►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
So
if
you
were
here
last
thursday,
you
will
find
that
the
presentation
will
be
very
similar,
and
so
I
will
give
a
brief
presentation,
refish
presentation,
and
then
we
will
go
to
questions
from
the
group
so
how
we
are
doing
formatting.
Those
with
a
fairly
large
group
here
is
that
if
you
have
questions
you
can
use
your
chat
function,
which
is
located
on
the
bottom
of
your
screen
and
send
a
message
to
either
keegan
gulik
or
ryan
roebling.
A
A
As
these
meetings
wrap
up
tomorrow,
we
will
have
more
time
to
go
through
the
questions
that
we
received
via
have
received
via
chat
through
the
six
meetings
and
consolidate
them
and
put
information
on
the
website
just
as
a
bit
of
housekeeping
the
way
that
we
are
running.
These
meetings
is
similar
to
the
way
that
city
council
is
run
in
that
we
ask
that
you
don't
turn
on
your
camera
and
everyone
is
muted.
A
So
again,
if
you
have
questions
you
send
those
to
either
keegan
or
ryan,
and
then
they
will
get
to
as
many
as
they
can
seniors.
Planner
eric
grulick
will
also
be
joining
us
later
to
help
answer
questions,
but
otherwise
the
three
of
us
will
get
to
the
questions
that
come
through
before
that.
So
if
you
do
turn
on
your
video,
it
is
very
likely
that
one
of
us
will
turn
it
off
just
so
you
know
so
just
to
keep
everyone
kind
of
on
an
even
playing
field
there.
A
But
here
is
the
website
for
this
process,
so
this
process
that
we
are
going
through
today
and
have
been
working
on
for
the
last
few
weeks
is
a
public
outreach
process.
In
order
to
discuss
the
udo
zoning
map
update
process
that
will
begin
the
content.
That
will
be
it
used
in
that
that
process,
that's
regulatory
that
will
begin
in
january.
So
this
website
is
where
there's
a
lot
of
information.
A
There
are
story
maps
which
is
basically
interactive
kind
of
powerpoint
and
mapping
product
that
you
can
use
to
look
for
if
you're,
if
you're
interested
in
a
particular
topic,
we
have
those
here
on
the
website
interactive
and
static
maps.
If
you
are
trying
to
zoom
to
your
own
property
to
find
out
what's
what's
being
currently
proposed,
and
then
all
of
these
zoom
meeting
presentations
will
be
there
as
well.
A
Last
week
we
put
up
frequently
asked
questions
over
on
the
right
with
some
replies
there,
and
also
the
apa,
which
is
the
american
planning
association,
the
accrediting
group
for
planners,
which
is
the
profession
that
those
that
those
of
us
here
working
the
planning
department
are
a
part
of
a
link
to
their
housing
policy
guide
as
well
for
some
extra
information.
And
then
we
have
a
feedback
form
up
on
the
website,
still
for
our
mixed-use
student
housing.
A
So
tomorrow
night,
we
will
be
doing
additional
text
amendments
more
general
text,
amendments
and
correction
text
amendments,
but
in
case
anyone
especially
those
who
have
already
been
working
with
the
udo,
the
new
udo
since
april.
That
is
a
great
forum
to
come
to
and
let
us
know
of
concerns
or
things
that
you've
seen
that
maybe
could
work
better
if
we
change
them
up
a
little
bit.
A
A
And
share
my
screen
again
and
go
through
the
r4
location
and
plex
amendment
story
map.
So
this
is
already
on
the
website.
If
you
were
here
last
thursday,
this
is
the
same
document
so
we're
go.
We
wanted
to
do
it
twice
in
case
people
were
only
able
to
come
to
it
weren't
able
to
come
to
one
evening,
so
we
hope
we
have
been
able
to
have
some
new
visitors
tonight,
and
this
is
some
new
information.
A
So
first
we
want
to.
I
want
to
say
again
that
this
process
we're
going
through
now
is
for
information
for
us
to
be
able
to
present
information
to
the
public
on
our
proposal.
So
the
text
of
the
unified
development
ordinance
was
adopted
after
a
multi-year
process.
It
was
adopted
in
april
of
this
year
and
it
is
based
on
the
comprehensive
plan
and
public
input,
and
it
was
always
intended
for
the
zoning
map
process
to
come
in
separately.
A
After
so
that's
what
we're
doing
now-
and
we
have
also
identified
some
text-
amendments
that
we
would
like
to
have
up
for
discussion,
and
so
one
of
the
largest
one,
I
would
say,
is
the
plex
amendment
and
I'll
speak
more
about
that
in
a
minute.
But
we
just
want
to
reiterate
that
this
process,
we're
hoping
will
be
one
in
which
we
will
gain
feedback
from
the
public.
A
So
it's
like
information
gathering
as
well
from
you
all.
As
I
said,
we
presented
this
same
information
last
week
and
we
got.
We
did
get
some
good
questions,
clarifications
that
needed
to
be
made
and
feedback
from
that
group,
and
tonight
we
are
going
to
be
discussing
the
proposed
r4
locations
as
well
as
the
text
amendment.
A
So
you
can
see
here
on
your
screen
the
purpose
statement
in
the
code,
so
the
r4
district
is
intended
to
accommodate
residential
uses
on
small
urban
scale,
lots
that
offer
a
diverse
mix
of
housing
opportunities
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
other
adopted
plans,
and
our
four
properties
in
that
district
typically
have
access
to
many
public
services
that
are
accessible
to
pedestrians,
cyclists
and
vehicles.
It
may
also
be
used
as
a
transition
between
small
lot
residential
development,
urban
scale,
residential
commercial
and
institutional
development.
A
A
It
was
done
to
provide
a
district
that
could
specifically
provide
a
more
intense,
diverse
mix
of
housing
opportunities.
It
was
done
in
order
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
existing
smaller
residential
properties
to
be
brought
into
a
zoning
district
where
they
can
comply
with
minimum
lot
size
requirements.
A
A
So
I
will
give
an
example
here
shortly
of
how
that
was
done,
but
basically
we
identified
small
lots
and
then,
if
there
were
a
few
and
in
the
same
general
area,
we
created
clusters
and
then
expanded
out
using
blocks
and
to
ali
right
of
ways
to
create
more
standard
lines
for
those
districts.
So
you
can
see
the
r4
area
there
for
those
who
haven't
done
this.
Yet
these
maps
are
interactive.
A
Excuse
me,
so
you
can
use
their
our
zoom
in
and
out
on
the
bottom
right
as
well
as
at
the
top
right
a
button.
You
can
press
so
that
the
text
goes
away
from
the
presentation,
so
you
can
see
more
of
the
map
and
you
can
also
enter
your
address,
I
believe
on
all
or
most
of
the
maps
in
the
top
left,
so
they're
all
explorable.
If,
if
that
is
something
that
you're
interested
in.
