►
From YouTube: Bloomington Plan Commission, March 6, 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).
B
B
A
All
right
we
do
have
a
quorum,
so
we
will
proceed.
Let
me
first
just
give
a
quick
preview
of
the
agenda
for
this
evening.
It's
a
fairly
light
Jenna,
maybe
not
quite
as
light
as
last
month,
but
we've
got
some
minutes
to
approve
reports.
Resolution
Communications,
two
petitions
that
have
been
on
the
agenda
that
we
won't
here
tonight.
One
that's
been
tabled
is
sp-24-22.
A
A
We
do
have
one
petition
tonight:
12
25,
East,
Maxwell,
Lane,
Robert,
Lee
and
Mariam
atashami,
and
we
have
four
zoting
ordinance
amendments
on
our
agenda
tonight.
So
all
of
that
is
coming
up
shortly,
but
first
we
will
start
with
the
minutes
to
be
approved.
We
have
minutes
from
the
February
6th
meeting.
A
Is
there
a
second
second
all
right?
We
have
a
Motion
in
a
second,
because
we
do
have
some
remote
participants
tonight
we're
going
to
call
the
roll
on
absolutely
everything
just
to
make
sure
we've
got
it
our
records,
nice
and
neat.
So
Jackie.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
calling
the
role
on
the
motion
to
approve
the
minutes.
B
D
F
F
We
are
glad
to
be
back
to
a
full
board
and
I
will
say
I
emailed
you
all
the
same
table
that
you
already
got
related
to
the
Amendments
I
went
ahead
and
went
through
and
numbered
the
PDF
pages
so
that,
while
we're
going
through
tonight,
if
you
want
to
pop
from
page
to
page
or
when
you're,
especially
interested
in
or
something
be
a
little
easier
to
find
than
through
the
references,
so
that
should
be
in
your
inboxes
in
case.
You
need
to
use
that
and.
H
A
Yes,
thank
you,
I
think
I
think
you
speak
for
all
of
us,
commissioner.
Brill.
A
Oh,
that's
a
that's
a
clapping,
not
a
not
a
raised
hand.
All
right
can't
can't
quite
keep
my
Emojis
straight
from
from
this
distance,
all
right,
any
other
reports
or
Communications
from
commissioners.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
so
we
will
now
move
on
to
petition
dp-53-22
again.
This
is
a
request
for
primary
plot
approval
to
allow
a
two
lot
subdivision
at
1225,
East,
Maxwell,
Lane
and
I.
Believe
we've
got
case
manager,
Gabriel
holbro
here
to
present
take
it
away.
Gabriel,
yes,.
E
Okay,
you
know
I'm
Gabriel
holbrow,
a
zoning
planner
for
planning
of
Transportation
Department.
E
This
petition
is
for
primary
plot
approval
to
allow
us
two
lot
subdivision
in
the
residential
small
lot.
The
R3
zoning
District.
E
The
properties
located
at
1225
East,
Maxwell
Lane,
so
that's
the
northwest
corner
of
East
Maxwell
Lane
and
South
Highland
Avenue,
it's
located
in
the
R3
zoning
District
neighboring
properties
to
the
north,
east
and
west
are
also
in
R3.
Of
these.
The
properties
to
the
north
and
also
the
east
across
Highland,
are
located
in
the
Alma
Heights
historic
district
properties
to
the
South
across
Maxwell
Lane
are
located
in
R2.
E
E
So
the
petitioner
is
requesting
primary
plot
approval
to
allow
two
lots
subdivision
of
0.4
acres
in
the
R3
District
they're,
also
requesting
a
delegation
of
secondary
plot
approval
to
staff.
No
new
public
streets
are
proposed
all
right.
Essentially,
The
Proposal
is
a
simple
idea.
It's
taking
one
lot
and
making
it
into
two.
E
There
are
a
lot
of
complicated
details,
but
the
big
picture
is
just
that
one
lot
into
two
with
no
New
Roads
one
of
the
complicated
details.
The
plan
commission
previously
approved
a
final.
