen
by
this
body.
This
body
saw
the
petition
in
December
of
2022
and
has
been
on
the
docket
for
some
time.
We've
been
working
with
Mr
Shaw,
since
we
first
contacted
the
petitioner
in
2020,
with
some
enforcement
issues
to
see
about
getting
this
project
done.
So
we
are
looking
at
section
five,
the
last
section
of
the
Ridgefield
subdivision.
C
The
access
is
off
prow
or
maybe
it's
Pro
I,
never
say
it
right,
a
road
there
on
the
north
side
of
town-
and
this
is
just
North
of
Bloomington
High,
School
North,
so
some
of
the
property
is
developed.
This
section
here,
that's
squared
out
here
is
the
obviously
the
area
that
majority
has
not
been
developed
yet
so
there
was
an
original
PUD
just
to
go
over
for
set
a
little
background.
Original
PUD
in
1994.
C
C
So
the
petitioner,
we
are
working
with
the
petitioner
to
hopefully
finish
out
this
section
here
and
be
done.
One
of
the
issues
is
that
there
are
some
right-of-way
improvements
that
need
to
be
done,
because
this
isn't
a
planned
unit.
Development.
A
grading
permit,
cannot
be
pulled
at
this
location
unless
there
is
an
approved
final
plan.
So
we
need
to
have
a
final
plan
approved
so
that
we
can
go
forward
with
the
rest
of
Permitting
and
have
not
only
the
area
that
hasn't
been
built
built,
but
have
the
area
that
is
largely
developed.
C
There
are
some
corrections
and
things
that
need
to
be
made
with
areas
in
the
right-of-way,
such
as
some
sidewalks.
The
petitioner
is
working
with
the
engineering
department
on
that
now,
but
we
need
to
be
able
to
move
that
forward
and
in
order
to
do
do
that,
we
need
the
final
plan.
So
this
is
just
over
eight
and
a
half
acres
again.
One
of
our
remaining
older
plan
unit
developments,
the
comprehensive
plan
designation,
is
neighborhood
residential.
C
So
you
will
recall
from
December
that
it's
a
two-part
proposal
for
the
final
plan
they
are
requesting
to
amend
where
the
approved
tree
preservation
area
is
located,
so
that
they
can
have
some
larger
lots
to
sell
there
along
the
southern
portion
and
also
amending
the
landscape
plan.
We
have
asked
them
in
December
at
the
hearing.
We
ask
that
they
submit
an
updated
landscape
plan,
because
the
approved
landscape
plan
in
some
places
could
not
be
built.
C
So
we
were
asking
that
they
give
us
an
accurate
plan
of
what
is
there
and
what
can
be
done
because
Mr
Shaw,
the
developer,
no
longer
owns
a
number
of
these
Lots
because
they
have
been
built
and
sold
off.
So
some
of
those
lots,
for
example,
showed
buffer
yards
where
those
parties
are.
You
know
we
don't
know
what's
going
on
in
those
backyards.
So
having
that
be
correct,
so
that
when
it's
time
to
do
in
Final
Inspection,
we
will
know
what
we're
looking
for.
C
There
is
a
detention,
a
lot
shown
here
on
one
of
the
western
lots
that
hasn't
been
fully
installed.
So
that's
a
another
issue
that
we
were
addressing
and
amending
some
of
the
conditions.
We've.
There
was
a
condition
I
believe
of
one
of
the
previous
approvals
related
to
no
on-street
parking,
so
removing
that
condition
as
it's
not
1994
anymore,
and
so
this
this
type
of
development
with
Road
width
would
not
be
excluded
from
on-street
parking
now
in
kind
of
a
modern
design.
C
So
here
again,
the
area
on
the
North
End
on
the
top
yellow
is
already
platted,
and
the
area
in
the
green
is
not.
This
is
the
detention
lot
that
I
mentioned.
We
that
is
part
of
the
original
approval
that
there
will
be
a
detention
done
there
as
well
as
detention
Landscaping.
That
has
not
been
done,
so
we
are
calling
that
out
because,
as
you
can
see,
that's
part
of
the
already
original
platted
area,
but
does
need
to
be
developed
with
this
vital
plan.
C
So
this
is
the
original
landscape
plan,
as
I
mentioned,
you
can
see
like
areas
up
here
against
the
hospital
and
the
other
houses.
The
developer
no
longer
owns
those
properties,
so
we
didn't
feel
it
was
appropriate
to
hold
these
new
develop
new
owners
to
these
requirements
when
they
probably
don't
even
know
they
exist,
and
so
ask
the
petitioner
to
submit
a
plan
that
was
actually
more
accurate
or
possible,
and
you
can
see
this
is
the
old
tree
preservation
area
here.
C
So
again,
these
are
the
two
section,
two
phases
of
section
five
that
we're
looking
at
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
was
that
the
petitioner
is
requesting
subdivision
waiver
to
allow
for
this.
Design
This
is
a
design
from
19.
You
know
from
the
late
90s
early
2000s,
and
it
includes
an
eyebrow
here,
which
is
this
little
kind
of
Island
thing
out
in
the
right
of
way.
You
can
see
they
have
another
one
to
the
north
here
and
a
cul-de-sac.
C
Neither
of
those
things
are
allowed
by
code
now,
so
we
discussed
at
the
December
hearing
that
something
we
had
asked
of.
The
petitioner
was
to
indicate
why
they
couldn't
meet
those
requirements
and
plan
commission
had
asked
that
as
well.
So
then
they
worked
on
an
alternative,
Street
design,
and
you
can
see
that
this
is
that.
So
this
is
a
street
with
no
cul-de-sac,
no
eyebrow.
C
It
has
one
shared
driveway
for
three
lots
here:
one
entrance
and
then
the
driveways
break
off
the
petitioner
is
showing
individual
driveways
for
each
of
these
paired
homes
and
also
a
couple
of
detached
homes.
Here
in
the
Southeast
Corner,
we
would
we
think
that
could
be
done
a
little
bit
differently
with
some
shared
drives
instead
of
having
10
individual
driveways.
So
these
are
the
two
areas
in
question
that
have
changed.
C
This
was
an
exhibit
put
together
by
engineering
staff,
just
showing
that
it
could
be
possible
to
make
this
work
with
six
driveways
instead
of
having
10
cuts,
reducing
the
cuts
slightly,
which
obviously
improves
impervious
surface
issues
in
this
area
as
well,
and
then
this
was
ongoing
conversation
with
the
designer
and
the
engineering
department.
C
A
number
of
these
kind
of
bump
outs
to
indicate
on
street
parking
were
proposed
and
discussed
between
the
engineering,
the
engineer
and
both
the
private
engineer
and
the
city
engineering
staff,
and
so
that
is
included
in
one
of
the
conditions
as
well,
that
if
you
are
to
choose
this
design
as
opposed
to
what
is
being
proposed
by
the
petitioner
that
those
bump
outs
would
be
included,
we
did
get
a
new
landscape
plan
again,
not
a
landscape
plan.
We
are
dictating.
C
So
in
these
areas
there
we
do
think
that
more
delineation
of
landscape
plan
is
necessary,
they're,
not
obviously
showing
any.
You
can
see
the
little
you
can
kind
of
see
the
little
indications
of
Street
trees
along
the
new
roads,
but
there
are
no
specific
indications
along
prow
and
then
there
are
still
gaps
in
the
existing
area,
so
they're
also
missing
opportunity
for
potential
buffer
yard
here
in
the
Southeast.
So
we
have
a
couple
of
landscape
comments
in
the
conditions
as
well.
C
This
is
the
area
that
is
south
of
the
Southwest
portion
of
the
site,
so,
as
I
said,
the
site
of
butts
the
fields
immediately
to
the
South
that
are
part
of
Bloomington
High,
School,
North
and
in
this
area,
is
where
the
petitioner
would
be
proposing
to
plant
more
trees
into
the
buffer.
As
some
have
gone
missing,
you
can
see
here.
The
fence
line
you
know,
gets
very
close
to
the
property
line
here
that
the
school
has
put
in
okay.
So
the
outstanding
issues
from
December
Landscaping
correction,
as
I
said
they
submitted
a
new
plan.
C
We
think
there's
still
some
more
changes
to
be
made.
That's
part
of
the
final
plan:
that's
why
we're
discussing
it
here,
previous
condition,
related
to
on-street
parking,
the
road
design
waivers
and
the
tree
preservation
change.
C
So
we've
been
working
with
the
petitioner
for
some
time.
We
are
actively
getting
a
lot
of
complaints
at
this
site
which
we
may
have
members
of
the
public
on
the
line
today,
I'm
not
sure,
because,
as
part
of
this
project,
there
are
a
number
of
sidewalk
issues
that
were
identified
and
those
needed
to
be
corrected
before
the
petitioner
submitted
drawings
to
correct
those.
He
just
removed
all
of
the
sidewalk
that
wasn't
meeting
code.
C
C
That's
why
we're
here
now
because
of
the
letter
we
sent
in
2020
so
being
able
to
compel
him
to
submit
those
plans
which
we
do
have
now
and
then
submit
a
bond
will
be
easier,
I
think
for
us
once
this
is
approved
and
we're
going
to
get
to
the
next
step
of
grading
permit
because
we're
in
a
little
bit
of
a
no
person's
land
right
now
related
to
the
enforcement
and
it's
making
it
difficult
for
the
Neighbors
here.
So
we
hope
to
have
this
resolved
tonight,
one
way
or
the
other.
C
We
understand
that
the
original
design
did
include
the
two
Road
design
details
that
are
no,
that
that
were
approved
at
that
time.
You
know
had,
as
I've
said
before,
had
this
been
built
at
that
time
he
could
have
built
them
and
that
would
have
been
fine.
They
no
longer
meet
kind
of
our
expectations
for
typical
and
safer
Road
design,
and
so
we
are
asking
that
you
don't
approve
the
waivers
the
waiver
requests
and
that
they
build
the
design
to
the
to
the
design
that
they've
shown
as
possible.
C
So
the
department
recommends
that
the
plan
commission
approved
the
final
plan
and
primary
plan
Amendment
for
section
five
of
the
Ridgefield
subdivision,
while
denying
the
subdivision
waiver
request,
and
then
we
had
11
conditions.
So
the
first
again
is
this
is
the
major
one
that
would
only
apply
if
you
do
deny.
The
waivers
is
that
the
approved
design
for
this
primary
plat
is
the
one
that
is
shown
as
the
alternative
roadway
design,
with
the
bump
outs
shown
in
Street
design
B.
C
So
to
be
clear,
that
would
be
the
design
without
the
cul-de-sac
and
without
the
eyebrow
number
two
that
the
petitioner
shall
submit
an
application
for
grading
permit
within
30
days
for
a
minimum
for
the
developed
portion
of
section
five
number:
three,
the
petitioner
shall
submit
to
the
engineering
department
of
public
improvements,
Bond
estimate
within
30
days
of
this
approval
and
will
submit
the
required
Bond
within
10
days
of
the
approval
of
that
estimate.
C
Again,
that's
for
work,
that's
already
platted
and
they're
already
doing
that
work
and
it
should
be
bonded
for
number
four.
The
petitioner
has
agreed
to
instruct
construct
construction
traffic
to
enter
the
site
from
the
West
signage
to
that
effect
minimally,
one
at
the
East
End
of
the
to
be
constructed,
Winter,
Street
Drive
and
one
at
the
West
End,
where
prowl
connects
will
be
placed
on
the
site
during
construction
tracks.
One
and
two
shall
be
corrected
and
shown
as
part
of
lots,
13
and
14
on
the
secondary
plot.
C
The
petitioner
shall
identify
all
common
area
Lots
around
the
paired
homes
on
the
secondary
Platte.
They
shall
the
petitioner
shall
identify
tree
preservation
areas
in
easement
on
the
secondary
plant,
with
all
required
language
included
on
said
Platt
and
then
number
eight
is
a
list
of
some
of
those
landscape
plan
Corrections
that
I
mentioned,
including
largely
indicating
that
the
required
Street
trees
be
shown.
C
Number
nine
relabeling.
Oh
sorry,
Chris
re-labeling
lot
43
as
a
detention
Pond
as
well
as
commonly
area
Lot,
10,
removing
The,
Pedestrian
connection
easement
to
the
high
school
to
the
South
and
then
number
11.
Removing
the
previous
conditions
related
to
on-street
parking
for
this
section
and
I
can
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Is
there
a
representative
of
the
petitioner
who
would
like
to
present
this
evening?
H
Also,
it
was
stated
that
along
the
Eastern
property,
I
believe
that's
where
the
duplexes
and
single-family
homes
are
that
there
needs
to
be
additional
trees
and,
after
being
at
the
site,
we'd
have
to
cut
down
trees
to
plant
trees
in
that
one
specific
area.
There's
a
couple
of
other
areas
with
respect
to
the
Landscaping
that
we're
not
objecting
to
any
repair
work.
H
H
H
So
that's
where
my
client
Mr
Shaw,
wants
to
move
forward
as
the
eyebrow
the
cul-de-sac.
Basically
as
it
was
with
modifications
with
the
on-street
parking.
We've
addressed
a
couple
of
issues
that
have
been
reviewed,
which
was
the
intersection
Midway
through
the
site.
We've
pulled
the
crosswalks
closer
together
per
Mr,
Neil
Copper's
recommendations
and
we've
addressed
the
on-street
parking
shape
of
the
ends
where
people
pull
off
so
they're
45,
instead
of
just
a
blunt
90
degree
turn.
So
it's
more
accessible.
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
from
Commissioners,
either
for
staff
or
for
the
petitioner.
F
I
guess
one
of
the
questions
I
have
for
staff
and
perhaps
the
petitioners
the
discrepancy
about
the
trees.
Can
you
say
a
little
bit
more
about
what's?
What's
the
discrepancy
between
the
petitioners
Brad,
sorry
Bledsoe?
Is
that
correct,
yep,
the
what's
the
difference
between
the
Google
Maps
point
you
were
trying
to
make
and
what
the
in
what
we're
requesting
here
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
fully
understand
what
the
discrepancy
is.
H
I
H
The
original
plans
trees
along
that
edge
and
those
trees
are
in
place
and
we
had
called
out
one
two,
three
four,
five,
six,
seven
eight
and
you
can
see
the
fence
line,
runs
from
left
to
right,
which
is
from
north
to
south
as
you're
looking
East
up
the
page
and
those
trees,
you
can
tell
they're
kind
of
split
the
ones
that
are
farther
up.
The
sheet
is
on
the
other
property,
and
then
we
have
well.
It
looks
like
one
two,
three
four
five
and
then
there's
at
least
four
in
the
cluster.
H
That
would
be
farther
south,
so
they
may
not
be
equally
spaced,
but
it's
planted
in
there
now
I'm
sure,
there's
a
additional
areas
that
we
could
look
at,
one
of
which
is
down
by
the
multi-family
homes,
but
we
just
showed
that
as
a
what
I
call
a
cloud
because
it
was
a
wooded
area.
H
H
C
C
The
final
plan
does
nothing
to
indicate
that
they'll
remain
so
the
landscape
plan
that
we
see
doesn't
have
any
indication
on
here
that
there
is
intention
to
keep
those
trees,
and
so
that's
why
we're
asking
for
it
on
the
original
plan,
which
again
you
know
was
some
time
ago
now
they
proposed
plantings
in
those
locations.
So
then
on
the
new
plan,
they're
not
proposing
it.
So
we're
saying
hey
if
that
was
appropriate
at
the
time.
C
Knowing
you
know
that
that
was
going
to
back
up
to
someone
else's
backyard,
we
think
you
should
put
that
back
in
if
the
petitioner
is
indicating
that
there's
already
trees
there.
That's
that's
fine.
We
would
like
for
those
trees
to
be
called
out
specifically
in
the
plan
and
that
they're
either
be
preserved
or
replaced.
I
Sure
I
think
a
couple
questions,
maybe
just
to
start
off
and
I.
Think
this
one
I'll
direct
to
staff
to
start,
but
just
with
the
staff
recommendation
is
essentially
like
an
alternative
design
and
just
wanting
to
understand
what
approving,
potentially
approving
a
condition
with
an
alternative
design,
how
we
can
be
approving
a
final
plan
that
doesn't
reflect
the
can.
The
plan
with
the
conditions
am
I
I'm
struggling
to
make
sure.
C
Yeah,
so
it's
a
two-part
and
Mr
Rooker
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
it's
a
two-part
approval
right,
it's
final
plan
and
primary
plot,
so
we're
suggesting
to
you,
because
this
is
kind
of
weird
or
how
I
mentioned
it
earlier.
It's
like
it's
a
little
bit
of
like
a
Frankenstein
situation.
Normally
we
just
see
the
plaid
and
that's
it.
This
we've
received
so
many
iterations
and
the
petitioner
does
not
want
to
do
this
iteration.
So
we
and
we
don't
know
whether
or
not
you're
going
to
approve
the
waivers.
C
So
we
did
not
compel
them
to
give
us.
You
know
a
new
clean
version
of
this
and
say,
but
but
these
are
engineered
plans
prepared
by
the
petitioner,
showing
a
design
that
we
think
is
appropriate
here.
So
this
would
be
the
design,
augmented
by
the
bump
outs
that
are
in
the
next
sheet.
That
would
be
approved
as
the
primary
plat,
as
well
as
the
final
plan.
C
I
Your
question
that
helps
a
lot
and
I
guess,
just
with
that
I
assume
there
there
would
be
room
for
what
I
would
maybe
call
more
technical
detail
refinement
with
like
landscaping
for
Street
tree
placements,
and
then
maybe
one
that
caught
my
attention
was
like
the
road
cross
section
like
how
thick
the
asphalt
design
is,
there's
some
things
that
I
think
we
would
ideally
like
to
see
updated.
Yes,.
C
I
think
so
so
we
did.
We
tried
to
catch
those
right
so
in
the
landscape
condition
it
indicates,
you
know
a
number
of
Street
trees
based
on
what
the
code
requirement
it
or
was
when
this
was
just
recently
filed.
But
yes,
the
cross
sections,
I,
think
and
again,
Mr
Ricker
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
What
we
have
said
in
the
past
is
that,
if,
if
that
isn't
code
compliant
that
isn't
being
approved
as
part
of
the
primary
plaque
and
we'll
need
to
meet
code,
when
it's
eventually
done.