A
So
we're
going
to
use
this
ellen
heights
example
and
then,
let's
see
in
the
first
step,
as
I
mentioned,
we
looked
at
parcels
in
r3
and
r2
that
were
currently
substandard.
So
for
some
of
the
reasons
I
described,
substandard
lots
sometimes
struggle
to
meet
current
development
standards
for
those
districts
and
then
require
variances
to
be
able
to
do
what
should
otherwise
be.
You
know
a
typical.
A
You
know
addition
to
the
back
or
some
sort
of
expansion
that
if
they
were
in
a
district
that
was
more
appropriately,
this
minimum
lot
size
for
the
district
was
more
appropriate
for
the
actual
development
on
the
site.
Then
they
would
not
require
those.
So
you
can
see
here
in
red
some.
These
are
the
r4
size,
lots
that
were
identified
in
this
area.
An
extent
of
this
map.
A
A
So
you
can
see,
then
the
blue
areas
here
that
were
identified
and
that
is
including
the
50
foot
buffer
around
the
initial
smaller
lots
that
were
identified,
and
then
we
looked
for
clusters
so
where
any
two
50-foot
buffers
overlapped,
those
areas
were
identified
and
clusters
were
created.
So
you
can
see
those
here
with
the
green
around
those
areas.
So
typically,
what
that
means
is
that
cluster
that
the
buffered
areas
that
had
one
or
less
I
mean
excuse
me
two
or
less.
A
A
So
if
your
parcel
intersected
with
the
buffer
cluster,
it
was
residential,
then
we
used
those.
We
identified
those
to
begin
to
make
more
orderly
district
boundaries,
and
you
can
see
here
those
in
purple
and
then
the
la
the
lines
for
the
district
boundaries
were
extended
to
the
nearest
right-of-way.
Typically,
and
there
were
some,
you
could
see
purple
areas
here
that
were
then
left
out,
because
there
were
actually
no
r4
size
parcels
in
this
part
of
the
buffer
or
this
one
here,
so
they
were
excluded
from
the
final
line.
A
A
A
We
decided
on
a
formula
about
how
to
select
the
r4
parcels
and
then
use
that
to
make
this
layer
to
bring
forward
to
the
public
for
discussion,
so
there
are
definitely
oddities.
We've
had
some
people
call
and
say:
why
is
my
block
are
went
across?
The
street
is
r3,
we've
actually
had
the
reverse
as
well.
A
We
just
needed
to
bring
something
forward
and
we
decided
that
it
would
make
more
sense
and
kind
of
be
more
valuable
to
have
the
discussion
start
with
the
lots
that
were
just
selected
through
the
mathematical
process,
as
opposed
to
with
any
sort
of
subjectivity
of
or
reasoning
behind,
changing
it
from
that
and
we
may
go
to,
we
may
have
to
make
changes.
We
are
expecting
that
this
map
will
change
before
it
goes
to
plan
commission.
A
So
one
question
that
we're
getting
from
the
public
is:
why
are
you
reintroducing
plexus?
We
already
discussed
those
last
year,
so
one
of
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
a
pretty
big
goal
and
of
the
administration
as
well-
is
to
increase
housing
stock
as
well
as
options,
so
that
has
already
been
done
in
the
existing
code
that
was
approved
in
april.
A
A
A
That's
on
the
website
that
we
discussed
a
couple
weeks
ago.
The
we
have
done
that
we
agree
that
those
areas
should
have
housing.
They
should
have
useful
and
mixed
use
and
new
and
varied
housing
types
and
not
be
just
single
family
and
be
dense,
and
we
are
proposing
that
the
second
more
complicated
way
to
increase
housing,
stock
and
options
is
to
allow
sensitive
addition
of
housing
stuff
into
existing
developed
areas.
A
So
that
is
what
we
are
trying
to
further
encourage
with
the
plex
discussion
again.
So
I
think
one
question
we've
gotten
that
that
is
a
question,
obviously,
that
we're
getting
a
lot.
This
is
a
very
sensitive
topic
we
are.
We
are.
We
totally
understand
that
we
are
looking
for
input
to
see
again.
Is
there
a
middle
ground
or
a
way
to
introduce
them
and
track
them?
A
The
addition
of
plexus
won't
solve
everything.
The
addition
of
plexus
is
not
so
that,
just
because
we
would
like
to
increase
affordable
housing
stock.
We
know
that
those
things
won't
won't
come
to
be
just
from
plexus
being
built
in
town
they're,
part
of
a
wider
strategy.
That's
aimed
at
addressing
the
housing
shortage
that
we
do
have
here
and
we
do
have
a
housing
shortage.
Other
planning
regulatory
components
of
that
strategy
include
the
adus
and
the
cottage
development
which
I
already
mentioned.
A
We
also
created
a
regulations
for
development,
bonus
for
inclusion
of
workforce
and
affordable
housing
for
developments
that
go
that
come
to
town
that
are
residential,
focused
or
large
developments,
and
a
big
one
is
the
mixed
use:
student
housing,
zoning
district
and
the
amount
of
land
and
location
that
we
are
proposing
for
that.
For
us,
the
inclusion
of
plexus
and
the
introduction
of
the
ms,
the
mixture
student
housing,
ms
zoning
district
kind
of
go
hand
in
hand.
A
One
concern
we've
heard
quite
a
bit
from
community
members,
not
the
only
concern,
but
one
concern
is
that
plexes
will
mean
more
undergraduate
renters
in
the
neighborhood
existing
neighborhoods,
who
don't
have
as
much
invested
in
those
neighborhoods,
and
so
they
would
maybe
have
you
know
detrimental
effects
on
those
neighborhoods
that
were
that
we
are
having
a
hard
time
foreseeing.
So
that
is
something
that
we
hear
a
lot
about.
The
ms
zoning
district,
we
think,
will
pull
some
of
that
development
closer
to
campus.
A
The
development
process
in
the
ms
district
is
much
more
predictable
than
it
has
been
in
years
past
here
in
bloomington,
because
we
now
have
the
dedicated
zone
and
we
also
have
a
dedicated
use
for
student
housing
and
those
things
are
encouraged
in
those
areas
and
discouraged
in
other
areas.
So
student
housing
is
defined
as
having
any
units
with
four
or
five
bedrooms
or
more
than
a
third
of
your
units
having
three
bedrooms
and
those.
A
We
think
that
the
way
that
regulation
is
crafted-
and
it's
already
in
the
code,
will
encourage
that
development
in
the
ms
areas
and
that
that
can
work
work
in
tandem
with
the
plex
and
adu
proposals
in
the
neighborhoods
to
kind
of
move.
Some
of
the
younger
student
properties
out.
The
other
thing
to
note
is
that
we
are
a
college
town,
so
we
will
have
undergraduate
renters
and
they
some
will
prefer
to
live
in
neighborhoods
and
that's
okay
and
we
understand
the
concern.
Some
people
have
had
bad
experiences.