Would
we
now
call
a
secondary
plot
for
a
similar
two
dot,
two
lots
of
division
of
this
property
in
2001.,
that
was
case
number
dp0501,
but
the
final
plot
was
never
recorded
and
the
plot
is
since
expired,
so
we're
starting
from
the
beginning
again.
E
E
Sorry,
let's
see
which
includes
so
in
this
in
our
three
District,
the
minimum
lot
size
is
5000
square
feet.
Minimum
lot
width
is
50
feet.
Both
the
Lots
meet
that
lot.
One
is
proposed
at
over
six
thousand
square
feet
proposed
lot.
Two
is
over
9
000
square
feet
in
the
with
with
front
the
lot
to
us,
Frontage
on
both
Maxwell
and
Highland
lot.
One
has
60
feet
of
lot
width
along
Maxwell,
Lane.
E
The
setbacks
for
you'll
notice
here
on
setbacks
for
the
existing
structure.
The
existing
structure
has
two
lawful
non-conforming
setbacks.
They
will
not
be
affected
by
the
proposal
division.
First
of
all,
on
the
north
side,
it's
located
less
than
the
required
minimum
six
feet
from
the
property
line.
Second,
the
house
is
located
farther
than
the
required
build
to
line
of
15
feet.
E
If
a
new
house
were
built
here
would
have
to
be
at
15
feet
from
Maxwell
Lane,
and
it's
farther
than
that,
but
there's
no
requirement
in
the
Udo
that
these
existing
lawful
non-conformities
be
resolved.
In
order
for
the
subdivision
plot
to
be
to
be
approved,.
E
The
existing
house
will
have
compliant
side
setback
from
the
proposed
new
side,
property
line
separating
Lots
one
and
two,
so
that
is
a
requirement
of
subdivision
that
you're
not
creating
new
non-conformities
of
that
type,
and
this
is
a
meeting
that
the
proposed
subdivision
includes
new
dedicated
right-of-way.
The
transportation
plan
calls
for
a
60
foot
wide
right-of-way
for
both
Maxwell
Lane
and
Highland
Avenue.
E
You
also
notice
that
there's
extra
right-of-way
at
the
corner
to
make
that
curve,
so
the
Udo
requires
that
property
line
Corners
be
rounded,
with
arcs
rate
with
radii,
not
less
than
25
feet.
Here
we
have
a
radius
of
25
feet,
doesn't
change
anything
on
the
ground
yet,
but
that
does
is
a
dedication
to
the
city
for
extra
right-of-way
in
case
that's
useful
for
sight
lines
or
Transportation
or
whatever
is
necessary,
as
required
by
the
Udo
one
thing
to
pay
attention
to
with
the
right-of-way
dedication
you
can
see
here.
E
Some
of
the
the
house
stretches
or
sorry.
This
is
a
view
of
the
what
you
might
call
the
front
of
the
house.
This
is
a
photo
from
2014,
so
it's
a
little
old
but
I
believe
the
features
are
still
there.
This
is
the
house
from
Highland
Avenue
and
you
can
see
between
the
house
and
the
sidewalk
there.
We
have
a
fence,
a
deck,
brick
walls,
a
brick
patio.
E
E
E
The
right-of-way
dedication
will
also
create
a
new
non-conformity
because,
by
moving
the
moving
the
front
property
line
along
the
edge
of
right-of-way
along
Highland
Avenue,
the
existing
house
will
be
in
some
places
a
little
bit
more
than
the
15-foot
Bill
to
line
in
some
places.
A
little
bit
less.
E
E
So
we
talked
about
that.
The
other
thing
another
detail
here
is
pedestrian
facilities
and
the
tree
plot.
So
it's
sort
of
highlighted
along
here
the
area
where
there
are
sidewalks
now.
E
So
Maxwell
lean
and
Highland
Avenue
are
classified
as
neighborhood
residential
streets
by
the
transportation
plan.
The
design
parameters
in
table
five
of
the
transportation
plan
call
for
a
six
foot
sidewalk
and
a
five
foot
wide
greenskate
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
curb
on
this
type
of
street.