J
C
The
green
portion
is
what
doesn't
exist
yet
so
Road
connection
here,
extending
winter
Suite
ending
in
an
eyebrow
here
to
maximize
the
number
of
lots
they
can
get
in
this
corner.
Doing
a
cul-de-sac
here
again
to
maximize
a
number
of
buildings
here.
So
what
we,
what
Planning
Commission
asked
them
in
December
was:
could
they
show
a
plan
without
the
eyebrow
and
the
cul-de-sac
that
had
the
same
number
of
lots
and
or
units
here
in
this
location,
because
this
was
a
common
area
lot
and
that's
what
this
plan
is.
C
C
So
that's
why
we
proposed
in
the
conditions
that
they
would
be
limited
to
six
driveways
and
that
some
of
them
would
have
to
be
shared
and
then
in
that
way,
that
would
be
less
impervious
for
this
development,
so
being
that
the
cul-de-sac
and
the
eyebrow
are
no
longer
allowed
in
the
subdivision,
control
and
actually
I,
don't
even
think
the
eyebrow
was
allowed
at
the
time
this
was
originally
approved.
C
It
was
waived
at
that
time,
but
that
you
know
we
are
trying
to
encourage
compliance
with
the
current
code
and
that
had
this
been
built
at
that
time.
Of
course,
you
know
they
would
be
able
to
build
it
to
the
standard
that
they
prefer,
but
now
that
since
they're
coming
back,
they
need
to
meet
current
code,
so
they're
requesting
a
waiver
to
be
able
to
build
the
other
drawing
and
we
are
requesting
that
you
don't
approve
those
waivers
and
then
they'll
build
this
one.
C
J
So
if
we
approved
this,
the
plan
that
you're
suggesting
I
mean
things
like
maintenance
agreement
management
agreements,
all
with
the
shared
drives
it'd
be
something
for
the
developer
to
have
to
work
out
and
represent
to
us.
Is
that
correct
or.
E
K
E
L
M
Hi,
my
name
is
Robert
Shaw
for
those
of
you
who
are
here
in
December
and
I,
told
you
a
little
bit
about
my
history
of
building
and
subdividing
I've
been
doing
it
for
40
some
years.
My
first
development
was
blue
blue
slopes
Drive
in
Blue
Ridge.
That
was
the
first
one
I
built
and
some
of
the
houses
and
are
built
all
over
town,
so
I've
been
around
the
the
reason.
M
Why
was
in
2008
I
bought
this
land
up
here,
475
thousand
dollars,
and
it
was
already
part
of
a
PUD
and
so
I
I
went
and
had
it
engineered
and
I
didn't
have
time
to
do
all
the
the
development
work
myself
so
I
hired,
Larry,
Stanger
Excavating
to
come
in
at
a
cost
of
five
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
and
I
thought
I
had
to
finance
with
Monroe
Bank
or
people.
State,
Bank
and
I
got
started
and
a
less
than
a
week
after
I
signed
the
contract.
M
I
got
messages
from
both
Banks
wait
a
minute.
We
can't.
We
can't
Finance
it
we're
under
the
consent
decree
and
we
can't
do
it
and
so
I
had
to
take
a
line
of
credit
to
get
the
money
to
pay
those
those
bills
to
manage
to
get
in
what
I
got
what
I
got
in
the
other
thing
that
happened
was
I,
didn't
sell
a
single
lot,
the
housing
crash
came
in
2008
and
it
just
wasn't.
M
Anybody
buying
our
building
and
so
I
was
sort
of
stuck
so
every
house
up
there
and
I
think
there's
oh
there's
17
or
something
like
that.
I
I
built
it
myself
I
had
to
because
if
I
got
them
built,
then
I
can
sell
them
so
anyway.
That's.
Why
now
does
that
answer?
Your
question.
K
K
M
I'm
trying
to
finish
this
up:
I'm
76
years
old
and
I'd
like
to
finish
this
up
and
I'd
like
to
satisfy
planning,
but
there's
a
few
things
that
I
need
to
correct
here.
First,
since
this
is
up
here
right
now,
can
you
imagine
sharing
a
driveway
with
that
many
other
people,
who's
gonna
who's
gonna,
sweep
it
who's
going
to
clean
it.
I
mean
who's
going
to
pick
up
the
dog
turds.
M
You
know
what,
if
you
have
a
neighbor
that
you
you
despise
and
you
don't
get
along
everybody
and
that
snake
pit
they
put
up
there.
The
other
picture.
That
is
ridiculous,
it's
so
much
impervious
surface.
M
What
I
want
to
do
is
put
that
cul-de-sac
in
there
and
I
told
you
this
in
December
people
like
cul-de-sacs,
their
kids
play
in
them
and
they
are
able
to
not
worry
about
them
getting
run
over
like
right.
There
now
I
also
told
them.
If
you
don't
want
to
do
it,
I'll
make
it
part
of
the
condo
association's
responsibility
to
take
care
of
that
cul-de-sac.
M
We'll
have
an
association
and
so
I'm
sure
that
we
can
add
that
to
it
and
they
can
take
care
of
it
themselves
and
the
city
wouldn't
wouldn't
have
to
worry
about
it.
So
before
I
go
oh
and
the
eyebrow
down
there,
as
I
told
you
the
last
time
that
was
put
in
by
the
previous
planning
staff,
they
required
it,
and
so
we
we
designed
it
that
way
and
there's
four
storm
drains
down.
There.
M
That's
already
installed
and
it's
all
connected
Up
and
Under
the
pavement
going
north
from
there
and
if
we
have
to
start
over
with
that,
a
different
design
there.
That
means
they're,
ripping
out
ten
fifteen
thousand
dollars
worth
of
storm
drains
and
try
to
redo
it
I,
don't
think
it
makes
any
sense
now
that
whole
rest
of
that
subdivision
up
there.
They,
the
parts
are
already
built,
are
full
of
cul-de-sacs
and
nobody
seems
to
to
complain
about
them.
M
But
if
maintenance
is
a
problem,
like
I
said
we
can
make
it
part
of
the
homeowners
association
now
moving
on
to
the
other.
If
moving
on
to
the
other
things
along
Pro
Road,
would
you
put
up
the
no
leave
this
this
one
here
for
a
second
make
sure
I
got
got
it?
If
you
see
that
dotted
line
around
the
bottom
and
east
side,
where
the
green
line
is
you
see
a
dotted
line
there?
M
That
is
part
of
a
tree
preservation,
conservancy,
and
it
says
right
on
the
on
the
buildable
plans
that
that's
what
that
is,
and
it's
already
forested,
if
you,
if
I
had
to
plant
trees,
we'll
have
to
cut
down
trees
to
plant
trees,
and
it
just
doesn't
make
any
sense.
So
could
we
have
the
other
drawing
up
with
the
green
lines
that,
with
the
trees,
things
yeah
right
there?
M
Okay,
a
long,
a
long,
the
left
side
there,
where
you
see
the
long
line
along
Pro
Road,
there
were
actually
three
or
four
small
trees.
We're
talking
three
four
inch
caliper
at
the
north
end
of
that
line
that
were
taken
out
when
the
sidewalks
were
put
in,
because
the
roots
were
extended
under
the
sidewalk
and
as
I
was
digging
the
sidewalks
it
it
tore
them
up.
M
M
There
were
two
trees
at
the
entrance
there
that
were
big
Maples
that
were
taken
out,
but
they
were
taken
out
by
the
county
because
they
obstructed
the
view
of
to
get
into
the
road
and
that
road
is
very
narrow
and
those
those
high
school
kids
fly
up
and
down
that
road.
I
can
tell
you
and
down
there
from
from
the
road
the
road
extension
in
the
middle
there,
South
they've
got
that
green
line
there,
and
there
was
nothing
taken
out
there.
Not.
M
There
was
not
a
single
tree
taken
out
by
me
down
in
that
area.
There
all
the
original
and
their
fence
line
trees.
They
got
barbed
wire
in
them
along
that
road,
they're
still
all
right
there.
Now
the
detention
area
there
was
built
exactly
as
the
plans
showed
in
2008.
It
has
a
series
of
sand
under
drain
to
filter
out
any
pollutants
and
we've
maintained
it
and
I've
mowed
it
for
15
years,
we've
mowed
that
area
there
and
the
and
the
kids
that
live
there
play
in
that
area.
M
M
His
only
thing
he
asked
me
to
do
was
to
raise
the
flood
level
in
the
pot,
the
outlet
six
inches,
so
that
we
would
have
the
water
in
the
pond
for
a
longer
period
of
time,
so
I
really
that
I
don't
want
to
mess
that
up,
because
the
people
up
there
use
it
and
now
there,
as
I
told
you
last
time
this
was
a
cow
pasture.
M
So
when
the
cows
were
in
there,
they
rubbed
on
the
trees
to
scratched
the
Flies
off
and
they
walked
on
the
roots
to
the
trees
and
all
the
trees
are
that
are
up
there.
That
were
up
there,
a
lot
of
them
just
died
and
fell
down.
There
were
I
think
well,
there
was
a
big
hack,
not
a
Hackberry,
an
Osage
orange
that
the
wind
split
that
thing
in
half,
because
it
was
it
was
like
multiple
shoots
and
it
split
it
in
half
and
I
had
to
take
it.
M
Take
it
down,
and
there
was
a
maple
between
the
lot
13
and
12
or
yeah
13
and
12.
a
giant
Maple,
but
it
was
rotten
and
it
it
was
unsafe,
the
one
next
to
it
fell
down
and
my
guys
it
fell
during
working
hours
and
they
had
just
went
through
there
and
the
tree
fell
down,
and
so
I
said
we
cannot
risk
this
tree
and
it
was
Hollow
and
rotten.
So
we
took
it
down.
Excuse
me
now
the
other
changes
that
they
made.
M
You
know
that
up
there
at
the
top
they're
showing
a
line
with
the
Outline
by
small
loopy
Red
Line
there,
all
those
trees
up
in
there,
I
planted
every
one
of
them
and
the
the
people
that
bought
those
homes.
In
that
whole
area
up
there
wanted
to
put
up
fences,
and
some
of
them
did,
you
know,
damaged
trees
or
remove
some
things
to
get
their
fences
in,
but
all
those
yards
up
there.
M
That's
why
the
staff
couldn't
get
in
there,
because
it's
all
fenced
what
Brad
did
was
showing
you
on
Google
Earth
there
there
are.
There
is
vegetation
up
there
and
I'm
not
trying
to
avoid
anything.
You
know
I'm
just
trying
to
get
this
done
and
I'm
willing
to
accommodate
any
reasonable
requests,
but
that
line
where
those
trees
and
that
tree
preservation
area
there
you'd
have
to
cut
that
cut
down
trees,
put
trees,
it
just
doesn't
make
any
sense.
Now,
let's
see
I
think
I
hit
everything
that
I
really
wanted
to.
M
We
did
want
to
move
the
treat
reservation
area
around
a
little
bit
and
reconfigure
it
which
it
doesn't
show
on
this
one,
but
on
the
other
plan
it
shows
it
and
we
did
that
so
that
the
people
would
have
more
of
a
yard
and
it
would
be
a
more
buildable
area,
but
with
this
plant
right
here,
we
we
preserve
exactly
the
same
amount
of
real
estate
that
the
old
plan
had
for
tree
for
reservation.
M
That
you're
not
losing
a
thing,
and
the
other
thing
that
happened
that
wasn't
mentioned
here
tonight
was
that
the
last
commission
meeting
you
all
thought.
Maybe
we
could
get
another
entrance
onto
Pro
Road
from
the
county.
They
mixed
that
right
off.
They
said
no,
so
that
couldn't
that
couldn't
happen,
there
were
that
eyebrow
is
any
questions.
M
Well,
I
hope,
oh
one
other
thing
in
their
com
in
their
packet,
they
say:
I
have
to
have
a
bond
within
30
days.
It
ain't
happening.
You
can't
get
a
bond
in
30
days.
I
need
I
need
60
to
90
days.
To
get
a
bond,
I
mean
we're
talking,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
and
I
don't
have
one
in
my
pocket
and
I
can
tell
you
dealing
with
Bankers
to
get
that
it'll
take
time.
M
A
You
with
Steph
care
to
to
respond
I'd
like
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
about
the
two
things
in
particular
one.
What
is
the?
Why
do
we
need
the
bond
within
30
days
and
then
the
second
question
I
would
have
is
just
why?
A
C
Okay,
so
Bond
within
30
days,
we're
happy
have
that
be
longer.
If
that's
more
reasonable
and
Mr
seabor
may
be
able
to
speak
to
that
better
than
I.
Don't
know
we
just
need
to
have
a
deadline.
We've
been
operating
kind
of
in
a
we
have
set
deadlines
that
haven't
been
met.
We
just
need
to
have
a
deadline
and
we
want
it
to
be
realistic.
So
if
it
needs
to
be
60
days,
that's
fine
yeah.
C
So,
typically,
when
a
bond
is
reviewed
right,
they
submit
the
amount
to
us
and
then
to
the
city,
and
then
the
amount
is
approved
or
whatever
and
then
and
then
they
seek
it
it.
We
don't
often
change
them
by
much.
I
would
say
meaning,
like
those
conversations
could
start
when
you're
sending
me
when
you're
submitting
the
estimate
to
us
that
conversation
could
start
and
then
that
amount
could
be
tweaked,
but
we're
happy
to
have
that
be
more
more
time.
C
It's
in
one
of
the
conditions:
yes,
so
they
have
30
days
to
submit
the
grading
permit,
which
I
think
is.
We
hope,
you'll
stick
with
that.
They
have
already
tried
to
submit
it
before.
We
can't
take
it
because
they
don't
have
a
final
plan,
so
it'll
be
based
on
these
plans.
But
then
we
indicated
also
that
the
public
Improvement
spawn
estimate
that
they'll
submit
an
estimate
within
30
days
and
then
submit
the
bond
within
10
days
of
approval
of
the
estimate.
C
C
So
the
detention
standards
now
and
for
some
time
and
I
think
in
2008
that
air
could
probably
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
require
particular
sorts
of
plugs
or
plants
so
that
the
detention
Pond
functions
better.
It's
not
supposed
to
be
I
know
that
they
do
use
it
for
a
recreational
area.
There
I
mean
that's
what
they
said.
You
know
when
we
met
out
on
site
people
walk
their
dogs
there.
C
Its
function
is
supposed
to
be
to
help,
treat
and
slow
storm
water,
and
that's
it
we're
happy
to
entertain.
You
know
we.
We
don't
have
anything
from
Mr
peten,
indicating
that
he
thinks
that
it's
fine,
that
I
can
recall
or
know
of
you
know
Mr
peden's
job
isn't
to
enforce
Title
20,
where
the
plantings
are
listed.
So
you
know
Mr
Peyton
sees
detention,
things
that
are
made
out
of
concrete
and
if
they
function
he
signs
off
on
them.
C
C
So
that's
kind
of
cool.
We
do
think
you
know
really.
If
actually,
if
you
look
at
the
conditions,
I
do
think
we
would
expect
that
they
use
the
detention
mix,
but
it
doesn't
actually
that's
not
indicated
here.
So
if
you
wanted
to
indicate
in
the
condition
related
to
the
detention
Pond
that
it
be,
we
just
want
it
to
be
shown
on
the
plat.
This
is
a
detention
Pond
and
attention
ponds
are
supposed
to
be
in
common
area.
C
A
All
right
sure,
please.
M
That
that
detention
Pond
is
already
part
of
a
PUD
for
the
overall
benefit
of
everybody
up
there,
so
the
maintenance
and
the
inspection
it
has
to
be
inspected
yearly
by
an
engineer
to
make
sure
it's
functioning
properly
and-
and
we
have
been
taking
care
of
that
and
once
it's
turned
over
the
to
the
HOA,
they
will
maintain
it,
and
so
it
already
is
a
common
area
and
it's
was
planted
and
there
is
documents
that
were
drawn
up
by
the
lawyer
to
to
address
that
and
by
the
way
the
Acoustics
in
here
is
terrible.
M
I
I
rely
on
lip
reading
and
I
I
I
can't
I
can't
see
her
lips,
I,
don't
know
what
she
said.
I
had
to
rely
on
what
I
read
in
the
in
the
packet.
C
Make
one
more
point:
Sorry
Mr,
Shaw
I
forgot
about
that.
I'll
make
one
more
Point
this
plat,
this
primary
Platt
Amendment,
is
amending
that
existing
plaid.
So
that's
why
we're
clarifying
they're
re-platting
the
entirety
of
section
five?
Not
just
the
new
portion.
F
C
Yes,
so
the
question
was
about
like
this
interface:
here
it
was
the
interface
with
the
neighborhood
to
the
east
was
where
the
drainage
questions
were
asked.
We
did
not
receive
any
additional
information
from
the
petitioner
related
to
that.
Beyond
that,
CBU
will
have
to
approve
the
final
plans.
I
do
think.
One
thing
we
thought
could
be
helpful
was
clarifying
what
Landscaping
trees
are
staying
there
as
opposed
to
it
being
clear-cut,
and
then
you
know
speeding
up
any
sort
of
drainage
runoff
that
may
come
from
this
site
yeah.
C
J
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
paired
patio
homes,
real
quick.
Do
you
have
a
percentage
difference
in
I?
Guess
I
mean
the
the
the
plan
that
the
developers
proposed,
I'm
leaning
to
wanting
to
support
that
but
I,
but
respectfully
I
I
understand
you
know
our
charges
to
you
know
with
for
the
impervious
surface,
and
do
you
have
a
percentage
difference
between
what
the
two
different
plans
I
mean?
How
much
are
we
talking
about
the
difference.
C
No
I
don't
think
so.
There
is
something
from
the
petitioner
related
to
it's
on
page
23
of
the
packet
related
to
the
impervious
surface
coverage
of
both
of
their
proposals.
C
I
may
have
it
somewhere,
but
I.
Don't
have
it
right
this?
Second,
that
when
engineering
staff
looked
at
the
Shared
driveways,
they
were
able
to
indicate
that
that
that
it
was
going
to
be
less
than
what
the
10
driveway
proposal
would
be.
J
It's
just
important
that
I
mean
I
mean
as
a
community
member
and
as
a
for
the
developer.