A
A
It
is
a
larger
strategy
throughout
the
administration,
not
just
with
the
zoning
code,
but
we
are
just
trying
to
use
our
portions
of
the
code
to
help
further
those
folds
as
well.
So
a
question
we
get
is
why
why
existing
neighborhoods?
Why
do
you
want
to
have
to
allow
more
people
to
live
in
these
neighborhoods,
which
is
a
fair
question?
And
of
course,
if
you
live
in
them
and
like
the
way
they
are
now
that
that
definitely
is
probably
your
first
thought.
Why
change?
A
So
I
think
one
of
the
easy
answers
is
because
those
areas
already
have
infrastructure.
So
when
we
talk
about
building
housing
in
sudbury
and
say,
oh
it's
fine,
let's
just
put
you
know
500
units
out
in
sudbury.
That
is
great.
We
should
do
that,
but
it's
not
inherently
there.
It
has
its
own
inherent
issues
because
there's
no
infrastructure
there,
all
the
roads
have
to
be
built.
All
the
utilities
have
to
be
put
in
there
isn't
you
know
existing
city
services
there,
obviously,
because
there's
nothing
there.
A
A
We
think
that
a
sensitive
approach
to
the
reintroduction
of
plexus
can
be
found
and
included
in
the
code,
and
you
know
it's
a
reintroduction,
because
we
know
obviously,
as
I've
said,
those
uses
already
exist
in
many
parts
of
the
city
and
not
only
and
reintroduction
to
those
areas.
Not
only
use
in
the
large
swath
areas
such
as
you
know,
large
vacant
land,
the
southwest
side
of
town
or
the
hospital.
A
I
will
note
it's
kind
of
a
more
technical
issue.
The
way
that
the
plexus
are
discussed
in
the
code
now
has
to
be
changed.
So
the
way
that
council
approved
the
use
table,
which
is
basically
that
plexus
are
not
permitted
or
conditional
in
some
of
the
districts
and
you'll
see
the
table
here
shortly,
but
there
are
still
asterisks
in
the
boxes
that
that
is,
and
then
there
are
some
you
specific
standards
that
discuss
how
much
of
an
addition
you
can
put
on.
A
If
you
are,
you
know
demolishing
if
you
are
doing
demolition
and
then
changing
to
a
plex
and
some
very
complicated
language
that
we
have
tried
to
apply
numerous
times
since
since
april,
and
have
been
guided
by
legal,
that
that
has
those
have
to
be
changed
so
as
a
matter
of
course,
and
making
sure
that
the
udo
is
defensible
and
usable,
obviously,
by
members
of
the
public
and
dependable.
So
people
can
know
what
to
expect
those
things
have
to
be
changed.
A
A
So
to
be
clear,
this
process
is
democratic,
a
couple
of
notes.
We
are
not
even
in
the
public
hearing
process
yet
at
all,
as
I've
said
now
a
couple
times,
and
we
tried
to
are
reiterating
that
in
each
meeting
that
will
begin
next
year.
We
are
just
in
an
information
gathering
process.
We
put
out
ideas,
we
are
taking
feedback
on
those
in
order,
so
so
that
we
can
craft
a
draft
zoning
map
and
text
amendment
proposal
to
go
to
plan
commission
in
january
and
eventually
on
to
council,
of
course.
A
That
is
more
familiar
to
people,
but
that
process
and
the
public
hearing
process
that
we'll
follow
are
exactly
the
process
that
have
been
undertaken
for
zoning
map
and
full
text
updates
in
the
past.
So
nothing
is
different.
We
amend
the
code
fairly
often
if
we
think
there's
something
that
needs
to
be
changed.
For
example,
when
we
took
the
original
adu
language
to
council,
this
is
what
we
did
right.
A
We
reached
out
to
the
public
and
we
made
a
proposal,
a
text,
amendment,
a
text,
amendment
proposal
and
it
went
through
plan
commission
and
council-
saw
it
and
made
a
decision
about
it.
We
in
the
in
the
past
few
years,
we've
done
that
with
a
number
of
things,
fences
sidewalks,
cottage
development,
that
this
is
the
process
that
go.
That
text
amendments
go
through,
so
no
it's
not
undemocratic.
A
We
are
happy
and
hopeful
to
receive
feedback
from
a
wide
group
of
members
of
the
public
and
want
we
want
the
process
to
work.
We
we
want
to
see
if
we
can
get
to
a
middle
ground,
and
the
only
way
to
do
that
is
to
have
an
idea
and
see
if
we're
able
to
come
to
a
conclusion
where
the
plan
commissioning
council
are
able
to
agree
with
agree
with
that
proposal
and
approve
it,
and
that
is
the
process
that
we're
undertaking
again
the
same
process.
A
A
It's
actually
two
questions,
two
sides
of
a
coin:
one
is
won't
allowing
plexes
in
my
neighborhood
increase
my
property
values
and
taxes
above
the
threshold
which
I
will
be
able
to
bear
and
the
other
the
flip
side
is
won't.
Plexus
decrease
my
property
value
if
they're
allowed
in
my
neighborhood.
So
taking
the
first
question.
A
First,
we
have
been
looking
at
some
property
values,
just
spot
checking
property
values
throughout
the
city
over
over
time,
and
your
property
values
are
already
increasing,
so
obviously,
if
you're
a
property
owner
in
town,
you
know
that
some
cases
in
some
cases
the
increase,
is
pretty
exponential,
and
we
understand
that
what
you
have
been
saying
are
your
concerns
about
allowing
plexes.
Some
of
the
concerns
we
hear
about
allowing
plexus
are
that
rental
companies
are
able
to
purchase
properties
that
are
for
sale,
inflated
prices.
A
So
I
think
the
answer
to
that
is
yes,
that
that
is
a
valid
concern
that
is
already
happening.
That's
not
going
to
stop.
We
do
not
have
enough
housing
in
bloomington,
so
as
properties
turn
over
if
they
seem
like
good
investment
properties
and
companies
with
more
money
are
interested
in
them,
they
will
continue
to
be
able
to
buy
them
and
first-time
homeowner
home
buyers,
which
we
hear
a
lot
about,
will
continue
to
be
able
to
not
not
compete
for
those
properties.
A
A
Adding
the
options
for
plexus
in
combination
with
the
ms,
we
think,
can
help
lower
that
percentage.
So
some
things
that
you
have
maybe
heard
us
discuss
before
you
know
it
is.
It
is
possible
that
if
you
have
two
rentals
on
your
block
now,
if
one
were
able
to
be
turned
over
to
a
duplex
and
you
still,
we
still
have
a
pool
of
two
renters.
Now
we
have
three
units,
so
maybe
one
of
the
units
becomes
available
for
owner
occupancy.
A
We
do
understand
that
the
concern
is
that
both
buildings
will
turn
over
to
duplexes
and
all
four
will
be
rentals
and
though
there
is
nothing
inherently
wrong
with
rentals.
We
do
understand.