However,
the
plan
also
authorizes
the
director
of
planning
and
transportation
to
approve
different
dimensions
based
on
specific
site
conditions.
E
In
this
instance,
the
specific
site
conditions
include
that
there's
already
an
existing
four
and
a
half
foot
sidewalk,
without
separation,
from
the
curb
not
only
adjacent
to
this
property,
but
around
the
entire
circumference
of
this
block.
Moving
and
widening
the
sidewalks.
Only
adjacent
to
the
proposed
subdivision
would
bring
this
portion
of
the
sidewalk
out
of
alignment
with
the
contiguous
Network
indefinitely.
Reducing
the
connectivity
of
The
Pedestrian
Network.
E
A
newly
dedicated
public
right-of-way
will
provide
a
Greenscape
of
approximately
10
feet
wide
at
the
back
of
the
sidewalk.
So
the
translation
plan
calls
for
the
curb
the
tree
plot.
Then
the
sidewalk
that's
preferred
for
a
lot
of
different
reasons,
but
in
this
situation
what's
proposed
we
will
still
have
a
tree
plot.
It
will
just
be
curb
sidewalk,
Venture
plot.
E
So
the
existing
sidewalks
The
Proposal
is
to
keep
the
existing
layout
that
has
been
approved
by
planning
of
Transportation
as
authorized
by
the
transportation
plan,
but
in
any
case
the
existing
sidewalk
has
to
meet
standards
for
adequacy,
including
compliance
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities,
Act
Ada,
and
also
the
public
right-of-way
accessibility
guidelines
prowag.
E
So
we're
we
don't
have
full
information
on
the
current
accessibility
of
the
sidewalk,
but
the
current
assumption
is
that
all
the
panels
are
fine
and
in
adequate
condition,
but
that
the
there
are
two
features
which
don't
quite
meet
existing
Pro
egg
guidelines.
One
of
them
is
the
doesn't
show
up
very
well
here,
but
there's
a
a
drive
cut.
This
is
on
Maxwell
Lane
on
what
will
be
lot
one.
The
vacant
lot,
there's
an
existing
Drive
cut
there,
which
appears
to
not
be
not
meet
current
Pro
AG.
E
That
would
have
to
be
replaced
as
part
of
final
plot.
Similarly,
the
curb
ramp
at
the
corner.
This
is
a
picture.
This
is
in
2014,
so
it's
not
totally
up
to
date,
but
my
understanding
is
that
it's
still
the
current
condition
there.
That
would
have
to
be
upgraded
as
well.
If
that
turns
out
to
to
not
be
compliant
with
prayer
lag,
the
overall
layout
of
the
sidewalk
is
being
proposed
as
consistent
with
the
transportation
plan.
E
This
is
also
the
issue
of
Street
trees.
So
again
we
don't
have
a
new
tree
plot
between
a
new
sidewalk
and
the
curb,
but
we
do
have
a
new
tree
plot
created
and
right-of-way
because
of
the
right-of-way
dedication
on
the
back
side
of
the
sidewalk,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
trees
in
there.
As
you
could
see
in
the
previous
pictures,
the
petitioner
submitted
a
markup
of
the
plot
showing
the
location
of
existing
trees,
which
will
become
Street
trees.
E
There's
a
lot
of
trees
in
there.
Some
of
them
are,
none
of
them
are
invasive,
so
none
of
them
are
required
to
be
taken
out,
but
some
of
them
don't
meet
the
qualifications
for
being
large
canopy
trees,
so
they
don't
count
toward
the
street
tree
requirement
of
the
16
or
so
trees
that
were
marked
there.
We
have
a
honey,
locust,
elm
tree
Sycamore
and
then
two
White
Oaks,
including
one
on
the
corner,
which
all
meet
the
standards
in
the
current
Udo
as
large
canopy
Street
trees.
E
So
those
counter
requirements,
the
requirement-
is
to
have
four
along
Maxwell
Lane,
at
least
four
long,
Maxwell
Lane
at
least
three
along
Highland,
based
on
the
width
of
those
frontages.