We,
you
know
you
want
this
for
him
to
sell
out
and
for
this
to
be
successful
for
the
families
to
live
there
I
mean
I,
guess
my
fear
is.
This
doesn't
seem
real,
marketable,
what's
being
proposed
and
I'd
be
fearful,
but
not
that
that's
our
purpose.
C
But
just
yeah
so
I
mean
it
is
something
for
you
all
to
weigh.
You
know.
We've
we
talked
about
this
I.
Think
last
time
the
main
I
would
say
one
of
the
things
that
you
get
by
not
allowing
cul-de-sacs
anymore
is
more
connectivity.
We're
not
that's,
not
something
we're
getting
with
this
plan.
So
the
we
are.
The
thing
that
we
are
getting
is
Code
Compliance
for
maintenance.
C
You
know
less
Street
crosswalks
for
someone
coming
along
here,
obviously,
but
this
is
definitely
a
borderline
case
here.
Okay,.
C
Understand
that
so
with
the
history
of
this,
we
we
just
want
to
be
clear.
What's
what's
staying
so
yes
there?
The
answer
is
updating
the
landscape
plan
to
indicate
you
know,
as
opposed
to
just
showing
clouds
or
like
you
know.
This
is
something
that
we
see
in
landscape
plans.
You
know
where
it's
just
like.
Oh
there
are
trees
here
you
can
tell,
because
we
put,
you
know
like
fuzzy
lines,
so
you
can
see
those
here.
C
You
know
how
are
they
going
to
build
lots
with
a
house
55
and
56
without
cutting
those
trees
down?
Do
they
have
a
plan
for
that?
That's?
If
they
do
that's
great,
then
they
can
save
those
trees,
but,
based
on
our
experience
in
this
subdivision
and
other
places,
they
will
take
down
trees
that
they
otherwise
said
they
were
going
to
preserve.
So
we
want
to
be
very
clear
about
which
trees
are
staying
and
if
there
aren't
trees
staying
here,
we
think
there
should
be
trees
here,
as
they
originally
proposed.
C
You
know
even
Mr
Shaw
brought
up
the
you
know
the
tree
between
14
and
13..
There
were
specimen
trees
identified
on
all
over
this
property
that
they
agreed
to
keep
in
2008
and
they're
gone.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
especially
the
trees
that
are
more
functional,
like
these
buffer
area
trees
what's
staying,
and
if
it
can't
stay,
that's
fine,
but
then
we
need
to
know
the
amounts
that
are
there
so
that
they
can
be
replaced.
C
A
C
Oh
yes,
well,
I!
Think
one
thing
you
could
do
so
it's
it's
one
of
the
bullet
points
under
number,
eight
right
where
we
just
included
the
tree
buffer,
originally
shown
on
the
2008
plans,
south
and
east
of
the
paired
homes
needs
to
be
added
to
the
plan.
I
think
you
could
amend
that
and
say
or
you
could
indicate
that
that
density.
E
E
A
F
D
You
comment
on
I,
don't
know
for
staff,
maybe
and
for
the
petitioner.
What
is
the
street
appeal?
Look
like
when
you
take
the
cul-de-sac
out,
so
you've
got
these
six
driveways
or
you
know
like
how
does
that
feel
from
the
street
perspective
right.
C
So
it's
it's!
That's
what
we
were
saying.
This
is
kind
of
a
borderline
case
where,
because
they
would
like
to
keep
these
10
homes
here
in
a
design
configuration
that
they
already
have.
You
know
it's
not
like
we're.
Looking
at
this
as
a
clean
slate
that
then
you
have
to
deal
with.
How
do
you
get
vehicles
to
each
of
those
houses
and
is
six
driveways
too
many
for
this
for
this
area?
C
It's
it.
If
you
look,
for
example,
further
west,
you
know
roughly
that
distance
is
going
to
be
four
or
five
Lots
in
that
developed
area,
or
even
you
know
up
to
the
north,
which
each
are
going
to
have
their
own
driveway
I.
Think
from
the
street
it's
going
to
read
like
the
other
single
family
when
you're
in
it,
it
might
feel
different.
You
know
we,
but
we
have
seen
kind
of
alternative
parking.
Drive
access
developments
like
the
Short
Street
development
that
we
saw
at
short
and
Maxwell,
is
very
non-traditional.
C
We
have
seen
more
recently
kind
of
a
more
co-living
aesthetic
of
houses
being
kind
of
close
together
and
people
being
more
comfortable
with
that
I
think
than
they
used
to
be.
But
yes,
I
think
it's
a
good
question,
because
here
it's
only
one
cut
and
then
otherwise
it's
six
but
I
think
it
would
read
based
on
the
distance
as
the
same
as
the
cuts
for
the
single
family.
Lots
because
they're
not
very
they're,
not
much
bigger
than
the
the
lineal
distance
of
this
slot.
C
Just
explain
what
you
mean
sure
I
think
what
I'm
saying
is.
We
won't
be
surprised
if
you
approve
the
old
version.
We
don't
think
you
should,
because
it
doesn't
mean
code,
and
you
know
it
does
have
some
issues
that
that
we
have
raised,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
they're
earth-shattering
issues
and
I
think
Mr
Shaw
has
raised
some
interesting
issues,
for
example
with
the
storm
water
that
they've
already
installed
in
the
eyebrow
area,
and
you
know,
is
it
worthwhile
to
make
this
meet
code
and
have
that
large
expense?
C
So
I,
don't
think
we
would
be
surprised,
we're
not
gonna
I'm,
not
gonna,
go
home
and
cry
about
this
one.
If
you
don't,
you
know,
if
you
decide
to
give
the
waivers,
we
just
think
we
try
to
kind
of
see
it
a
little
bit
more
black
and
white
where
it's
like.
Can
they
do
it?
They
can
do
it.
They
should
probably
just
do
it
the
way,
the
code,
the
code
is
asking
them
to
do,
but
then
you
all
have
the
purview
to
say.
C
Okay,
I
I
would
suggest
upon
approval
by
CBU
that
you
know
not
I'm
sure
that
Mr
Shaw
has
had
that
conversation
with
Mr,
Pete
and
Mr
peden
isn't
even
in
that
position
anymore.
So
it's
not
really
his
call
anymore,
so
I
would
I
would
suggest
that
you
do
that
as
well,
and
then
we'll
just
verify
with
them
that
it's
fine.
G
Okay,
I
mean
I,
don't
love
the
mowing
part
of
it
environmentally,
but
it
sounds
like
it
might
be,
serving
as
a
informal
pocket
park
on
its
own,
which
sounds
valuable
to
the
people
who
live
there.
So,
okay,
thanks.
P
I
I
always
have
a
hard
time
with
compliance
issues,
just
in
my
just
the
way
I
think
about
it.
Doesn't
when
we
say
when
we
say
this,
that
it's
a
compliance
issue
and
pretty
much
it's
a
wash,
doesn't
it
make
it
more
onerous
for
the
developers
and
the
people
to
get
things
like
this
done,
and,
and
in
that
case,
if
it
is
kind
of
a
wash,
you
know
the
playing
and
transportation.
P
Wouldn't
it
just
be
easier,
just
to
say,
okay,
you
know
for
future.
We
would
just
sit.
You
know
like
it
to
be
done.
You
know
if
it's
a
new
development
or
whatever,
but
since
it's
already
developed
we're
just
going
to
give
that
development
a
pass
and
kind
of
like
to
say,
okay,
I
know
you
I,
know
you're
kind
of
even
saying
that
to
us,
but
in
the
recommendation
it
says
no
over,
you
know
overall,
but
doesn't
it
wouldn't
it
make
it
just
easier
for
everybody?
P
If
you
all
just
said,
we
might
as
well
just
give
this
a
pass
this
time
and
or
or
is
it
that
it's
just
really
important
to
follow
those
regulations
as
they
are
from
your
department
and
as
they
are
set
sure.
C
C
Yes,
it
is
important
for
us
as
a
department
to
be
flexible,
which
is
I.
Think
why
you
know
we're
being
honest
that
the
code
says
they
should
build
it.
This
way.
You
may
think
that
the
repercussions
of
that
are
too
much
and
we
do
want
to
make
your
jobs
as
easy
as
possible,
but
sometimes
your
jobs
are
just
hard
as
ours
are
as
well,
and
we
need
to
look
and
see
what
the
code
says.
C
I
mean
you
know
the
one
of
the
findings
for
a
waiver
is
that
it
doesn't,
you
know,
go
against
the
transportation
plan.
I
mean
the
transportation
plan
is
not
talking
about
cul-de-sacs
any
colds
to
SEC
anywhere
in
there.
You
know
so
it's
hard
for
us
to
make
that
decision,
and
that's
something
you
know
why
you
all
are
are
here
to
be
able
to
do
those
discretionary
things
that
that
we
don't
necessarily
aren't
empowered
to
do.
P
A
A
Which
number
is
escaping
me,
but
puddp
2421,
if
you'd
like
to
make
comments,
step
up
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
for
the
record,
if
you're
online
and
joining
us
and
like
to
make
comment,
just
look
for
the
reactions,
button
and
click
on
the
raise
hand
button,
and
we
will
recognize
you
when
it
is
your
turn.
You
have
five
minutes
to
speak.
N
A
N
My
name
is
Greg
Alexander.
If
I
understand
correctly,
the
design
originally
had
a
connector
path
to
North
High
School,
that's
been
removed
from
the
plan.
I
want
to
tell
you
all
about
a
different
connector
path
on
the
other
side
of
North
High
School
at
the
southeast
corner
of
Campus,
near
3400,
North,
Valley,
View
Drive.
To
speak
plainly,
it's
a
real
piece
of
garbage.
Its
entrance
opening
is
only
30
inches
wide
I.
N
Think
too
narrow
for
pro
Wag
The
Path
itself
is
about
five
feet
wide,
but
it's
got
fences
immediately,
touching
it
and
the
Neighbors
on
both
sides.
Let
weeds
grow
through
those
fences,
so
the
clear
width
is
is
much
less
there's
a
tree
growing
in
the
path
and
its
roots
have
created
a
six
inch
vertical
discontinuity.
There's
another
tree
that
has
fallen
on
one
of
the
fences
narrowing
it
further.
When
it
was
built,
they
didn't
give
any
thought
at
all
to
the
grade,
so
some
parts
are
Level.
N
Some
parts
are
very
steep
far
too
steep
for
pro
wag.
You
wouldn't
you
couldn't
get
a
wheelchair
through
here.
Even
if
you
were
carrying
it
empty
like
it
would
be
a
real
struggle
and
once
you
get
through
the
path
onto
mccsc's
property,
there
is
a
sidewalk
that
goes
to
the
school,
but
it
doesn't
have
Ada
curb
ramps
it
just
a
hard
six
inch
drop.
I
love
this
garbage
path.
N
I
live
two
miles
south
of
there,
and
even
so,
this
path
is
so
attractive
to
me
that
that
it's
one
of
the
two
options
I
consider
recommending
to
my
children
when
they
go
to
North
in
four
years,
so
they
can
have
independent
Transportation,
which
is
so
important
for
young
adults.
You
know
for
for
teenagers,
I,
don't
think
it's
an
exaggeration.
For
me
to
say
this.
Garbage
path
is
the
single
best
piece
of
pedestrian
and
bike
infrastructure
that
connects
to
North
High
School,
even
though
it's
deeply
flawed.
N
It
is
just
so
much
better
than
the
Alternatives,
which
is
you
know,
Powell
Road
or
Kinser
Pike.
For
decades
we
have
been
digging
this
hole
on
the
north
side
of
insufficient
connectivity,
especially
for
pedestrians,
and
now
we're
looking
at
making
that
same
mistake
again.
We're
we're
building
a
new
development
that
that
will
be
right
next
to
North
that
won't
connect
to
it.
It
should
have
a
path
connecting
to
North
High
School.
N
There
will
be
brand
new
houses,
not
even
a
quarter
mile
from
the
front
door
of
North
High
School
and
the
only
connection
that
they
can
use
as
pedestrians
will
be
almost
three
times
that
distance,
a
five
minute
walk,
becomes
a
15-minute
walk
and
that
15
minute
walk
will
be
along
kinzer
Pike
there'll
be
breathing
exhaust
fumes.
They
won't
even
be
able
to
hear
themselves
think
over
the
noise
of
traffic
I,
just
it's
even
worse.
N
On
the
prowl
road
side,
MCCSC
actually
built
a
sidewalk
along
its
Pratt
Road
Frontage,
but
that
sidewalk
doesn't
connect
to
the
school
it.
Oh
yeah,
no
I
know
what
you're
going
to
do.
It's
good.
The
High
School
site
plan
is
severely
defective.
You
know
they
didn't
provide
access
from
the
rights
of
way
to
the
building
for
pedestrians,
The
Heist.
We
can't
allow
the
fact
that
mistakes
have
been
made
to
justify
repeating
those
mistakes
into
the
future
and
here's
the
part
that
that
really
hit
me
I
went
there.
N
This
morning
to
inspect
a
hundred
foot
sidewalk
Gap
along
prow
Road,
and
there
was
a
gosh
darn,
Goat
Trail
through
the
forest.
You
know
people
had
trampled
down
the
vegetation
with
their
feet.
People
actually
use
this
deficient
sidewalk
that
I've
identified
and
the
city
doesn't
care.
Mccsc
doesn't
care
I,
also
inspected
where
the
New
Path
should
go.
That
was
shown
on
the
original
diagrams.
There
is
a
grade,
but
it's
not
severe.
It
may
be
impossible
to
meet
pro-wag,
but
it
is
definitely
possible
to
make
a
very
useful
connection.
I
understand
there
are
challenges.
N
A
defective
path
is
better
than
no
path.
Proag
is
supposed
to
be
a
guide
to
making
excellent
paths,
not
an
excuse
to
put
up
a
wall
to
pedestrians.
The
path
is
essential
to
this
project.
Both
new
and
existing
residents
of
this
Ridgefield
deserve
better
for
their
children.
It's
very
hard
to
correct
the
mistakes
of
the
past,
but
we
simply
can't
do
that
if
we
keep
making
them
the
reason
we
don't
like
cul-de-sacs
is
that
they're
harmful
to
connectivity.
Let
them
build
the
cul-de-sac
and
fix
the
connectivity
problem.
N
O
Hi
first
I
want
to
say
thank
you.
I
did
not
get
your
name.
Man
in
the
red
hat,
I
completely
agree
with
you.
I
live
in
this
subdivision
and
and
I'm
one
of
the
people.
That
is
aware
of
that
little
goat
path.
That
is
extremely
muddy
when
it
gets
wet.
But
yes,
there
should
be
a
connectivity
path.
I
want
to
add
that
when
my
husband
bought
our
house
in
2011,
Bob
Shaw
said
to
him
about
our
oldest,
who
was
in
elementary
school
at
the
time.
O
Oh,
there
will
be
a
path
to
North
High
School
that
she
can
walk
on
when
by
the
time
she's
in
high
school.
She
actually
teaches
middle
school
now.
So
that
gives
you
an
idea
of
how
long
this
project
has
been
going
on
and
the
things
that
have
been
unfulfilled
so
I
I
do
want
to
address
a
couple
of
things
that
have
been
said
about
the
detention
Pond
I
would
never
call
it
an
informal
pocket
park
that
paints,
A,
really
lovely
picture
that
simply
doesn't
exist.
O
We
do
use
it.
People
do
take
their
dogs
over
there.
It
is
a
Mucky
kind
of
mud
pit.
It's
pretty
scrubby,
it's
an
open
space,
and
so
it
does
get
used,
but
an
idyllic
picture
of
a
community
coming
together
and
creating
a
park
out
of
a
lovely
area.
Please
don't
misunderstand
that:
that's
what's
hap,
that's
what's
happening,
I
want
to
address
the
bond
and
the
sidewalks.
O
The
sidewalks
were
taken
up
in
August
of
last
year
with
no
warning
to
residents
at
all
as
you've.
Seen
from
the
pictures,
this
is
an
exceptionally
small
neighborhood
winter
Suite
has
never
gone
all
the
way
through.
So
we
have
no
correction,
no
connection
to
the
Kinser
side
and,
as
we've
all
just
talked
about,
there's
no
South
continuous
South
sidewalk
on
prow.
O
The
only
access
out
of
this
neighborhood
on
foot
is
heading
north
on
prowl
Road
and
that
was
removed
in
August
of
last
year.
So
people
with
strollers
the
multiple
disabled
people
in
this
neighborhood
people
walking
dogs
have
had
have
been
isolated.
I
walk
my
dog
primarily
well
I'm,
walking
again,
but
I
was
not
for
a
long
time,
so
I
spent
months
loading
a
wheelchair
and
a
dog
into
a
car
twice
a
day.
O
These
sidewalks
need
to
be
fixed
post
haste
period
and
that's
a
huge
priority
for
this.
Neighborhood
I
also
want
to
add
something
on
the
on
the
North
High
School
issue,
the
safety
issue.
O
We
know
a
lot
about
teenage
brains
if
that
path
to
North
gets
removed.
People
are
not
going
to
take
the
time
to
walk
around
to
the
other
side
and
they're
going
to
try
to
walk
on
prow
and
it
is
not
safe.
O
There's
a
hill
without
sight,
visibility
in
that
very
short
stretch
between
the
edge
of
this
neighborhood
and
north,
and
if
people
try
to
walk
on
that
road,
they
don't
see
the
cars
coming
and
the
cars
don't
see
them
and
then
I
just
want
to
clarify
one
other
thing:
I'm
sure
there
are
things
I,
don't
know
and
that
I've
missed,
but
my
neighbors
and
I
don't
cut
trees
down
we
plant
trees.
So
the
idea
that
we
remove
trees
for
our
fences,
many
of
us
have
planted
trees.
O
I
know
one
other
neighbor
on
this
call
like
I
have
that
really
likes
to
plant
trees,
and
so
the
idea
that
any
of
us
were
over
here
chopping
trees
down
to
put
up
fences.
No
we've
been
adding
trees
to
this
community,
and
we
all
feel
strongly
about
that,
or
many
of
us
feel
strongly
about
that.
I
think
those
are
all
of
my
critical
notes
at
the
moment
and
I
will
I
will
step
aside
and
let
other
people
comment.
Thank.
Q
Good
evening
this
is
Amy,
Ali
I'm,
actually
also
a
resident
of
this
neighborhood.