There
is
some
concern
about
large
groups
of
underage
students
being
able
to
live
in
close
proximity
in
the
in
the
more
traditional
single
family
areas.
A
And
so
the
flip
side
of
the
coin
won't
plexes
decrease
the
property
value
in
my
neighborhood
if
they're
allowed
in
the
zoning
district.
So
this
is
something
that
I
think
we
maybe
haven't
been
saying
enough.
We
said
it
last
week,
but
similar
to
the
way
adus
were
rolled
out.
We
would
like
we
plan
to
allow
plexes
on
a
slow,
monitored
basis,
making
the
idea
that
allowing
plexus
in
your
area
would
decrease
your
property
value
very
unlikely.
A
When
we
did
the
adus,
we
reported
to
council
once
a
year
on
how
many
had
been
requested.
How
many
had
actually
been
built?
How
of
roughly,
how
many
you
know,
questions
of
interest
we've
been
getting.
What
sort
of
regulatory
issues
were
stopping
them
where
they
were
located?
Who
was
building
them
and
we
would
foresee
something
of
that
nature
related
to
plexes.
So
for
those
who
aren't
super
super
familiar
with
planning
legislation,
we
can
change
the
text.
A
We
can
propose
a
text
at
any
time
to
counsel
and
if
there
was
an
issue
or
the
introduction
of
plexus
was
not
working
toward
the
goals
that
I've
discussed,
then
we
could
fairly
quickly
take
to
council
legislation
to
change
what
what
what
the
legislation
currently
allows.
So
we
would
be
looking
to
report
to
them
on
whatever
basis
they
they
in
the
administration
felt
was
appropriate.
You
know
a
yearly
basis,
a
six-month
basis,
a
quarterly
basis.
A
We
are
trying
to
make
plexus
an
option
everywhere
that
that
it's
possible
in
order
to
address
our
need
for
increased
stock
and
increased
options,
but
we
do
realize
that
that
needs
to
be
done
sensitively
and
we
would
like
to
do
it
at
a
slow
pace
to
be
able
to
track
potential
issues
in
order
to
stop
them,
and
I
think
one
last
thing
I
would
direct
everyone
to
the
housing
study
that
was
done
by
the
city
of
bloomington.
It
was
released
earlier
this
year.
A
One
thing
we
have
heard,
which
is
interesting
from
the
perspective
of
someone
who
kind
of
works
in
this
field,
to
hear
someone
say
and
in
this
town
we
have
heard
numerous
people
say
that
there
isn't
a
housing
shortage
and
that
one
key
thing
that
people
seem
to
list
as
a
reason
for
believing
that
is
that
you
often
see
for
rent
signs
on
the
properties
that
exist
now.
So
we've
said
before
those
for
rent
signs.
A
A
A
rent
leasing
company
will
come
to
often
come
to
renters
in
the
fall
of
september
october,
when
you've
only
lived
there
now
for
two
or
three
months
and
ask
you
if
you're
planning
to
resign
the
next
summer
and
if,
for
some
reason
you
are
not
able
to
commit
and
or
are
interested,
then
they
will
begin
to
lease
your
property
for
the
next
year.
That's
incredibly
common!
I
think
it's
been
going
on
for
a
long
time.
A
What
the
exact
vacancy
rate
is
something
is
is
something
that
maybe
people
don't
exactly
agree
upon
or
people
are
concerned
that
maybe
the
numbers
are
slightly
off,
because
some
of
the
data
is
provided
by
the
by
the
apartment,
complex
businesses.
But
you
can
read
the
study
and
see
that
it
is
fairly
certain.
A
A
This
is
the
existing.
This
is
the
existing
use
table
for
the
plexus
duplex
triplex
fourplex.
This
multi-family
conditional
is
already
in
code,
so
this
already
exists.
This
was
this
is
what
was
approved
by
council
earlier
this
year.
This
this
particular
multi-family
and
r4,
has
a
maximum
units
of
eight.
I
believe
in
these
specific
standards,
but
these
asterisks
here
with
no
letters,
are
what
I'm
referring
to.
When
I
say
that
legal
has.
A
A
So
this
is
our
proposal
in
the
primarily
single
family
zoning
districts.
We
propose
that
duplexes
be
permitted
and
that
in
r2
and
r3
triplex's
be
conditional
approvals
and
permitted
in
r4
and
that
four
plexes
be
conditional
in
r3
and
permitted
in
r4,
so
that
those
are
the
changes,
the
changes
here
in
the
center.
Let
me
go
back
here.
A
A
A
We
took
every
single
one
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
until
it
became
apparent
that
they
weren't
kind
of
as
upsetting
to
the
neighbors
and
the
neighborhoods,
as
some
were
concerned,
that
they
might
be
initially
and
that
we
weren't
getting
much
feedback
when
we
were
sending
public
notice
and
having
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
hearings.
And
so
then
they
were
going
to
the
hearing
officer,
which
again
is
also
a
public
hearing.
A
Okay,
so
those
are
the
two
main
types
of
uses,
right,
permitted
or
conditional,
and
then
something
to
note
is
the
use
specific
standards.
So
I
mentioned
that
a
conditional
use
can
have
conditions
placed
on
it
and
it
can
but
another
way
that
we
can
add
conditions
in
a
slightly
different
way
is
use
specific
standards.
So
it's
additional
standards
and
restrictions
which
apply
to
the
use
within
the
zoning
district,
where
the
asterisk
appears
asterisk
appears
and
those
must
be
met
in
order
for
the
use
to
be
lawfully
established.
A
A
A
So
we
also
of
note
we
have
a
number
of
we
have
some
plexes
in
town,
so
we
are
gathering
that
data
right
now.
We're
comparing
hand
data
with
assessor
data
because
hand.
Data,
of
course,
is
rentals
only
and
the
auditor
assessor
data
is
based
on
type
of
building,
and
so
they
capture
more.
I
think
in
different
areas
of
different
plexus
than
the
hand
data.
A
Only
so
we
are
comparing
those
now
and
that
information
will
be
available
as
soon
as
we
are
finished,
compiling
it,
but
will
be
useful
going
forward
to
january,
because
we
do
think
one
thing
that
is
helpful
by
permitting
these
uses
that
are
already
here,
they're,
lawful,
non-conforming
right
now.
By
making
them
permitted,
we
allow
those
existing
uses
to
be
able
to
expand
or
make
changes
that
they
currently
can't
because
they're,
lawful
non-conforming.
A
We
also
allow
for
and
think
that
some
duplexes
will
come
in
as
amendments
to
existing
buildings.
So
people
are
worried
about
tear
downs,
but
we
think
that
that
additions
will
be
a
large
part
of
of
how
the
plexus
that
play
out
in
town.
So
we
discussed
this
briefly
about
why
duplexes,
triflexes
and
four
plexus
are
important.
We
think
that
they
are
key
to
helping
use
our
regulations
to
help
move
toward
a
successful
and
sustainable
future
by
increasing
housing,
stock
and
options.
A
Will
existing
properties
be
protected
from
demolition?
So
if
someone
wants
to
demolish
a
property
at
all,
having
nothing
to
do
with
plexes,
they
have
three
options,
so
this
will
apply
to
properties
that
are
potential
plex
development,
but
it
also
applies
to
all
the
properties
we
see
now
where
a
single
family
development
can
go.
A
Commission,
the
code
is
clear
that
any
property
in
a
local
historic
district
has
to
be
approved
for
demolition,
even
if
it's
non-contributing,
so
all
of
the
properties
in
those
historic
districts
would
have
to
go
to
historic
preservation,
commission
for
approval
for
demolition,
and
they
would
weigh
in
on
the
request
and
could
stop
it
if
they
didn't
think
it
was
appropriate.
Additionally,
many
of
you
have
heard
of
demolition
delay.
Properties
that
are
not
in
local
historic
districts
may
be
on
our
city,
historic
sites
and
structures
survey.
A
It
was
updated
in
2018
by
bri,
and
demolition
of
those
properties
is
regulated
by
demolition
delay,
as
I
mentioned,
and
what
that
means
is
that
if
someone
requests
to
demolish
a
property
listed
on
that
survey,
the
bloomington
historic
preservation
commission
reviews
those
requests
as
well.
Their
options
are
different.
They
can
only
recommend
historic
designation
to
common
council
if
that's
appropriate,
that
or
release
or
release
the
permit.
A
They
cannot
the
only
way
that
they
can
force
stall
and
potentially
stop
a
demolition
is
by
recommending
designation
to
common
council,
and
then
it's
up
to
common
council.
Of
course,
whether
or
not
that
designation
is
done
so
then
the
third
option
is
are
all
the
other
properties,
so
those
that
are
not
protected
by
local
designation
or
do
not
appear
in
the
2018
city
survey
can
be
demolished
without
additional
review
beyond
that.
A
A
Questions
so
I
will
leave
this
up
for
now.
You
know
just
to
just
to
review
the
goals
of
this
plex
amendment
are
to
allow
to
work
toward
our
goals
of
increased
housing,
stock
and
housing,
options
which
are
goals
in
and
of
themselves,
but
also
work
toward
goals
of
allowing
better
access
to
amenities
and
existing.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
leave
that
up
and
as
I
said
before,
if
you
have
questions,
please
send
them
to
ryan,
roebling
or
keegan
gulick,
and
they
will
unmute
and
read
them
aloud
and
myself
and
eric
grulick
will
try
to
answer
them.
If
we
do
not
get
to
your
question,
it
will
come
through.
It
will
stay
in
the
chat
we
those
are
copied
and
we
will
be
compiling
questions
and
putting
answers
up
on
the
website.
A
C
A
I
think
that's
a
great
question
I
I
do
think.
Yes,
it's
definitely
something.
We've
looked
at
the
reasons
that
I
mentioned,
I
think,
as
far
as
trying
to
address
access
to
existing
neighborhoods
and
neighborhoods
that
have
better
access
to
existing
amenities
and
in
better
in
approximate
locations
to
downtown
are
the
same
types
of
reasons
that
are
enumerated
in
those
housing
policies.
So
if
you
go
to
the
biden
harris
website
or
whatever
was
up
while
they
were
campaigning,
I
don't
know
what
it
would
have
changed
to.
But
yes
they.
A
C
D
A
Such
a
good
question-
yes,
so
yeah
yeah,
sorry,
yes!
Actually.
I
think
I
mentioned
that
a
little
bit
last
week.
That's
a
great
question:
it's
something
that
we've
talked
about.
Yeah,
that's
another
way
to
do
it
so
the
way
that
we
worked
with
the
consultant
and
decided
to
add
the
new
district
to
allow
for
there
to
be
more
options.
Another
way
to
have
done
it
is
to
have
just
changed
the
development
standards
for
r3,
that
is,
that
is
definitely
an
option
that
could
be
done.
A
It
was
determined
at
that
time.
It
was
determined
at
that
time
that
a
new
district
may
be
more
appropriate
because
there
are
some
things
in
the
r3
like
the
build
forward
that
you
know
the
community
the
way
the
front
setback
works
is
different
than
in
most
other
residential
districts
and
people
really
like
it.
For
the
most
part,
we
weren't
sure
that
that
would
be
appropriate
everywhere,
but
it
is
something
that
we
will
look
at
before
it
goes
to
plane.
Commission
keegan
did
you
have
one.
D
A
Sure
so
I
think
I
will
answer
this
if,
if
this
isn't
right
tim,
please
send
another
question,
but
yes,
I
think
that
the
you
specific
standards
and
or
conditional
uses
that
are
included
should
do
that.
We
we've
had
a
bit
of
a
hard
time,
because
you
know,
obviously
a
lot
of
people
feel
very
passionately
about
this.
They
don't
all
think
the
same
thing,
so
we
have
hesitated
a
little
bit
to
propose
more
development
standards
restrictions
than
what
are
already
in
the
code
for
each
of
the
particular
plexes.
A
But
that's
definitely
something
we're
looking
at
for
the
plan
commission
for
the
plan.
Commission
draft
is
that,
should
there
be
more,
for
example,
size
consistency
when
a
plex
is
allowed
on
a
block
consistency
with
what's
already
there,
and
that
is
something
that
we
have
considered
and
we'll
we'll
be
continuing
to
look
at.
Yes,
that's
a
that's
a
great
question
awesome
their.
A
This
is
a
great
question
tim
and
I
have
discussed
this
yeah.
I
think
that's
a
great
question.
I
would
say
if
that
that
is
something
that
we
are
discussing
internally.
We
have
a
limit
on,
and
tim
knows
this
very
well,
but-
and
I
think
most
of
you
watching
do
too,
but
we
currently
limit
the
number
of
unrelated
occupants
based
on
zoning
district.
A
It
raises
other
issues,
but
I
think
it
raises
other
issues
as
far
as
if
we
want
housing
to
be
available
to
more
people,
how
restrictive
are
we
going
to
make
it
be,
but
I
do
think
it
is
a
very
interesting
idea
if
the
goal
and
that
this
does
seem
to
be
one
of
the
goals
of
some
of
the
more
approximate
neighborhoods
to
downtown.
If
the
goal
is
to
increase
the
ability
for
young
families
to
locate
in
these
uses,
then
I
do
think
that
could
be
very
helpful.
A
I
will
just
throw
one
out
here,
another
one
that
I
think
is
good
from
jan
sorby.
Why
allow
aggregation
of
lots
and
r4?
I
think
that
kind
of
goes
to
the
compatibility
question
that,
yes,
that
may
be
something
that
we
that
we
look
at
is
the
is
the
existing
lot
size
restriction
enough
that
that
it
will
kind
of
manage
what
can
be
built
there
and
should
that
be
built
into
the
regulation,
so
that
aggregation
cannot
occur
to
have
buildings
that
are
are
outsized.