First
and
foremost,
I.
Just
can't
reiterate
enough
what
Miss
sheet
said
about
the
sidewalks.
We
have
children,
we
have
toddlers,
we
have
babies,
we
have
people
with
disabilities
and
we
cannot
safely
leave
our
neighborhood
for
almost
eight
months.
This
week,
it'll
be
eight
months.
We
haven't
had
sidewalks.
Q
Q
A
All
right
seeing
none,
we
are
back
to
the
commission
for
any
additional
questions,
final
comments
or
a
motion.
Commissioner
St
John.
G
A
I
think
that
if
there
are
questions
that
Commissioners
want
to
pose
to
the
to
the
to.
A
I
think
before
we
before
we
entertain
a
motion,
we'll
allow
the
petitioner
to
use
any
remaining
time.
Yeah.
A
Well,
let's
allow
staff
to
maybe
pull
up
the
the
illustration
for
us.
C
Oh
here,
let's
sit
it's
already
doing
it
great
okay,
so
in
the
areas
that
are
already
developed
in
the
northern
portion
in
section
one,
when
we
did
the
Landscaping
review
before
we
sent
the
letter
in
2020
indicating
like
hey,
we
need
to
get
this
off
the
ground.
This
is
what
we
have
for
existing
conditions
here.
That
was
when
engineering
was
also
in
planning
and
transportation,
and
so
that
along
went
along
that,
along
with
that,
went
a
review
of
these
sidewalks,
so
the
existing
sidewalks
that
were
already
in
the
development.
C
C
We
waited
for
quite
some
time
for
the
exhibit
related
to
the
property
line
to
North
High
School,
because
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
were
actually
trees
in
the
tree
preservation
area
and
when
they
went
to
when
they
went
to
start
last
year.
What
should
have
happened
was
that
they
submitted
a
drawing
indicating
what
they
were
going
to
do
to
fix
the
issues
identified
by
the
engineering
staff,
but
instead
they
just
ripped
out
all
the
areas
that
had
issues
identified.
C
So
engineering
staff
then
needed
a
drawing
to
show
what
is
being
put
back
because
they
have
to
be
able
to
approve
that
plan
that
that
then
sets
the
bond
amount
as
well
and
I.
Believe
we
got
that
drawing
last
week
and
Mr
seabor
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
So
it
is
sprinkled
all
throughout
this
development
sidewalk
panels
that
were
taken
out
ramps
and
things
of
all
different
pieces
of
sidewalk.
C
I
think
the
idea
was
the
public
improvements
manager
at
the
time,
Mr
Shaw
contacted
and
said:
hey.
Can
you
come
out
and
show
me
what
I
need
to
do,
but
that's
not
the
process,
that's
not
how
we
do
you
know
she
doesn't
come
out
and
just
say:
oh,
this
needs
to
be
that
or
this
you
have
to.
C
We
told
you
what
was
insufficient
and
why
and
then
you
have
to
submit
an
engineered
drawing
how
you're
going
to
fix
it,
and
so
by
that
time
I
mean
he
just
took
them
out
before
submitting
any
of
that
information.
I
should
have
all
the
paperwork.
Things
should
have
been
done
first
and
so
that
they
could
be
taken
out
and
immediately
replaced.
C
G
Okay,
my
second
question
that
I'm
done
the
path
to
North,
High
School,
is
that
it's
viable,
it's
not
viable
I
mean
even
if.
C
It's
I
think
Mr
seabor
may
have
had
comments
as
well
from
his
staff
on
this
I
know.
Mr
copper,
who
was
here
in
December,
was
the
one
who
he
went
out
and
looked.
It's
definitely
has
some
slope
issues.
When
the
petitioners
representative,
Mr
rigor,
reached
out
to
MCCSC
Mr
Fleener
at
MCCSC,
they
were
not
interested
in
the
path.
That's
not
necessarily
something
for
you
to
that's.
You
could
still
require
the
path
you
know,
as
was
public
pointed
out
by
the
public.
Their
people
are
walking
through
this
area.
C
I
think
the
concern
from
staff
and
Mr
seabor
can
correct.
Me
was
just
that
it's
hard
to
say
on
its
face
without
further
engineering,
whether
or
not
it
can
be
kind
of
done
in
a
safe
way
for
pedestrians.
So
again,
if
you
want
to
leave
that
in
they'll
fit
we'll
figure
it
out
yeah.
A
A
R
C
But
it
the
location
has
moved
because
of
the
change
in
the
location
of
the
tree.
Preservation
hold
on
thanks,
Brad.
A
Yeah
Mr
Shaw,
you
got
some
time
remaining
if
you'd
like
to
use
it
now,
I
would
I
would
typically
encourage
you
to
wait
until
we've
had
some
discussions,
so
you
don't
use
up
all
your
time
before
all
the
questions
are
raised,
but
if
you've
got
something
to
to
comment
specifically
on
this
issue
of
the
site,
path,
I
think
now
would
be
a
good
time.
Ambivalent.
M
About
the
path,
it
was
the
mcsc
that
didn't
want
it
initially,
but
it
was
put
in
as
a
condition
of
approval,
and
so
we
show
it
on
on
our
plans.
I
don't
mind
trying
to
put
it
in
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
changed.
The
trip
reservation
area
was
so
the
path
would
go
between
two
three
reservation
areas,
so
it
would
be
buffered
from
the
homeowners.
M
So
if
there
was
traffic
and
kids
up
and
down
that
path,
it
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
affect
their
their
yards
or
their
houses,
and
so
I
personally
I'm
ambivalent
about
it.
But
the
MC
CSC
doesn't
have
a
sidewalk
there
and
and
no
connected
it
would
be
emptied
out
into
that
street
there
with
no
sidewalks.
C
So
this
is
on
page
32
of
the
packet,
and
it
is
here
adjacent
to
the
tree.
Preservation
is.
C
That's
right
right,
yeah
that
we
had
seen
an
iteration
where
it
was
like
in
the
tree.
Preservation
and
Mr
copper
had
some
concerns
about
that.
So
it's
kind
of
along
the
edge
here.
A
S
Yes,
thank
you
no
worries.
If
I
wasn't
noticed,
I
haven't
had
my
video
on,
so
it
takes
a
little
extra
work
to
notice
the
virtual
hand,
race
really
I
think
we
should
continue
to
look
at
this
connection
path,
but
also
I
wanted
to
indicate
sorry
that
I
showed
up
late.
S
I
was
going
to
mention
that
I
have
prior
commitments
and
I'm
going
to
try
to
stay
for
the
remainder
of
this
petition,
but
after
that,
I
will
be
leaving
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
note
of
that,
so
it
could
be
put
on
the
record.
Jackie
I'll
put
something
in
the
chat
as
I
leave.
So
thank
you.
A
J
J
There
any
arrangements
with
mccse
to
provide
any
connection
there,
because
really
it's
going
to
just
dump
into
an
area,
that's
kind
of
a
steep
Hillside
I,
don't
well.
C
So
the
yeah
it
would
connect
I
believe
or
close
to
this
existing
roadway
at
North.
T
I
The
the
a
challenge
from
the
city
side
right
now
is
that
the
roads
have
not
been
accepted
into
the
city's
inventory,
so
we
at
least
have
limited
tools
to
require
the
sidewalks
be
installed
properly
and
once
they
are
that's
one
of
the
key
things
for
the
streets
to
be
accepted
into
the
streets
inventory,
but
until
we
have
that
Bond
there's
little
leverage
that
the
city
has
so
so
that's
where
the
timing
and
wanting
to
be
timely,
but
also
reasonable
and
what's
physically
possible
to
to
accommodate.
So
that's
one
I
think
just
detail.
I
I
So
that's
just
it's
a
complicated
issue
and
it
may
be
difficult
to
get
it
to
tie
into
MCCSC
now,
but
you
just
30
years
from
now.
We
don't
know
like
try,
North
just
redeveloped,
so
things
could
change
in
the
future.
So
that's
just
I
think
an
important
thing
for
us
to
keep
in
mind
on
the
the
cul-de-sac
and
the
eyebrow
just
for
forever.
Those
are
just
from
a
City
Maintenance
perspective
really
challenging
and
over
the
cost
of
a
lifespan
of
a
road,
hopefully
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
years.
I
These
things
are
they're,
just
it
adds
up
and
is,
is
a
big
burden.
The
eyebrow
design.
The
way
it's
actually
designed
is
more
like
an
intersection
like
the
corners.
It's
not
designs
like
a
curve
in
a
road,
but
it
would
be
treated
like
a
curve
in
a
road
and
so
with
the
tweaked
design.
If
you
notice,
the
radius
is
a
little
different
to
reflect
a
slow
speed
curve
in
a
residential
street.
So
there's
a
lot
of
details
that
are
coming
into
here
and
I.
I
Think
I
wanted
to
quickly
try
to
mention
so
I
I,
certainly
support
I,
think
the
staff's
recommendation
I
understand
and
support
the
desire
for
an
MCCSC
connection,
but
it
is
really
tricky
and
if
it
can't
be
made
in
an
accessible
way,
there's
things
that
we
want
to
be
very
mindful
of
and
careful
of,
to
make
sure
we're
doing.
All
that
we
can
so
I
just
wanted
to
add
a
few
tidbits
there
for
for
some
context.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
or
comments.
F
Yeah,
this
is
incredibly
complicated
and
I
realize
that
we're
making
lots
of
proposed
and
expected
trade-offs
and
I
wonder
staff.
If
you
can
comment
on
the
latest
comment
about
the
eyebrow
and
whether
it
is
there
a
way
that
that
can
be
changed,
I
understand
the
concern
about
tearing
out
storm
drainage,
but
is
there
any
way
that
that
can
be
accommodated?
The
the
new
alternative
design
be
accommodated.
F
C
Is
it
yeah,
I,
think
yeah
I
mean
I,
think
you
could
ask
that
I
mean
I,
think
you
could
make
that
decision.
We
would
maybe
want
to
ask
Mr
Rooker,
you
know.
Are
we
getting
you
know
to
to
Mr
seabor's
Point?
Are
we
getting
to
the
point
where
it's
like?
We
wanted
this
from
a
and
this
from
B?
Do
we
want
to
tell
the
petitioner
this
is
what
we'd
like
to
see
next
month
or
do
you
want
to
say
to
the
petitioner?
C
This
is
what
we'd
like
to
see
next
month
and
we're
prepared
to
vote
on
that
or
I.
Think
that
would
kind
of
be
up
to
you.
Guys
I
mean
the
thing
it
you
know
they
have
a
proposal
that
they're
asking
for.
We
have
recommended
that
that
be
changed.
You
can
either
approve
or
deny
theirs
accept
our
Amendment
or
you
could
make
your
own
Amendment.
We
just
at
some
point,
I
think
even
our
amendment
was
a
little.
C
A
Any
other
questions
or
comments
there
are
none
immediately.
I
would.
A
This
is
obviously
a
complex
issue
I.
It
feels
to
me,
like
we
have
a
number
of
competing
proposals
here
and
it's
going
to
be
difficult
for
us
to
come
to
consensus
and
and
I
fear
that
we
may
end
up
just
passing
whatever
gets
on
the
floor
here.
First
for
the
sake
of
experiencing
and
I,
don't
think
that's
going
to
be
the
best
outcome
for
anyone.
I
would
I
would
request
that.
A
Maybe
we
just
take
a
minute
and
and
hear
from
Commissioners
I
would
appreciate
your
input.
You
know:
do
you?
Are
you,
okay,
with
what
the
petitioner
has
proposed?
Do
you
favor
what
staff
has
proposed?
Do
you
favor
some
hybrid,
as
commissioner
Kinsey
has
suggested,
that
maybe
keeps
the
cul-de-sac,
but
not
the
eyebrow
I
think
before
we
can
procedurally
move
forward
I
think
we
need
a
sense
of
where
what
Commissioners
would
like
to
see
and
I
hate
to
I.
A
Certainly
don't
want
to
slow
this
down,
because
I
know
the
residents
of
this
neighborhood
are
are
very
eager
to
get
their
sidewalks
back
and
I'm
very
eager
to
to
see
that
happen,
but
we
also
want
to
make
sure
we
we
do.
What's
right
here,
so
I
would
just
maybe
request
if
you,
if
you
have
any
opinion
at
all,
share
it
now.
So
at
least
we
can
kind
of
make
sure
we're
moving
in
the
right
direction
here.
A
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
if
there
is
a
resolution
this
evening
or
if
we
really
just
need
more
time
to
to
Hash
this
out,
I
mean
I'm
very
hesitant
to
do
that,
given
how
long
it's
already
taken,
but
but
I
want
to
ram
something
through
just
to
just
to
just
to
be
done
with
it.
P
Commissioner
Kinsey
did
you
want
to
go
first:
okay,
yeah
I,
I
favor,
just
approving
it
so
that
the
as
it's
the
original
design,
so
that
it
we
we
kind
of
get
back
to
the
momentum
and
and
let
the
developer
finish
out
some
of
the
conditions
with
the
plant
with
the
path
and
all
those
things
all
those
things
that
we've
talked
about:
they're,
fantastic,
the
the
general.
P
The
large
part
of
the
decision,
I
think
is
to
in
my
mind,
to
to
go
ahead
with
that,
since
it's
kind
of
a
it's
kind
of
a
50
50,
you
know
six
and
one
half
dozen,
the
other
as
far
as
that
goes,
let's,
let's,
let's
move
ahead
and
some
of
the
some
of
the
finer
points
that
we've
talked
about
with
the
path
and
and
sidewalks
and
the
trees,
it's
all
great,
but
the
larger
decision
would
help
us
move
ahead
and
help
Mr
Shaw
move
ahead
with
getting
this
and
then
get
the
sidewalks
back
and
we'll.
P
You
know
finish
up
this:
it's
been
hanging
out
for
a
while.
Now,
let's,
let's
not
do
a
government
thing
and
make
it
slow,
let's
go
ahead
and
make
a
decision
and
move
ahead.
I
think
that
that's
my
thought
thank.
G
I
would
be
in
favor
of
a
path
to
North,
High
School
for
a
whole
bunch
of
reasons,
I
kind
of
don't
care
that
it
lands
on
MCCSC
and
there
is
no
path,
because
I
I
think
they'll
build
one
once
it's
there
and
people
are
using
it
and
I
appreciate
the
comments
from
the
public
about
that.
Thank
you
for
bringing
that
to
our
attention.
G
The
tree
part
I
mean
it
just
has
to
get
worked
out
like
get
the
label
the
trees.
Let
City
know
what
the
trees
are,
that
are
there
and
and
figure
that
out.
That
seems
pretty
basic.
The
removal
of
the
sidewalks
is
real.
Disappointing
I'm
really
surprised
like,
as
a
matter
of
like
good
faith
to
the
neighbors
that
that
would
have
been
done
and
left
like
that
for
eight
months.
G
So
that's
a
pretty
tough
fact
for
me
to
get
past,
but
I
am
willing
to
potentially
go
in
favor
of
the
petitioner's
request
for
the
plan
is
drawn
with
the
cul-de-sac,
but
real
disappointed
about
the
sidewalk
removal.
Thanks.
I
Yeah
no
I
think
if
a
path
can
be
put
in
and
reasonably
that's
a
great
thing.
I
do
have
some
concerns
with
the
eyebrow
design
and
the
site
plan.
I
have
a
concerns
with
other
details
of
the
site
plan
that
led
to
a
lot
of
the
sidewalk
issues
that
exists
on
the
older
Vision,
so
I
think
we
just
need
to
make
sure
what
we
approve
in
a
final
plan
is
actually
a
good
final
plan,
I'm
optimistic
or
hopeful
that
Mr
Shaw
and
the
developer
team
will
now
that
it
sounds
like
a
design.
I
Maybe
has
been
submitted
to
some
of
my
staff
to
start
addressing
some
of
the
sidewalk
issues.
I
know
he
was
hoping
to
last
year
so
hopeful
that
will
still
happen.
While
some
of
these
site
plan
issues
are
updated
and
clarified,
so
there's
less
conditions,
and
we
know
what
we
really
are
voting
on.
Approving
thanks,
I.
D
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
storm
drain
situation
is
in
that
section
specifically
I
think
we
need
to
go
through
these
10
conditions,
to
figure
out
what
we're
going
to
vote
on
tonight
and
because
we
discussed
the
60
days
for
two
and
three
I
believe
and
then
there's
also
a
thought
on
number
nine
about
adding
in
that
they
wouldn't
need
to
meet
Landscaping
and
then,
of
course,
we've
got
number
10
that
we've
discussed
too
so.
F
Yeah
this
is
just
a
mess
and
as
much
as
I
now
I
really
understand
how
why
we
should
be
opposed
to
cul-de-sacs,
and
you
know
the
unfortunate
thing
is
we're
not
getting
any
connectivity
connections
here.
You
know
even
with
the
redesign
so
to
me,
there's
not
much
value
and
as
much
as
I
am
not
in
favor
of
compliance
for
compliance
sake.
I
am
in
favor
of
what
the
policies
and
the
practices
were
designed
to
do
so.
F
Compliance
offers
important,
Clarity
and
guidance
for
developers
and
the
public
assurances
that
things
are
supposed
to
be
the
way
they're
supposed
to
be
in
the
way
that,
as
a
community,
we
decided
so
I
I
really
resent
having
to
to
make
alternative
Arrangements
around
being
complying
with
what
we've
decided
as
a
community.
We
want
to
see
so
that's
really
hard
to
to
make
a
decision
against
what
I
think
is
in
the
best
interest
in
the
community,
but
this
clearly
we're
not
getting
anything.
F
F
So
with
all
of
that
said,
the
other
thing
is
I
would
really
want
to
make
sure
that
we
retain
all
the
elements
in
here
and
to
really
look
closely
at
whatever
the
30
or
60
day
Bond
issues
that
will
get
the
sidewalks
back
into
place.
That
is
really
egregious
to
me
that
those
sidewalks
were
removed
and
they
need
whatever
we
need
to
do
to
make
sure
that
we
get
this
through
to
get
those
sidewalks
back
in
is
absolutely
critical,
so
for
that
public
benefit
and
gain
I
I
will
move
forward
on
this.
F
Whatever
we
can
do
so
that
might
be
the
staff
issue
that
we
really
need
to
with
Guidance
with
is
how
do
we
get?