B
Jackie,
I
would
just
say
you
know,
one
of
one
of
our
concerns
has
been.
It's
gonna
be
very
difficult
to
track
that
you
know.
If
somebody
does
a
lot
line
adjustment-
or
you
know
they
aggregate
lots
on
one
deed
and
then
they
sell
it
and
the
next
person
you
know
then
tries
to
develop
it
based
on
the
standards.
B
A
C
Yeah
I
have
a
couple
that
were
kind
of
about
the
r4
and
how
we
got
those
numbers.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
pulling
back
up
the
breakdown,
the
example,
I
think
it
might
be
helpful,
but
while
that's
happening
I'll
read
the
question:
was
there
an
additional
50
foot
buffer
drawn
around
the
initial
buffers?
If
not,
what
is
the
part
of
the
illustration
that
is
light
green?
C
A
And
then
I
would
say
I
had
a
question
about
this
too
or
someone
messaged
me
so
some
of
these
out
here,
I
don't
think
I
described
this
very
well.
They
they
are
not
included
because
they,
like
ryan,
said
the
blue
donut
that
buffer
that
is
created
around
them
doesn't
touch
another
one,
and
this
one,
for
example,
also
doesn't
appear
to
touch
another
one,
but
it
has
multiple
lots
in
it,
so
those
were
included
for
that
purpose.
A
A
A
Oh
an
interesting
question,
so
I
think
this
is
just
more
of
a.
What
is
the
likelihood
policy
question?
Are
these
zoning
changes
projected
to
help
small
businesses
near
these
neighborhoods?
So
I
think
from
a
very
basic
understanding
of
the
economy,
because
my
my
understanding
would
be
described
as
basic,
the
more
rooftops,
the
more
units,
the
more
people
near
businesses,
the
more
the
better
that
is
for
businesses.
A
I
want
to
make
one
clarified
flying
comment.
Wendy
is
asking
to
clarify
no
problem
nathan
to
clarify
affordable
housing.
So
someone
said
I
made
a
comment
on
wtiu
about
how
this
is
affordable,
housing.
I
don't
know
what
that
was
a
recording
from,
because
I
didn't
do
any
interviews
with
wtiu.
So
I'm
sorry.
If
that
was
confusing,
we
think
that
the
majority
we
are
not
proposing
that
the
plexes
will
all
be
affordable.
A
We
understand
that
that
is
very
likely
that
that's
just
that's
not
something
that
we
think
it
will
happen.
We
do
think
that
it's
possible
that
some
of
the
units
will
be
affordable.
We
also
sometimes
leave
out
in
the
affordability
discussion
that,
if
you
and
we
talked
about
this
with
the
adus
as
well,
if
you
have
a
property
and
then
you
rent
your
second
unit
to
someone
in
your
family
or
your
mother
lives
there,
or
you
know
your
sister,
that
that
unit
is
affordable.
A
If
that
person
isn't
paying
you
market
rate,
and
so
I
do
think
that
there
will
be
an
opportunity
for
affordable
units
with
this
proposal,
but
the
idea
that
this
goes
to
a
question
also
that
barry
clapper
asked
last
week,
you
know
once
you
get
over
two
units,
there
are
state
building
code
requirements
that
that
involves
sprinkling
and
other
more
expensive,
building
other
more
expensive
requirements
than
a
typical
single
family.
We
understand
that
that
will
happen.
We
are
not
saying
that
plexus
will
all
be
affordable.
A
We
think
some
could
we
think
that
the
inclusion
of
more
units
can
have
a
positive
effect
on
affordability
overall,
so
not
just
the
inclusion
of
units
in
plexus,
but
the
inclusion
of
units
across
the
community
through
plexes
through
adus
through
the
ms
zoning
district
through
live
work
through
cottage
development,
we're
trying
to
give
more
tools
to
spread
to
allow
more
options
for
units
as
a
number
and
then
we
think
that
that
could
have
a
positive
effect
on
affordability
across
the
board.
Okay,
sorry
ryan.
I
saw
you
had
a
question
there.
C
You
know
what
percentage
of
the
parcels
in
the
proposed
r4
district
were
right
at
the
start,
and
then
what
percentage
of
the
land
area
in
the
proposed
r4
district
that
started
as
red
parcels
in
the
start,
so
has
planning
staff
done
either
of
those
calculations.
Is
there
some
sort
of
percentage
for
either
of
those
calculations
that,
if
we're
low
enough
wouldn't
make
you
say,
hey
wait
a
minute.
This
mathematical
technique
is
giving
us
weird
results.
A
Yeah,
I
think,
that's
a
fair
question.
Ryan.
I
don't
think
we
do
have
the
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
we
do
have
that,
but
we
should,
but
we
could
look
at
that,
and
that
goes
to
the
question
that
started
out
the
beginning.
That
was
one
of
the
first
questions.
Why
didn't
we
just
change
our
three,
and
that
is
a
that
is
a
valid
question.
A
A
A
Jan
sorby
has
a
question:
why
aren't
neighborhoods
that
are
almost
exclusively
owner
occupied
subject
to
triplex
or
quads?
I
don't
I'm
not
sure,
I'm
assuming
she's
asking
about
r2
on
the
east
side.
So,
yes,
that's
something
that
we
have
discussed
as
well.
One
proposal
could
be
to
allow
plexes
everywhere
as
permitted
or
conditional
in
all
districts.
That
is
definitely
an
option.
A
A
It
is
gonna,
be
more
sustainable
to
have
new
development,
more
development,
closer
into
town
you.
It
provides
opportunity
for
people
to
use
their
cars
less
to
walk
more
and
other
other
types
of
sustainable
practice
as
far
as
how
they
use
the
community
but
yeah
it.
If
that
may
be
appropriate,
we
kind
of
narrowed
those
more
intense
plexes
to
the
areas
close
to
town
and
by
amenities.
A
I
mean
all
of
the
things
that
you
have
access
to
downtown,
so
your
government
buildings,
your
library,
you
know
grocery
stores,
parks,
restaurants,
bars,
shops,
a
you
know,
bus
station,
those
are
some
of
those
things
are
only
located
in
one
place
and
being
proximate
to
those
is,
is
a
positive
and
being
able
to
live
near
them?
Is
something
that
if
we
can
do
it
sensitive
sensitively,
we
would
like
to
open
to
more
people
keegan
did
you
have
a
question?
Yes,.
D
A
A
number
of
you
in
this
room
I
know,
were
involved
in
that
from
the
sessions
that
I
went
to
and
they
did
a
they
do
a
fairly
detailed
study
of
existing
conditions
in
the
community
and
what
those
are
for
purchase
and
rent.
So
that
was
not
done
by
planning
transportation
staff,
but
it's
available
online
and
they
confirmed
what
we
have
been
thinking
for
a
while,
which
is
that
we
do
have
a
housing,
housing
shortage
or
shortage.
Excuse
me,
our
vacancy
rate
is
very
low.
D
Sure
another
question
that
I
had
was:
how
can
these
changes
help
address
the
need
for
affordable
housing
for
low-income
families
and
individuals?
We
certainly
have
a
shortage
of
housing
and
we
have
a
shortage
of
affordable
units
and
a
shortage
of
housing
for
people
without
housing.
So,
and
she
also
added
that
she's
in
favor
of
these
changes
in
increasing
density.
A
So
we
are
looking
at
the
effect
on
affordability
as
more
as
plexus
being
part
of
the
wider
initiative
to
increase
housing
options
and
stock
through
the
ms
district,
adding
more
units
there
and
you
know,
by
making
regulation
making
development
regulation
in
that
area
easier.
So
more
units
can
be
added
for
the
large
portion
of
our
community,
that
is,
students
as
well
as
the
adus
and
plexus,
allowing
for
more
housing
options
in
different
parts
of
town
and,
basically,
the
more
units
that
we
create.
A
C
A
Oh
right,
okay,
so
that
yeah
that's
an
interesting
question
as
well,
so
on
a
lot
by
lot
bases
the
open
a
lot
by
lot
basis.
The
open
the
open
space
will
be
the
same
right,
so
a
duplex
triplex,
even
a
quad,
is
going
to
have
to
meet
all
of
the
same
development
standards
as
a
house
so
kind
of
to
jan
sorby's
question,
and
we
talked
about
this
last
week
as
well.
A
If
you
have
a
lot
that
is
small
and
just
because
a
fourplex
is
allowed
there,
if
it
can't
reasonably
be
built
within
the
requirements,
then
then
it
can't
be
built
there
just
because
something
is
allowed.
If
it
can't
meet
the
development
standards
as
well,
then
it
won't
be
built.
So
on
a
lot
by
lot
basis.
The
open
space
would
stay
the
same,
but
I
do
think
it's
a
good
point
to
say
that
that
sometimes
people
want
to
focus
on
the
areas
that
I
spoke
about,
that
are
kind
of
bigger.
A
That
we
know
will
redevelop
like
the
hospital
and
sudbury,
but
we
do
want
those
areas
to
also
maintain
open
space
in
a
reasonable
way.
So,
for
example,
sudbury
has
a
lot
of
environmental
constraints,
so
yes,
in
consolidating
housing
areas
does
leave,
I
think,
would
leave
on,
on
the
whole,
more
open
space
availability
in
other
areas
of
town,
but
it's
hard
because
in
a
place
like
bloomington,
a
lot
of
people
want
to
live
here.
A
A
Okay,
I
have
another
question
here
and
we
discussed
this
a
little
bit
last
week
as
iu
population
decreases.
Won't
we
have
more
available
housing
stock
for
non-student
population.
Would
young
working
people
in
tech
and
other
jobs
to
choose
to
live
in
group,
housing,
multiplexes
and
plethora
of
downtown
apartments.
So
a
couple
things:
yes,
we
have.
We
do
hear
a
lot
that
ice
population
is
decreasing.
A
That
is
very
possible.
That's
obviously
the
cliff
is
discussed
quite
a
bit.
They,
these
units
aren't
for
aren't
only
for
iu
students
right.
So
the
you
know
the
question.
The
question
is
making
the
point
that
if
the,
if
the
number
of
students
seeking
housing
in
the
neighborhoods
decreases,
then
more
housing
stock
will
become
available
and
that's
great
that
could
happen.
We
hope
you
know.
That
sounds
great.
A
If
the
goal
of
the
community
is
to
increase
our
occupancy
and
availability
for
first-time
homebuyers,
then
that's
going
toward
that
goal,
but
we
don't
think
that
means
we
shouldn't
try
other
things,
because
we
don't
know.
If
that's
going
to
happen
for
sure
we
don't
know
what
that
effect
will
be
exactly.
A
I
do
think
that
the
way
young
people
look
at
and
buy
housing
or
rent
housing
now
is
changing
and
is
different.
Then
maybe
they
then
maybe
they
did
as
a
group.
You
know
40
30
years
ago.
So
yes,
I
do
think
people
would
live
in
group,
housing
situations
or
multiplex
situations
or
even
in
apartments.
I
don't
think
that's
precluded
at
all,
and
it
isn't
also
it
isn't
just
young
working
people
right.
A
It's
people
who
right
now
own
homes
in
downtown
areas
and
downtown
area
neighborhoods
that
are
going
to
be
too
big
for
them
to
maintain
in
five
years,
but
they
don't
want
to
move
all
the
way
out.
You
know
to
the
south
side
of
town
and
they
want
to
stay
where
they
raise
their
children
or
in
the
you
know,
areas
where
their
friends
and
and
things
that
they're
used
to
being
around
are
that
it's
also
for
people.
A
It's
also
for
that
demographic
as
well-
and
it's
all
you
know
it's
also
for
people
who
have
gone
away
to
school
and
want
to
come
back
and
live
in
areas
where
they've
lived
before,
and
we
just
we
aren't
mandating
them.
We
would
just
like
them
to
be
an
option
if
possible
keegan
did
you
have
one
sorry.
A
By
that
sure,
so
in
a
new
world
I
mean
we
are
in
the
time
of
covet.
Things
are
different
and
changing
all
the
time,
and
I
think
we
spoke
a
little
bit
about
this.
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
last
week
but,
for
example,
one
regulatory
change
we're
looking
at
is
that
the
code
regulates
how
you
can
work
from
home,
that
if
you
want
to
work
from
home
or
run
a
business,
there
is
a
maximum
square
footage
you
can
use
in
your
house.
A
For
that
purpose,
there
are
limitations
on
who
can
come
visit
you
what
you
know
what
sort
of
deliveries
you
can
receive.
All
of
these
things
that
last
year
or
the
year
before
or
five
years
ago
or
when
they
got
put
in
the
code
in
2007,
seemed
appropriate
and
neighborhoods
wanted
them
in
because
they
wanted
to
stay
primarily
residential,
and
that
makes
perfect
sense.
But
now
a
large
portion
of
the
community
is
either
by
choice
or
being
forced
to
work
from
home
for
a
good
chunk
of
their
time.
A
So
so
we
have
learned
in
this
because
of
covid
and
its
effects
that
hey
a
lot
of
people
who
have
more
kind
of
office,
space
or
internet-based
jobs
can
do
a
lot
of
work
from
home
and
and
they
are-
and
we
may
need
to
change
our
regulations
to
to
come
up
to
that,
to
update
to
those
to
the
reality
of
how
life
is
going
now.
Will
we
all
go
back?
Will
we
be
doing
this?
A
And
you
know
if
we
were
doing
this
in
a
year
or,
however
long
it
takes
to
figure
out?
Would
we
all
just
be
in
the
council
chambers?
Maybe?