How
do
we
arrange
the
conditions
so
that
that
element
whatever
the
putting
forward
so
that
the
we
get
the
sidewalks
into
City
control?
So
they
can
be
put
back
in
and
approved.
So
that's
really
important.
The
detention
Pond
to
me
is
less
of
a
concern.
F
F
Oh
the
the
pathway,
I
I,
like
the
idea
of
building
a
path
and
I,
do
think
that
it
would
be
added
by
emcee
or
considered
an
addition
to
MCCS
property
if
it's
built
so
I'd
like
to
consider
it
I'm,
but
I'm
very
concerned
about
whether
it
meets
any
accessibility
guidelines.
So
this
is
just
there's
not
anything
really
great
here
to
to
build
this
on.
That's
it.
J
I
I
would
support
moving
forward
with
the
plan
as
presented
and
with
the
with
the
subdivisions
waivers
as
requested
by
the
petitioner,
with
one
caveat
I
do
feel
you
need
the
60
days
for
the
bonding
I.
Don't
disagree
with
all
the
comments
that
have
been
made,
but
I
think
we
need
to
finish
the
subdivision.
I
think
we
need
to
give
you
the
the
ability
to
do
that.
So.
K
And
everything
commissioner
Kinsey
I,
think
you
said
extremely
well.
I
really
appreciate
the
public
in
this.
This
petition
in
particular,
because
that's
definitely,
as
commissioner
St
John
said-
that's
Weighing
on
me
very
heavily
with
the
route
that
was
taken
living
in
a
neighborhood
myself,
can't
imagine
that
I'd
be
furious,
so
whatever
we
can
do
to
move
this
through
to
get
those
sidewalks
back
in
I.
Think
that's
a
big
piece
for
me.
B
B
For
the
patio
homes
and
and
I
understand
the
situation
here,
because
this
was
a
plan
that
was
done
so
long
ago
and
the
city
is
having
to
look
at
the
old
plan
and
what
is
in
what
what
we
have
in
code
right
now.
So,
let's
move
forward.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
So
it
sounds
to
me
like
we
have
some
consensus
that
that
we
want
to
move
forward
with
granting
the
waivers
and
improving
the
the
original
plan.
We
need
to
make
some
changes
to
the
conditions
in
order
to
satisfy
everyone
here
and
and
sounds
to
me
like
we're
we're
comfortable
with
sort
of
delegating
the
updating
of
the
the
the
tree
plot
documentation
to
to
staff
I
just
want
a
little
clarification,
though,
from
staff
you're,
you're
comfortable
with
that
I
mean
I.
A
C
You're
talking
about
first
for
the
tree
buffer
East
in
the
Southeast
portion.
Q
C
East
and
south
of
the
paired
area,
yeah
I,
think
we'd
be
comfortable
saying
so.
The
condition
currently
says
the
tree
buffer
originally
shown
the
tree
buffer
originally
shown
on
the
2008
plan.
South
and
east
of
the
paired
homes
needs
to
be
added
to
the
plan
or
trees
to
the
same
density
need
to
be
shown
as
preserved
or
to
be
planted.
A
C
Yeah
occasion
that's
on
there
now.
A
Or
right
so
or
trees
of
this?
Yes,
okay,
that's
fair
one!
One
follow-up
question
I
have
on
that,
though,
we
heard
some
some
comment
that
there
are
trees
that
have
been
planted
by
homeowners,
not
by
the
developer.
E
C
A
C
A
A
So
it
sounds
to
me,
like
the
consensus,
is
we'd
like
to
see
the
waivers
granted
approval
of
the
site
plan
as
submitted,
perhaps
removal
of
condition
number
10,
which
removes
the
connection
easement
so
maybe
with,
and
then
also
an
an
update
to
condition.
Number
three.
E
C
B
A
Remove
condition
one
and
we've
modified
from
30
to
60
days.
C
That's
what
I
so
okay,
so
yes,
and
no
no!
The
sidewalk!
That's
in
is
platted.
It's
part
of
phase
one
of
section
five.
So
normally
when
we'd
get
a
secondary
plot,
that's
something
that's
plotted
and
recorded
a
bond
comes
in
at
that
time
to
a
public
Improvement
spawn
that
did
happen.
You
know
10
years
ago,
and
that
Bond
was
expired.
So
I
believe
that
once
Mr
seabor's
staff
approves
the
amount
for
Mr
Ricker
that
that
Bond
can
be
pulled
immediately.
A
Me
ask
a
more
a
more
direct
question
if
we
remove
that,
if
we
move
that
to
90
days,
does
that
slow
down
the
the
construction
of
these
sidewalks.
I
C
So
there
aren't
a
lot
of
variety
I,
don't
think
any
right-of-way
changes
were
made
up
there
as
far
as
like
dimensions
for
area
or
anything
along
those
lines,
they're
just
re-platting
it
because
they
had
to
make
changes
to
the
final
plan.
I
C
I
think
right,
I
think
my
idea
was
to
put
it
in
here
just
to
be
like.
If
that
isn't
happening,
then
this
at
least
is
giving
us
a
timeline
where
then
we
as
planning
can
start
enforcement
and
say
you're,
not
meeting
the
conditions
of
your
approval.
You
know
we're
already
doing
that
doing
enforcement,
but.
A
C
Yes,
he
wants
to
know
if
The
Pedestrian
connection
the
location
that
they've
proposed.
He
wants
to
know
if
it
can
be
moved
so
I'm
wondering
yeah.
A
A
I
just
well
to
be
clear:
no
one's
made
a
motion
yet
sure,
so
this
is
all
somewhat
speculative,
but
I
think
what
what
I'm
hearing?
What
I
hear
the
consensus
is,
is
that
we
would
be
approving
the
site
plan
as
shown
on
page
21
of
the
packet
yeah.
A
C
The
same
the
petitioners
submitted
Platt,
it
starts
on
page
30
of
the
packet
and
the
only
thing
that
has
changed
from
when
they
submitted.
This
initially
is,
if
you
aren't,
if
you
are
going
to
improve
the
waivers,
the
only
thing
that
changes
is
the
landscape
plan
with
the
addendum
that
we
got
for
February,
which.
A
So
what
we'll
be
talking
about
is
approving
the
site
plan,
as
represented
in
Pages
30
through.
B
A
I,
don't
typically
do
this,
but
I'm
going
to
just
go
ahead
and
make
the
motion
myself
just
to
try
to
sort
through
this.
A
Sorry
of
DP
I'm,
sorry
give
me
one.
Second,
let
me
pull
this
together.
A
A
This
approval
approves
the
final
plan
and
primary
preliminary
plot
that
begins
on
page
30
of
the
packet,
with
the
amended
landscape
plan
submitted
for
the
February
planned
commission
hearing
and
therefore
not
the
alternative
plan
that
was
submitted
by
staff,
and
we
are
amending
condition
number
two
and
three
to
allow
for
60
days
for
phase
one
of
section:
five.
We
are
eliminating
condition
number
10
and
we
are
adding
also
to
condition
number
eight,
that
the
tree
broth
were
originally
shown
on.
A
I
I
guess
just
to
understand,
if
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
staff.
If
this
plan
is
approved,
truly
I
see
a
lot
of
concerns
in
the
drawings
like,
but
I,
don't
know
if
they're
technical
enough
in
nature
that
they
could
still
be
addressed
through
a
grading
permit,
like
other
things,
that
we've
talked
about
were
bump
outs
at
intersections.
I
Literally.
Some
of
the
issues
with
the
sidewalks
that
we
had
on
the
prior
sections
were
due
to
the
design
that
we're
literally
about
to
approve
right
now
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
those
if
this
is
approved,
those
could
still
be
addressed.
Knowing
that
the
sidewalk
issues
that
exist
and
I
feel
like
why
we're
making
a
sense
of
urgency
could
still
happen.
I
If
we
vote
on
this
or
not
so
I,
just
I'm
a
little
personally
nervous
about
this
direction,
but
just
wanted
to,
for
my
own
sake,
understand
what,
from
an
engineering
perspective,
we
would
be
looking
at.
C
Okay,
a
couple
things
yes,
I-
think
the
design
in
the
right-of-way
details
is
something
that
you
know
plan
commission
doesn't.
Typically
they
have
purview
over
very
specific
things,
so,
for
example,
whether
or
not
colder
cul-de-sacs
could
be
in
requiring
Street
trees.
C
So
if
there
are
bump
outs
that
need
to
be
put
in
I
do
think
that
can
be
done
after
I
will
note
that
in
the
staff
report
you
know
we
did
say
that
the
petitioner
is
still
working
with
the
engineering
staff
to
address
other
concerns
raised
at
the
hearing
related
to
Safe
pedestrian
ramp
design.
A
couple
of
those
issues
might
require
slight
changes
in
the
property
lines
of
the
adjacent
Parcels.
The
department
has
spoken
to
the
petitioner
they'd
elected
to
go
forward,
and
we
let
them
know
at
that
time.
C
If
these
become
so
significant
that
these
Parcels
are
changing,
you're
gonna
have
to
come
back.
Do
you
want
to
just
wait
and
they
didn't
so
I
mean
you
know
now
that's
been
four
months,
and
so
I
know
that
they
have
continued
to
work
with
your
staff.
But
yes,
I,
think
the
design
of
how
those
intersections
are
going
to
work
is
something
that
we
understand
is
still
in
flux
and
feel
comfortable
with
letting
letting
continue
to
happen,
as
in
the
secondary
plot.
Those
things
won't
be
included.
I
Section
like
I
mentioned
for
the
eyebrow
is
there's
really
a
very
tight
corner,
like
you
would
at
an
intersection,
but
it's
a
curve
in
the
road
which
would
require
adjusting
property
lines,
which
would
mean
what
we're
approving
now
we
would
have
to
bring
back,
or
we
would
just
be
locked
into
that
design
forever.
I.
C
So
I
think
the
Udo
allows
for
some
my
changes.
So
if
we're
not
adding
lots
and
then
you
know,
we
there's
just
a
threshold
right.
So
if
we're
saying
this
is
a
new
design,
then
we
would
come
back
if
we.
If
we
don't
think
that,
then
then
we
would
be
able
to
be
done
at
staff
level.
A
I'd
be
happy
to
add
another
kiss
condition
that
that
calls
out
that
we're
authorizing
staff
to
make
those
those
minor
adjustments
just
to
make
sure
that's
that's
clear.
So.
A
What
I
mean,
because
in
this
of
course,
what
what,
if
petitioner
and
the
staff
don't
agree
on
that
design?
What
I
don't
know
I
think
we
I
mean?
Maybe
we
should
be
more
specific
to
say
the
commission
will
delegate
final
approval
of
roadway
design
to
staff.
U
I
think
I'm
comfortable
with
the
vagueness
of
it,
but
we
should
all
be
conscious
of
the
fact
that
there
may
still
be
there's
still
a
possibility,
depending
on
what
comes
up
that
this
would
have
to
be
brought
back
to
PC,
as
Ms
Scanlon
pointed
out.
So
it's
hard
because
we
don't
know
what
we
don't
know.
Yeah.
A
I
I
think
I
would
yeah
I
think
we
got
yeah
I
think
we
just
got
to
keep
it
moving
and
I
would
just
say:
please
don't
bring
it
back.
Please
find
a
way
to
come
to
an
agreement
on
this,
get
these
sidewalks
back
in
for
these
poor
people,
but
if
yeah
I
think
I'm
comfortable
I'm
happy
to
accept
that
as
a
friendly
amendment
to
my
motion,
so
my
motion
stands.
F
G
To
clarify
for
members
of
the
public,
what
Miss
Scanlon
does
this
do
to
compel
the
petitioner
to
put
the
sidewalk
back
together
in
an
expeditious
manner,.
C
G
I
understand,
but
what
about
this,
especially
for
the
public
who's?
Listening?
What
about
this
compels
the
petitioner
to
put
the
sidewalk
back
together
quickly,
sure.
C
C
I
believe
one
was
received
last
week,
so
I'm
sure
that
staff
is,
you
know,
reviewing
that,
and
so
then
what
would
happen
is
once
they
can
come
to
an
agreement
with
Mr
rigger,
who
is
not
here
right
now
and
so
probably
also
not
receiving
emails
right
now,
once
that
agreement
can
be
made,
then
that
Bond
can
be
pulled
for
the
sidewalks
in
the
platted
portion,
which
is
Phase
One
of
section
five.
C
So
this
is
just
as
kind
of
a
stop
Gap
so
that
that
has
to
be
done
within
the
next
two
months,
but
I
think
it's
actually
already
happening.
This
is
kind
of
just
to
put
something
there
to
make
ensure
that
it
does
happen.
So.
C
A
M
Let
me
explain
something
about
this.
The
reason
sidewalks
were
torn
out
was
because
the
planning
inspector
cited
him
as
not
meeting
handicapped
standards
and
they
were
built
according
to
the
approved
plans,
but
the
approved
plants
did
not
specify
the
correct
design,
the
the
one
that
should
have
been
designed
and
so
I
tore
them
out
and
the
way
the
way
we
used
to
do
with
sidewalks
was,
we
would
form
them
up
and
then
the
inspector
would
come
out
and
look
to
make
sure
the
stone
was
there
and
everything
was
correct.
M
Well,
when
she
came
out
and
looked
at
it,
she
said
no,
this
is
this.
This
isn't
it,
and
so
we've
been
negotiating
about
this
for
some
time
and
I
paid
rear
to
redesign
the
sidewalks
to
meet
the
handicapped
standards
that
are
now
in
place
and
as
soon
as
they
approve
the
plans
that
we
have
resubmitted,
then
we'll
get
right
on
it.
I
they're
they're
already
formed
up
it's
just
whether
or
not
I've
got
to
make
more
changes
to
them.
M
So
I
apologize
to
the
people
up
there,
the
the
one
area
that
they
were
really
concerned
about,
that
I
had
taken
out.
I
went
back
there
and
because
the
woman,
one
of
those
women
called,
was
concerned
about
trick-or-treaters,
so
I
went
back
up
and
I
got
all
of
it
that
that
was
all
under
that
was
already
meeting.
M
It
was
able
to
meet
handicapped
standards
and
I
did
that
work
so
to
to
satisfy
those
tenants
but
I
I've.
Believe
me:
I
want
them
in
as
soon
as
possible.
You
can't
imagine
the
heat
I'm
taking
from
people
up
there
over
it
and
I
I,
just
didn't
I
thought
I
could
do
it
without
running
into
trouble,
but
engineering,
wise
I
could
I
couldn't
meet
it.
The
the
where
I
thought
you
know
we
were
like
at
2.1,
sent
a
slope
that
won't
meet
it.
M
C
Sure
so
this
is
for
approval
of
the
final
plan
and
primary
plot
Amendment
for
pudp
2421.
With
the
amended
conditions.
There
are
11.
I'm
not
going
to
read
them
again,
but
we
have
them
written
and
they
were
on
the
screen.
So
those
will
be
available
for
minutes.
J
A
A
All
right,
thank
you.
The
motion
passes.
We
do
have
two
more
petitions
to
hear
this
evening,
but
I
think
we
all
desperately
need
five
minutes
before
we
start
the
next
petition,
so
I'm
gonna
call
for
five
minute
recess.
It
is
now
747
will
reconvene
at
7
52..
A
Thank
you
for
indulging
that
short
break.
Our
next
petition
is
sp09-2-3
core
SVA
Bloomington
Plato,
two
LLC
property
at
20,
38,
North,
Walnut
Street,
and
we
have
Eric
greulich
the
case
manager
here
to
present
take
it
away.
Eric
thank.
R
Eric
rulick
with
the
Bloomington
planning
and
transportation
department.
So
as
Mr
Whistler
mentioned,
this
is
case
sp-09-23
for
core
SVA
for
a
property
at
28,
2038,
North,
Walnut
Street.
This
is
on
the
north
side
of
town.
It's
approximately
two
acre
piece
of
property
that
is
located
in
the
mixed
use:
student,
housing,
District,
all
surrounding
zoning
districts
of
the
Northeast
and
south
or
north
and
east
are
mixed
use.
Student
housing
to
the
South
is
a
planned
unit
development
and
to
the
West.
You
have
parks
in
open
space
that
constitute
the
Miller
showers
Park.
R
So
the
petitioner
is
here
tonight
to
request
a
major
site
plan
approval
to
allow
for
the
construction
of
a
new
mixed-use
building
on
the
site.
This
would
have
approximately
1500
square
feet
of
commercial
space
with
172
dwelling
units,
so
the
petitioner
is
part
of
this
petition
is
also
requesting
approval
for
the
use
of
the
sustainable
development
incentives
and
the
affordable
housing
incentives,
so
the
site
currently
is
undevelopment
of
his
most
recently
used
as
a
restaurant.
That
use
has
been
removed
for
some
time.
R
It's
currently
being
used
as
somewhat
of
a
staging
ground
and
Construction
office
for
the
construction
of
the
buildings
to
the
South.
However,
that's
pretty
much
wrapped
up,
and
so
now
the
petitioner
is
moving
forward
to
develop
this
with
their
own
plans
for
the
mixed-use
building
to
the
north
of
this
you
have
the
Hampton
Inn
to
the
South,
as
I
mentioned
is
The
Verve
student
housing
complex
that
was
approved
two
or
three
years
ago
and
then
to
the
east
of
this.
R
R
As
you
move
East
along
here
from
Walnut
Street
North,
it's
considerable
grade
change,
and
so
the
petitioner
has
designed
a
building
that
has
a
lot
of
staggered
levels
throughout
that
building
kind
of
take
advantage
of
that
grade,
change
across
the
property,
so
they
do
have
an
entrance
pedestrian
entrance
on
the
west
side
of
the
building,
as
well
as
on
the
north
side
of
the
building
and
then
a
driveway
on
the
east
side
that
goes
into
the
building
to
access
the
four
levels
of
parking
that
are
contained
within
the
building.
R
So
this
is
the
proposed
site
plan
for
the
project.
This
would
involve
removing
the
sidewalk
that
was
along
Walnut
Street
and
constructing
a
new
compliant
sidewalk
with
our
transportation
plan.
That
would
require
a
10-foot
sidewalk,
which
the
petitioner
has
shown
there's
a
shared
access
drive
that
uses
this
site
that
accesses
the
Hampton
Inn
to
the
north,
as
well
as
the
other
development
to
the
east.
So
that
will
be
staying
in
its
location.
R
With
this
project,
we
expect
that
it
will
be
pretty
much
very
substantially
altered
in
terms
of
being
torn
up
as
part
of
the
construction
of
this.
So
it
will
be
rebuilt,
but
we'll
be
staying
in
the
in
the
same
location
and
width
and
size
as
it
currently
is
located.
So
with
this,
they
would
be
installing
a
new
sidewalk
and
tree
plot
along
the
south
side
of
that
drive.
R
Whenever
we
have
private
drives,
we
try
to
make
sure
that
those
are
designed
to
the
same
overall
cross-section
of
public
streets
with
sidewalks
and
tree
plots
along
both
sides,
so
the
petitioner
has
incorporated
a
new
sidewalk
along
the
South
Side
for
the
use
of
this
residence
here
is
also
for
the
developments
to
the
east.
Then
there's
also
another
sidewalk
along
the
east
side
of
the
property.
R
Again
along
that
shared
access
drive
to
provide
pedestrian
circulation
all
the
way
around
the
building
and
then
another
sidewalk
on
the
south
side
of
the
building
for
pedestrian
use,
as
well.
Due
to
some
of
the
grade
change
in
trying
to
get
Ada
access
into
the
commercial
site.
There's
a
pretty
substantial
ramp
system,
that's
shown
along
the
southwest
side
of
the
building
and
the
site
in
order
to
provide
Ada
access
to
that
commercial
space,
but
there's
also
a
more
direct
Connection
in
front
of
that
space
on
the
west
side,
with
a
staircase
as
well.
R
So
the
grading
plan
does
include
some
storm
water
detention
ponds,
some
catch
basins
running
along
the
north
side
of
the
building,
he's
kind
of
working,
a
series
of
kind
of
cascading,
Small
Ponds
to
capture
rain
water,
both
from
the
building
and
the
site,
as
well
as
some
of
the
drainage
to
the
east
of
this.
Those
will
be
planted
with
a
storm
water
mix
to
provide
some
storm
water
quality
improvements
before
those
ultimately
connect
to
the
storm
water
drains
that
move
into
the
middle
of
showers
Park
to
the
West.
R
So
the
petitioner
has
submitted
a
landscape
plan
for
this
that
meets
all
of
the
zoning
code.
Requirements
for
quantity
and
species.
There's
some
slight
modifications
to
the
quantity
shown
in
the
landscape
plan
to
appropriately
show
each
quantity
for
each
species,
but
that
certainly
is
something
that
will
be
reconciled
with
the
grading
plan.
But
we
have
not
identified
any
issues
with
making
that
small
change
to
just
a
landscaping
planting
list
for
the
grading
permit.
R
So,
as
I
mentioned,
there's
a
lot
of
grade
change
along
the
side
and
the
building
has
been
designed
with
some
staggered
floors,
so
they've
included
a
cross
section
and
plan
which
is
also
on
the
screen
now.
So
it's
an
eight-story
building,
one
of
the
stories
is
completely
below
grade.
They've
got
parking
on
four
of
those
stories
which
you
can
see
here
kind
of
in
the
the
gray
area
on
this
cross
section.
R
So
the
the
staggered
kind
of
moves
As,
you
move
East
along
the
site,
but
it
still
maintains
the
eight
stories
along
each
of
the
sections
of
the
the
building
which
meets
the
minimum
height
or
the
maximum
height
and
the
maximum
stories
that
are
allowed.
The
utilization
of
the
affordable
and
sustainable
development
incentives
allows
for
an
additional
two
stories
and
12
feet
for
each
story.
So
that's
where
you're
seeing
these
these
cross
sections
that
take
advantage
of
that
utilization
or
the
incentive
offered
by
the
Udo.
R
The
utilization
of
those
incentives
also
gives
them
an
allowance
or
no
restriction.
Actually,
on
the
floor
plate
of
the
building,
so
the
the
granting
of
those
incentives
do
allow
for
the
additional
floors
and
the
additional
or
no
restriction
for
the
floor
plate
for
the
building,
so
I'll
just
kind
of
briefly
step
through
each
of
the
levels.
As
I
mentioned,
each
level
does
have
parking
within
the
building,
so
this
is
a
lower
level.
This
would
be
completely
below
grade.
There
is
some
storage
lockers
here
and
bike
parking
are
located
on
some
of
each
of
the
levels.
R
This
is
lower
level
two,
so
this
is
going
to
be
the
side.
That
really
is
the
ground
level,
so
this
is
going
to
be
the
level
that
you
see
from
the
street.
They've
got
the
commercial
space
in
the
southwest
corner
of
the
building,
further
amenity
space
to
the
north
of
that
again
along
the
front,
some
residential
units
on
the
North
side,
some
storage
and
the
majority
of
this
floor
will
be
used
for
parking,
but
it
all
is
all
contained
completely
within
the
building
again.
R
So
with
this,
of
course,
the
petitioner
has
submitted
various
elevations
for
all
four
sides
of
the
building,
showing
compliance
with
the
zoning
code
and
building
materials.
The
building
overall
has
a
masonry
base
with
different
levels
of
cementuous
panels.
Above
that
to
me,
some
diversity
and
patterns
and
change
in
color
as
you
move
around
the
building.
This
is
the
north
side
of
the
building.
So
this
would
be
the
side
of
the
building
facing
that
shared
access
drive
on
the
left
side
of
the
screen.
R
You
can
see
one
of
The
Pedestrian
entries
and
then
on
the
right
side.
You
can
see
the
commercial
space
with
all
the
glasses
surrounds
it
and
that's
actually
the
met
the
amenity
space.
So
this
South
elevation
shows
you
that
commercial
space
on
the
left
side,
as
well
as
the
stairs
and
the
entry
on
that
side.
So
again,
they've
got
the
breakup
of
materials.
R
The
masonry
kind
of
Base
they've
got
some
more
masonry
columns
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
building,
and
then
the
west
side
of
the
building
on
the
right
side
of
the
screen
would
be
the
side
facing
Walnut.
So
you
can
see
the
heavy
presence
of
glass,
the
retaining
walls
that
have
been
landscaped
and
then
the
two
pedestrian
entries
on
the
left
and
right
side
of
the
building,
the
North
and
the
South
side
of
the
building,
and
then
the
left
side
of
the
screen.
R
R
So
the
entrance
of
the
parking
garage
is
facing.
You
know
away
from
Walnut
Street
away
from
the
shared
access
drive,
so
they've
done
a
good
job
of
directing
the
sides
facing
the
most
heavily
visible
and
usable
portions
of
the
site,
just
with
residential
units
and
directed
all
the
vehicular
access
to
the
back
of
the
unit
so
again
within
their
packet
and
just
kind
of
briefly
stepping
through
some
of
this
they've
shown
how
each
of
the
40-foot
modules
meets
our
various
architectural
requirements.
R
So
just
kind
of
to
reiterate
you
know
each
each
section
of
the
building
cannot
have
a
module
more
than
40
feet
in
width
without
including
two
or
three
out
of
the
four
elements
that
are
outlined
in
the
zoning
code,
which
require
either
projections
that
are
three
percent
of
the
building,
with
change
in
Building
height
of
five
feet:
50,
glass
or
incorporation
of
awnings
or
canopies.
So
they
step
through
each
of
the
elevations
and
showing
which
of
those
elements
that
they've
met.
R
The
building
has
a
lot
of
projections
within
the
kind
of
interior
Courtyards
that
have
been
shown.
So
that's
how
they've
met
that
they've
got
the
change
in
the
building
height
As,
you
move
across
there
and
then
they've,
either
Incorporated
awnings
or
the
the
50
glass
most
of
the
situations
they
have
awnings
present,
along
all
of
the
modules
just
to
provide
a
consistent,
View
and
design
across
the
building
as
a
whole.
R
So
these
are
the
East
and
West
elevations.
So
the
right
side
would
be
the
side
facing
Walnut
Street
again,
you
know
stepping
through
each
of
those
modules
and
showing
how
they've
met
each
of
the
the
separate
architectural
requirements
for
the
building
as
a
whole.
They've
also
included
two
renderings,
so
this
would
be
the
South
or
the
northwest
corner
of
the
building.
So
Walnut
Street
is
on
the
right
side
of
the
screen
here.
The
shared
access
Drive
is
on
kind
of
the
left
side.
R
You
know
it
appears
at
their
shared
parking
here,
but
there
is
not
a
plan
for
shared
parking
on
that
access
drive.
So
this
is
mostly
just
kind
of
an
illustrative
version
of
what
is
being
shown
for
the
the
building.
As
it
looks
as
you
would
see
it
from
two
different
perspectives.
They've
also
included
a
Northeast
rendering,
so
this
would
be
kind
of
what
you
would
see
from
the
the
inside.
So
the
shared
access
Drive
is
on
the
right
side
of
your
screen
here
and
the
vehicular
entrance
into
the
buildings
on
the
left
side.
R
So
with
that,
we
do
find
that
this
meets
all
of
the
requirements
of
the
Udo.
You
know,
as
I
mentioned,
they
are
requesting
to
utilize
both
the
affordable
housing
and
the
sustainable
development
incentives.
In
order
to
meet
the
sustainable
development
incentives,
they
will
be
committing
to
designing
this
to
a
silver
certification
from
the
national
Green,
Building
Council
and
then
the
affordable
housing
component.
R
They
are
utilizing
the
payment
and
lieu
option,
which
requires
a
certain
percentage
contribution
based
on
the
number
of
bedrooms,
so
they've
outlined
that
number
specifically
in
their
petition
or
statement,
so
it
does
meet
the
requirements
for
those
incentives,
and
so
we
are
recommending
that
the
plane
commission
allow
and
approve
the
use
of
the
affordable
housing
and
you
take
sustainable
development
incentives
with
this
petition
with
the
seven
conditions
that
are
listed
in
staff's
report
and
then
there's
an
eighth
condition
that
is
listed
here
on
screen.
R
That
was
just
recently
brought
up
by
a
question
from
staff
regarding
the
construction
of
a
sidewalk
across
that
shared
access
drive
there
currently
is
not
a
sidewalk
across
that
access
drive,
but
given
that
the
entire
Drive
will
be
tore
up
and
rebuilt,
this
certainly
seems
appropriate
to
be
able
to
incorporate
an
ADA
Compliant
sidewalk
across
that
drive.
So
we've
added
an
eighth
condition
just
to
address
that
specific
situation
there.
So
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you.
Is
there
a
representative
of
the
petitioner
who'd
like
to
make
a
presentation
tonight.
V
Good
evening
my
name
is
Nathan
Castile
I'm,
the
architect
from
DLR
group,
we'll
give
you
a
very
quick
presentation
just
to
kind
of
further
emphasize
our
design
and
some
of
our
ideas
behind
the
project,
but
first
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
our
client,
who
is
on
the
zoom,
to
give
a
brief
introduction
to
you
course
bases
and
how
they
approach
their
their
developments.
T
T
T
We
are
a
vertically
integrated
between
housing,
a
developer
that
has
been
around
for
13
years,
as
you
can
see,
we've
gotten
many
awards
and
accolades
over
the
years,
because
we
do
have
a
lot
of
pride
in
our
projects
and
we've
developed
28
assets
and
renovated
seven
of
them,
and
we
do
manage
most
of
our
properties
at
this
time
and
plan
to
manage
this
one
as
well.
T
A
lot
of
work
around
us,
we
are
based
in
Chicago,
and
we
do
have
a
lot
of
Hub
projects
which
this
actually
will
be
a
hug
project
here
in
Bloomington,
so
just
to
show
that
we'd
love
to
work
with
a
lot
of
municipalities
and
happy
people
presenting
to
you
here
on
this
next
slide.
Please.
T
This
just
shows
a
couple
of
our
brand.
As
I
mentioned.
This
will
be
a
hub
which
we
consider
our
Flagship
Flagship
brand
kind
of
what
we
started,
everything
off
on
and
having
a
be
best
in
class
in
the
student
housing
project.
As
Eric
had
mentioned,
we
do
own
the
property
next
door.
T
That
is
a
state
project,
because
it
was
a
value
ad
development
and
we're
proud
to
be
owners
of
that
one
and
connect
these
two
properties
and
then,
lastly,
just
an
overall
presentation
here,
just
kind
of
showing
how
we're
fully
integrated
all
the
way
to
our
core,
how
separate
entities
within
our
company
going
from
research
due
diligence,
Acquisitions
entitlements,
but
it
all
leads
us
to
making
sure
that
we
have
the
best
projects
at
the
end
of
the
day,
so
always
give
it
back
to
Nate.
To
talk
through
our
project
a
little
bit
more.
V
He
did
show
some
renderings
already
and
we'll
we'll
go
through
those
again
and
then
show
some
added
renderings
that
we've
provided
this
week
overall,
a
site
plan
where
you
stepped
through
that
a
little
bit,
but
some
precedence
here
for
the
site
really
looking
at
Native
Landscapes,
really
paying
homage
to
the
the
limestone
in
Indiana
limestone
in
particular,
for
the
region,
so
giving
it
a
lot
of
character
and
really
enhancing
that
pedestrian
experience.
V
So
to
touch
on
some
of
the
drivers
for
the
project.
Just
from
a
conceptual
level,
we
really
looked
at
Limestone
being
a
driver
in
sort
of
the
Locale.
You
know
the
the
area
in
general
has
a
lot
of
limestone
in
on
campus,
it's
very
prevalent
and
then
having
the
industry
of
Indiana
limestone
in
the
in
the
region.
So
really
drawing
on
to
drive
some
of
these
ideas.
V
We
mentioned
the
Terrace
or
the
stepping
of
the
project,
so
we
were
dealt
with
some
very
tough
site
conditions
with
elevation
change
and
then
also
the
Bedrock
below
it.
So
with
the
Bedrock
being
a
challenge,
we
sort
of
embraced
that
and
brought
that
into
the
base
of
the
project,
to
kind
of
pull
on
this
idea
of
a
quarry
kind
of
being
carved
out
and
stepping
with
the
with
the
grades
so
bringing
in
that
like
highly
textural
Stone
material
at
the
base.
This
goes
into
just
some
context
of
the
project.
V
You
can
see
the
Verve.
We
got
two
Aerials
there
that
show
that
the
scale
adjacency
of
our
project,
so
while
we're
similar
in
height
to
the
the
project,
we're
very,
very
much
smaller
in
footprint
compared
to
the
Verve
to
the
South
there
and
then
just
going
through
some
of
these
additional
renderings
yeah,
you
could
step
four
one
more.
This
is
the
northwest
corner,
so
we
are
elevated
quite
a
bit
from
the
the
Walnut
Street
there.
V
So
we
do
have
some
terracing
of
of
grade
with
some
retaining
walls
that
really
trying
to
bring
in
some
of
those
native
plants
at
the
corner
to
make
it
feel
a
little
more
Lush
and
approachable,
and
then
we
already
saw
this
surrendering
as
well,
so
at
the
northeast
corner.
V
This
is
where
the
main
lobby
is
for
the
residents
and
we
are
providing
a
a
full
amenity
floor
where
you
can
see
the
glazing
kind
of
extending
Beyond
there
to
the
right,
so
they're
really
trying
to
activate
that
access
road
and
bring
a
lot
of
transparency
in
life
to
to
the
public
facing
facades.
As
we
mentioned,
and
then
also
you
know,
providing
some
landscaping
and
Street
trees
to
really
make
that
a
very
walkable
and
enticing
kind
of
experience
along
the
facade
this
spins
around
to
the
southwest
corner.
V
So
you
can
sort
of
see
the
verb
there
on
the
right
just
in
terms
of
scale.
You
know
we're
very
comparable.
Some
of
the
elements
that
we
kind
of
skipped
over
a
little
bit
with
some
of
these
vertical
elements
where
we
got
a
lot
of
Separation,
a
lot
of
setbacks
that
it's
kind
of
pulling
on
these
ideas
of
kind
of
rock
formations
being
kind
of
carved
in
and
out
of
the
project.
But
in
this
particular
view,
would
you
see
the
commercial
space
there
at
the
corner?
V
We
do
have
Ada
ramping
up
to
that
space,
and
then
we
are
working
with
sort
of
our
stair
design
at
the
moment
to
get
that
to
work
with
the
grade
change
there,
and
then
this
spins
around
to
see
the
least
visible
side
a
little
bit
more
on
the
south.
So
we
do
have
that
pedestrian
sidewalk
along
the
South
glazing
there
for
some
Bike
Room
elements
on
the
corner,
but
then
also
we
are
bringing
around
Trees
and
Landscaping
there.
V
So
you
know
really
pulling
on
these
ideas
of
native
native
plants
and
and
grasses
within
the
area.
And
then
this
is
just
a
zoomed
in
shot
near
that
northeast
corner
Lobby
space,
just
to
kind
of
get
a
little
more
kind
of
entrenched.
In
the
experience
along
that
sidewalk
to
kind
of
Express
the
street
trees
and
the
the
plantings
along
that
that
walkway
and
with
that
I'll
open
that
up
to
questions
or
comments
from
the
Commissioners.
Thank.
J
R
It
is
not
a
requirement
that
is
something
that
they
Incorporated.
You
know.
Obviously
we
encourage
that.
You
know
there's
when
you
have
400
500
people
living
in
one
location
there
having
some
on-site
retail,
you
know,
benefits
them,
but
it's
not
a
requirement.
Okay
and.
J
Then,
for
the
developer,
the
the
retail
space
as
far
as
parking
for
that
and
access
to
that
is
it
within
the.
Can
you
just
kind
of
explain:
is
it
in
the
garage
for
the
retail
space.
V
Well,
we
could
provide
designated
retail
space
parking
spaces.
We
are
over
parked
by
code
right
now,
so
we
have
that
flexibility
to
incorporate
that.
Okay,
okay,.
F
F
V
Anything
well,
that's
a
good
question.
The
owner
does
own
the
property
to
the
East
and
there's
some
synergies
with
that
property
where
we've
located
the
lobby
space,
so
that
is
sort
of
adjacent
to
their
leasing,
space
and
the
fitness
center
over
there.
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
connectivity
there
and
then
we
do
have
the
bus
stop
just
to
the
south
of
our
property.