But
we
we
don't
know,
and
so
I
think,
related
to
residential
options.
We
have.
You
can
see
that
there's
been
a
trend
that,
because
people
are
learning
that
they
can
work
from
home
and
work
online.
A
Some
young
people
are
moving
home
to
places
where
they
were
not
choosing
to
live
before,
because
they
want
to
be
close
to
family
because
they
want
to
be
able
to.
You
know
be
around
parents
or
siblings,
or
you
know
just
moving
to
places
that
maybe
didn't
seem
like
viable
options
based
on
what
their
employment
choices
were
before
covid
and
now,
because
a
lot
of
things
are
moving
online,
they
are
viable
options
and
we
think
that
that
will
change
a
little
bit,
the
landscape
of
who
is
trying
to
move
here.
A
So
we
do
have
economic
drivers
in
the
community
for
workforces
that
are
located
in
bloomington.
We
have
catalan,
that's
expanding.
We
are
working
on
development
of
the
trades
district.
You
know
we
have
a
downtown
located
businesses
as
well
that
are
large
and
growing,
but
we
also
need
to
look
at
that
sector
that
maybe
won't
be
based
here
economically,
but
would
want
to
be
here
because
of
the
quality
of
life
that
they
know
is
here
because
they
have
family
here.
A
We
think
that
that
that
that
could
have
a
large
effect.
I
mean
that
as
of
july,
a
majority
of
of
young
adults,
52
percent-
I
think
it
was
the
pew
research
said-
are
living
with
their
parents.
That's
the
most
since
the
depression
that
that's
different.
You
know
people
are
looking
to
live,
maybe
looking
to
live
differently
than
we
traditionally
have
been,
and
so
we're
trying
to
provide
options.
A
The
answer
about
council
was
because
some
individuals
keep
saying
council
already
answered
this,
and
that
is
true,
but
changing
regulations
or
proposing
changes
to
regulations,
because
the
characteristics
or
the
details
of
what's
happening
on
the
ground.
So,
for
example,
covid
have
changed,
is
going
to
happen.
Proposing
changes
to
regulations
will
happen,
and
we
think
that
it
makes
sense
to
bring
this
forward
again.
B
So,
jackie
again,
it's
also
really
important
for
everyone
to
point
out
that
the
the
way
that
the
code
was
written
and
the
language
that
was
put
in
for
the
youth
specific
standards,
the
legal
department
said,
was
going
to
be
very
difficult,
if
not
impossible
to
administer.
So
there
was
a
lot
of
cleanup
that
we
had
to
do
to
the
language
that
was
written
and
approved
for
this.
B
C
A
A
This
is
an
issue
now
right,
so
we're
trying
to
improve
to
increase
the
availability
of
housing
now,
and
we
think
that
plexus
is
one
way
to
do
that
tying
those
to
the
eventual
development
of
two
areas
that
you
know
I
mean
the
hospital's
still
open.
That's
not
that's
not
happening
now,
obviously,
and
tying
that
to
two
kind
of
private
development
potential.
Private
development
areas
is
not
something
that
that
we
would
like
to
do.
B
But
also,
you
know
again
with
the
hospital
that
was
an
area
with
it
being
a
kind
of
a
clean
slate
redevelopment.
We
wanted
to
see
a
mix
of
housing
types
duplexes
triplexes,
so
we
needed
to
write
the
language
for
that
and
map
it
with
the
zoning
code
to
allow
for
that
to
happen
within
the
hospital
site.
So
that
was
one
of
the
goals
and
why
we're
also
bringing
this
forward
to
address
it
now.
Yeah
good
point.
A
I
have
time
for
a
few
more,
I
think,
okay,
so
I've
gotten
some
comments,
I'm
so
sorry
that
the
we
have
all
the
comments
and
they
have
not
gone
up
on
the
website.
We
actually
all
are
still
doing
all
of
our
normal
things
and
we
just
haven't
had
time
to
finish
them,
so
they
will
go
up
and
sooner
rather
than
later,
I
hope
we
we
will
be
trying
to
consolidate
them
so
that
they
can
be
easily
digested.
A
Those
that
are
similar
to
be
grouped
and
another
person
said
you
know.
Sometimes
when
someone
points
out
something
interesting.
Can
you
note
in
the
notes
that
that's
something
you're
considering
and
we
will
do
that
so?
Yes,
we
anticipated
that
that
would
be
something
we
could
quickly
get
to
and
we
weren't
able
to
do
that
with
our
other
workload,
so
that
will
be
coming
and
yeah
and
it
will
be
up
on
the
website
as
soon
as
we
can.
D
Sure
I
have
a
question
sure
this
question
is
about
parking
standards.
What
parking
standards
will
be
changed
along
with
this
proposal,
and
they
mentioned
how
many
students
bring
cars
and
how
many
of
these
neighborhoods
are
already
very
full
with
as
far
as
parking
goes
so
will
parking
standards
should
be
changed
as
a
part
of
this.
A
Sure
so
I
believe
you
guys
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
that
plexus
require
on-site
parking
based
on
the
number
of
bedrooms
in
the
building,
so
that
is
different
than
single
family
housing.
So
that's
another
layer
of
regulation
for
plexus
that
they
don't
have,
and
that
is
already
in
the
code
and
additionally,
just
as
a
side
note.
Actually
the
american
community
survey,
which
is
run
by
the
u.s
census
for
this
town,
has
noted
that
homeowners
actually
have
more
cars
than
renters
here.
A
A
Per
bedroom-
oh
thank
you,
sorry
great,
and
that
came
up
last
week.
We
will.
It
is
already
up
on
the
website
because
it
is
in
the
code,
it's
it's
in
the
udo
on
the
planning
and
transportation
website,
but
we
will
add
a
link
so
that
if
you
go
to
look
for
these
resources,
you
can
follow
the
link
to
get
to
the
planning
regulation.
I
mean
I'm
sorry.
The
parking
regulations.
D
Sure
yeah,
this
is
a
question.
Sorry
to
this
person.
I
don't
your
name.
Rego
wood
is
the
the
name,
but
I
didn't
get
to
this
question
yet
they
said.
Multiplex
represents
a
huge
danger
to
residential
neighborhoods
near
campus.
They
bring
irresponsible
residents
who
spread
trash
and
make
noise
et
cetera,
is.
Are
there
any
protections
for
these
problems
in
the
r4.
A
A
A
So
thank
you
again
for
coming
more
information
will
go
up
on
the
website
as
we
are
able
to
produce
it,
and
tomorrow
night
we
will
be
discussing
more
technical
text
amendments
in
kind
of
a
more
general
way,
but
I'm
also
looking
for.
We
will
be
reaching
out
to
practitioners
to
see
you
know
we're
looking
to
make
sure
that
the
code
is
working.
The
way
it's
supposed
to
and
that's
what
tomorrow
night
will
be
focused
on.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
being
here
and
have
a
good
evening.