So
we
we
envision
a
lot
of
people
passing
through
this
site,
both
on
the
North
and
South
to
to
get
to
those
public
transit
spots.
F
R
So
you
know
on
this
particular
site.
You
know:
they've
got
their
sidewalk
wrap
on
all
four
sides
of
the
property.
You
know
it's
stubbing
to
adjacent
properties,
so
I
mean
I
on
this
side
itself.
You
know
it's,
it's
very
sufficient.
Okay,
you
know
we
are
just
looking
at
this.
You
know
with
this
being
a
site
plan
approval.
R
You
know
it's
not
really
a
discretionary
one.
We
look
at
the
box
that
they
own
and
they're
proposing
and
does
that
box
meet
you
know.
Obviously
we
want
to
try
to
line
it
up
with
adjacent
things
if
possible
and
as
a
petitioner
mentioned,
you
know
and
as
you
can
see
right
here
on
the
screen,
there
are
some
adjacent
sidewalks
on
the
immediate
properties
that
they
own,
that
these
will
kind
of
help
connect
to.
R
But
you
know
on
the
site
that
they
have
and
they're
developing
you
know,
they're,
providing
very
excellent
pedestrian
facilities.
I
would.
F
Say:
okay,
that's
great
great
and
then
the
other
question
I
have
is
about
just
to
clarify
that
parking
is
all
of
the
parking
below
the
building.
Is
that
tell
me
more
about
parking
areas.
F
V
In
so
that
yeah,
this
is
a
good
section
right
here.
So
on
the
right
side,
that's
the
east
side
of
the
property.
So
that's
where
we
would
come
in
so
that
first
we're
calling
the
level
one
is
parked
with
either
amenity
or
residential
wrapping
around
it
and
then
we'd
be
ramping
down
and
that
ramp
system
and
the
parking
steps
with
the
the
Bedrock.
Essentially
so
we're
not
we're
we're
challenged
with
the
excavation
and
costs
for
removal
of
that
rock.
V
V
R
No
yeah,
so
you
know
so
here's
kind
of
the
self-elevation
so
there's
no
exposed
decking.
You
know
they've
got
windows
in
those
areas
yeah,
but
there's
no
surface
yeah
and
you
don't
really
see
the
parking
area
at
all
from
the
outside.
You
know,
by
virtue
of
how
they've
designed
the
building
walls
and
the
windows
and
the
screening.
V
And
we've
designed
all
the
window
patterns
to
make
it
look
seamless
with
the
rest
of
the
building,
so
there's
no
blatant
blank
walls
or
large
openings
that
indicate
a
garage
per
se
and.
V
F
T
Yeah
absolutely
yeah,
so
it'll
be
ngps
silver,
so
it
is
just
another
sustainable
program
similar
to
weed
the
reason
we
chose.
This
one
is
because
our
we
already
able
to
implement
a
lot
of
these
core
options
into
into
our
sustainability
program
internally,
and
so
some
of
the
options
that
we're
looking
at
for
is
the
lgbs
over
would
be
including
EV
charging
stations
left
and
green
Roots,
which
you
could
see
in
that
pipeline.
T
We
showed
up,
at
the
top
level
reporting
to
the
energy
star
group
for
three
years
post
turnover
to
make
sure
that
we're
using
our
energy
using
compliance
with
that
there's
a
whole
checklist
program
that
will
be
for
that,
and
actually
we
have
hired
a
master
verifier
to
work
with
us
along
the
way,
both
from
the
design,
standpoint
and
post
construction
to
make
sure
that
we
achieve
this
alert
and
then
some.
U
K
They
use
both
okay,
so
just
a
question
how
they
came
to
the
1.4
million
based
on
15
of
463
bedrooms.
Is
that
a
price
per
bedroom
that
they're.
K
Okay,
great,
that's
yeah!
It's
it's
great
to
see
that
it's
it's
a
sizable
amount,
obviously
great
design,
so
yeah
job
well
done
appreciate.
V
I
Ation
about
how
will
like
residents,
if
they're
ordering
something
from
Amazon
or
GrubHub
or
from
their
pizza
delivery,
guy
or
the
mail
like
where?
How
will
that
kind
of
traffic
and
activity
be
accommodated?.
V
That's
a
great
question
and
I
think
we
have
a
loading
zone
on
the
site
plan
if
we
could
maybe
flip
back
to
that
I
think
we
had
a
an
area
noted
there
on
the
right
side,
so
this
being
the
main
lobby
at
the
northeast
corner,
we
just
we
would
anticipate
all
the
the
drop-offs
and
loading
to
come
around
on
the
access
road
and
have
a
little
spot
there
to
wait
so
to
speak.
Okay,.
A
A
N
Go
ahead:
hi
thanks.
My
name
is
Greg
Alexander
again,
I've
got
some
opinions
on
this
overall
process
of
approving,
dense
housing,
so
far
from
downtown
or
campus
location
shouldn't
become
ideal
for
density,
just
because
it
won't
Inspire
complaints
from
the
neighbors,
because
the
neighborhood
already
looks
like
a
highway
hellscape
but
I'm
just
here
for
the
sidewalks.
So
you
all
wouldn't
approve
the
site
plan.
If
there
was
a
deficient
car
Network,
for
example,
if
Walnut
Street
had
a
100
foot
Gap
in
it
didn't
connect
quarter
mile
south
of
here,
you
turn
it
down.
N
You'd
say
our
public
infrastructure
needs
to
be
improved
before
we
can
support
400
bedrooms
in
this
location
and
that
wouldn't
kill
the
project.
They
just
work
it
out.
They
fix
it.
Efficient
infrastructure,
they'd,
work
with
public
works
or
engineering
and
they
take
care
of
it.
Well,
we
have
exactly
that,
but
it's
the
sidewalk
Network,
that's
missing,
there's
still
no
continuous
sidewalk
on
the
east
side
of
Walnut
Street,
it's
shocking!
It's
it's
a
scandal!
It's
a
failure
of
government.
Anyone
walking
south
from
this
location
will
meet
a
gap
between
them
and
the
rest
of
the
city.
N
Just
a
block
North
of
17th
Street.
They
have
two
obvious
options:
either
they
can
walk
through
the
mud
and
gravel
pit.
That
is
there,
which
is
what
a
lot
of
people
do
or
they
can
cross
Walnut
and
walk
in
the
city
park
across
the
street.
It's
too
bad.
We
don't
have
any
safe
Crossings
of
Walnut,
though
I
gotta
remind
you,
somebody
was
killed,
Crossing
Walnut
at
19th
Street
in
2016..
This
is
not
a
safe
place
to
cross
the
street.
It
should
be,
though
you
know,
that's
an
achievable
goal.
N
Of
course
they
have
a
third
option,
they
can
drive
or,
of
course
they
can
just
stay
home.
They
can
avoid
the
downtown,
even
though
they
live
on
the
exact
same
street
as
the
courthouse.
N
N
Accept
that,
oh,
why
I
messed
it
up
thanks
to
previous
work
by
the
the
project
just
south
of
here,
the
Gap
is
now
very
small,
I'm
sure
the
developer
would
eagerly
pay
to
resolve
such
a
small
Gap.
N
W
W
There
is
an
existing
fence
between
State
departments
and
Stadium
Crossing
and
because
of
the
fence
residents
from
The
Verve,
which
is
to
the
South.
Excuse
me,
south
of
this
development
walk
through
Varsity
Court
in
stadium
Crossing
to
get
to
the
Union
University
bus
stop,
which
is
on
the
west
side
of
Memorial
Stadium.
W
W
W
Similar
issues
were
raised
with
what
is
now
The
Verve
at
the
time
that
the
same
issue
was
before
the
planning
department.
With
respect
to
this
process,
the
neighboring
Property
Owners
do
not
oppose
the
project
but
believe
it's
appropriate
to
delay
the
vote
until
the
issues
related
to
the
likelihood
of
significant
increased
pedestrian
traffic
on
the
neighboring
Property
Owners
is
addressed.
A
F
R
Were
you
following
all
that
long,
Walnut
Street
as
as
I
recall,
there
is
a
gap
for
some
sidewalks
further
south
there's
a
residential
property.
Here,
that's
missing
one.
R
There
is
one
that
was
installed
along
the
east
side
of
Walnut
that
connects
along
the
north
side
of
19th.
That
was
something
that
was
worked
out
with
the
Pud
approval
for
The
Verve,
so
the
only
sidewalk
connection
I'm
immediately
thinking
of
because
the
Hilton
Garden
put
one
in
when
they
did
one
was
just
a
residential
property.
That's
owned,
just
north
of
the
Hilton
Garden.
F
Think
yeah
I
believe
has
one
I
actually
walked
this
pretty
frequently
in
the
summer.
So
it
wasn't
clear
to
me
where
that
was
but
I
mean
I
agree.
It's
it's
potentially
a
really
walkable
I
mean
I,
live
on
the
North
side
and
I'll
walk
up
to
the
farmer's
market
on
this
route,
and
it
I
mean
it
is
I
thought
it
was
now
complete,
so
I'm,
but
I
must
have
walked
across
grass
at
some
point
here
or
I
crossed
over
to
the
center.
R
F
R
F
Okay,
all
right,
okay
and
then
I
wonder
you
know.
I
do
remember
having
all
of
the
conversations
about
the
lack
of
connectivity
between
the
well
I
guess,
simplest
to
say
to
the
east
and
the
other
comment
that
was
made
by
I
think
it
was
John
Roberts
about
the
walk,
the
pass-throughs.
Is
there
any
way
to
resolve
that
and
has
any
attempt
been
made
to
to
work
out?
I
know:
we've
talked
about
this
when
we
were
working
through
the
Verve
issues
and
it
wasn't
something
that
could
be
worked
out.
Yeah.
R
Obviously,
it's
it's
challenging
because
you
know
when
we
have
a
design
petition
come
forward
for
a
specific
property.
You
know
they
are
required
to
do
things
on
their
property
to
meet
the
Udo
compliance.
You
know,
off-site
improvements
are
not
required
with
buy
right
approvals.
So
as
you
as
you
were
commenting
on
when
the
Verve
was
done,
we
we
required
them
to
put
in
a
sidewalk
connection
to
the
east.
R
You
know,
as
I
mentioned,
you
know,
the
petitioner
does
own
the
property
immediately
east
of
this,
but
it's
not
part
of
this
development
petition.
You
know
they
do
have
sidewalks
throughout
that
development
somewhat,
but
it
is
a
separate
Standalone
project
that
is
not
being
forced
is
not
required
to
come
into
compliance
with
what
is
being
brought
for
the
to
the
plane
commission
tonight.
So
yes,
pedestrian
connectivity
throughout
this
entire
area
could
be
improved.
However,
you
know
each
property
owner
is
required
to
do
that
when
they
come
forward
for
development
on
each
respective
property.
R
F
T
I
can
speak
to
become
our
property
directly,
a
sidewalk
connection
that
goes
through
the
center
of
it
that
is
fairly
close
to
where
our
property
sidewalk
would
end.
So
there
is
connectivity
across
the
way.
I
can't
speak
to
the
other
properties
around
it,
but
there
are
plenty
of
sidewalks
that
are
accessible,
that
you
could
pass
through
from
our
adjacent
property.
To
this
one.
V
Yeah
and
just
to
reiterate,
you
know
we're
looking
at
our
within
our
property
line
and
doing
the
best
we
can
to
connect
to
the
adjacent
properties
so
we're
doing
everything
by
the
Udo
within
our
property
line.
A
How
about
a
motion?
I'll
just
read
the
staff
recommendation
again.
The
recommendation
is
that
the
planning
and
transportation
department
recommends
that
the
plan
commission
approve
the
use
of
the
state,
sustainable
development
and
affordable
housing
incentives
and
adopt
the
proposed
findings
and
approve
sp0923
with
seven
conditions,
as
listed
in
the
packet
and
also
on
the
screen
right
now
and
I'm.
Sorry,
yes,
and
an
eighth
condition
that
has
been
added
to
address
that
an
ADA
Compliant
sidewalk
is
required
across
the
shared
access,
Drive.
A
So
you're
you're
moving
that
we
approved
just
according
to
the
staff
recommendation
as
it's
written.
Yes,
all
right
is
there
a
second
all.
Second,
all
right,
any
final
comments
before
we
call
the
roll.
Let's
call
the
roll.
A
A
C
We
are
looking
at
tonight
text
Amendment
and
we
saw
this
last
month,
so
we
had
our
regular
annual
Udo
update
text
Amendment
that
we
brought
to
you
in
March
of
this
year
and
one
of
the
things
that
you
removed
was
a
text
Amendment
related
to
maximum
parking
standards
that
we
were
proposing
to
add
to
those
uses
that
didn't
currently
have
maximum
parking
standards.
C
So
we
met
with
a
small
group
of
plant
commission
members
who
had
expressed
interest
as
well
as
met
internally
and
looked
at
those
numbers.
Again.
We
proposed
a
couple
of
changes,
a
few
changes
so
we'll
just
go
over
the
proposal
again
tonight
and
then
we
can
try
to
answer
any
questions
you
have.
Additionally,
the
council
is
bringing
forward
changes
to
the
chicken
flock
regulations
in
Title,
VII
and
Title
20
references
those.
C
So
there
is
one
text
Amendment
related
to
chicken
fox,
because
the
current
use
specific
standard
talks
about
a
chicken
flock
and
they
are
going
to
propose
to
allow
multiple
chicken
flocks,
so
that
has
been
changed
to
chicken
phlox
plural.
So
that
is
part
of
this
amendment
as
well.
C
C
So
we
have
47
uses
in
that
table
that
have
limits
currently
and
then
we
are
proposing
changes
to
the
68
other
uses
that
either
don't
have
a
limit
at
all.
58
of
them
don't
have
any
limit
and
then
10
we're
proposing
to
make
some
changes
to
additionally.
C
C
Don't
we
win
back
to
look
through
the
paperwork
for
the
process
that
we
did
with
the
consultant
when
we
updated
the
code
in
2019
2020,
and
when
we
looked
at
the
2019
Udo,
a
number
of
the
uses
that
are
now
listed
as
No
Limit
had
person-based
limits
at
that
time,
which
is
a
hard
standard
to
regulate
so,
for
example,
Vehicle
Impound
storage
was
listed
as
one
space
per
employee
on
largest
shift,
so
we
had
a
number
of
uses
like
that
in
the
old
code.
C
So
it
seems
that
the
consultant
in
as
a
way
to
address
that
changed
a
number
of
those
to
No
Limit,
and
so
we
are
proposing
to
change
those
basically
to
a
site-based
requirements,
as
our
other
uses
are.
You
know,
for
example,
a
certain
number
of
spaces
per
square
footage
of
use
of
the
building,
so
we
think
that
would
will
be
helpful
from
a
youth
standpoint
if
they
are
all
regulated
in
a
similar
way,
also
from
a
Administration
standpoint
for
staff
as
well.
C
Additionally,
our
policy
guidelines
in
the
comprehensive
plan
do
call
out,
in
a
couple
of
places
that
we
put
in
a
staff
report
that
that
the
guide
does
that
the
comprehensive
plan
does
want
us
to
minimize
the
area
of
land
dedicated
to
parking,
so
storage
of
vehicles,
and
in
this
case
the
code
uses
that
you
see
are
mostly
temporary
storage
of
vehicles
right.
C
So
it's
not
long-term
land
designated
for
vehicular
uses
it
in
a
more
permanent
facet
fashion,
but
for
temporary
uses,
while
you're
utilizing
that
business,
so
something
that's
not
full
all
the
time.
So,
in
a
couple
of
places
here,
we
noted
both
in
the
downtown
and
in
the
Urban
Corridor
design
guidelines
indicating
that
trying
to
identify
strategies
where
we'll
be
lessening
large,
open,
Asphalt
spaces
is
important
and
something
that
we're
wanting
to
do
so.
We're
trying
to
address
that
as
well.
C
We
had
a
member
of
the
public
come
and
who
had
a
couple
questions
about
a
couple
of
the
specific
uses.
So
we
put
in
some
information
we
presented
a
little
bit
of
it
last
time
but,
for
example,
jail.
So
one
thing
you
know
that
we
want
to
make
clear:
is
we're
not
trying
to
regulate
out
the
use
of
vehicles?
Obviously
the
community
is
still
heavily
reliant
on
vehicles.
I
think
every
almost
everyone
here
probably
used
one
to
get
here
this
evening.
We
realized
that
uses
need
parking.
C
We
are
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
that
parking
is
in
relatable
scale
to
the
use
that's
going
on
in
the
building,
so
looking
at
the
uses
that
are
already
regulated
or
looking
at
uses
that
we're
proposing
to
regulate
in
other.
How
they're
addressed
in
other
communities
is
something
that
we've
done
as
well
as
looking
at
guidance
from
our
professional
planning
organization,
so
trying
to
not
only
internally
compare
but
compare
with
similar
communities
in
Indiana.
C
Also,
communities
in
Indiana
that
aren't
similar
but
do
have
maximums,
aren't
similar
I
would
say
ideologically,
but
do
have
maximums
and
as
well
as
communities
that
have
the
types
of
uses
that
we
might
currently
do
not
have
regulations
for
right
now.
So
those
types
of
things
are
included,
for
example,
the
jail
comparison
here
for
how
many
spaces
that
they
actually
propose
on
site,
as
well
as
what
our
regulation
would
allow
and
then
again,
stadium
was
brought
up.
C
So
some
examples
for
those
for
the
more
General
Uses
that
we
see
every
day
we
again
tried
to
compare
the
use,
what
is
actually
going
on
in
the
building
for
each
use
and
are
there
similar
uses
already
in
code
that
could
be
comparable
where
we're
not
seeing
issues
with
the
spaces
that
are
allowed
for
those
uses.
I
will
say
you
know.
We
are,
of
course
open
to
changing
these
numbers.
If
people
have,
if
anyone
has
specific
ideas
and
additionally,
we
do
track
the
number
of
variances
we
do
for
these.
C
So
I
know
that
came
up
last
time
since
2020
we've
had
four
pack
parking
maximum
variances
and
they
are
were
largely
for
restaurants,
four
that
were
oh
I'm,
sorry,
five
and
three
were
for
restaurants,
and
so
that's
something
we
have
proposed
in
this
update
to
increase
the
allowable
parking
for
restaurants.
We've
also
proposed
to
increase
the
allowable
parking
for
fitness
center,
because
that
was
another
that
we've
seen
come
forward.
C
C
So
you
know
just
generally:
we
believe
that
adding
maximums
to
the
allowable
amount
of
surface
parking
for
all
the
uses
in
line
with
study
goals,
as
I
mentioned,
encourages
Green
Space
encourages
space
for
people
in
buildings,
as
opposed
to
necessarily
designating
space
for
vehicles
only
still
allowing
area
for
that,
but
allowing
area
for
other
things
as
well.
I
think
one
thing
we
could
address
that
was
discussed
that
was
brought
up
by
plan.
C
You
know,
for
example,
at
the
Fullerton
site
they
were
only
going
to
be
able
to
develop
at
all
30
percent
of
that
site
and
if
they
were
to
choose
a
use
that
didn't
have
a
parking
maximum,
then
they
would
be
able
to
just
basically
put
as
much
parking
as
they
could
fit,
which,
on
a
site
like
that,
would
be
acres
and
Acres
of
parking
which
just
doesn't
seem
congruous
to
us.
With
the
you
know,
long-term
goals
of
the
community.
C
So,
for
example,
you
know
one
acre
is
around
320
parking
spaces,
so
not
a
parking
lot
with
320
spaces,
but
the
actual
dimensions
for
320
spaces.
So
you
know
when
we
see
these
uses
that
we
think
may
end
up
needing
a
lot
of
parking.
C
They
may
need
to
think
about
a
model
of
shared
parking
or
structured
parking
to
be
able
to
get
to
be
able
to
utilize
the
land
that
they
have
in
a
more
efficient
way,
as
opposed
to
you
know,
they
need
600
parking
spaces
because
they're
building
a
new
stadium
of
some
kind.
Oh
we're
going
to
do
that
on
four
acres
or
whatever.
C
That
may
be
that's
something
that
we
we're
trying
to
avoid
those
those
outliers
and
I
think
that
the
numbers
that
we
have
proposed
are
reasonable
enough,
that
that
is
what
will
be
catching
as
outliers
if
we're
wrong
in
some
numbers
for
the
specific
ones
do
come
forward
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals.
That's
something
that
we're
happy
to
address
in
our
yearly
update
to
change
those
items
and
some
you
know
we
do
want
it
to
be
right.
C
We
want
we're
trying
to
strike
a
balance
between
the
goals
for
economic
viability
and
the
environment,
and
you
know
making
this
as
much
of
a
pedestrian
friendly
Community
as
possible
and
those
things.
It's
not
always
super
clear
how
to
do
that,
but
we
think
this
policy
moves
toward
that,
and
you
know
we
are
still
open,
of
course,
to
amending
it.
C
If
need
be,
so
we
ask
that
you
forward
the
petition
that
we
submitted
to
to
you
in
the
packet
related
to
chickenpox
and
maximum
parking
update
to
the
common
council
with
a
positive
recommendation.
I
can
answer
any
questions.
F
C
F
Okay,
all
right,
yeah
I
think
this
is
really
interesting.
I
appreciate
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
with
the
maximum
and
to
be
consistent
through
it
I
think
it's
really
great
and
the
the
other
part
that
I
really
appreciate
is
that
you've
already
demonstrated
Your,
Capacity
and
willingness
to
make
changes
to
restaurants
and
fitness
after
having
seen
what
was
necessary.
So
I
really
appreciate
that.
J
So
Miss
Candler
or
Jackie
we
spoke
briefly
earlier.
Can
you
can
you
describe
you
know
with
a
change
in
use?
There's
The
Limited
compliance?
Can
you
kind
of
explain
that
a
little
bit
I
guess
the
challenge
that
I'm
having
and
we've
talked
about?
J
This
is
it's
just
the
for
removing
parking
and
what
some
people
would
consider
an
asset,
just
the
cost
burden
that
it
can
put
on
a
property
owner
or
a
future
tenant
to
come
in
and
say,
remove
10
parking
spaces
I
completely
see
the
point,
but
but
it's
actually
it's
making
it
very
challenging
on
properties
that
have
been
vacant
to
put
them
into
use
sure.
So,
just
we'd
like
to
have
a
little
bit
more
conversation.
C
Sure
I'm
just
going
to
show
a
little
example
and
then
I'll,
probably
let
Eric
describe
it
because
he
does
it
better
than
I
do.
But
this
is
an
example.
We
brought
up
last
time
and
I
couldn't
think
of
the
address,
so
we
didn't
look
at
it,
but
this
is
out
on
profile,
Parkway,
it's
the
old
Upland
location
and
the
maximum
impervious
surface
coverage
here
is
70
percent.
C
So
this
is
over
that
and
if
a
use
goes
in
here
that
doesn't
have
a
maximum
parking
limit,
then
none
of
this
gets
updated.
So
is
that
a
benefit
to
the
person
moving
in?
Yes
because
they
don't
have
to
take
up
this
parking
but
to
the
community?
Who
is
looking
for
sites
in
this
location
to
have
some
green?
You
know
and
some
parking
infrastructure
parking
lot
infrastructure
to
deal
with
the
runoff.
C
That's
happening
on
site
those
types
of
things
we
get
from
limited
compliance,
and
we
can't
compel
a
site
like
this
to
do
those
updates.
If
there's
no
maximum
parking,
because
under
limited
compliance,
you
have
to
meet
the
parking
standards.
One
of
those
is
maximum
and
you
only
have
to
meet
the
impervious.
C
If
you're
over
Maximum
parking,
so
it's
the
trigger
for
both
things,
so
this
is
what
I
was
kind
of
talking
about
the
balance
and
I've
had
this
conversation
with
other
Commissioners
as
well,
where
one
easy
thing
to
say
is
like
well:
let's
just
make
impervious
surface,
let's
just
do
impervious
surface,
then
in
limited
compliance,
but
we
kind
of
see
that
as
like
the
extreme,
that's
the
environmental
end.
It's
like!
C
If
you're
over
the
amount
of
parking,
we
would
let
you
have
if
you
had
just
built
this,
and
so
it's
kind
of
confusing
and
it's
a
little
wonky
and
it's
not
super
fun,
to
explain
to
people
and
we
are
often
in
an
awkward
position
because
Realtors
don't
always
understand
it
and
they
don't
explain
so
then
they're
leasing
telling
someone
that
they
can
move
in
here
and
then,
when
they
call
us
and
say,
oh
we're
ready
to
do
it
and
we're
like
oh
well,
great.
You
have
to
take
out
10
spaces.
C
That's
they
don't
that
creates
issues
so
I
think
it's
an
education
piece
on
something
for
us
to
be
to
be
more
active
in
educating
those
in
the
community
who
have
that
direct
contact
with
potential
users.
But
this
is
why
this
is
an
example
of
why
it's
important
to
have
those
in
a
limited
compliance
situation.
C
R
And
you
know
Chris
I'll
just
say
you
know
every
every
government
agency,
you
know
whether
it's
a
building
department,
the
fire
department,
the
planning
department.
You
know
we
all
have
our
set
of
rules
and
regulations
and
there
are
tons
of
things
that
were
built
prior
to
those
regulations
that
are
allowed
to
continue
and
it
exist.
You
know
they're
grandfathered,
but
you're
always
going
to
have
some
threshold
that
you
cross
that
you've
got
to
bring
a
property
into
compliance.
You
know
maybe
you've
got
to
put
in
a
sprinkler
system.
R
You
know
you've
got
to
put
in
your
fire
exits.
You've
got
to
put
in
landscaping,
you
know
it's
a
limited
compliance
standards.
Are
you
know,
that's
what
we
have
written
and
we've
it's.
This
has
been
painstakingly
done
over
a
long
time,
because
these
these
conversations
are
very
difficult.
You
know,
when
you
tell
somebody
you've
got
to
remove
this
or
you've
got
to
plant
this
or
you've
got
to
build
a
sidewalk.
You
know
if
we
don't
make
something:
a
law,
no
one's
going
to
do
it.
You
know
we
can
suggest
things
like
I
I.
R
Just
don't
have
the
money
to
do
that.
Well,
you
know
the
conversation
just
stops
right
there,
so
you
have
to
make
it
a
law
and
you
have
to
make
it
clear-cut
and
predictable
and
fair.
You
know
when
you
say:
oh
I
made,
you
know
the
people
across
the
street
had
to
do
same
thing.
You
know
that
makes
it
easier
to
swallow.
You
know
I'm
not
being
singled
out.
You
know
you
can
sit
here
and
point
to
numerous
situations,
and
here
here
are
the
standards
and
they're.
R
J
Well,
I
appreciate
the
giving
the
numbers
on
how
many
variants
have
been
requested,
which
seems
like
a
very
low
number.
Obviously,
the
thing
that
that
I'm,
fearful
of
is
non-disclosure
people
just
moving
forward
and
just
kind
of
you
know
not
you
know.
Obviously
you
know
my
method.
I
call
you
guys
you're
on
my
speed
dial
on
about
every
property,
but
I,
just
I
just
don't
want
to
create
that
atmosphere
either.
You
know
so
all
right.
Well,
no
thank
you
for
that.
So.
A
I
want
to
just
follow
up
on
that
I
mean
looking
at
the
property
that
you
just
showed
up
there.
You
know,
and
some
properties
is
pretty
clear
right.
What's
parking
and
what's
other
impervious
surface
now,
I
can
deduce
that
on
the
right
side
of
the
screen,
that's
parking
because
there's
white
stripes
on
it.
But
how
do
I
I
mean
what
what
determines
all
that?
All
that
other
impervious
surface
in
the
back
is
or
is
not
parking.
R
No,
that's
that's
a
great
question
and
that's
something
that
we
we
that's
our
starting
point.
So
we
say:
here's!
Here's!
Your
maximum
parking
number
show
me
where
those
spaces
are
going.
You
know,
show
us.
You
know
in
this
situation
here
where
it
looks
like
there's
just
asphalt
every
which
direction
and
who
knows
what's
being
used,
delineate
your
parking
spaces.
You
know,
show
us
your
maximum
number
of
spaces
and
then
we'll
work
with
you.
You
know
if
there
are
areas
hey.
This
is
just
not
being
used.
R
A
A
R
R
But
if
we
can
clean
it
up,
then
the
code
helps
guide
us
to
that
to
say
you
have
to
take
up
some
of
the
spaces
some
of
this
impervious
surface.
Some
of
this
gravel.
You
know
if
it
is
outdoor
storage,
is
it
legitimately
approved?
As
that
you
know,
is
it
storage
space
or
is
it
just
gravel
just
kind
of
spread
over
time
and
should
never
really
have
been
there
to
begin
with?
What.
A
R
In
every
case,
there's
a
little
bit
of
wiggle
room
a
little
bit
to
work
with
property
owners.
You
know
for
what
they
need,
but
you
know
it
helps
to
do
to
have
some
definitive
standards
and
the
max
parking
number
is
is
the
biggest
thing
to
start
with
yeah.
G
C
I
think
Clarion
something
that
they
do
and
we
went
back
and
looked
at
the
different
staff
drafts
where
they
still
had
the
footnotes
in
I.
Don't
know
if
this,
if
anyone
else
is
remembering
how
this
was,
but
then
they
would
put
why
they
were
making
a
change
so
for
these
for
those
that
they
changed.
C
Mostly,
the
footnote
said
you
know,
use
is
typically
self-limiting
and
which
is
fine
and
that
that
was
something
that
they
had
suggested
to
us,
that
they
had
used
in
other
places
and
so
I
think
we
just
kind
of
went
along
with
it.
Maybe
shouldn't.
The
other
thing
is
the
uses
again
like
I
mentioned
they
identified
were
mostly
the
people-based
uses
from
the
2019
code,
so
it
was
like
getting
away
from.
C
That
was
a
good
idea,
but
we
maybe
should
have
pushed
to
say
like
we
do,
want
to
propose
limits
here
and
I
think
you
know
almost
immediately
at
least
like
Mr
volan
on
councils,
like
what
are
we
doing
this?
But
you
know
it's
part
of
a
Omnibus
change
it
didn't.
It
has
not
come
forward
kind
of
until
now,.
R
Sorry,
Mr
grewick
real
quick,
you
know
the
the
No
Limit,
it
works
great
when
you're
starting
from
scratch
and
somebody
is
building
a
property
that
meets
requirements.
You've
got
parking
in
the
back.
You
meet
your
minimum
landscaped
area.
You
know
that.
Then
it
regulates
itself.
It's
the
situations
where
we
deal
with
these
limited
compliance
and
we
have
to
start
with.
You
know:
you've
got
a
situation
like
what's
on
the
screen
or
you
know
something
even
worse.
R
You
know
think
of
them
all
where
you've
got
a
building
all
the
way
in
the
back,
and
it's
just
a
sea
of
asphalt
between
that
and
the
street.
You
know
we
have
to
have
some
number
to
start
with
to
say:
here's
your
max
parking
number.
You
know
you've
got
to
start
taking
things
away.
So
in
a
new
new
development,
new
construction
situation,
it's
not
an
issue,
you
know
the
use
regulates
itself.
R
C
I
will
say
to
amend
that.
Well,
as
I
said
in
the
presentation,
but
large
lots
that
we
still
need
to
develop
like
the
one
on
Fullerton
it
would.
We
need
them
for
those,
because
those
things
that
Eric
mentions
or
that
we've
talked
about
as
a
group,
impervious
surface
coverage,
setbacks
and
those
things
the
Lotus.
The
parcel
is
so
big
that
that
won't
matter
they'll
meet
those
things.
C
What
you
know
if,
if
the
result
had
gone
through
and
they
had
built
a
jail
property
there,
it
literally
would
have
been
Acres
of
parking,
which
is
maybe
appropriate.
You
know
we.
That
would
be
something
for
you
know
to
decide,
but
we
do
think
that
there
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
limit
on
on
that
type
of
design.
And
again
this
is
for
surface
parking.
C
So
if
parking
garage
is
an
approved
use
wherever
this
you
know,
hypothetical
development
is
happening
that
can
happen,
and
then
that
is
only
limited
by
the
design
requirements
of
a
parking
garage.
G
G
Of
commissioner
Whistler
but
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
you
do
work
with
property
owners
in
your
response
to
commissioner
Whistler.
So
that's
promising.
So,
given
that
just
looking
at
some
of
these
specifically
I
just
had
a
couple
questions
I
was
curious.
Why
a
meeting
banquet
event
facility
had
four
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet
and
a
Convention
Center
has
two.
C
That's
a
good
question,
I!
Think,
okay,
so
a
couple
things
we're
happy
to
change
and
we're
happy
to
take
any
proposals
to
change
these
I
think
the
idea
is-
and
anyone
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
at
a
Convention,
Center
or
conference
you're
usually
paired
with
other
uses.
So
it's
usually
like
Convention
Center
restaurant
hotel
that
it
would
be
that
all
of
those
that
all
of
those
uses
kind
of
like
add
up
and
end
up
being
kind
of
ancillary
for
each
other.
C
C
That
would
be
more
than
one
use
together
and
and
then
also
probably
have
structured
parking
as
supportive.
So
so
I
think
that
that's
why
it's
separate,
where,
like
a
meeting
or
banquet
or
event
facility,
that's
just
on
its
own
and
that's
all.
It
is
needs
more
leeway
because
they're
not
having
that
shared
parking
with
the
other
uses
that
typically
pair
with
a
Convention
Center.
Does
that
make
sense.
Okay
and.
G
Then
my
last
question
again
just
looking
at
the
details:
I
was
looking
at
which
ones
had
more
per
thousand
square
feet
so,
like
a
medical
clinic
has
five
and
a
grocery
store
has
five
a
sexually
oriented
business
has
five,
but
a
bar
has
well
a
bar
would
be
different
in
indoor
all
other
indoor
Recreation
has
four.
G
C
That's
a
good
question,
okay,
so
some
of
these,
like,
for
example,
grocery
store
like
the
we
did
not
look
to
lower
any
so
those
that
already
existed.
We
did
not.
We
were
not
planning
to
like
right
size,
any
numbers,
just
as
part
of
the
conversation
of
being
concerned
about
parking.
A
A
A
I
A
Any
final
comments
or
discussion
before
we
call
the
roll
I'll
just
make
one
comment
which
to
say:
I:
don't
I
still
don't
love
parking
maximums,
but
I'm
more
convinced
now
than
before.
I
think
I
appreciate
your
your
explanation.
I
was
leaning
towards
trying
to
push
forward
just
an
impervious
surface,
but
I
do
see
how
that
actually
would
be
potentially
more
onerous
on
on
property
owners
and
I.
Think
it
seems,
like
the
the
numbers
in
here
are
have
kind
of
aired
on
the
high
side
and
and
I
think
they
seem
pretty
reasonable.
F
J
It's
I
struggle
with
the
the
parking
issue,
obviously
because
I'm
on
the
front
lines
dealing
with
property
owners
every
day
and
and
also
tenants
wanting
to
get
into
buildings
and
I,
know
the
challenges
behind
it.
But
I
do
appreciate
that
you're
you're,
responding
to
our
comments
and
the
separate
meetings.
So
knowing
that
there's
some
leeway
or
some
some
discussion
that
can
be
had
I
was
leaning
towards
just
saying
no,
but
I
will
support
it,
knowing
that
there's
conversation
and
we're
dealing
with
reasonable
people.
So
no
thank
you
for
that.
So.
C
Mr
Whistler,
if
I,
can
add
something
I,
just
never
remember
to
say
this
when
we
talk
about
this,
but
there
is
a
provision
in
the
code
that
allows
for
a
petitioner
to
basically
prove
through
a
parking
study
that
they
need
more
parking
outside
of
the
variance
process
that
director
Robinson
can
improve,
and
that's
not
something
we've
seen.
People
really
take
a
lot
of
advantage
of.
C
A
Thank
you.
Sorry
about
that,
pointing
that
out.
I
think
that's
that's
important
for
all
of
our
viewers
to
to
understand,
but
it
is,
it
is
definitely
important
Point.
Thank
you.
Any
other
comments.
C
J
J
A
K
A
All
right
motion
carries,
and
that
is
our
final
petition
for
the
evening.
Thank
you
all
for
your
patience.
We
are
adjourned.
We'll
see
you
in
May.