So
we've
got
four
and
Maxwell
and
one
on
the
corner
that
can
count
for
Highlands.
So
we
need
two
more
Street
trees
on
Highland
staff
recommends
a
condition
for
a
secondary
plaque
to
provide
those
trees.
E
E
The
proposed
finding
is
that
the
plot
is
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
allowing
new
infill
development
in
a
centrally
located
neighborhood.
That
quote,
respects
the
prevailing
character
and
development
pattern
of
adjacent
properties,
which
is
a
quote
from
the
comprehensive
plan.
There
are
no
expected
adverse
impacts
as
a
result
of
this
plot.
There
are
no
known
Natural,
Science,
Scenic
or
historic
features
of
significant
importance
on
this
site.
E
E
The
conclusion
in
the
staff
report
is
that
the
proposed
subdivision
meets
the
intent
of
the
Udo
and
with
recommended
conditions,
we'll
fully
comply
with
all
standards
in
the
Edo.
The
small
two
lot
subdivision
is
appropriate
infill
development
within
an
already
developed
neighborhood.
The
remaining
issues
to
resolve
are
of
a
technical
nature
and
do
not
affect
the
overall
intent
or
design
of
the
subdivision.
So
the
department
finds
that
the
request
to
delegate
secondary
Platt
approval
to
staff
is
appropriate.
E
E
The
second
has
to
do
with
the
accessibility
of
the
sidewalks.
As
we
mentioned
prior
to
secondary
plot
approval,
the
petitioner
shall
submit
an
assessment
of
the
condition
of
the
existing
sidewalk,
including
compliance
with
the
Ada
and
pralag
for
review
and
approval
by
both
planning
and
transportation
and
engineering,
and
then
reconstruction
or
correction
of
any
non-compliant
features
identified
in
the
assessment
shall
be
required.
E
The
third
recommendation
has
to
do
with
the
street
trees,
essentially
that
the
secondary
plot
will
show
street
street
trees
enough
to
meet
all
the
requirements.
That
is
four
on
Maxwell
and
three
on
Highland.
The
fourth
recommended
condition
has
to
do
with
the
zoning
commitment
for
the
for
the
sidewalk.
This
is
similar
to
the
type
of
zoning
commitment
that
gets
attached
to
a
sidewalk
variants
called
a
determinate
sidewalk
variants.
Thank
you
which
is
saying
that
they
don't
have
to
build
a
sidewalk
now,
but
they
might
happen
to
have
two
in
the
future.
A
Thank
you,
Gabriel.
Is
there
a
a
representative
of
the
petitioner
who
would
like
to
add
anything
to
the
presentation
tonight.
E
Yeah
I
want
to
alert.
We
have
Mr
Lee
here
in
the
room
and
then
also
Mr
Graham
was
on
the
zoom
a
minute
ago.
I,
don't
know
if
you
plan
on
having
him
speak
or
not,
but
there
there's
two
two
people,
one
in
the
room
and
one
on
Zoom.
A
Well,
if
you're
in
the
room
feel
free
to
just
approach
the
podium
and
state
your
name
for
the
record.
I
I
Than
I
will
and
then
Doug
will
get
on
I
think
if
he
comes
back
and
you
know
he'll
just
tell
you-
we've
been
working
with
them
on
the
the
sidewalk
issues,
the
technical
things
to
to
to
resolve
and
fix
you
know
before
it
can
be
legally
recorded.
I
I
I
You
know
it's
not
into
you
know
at
the
neighbor's
property,
it's
just
not
very
conducive
to
putting
a
sidewalk
in,
but
the
and
then
I
found,
especially
now
with
you
know,
just
kind
of
climate
crisis
we're
in
the
idea
of
cutting
down
trees
just
seemed
like
a
a
bad
idea.
I
You
know
I
think
we
need
to
maintain
any
tree
canopy
we
can
in
the
city
if
we
can,
but
so
we're
working
with
the
Planning
Commission
to
try
and
or
I
mean
with
the
planning
department,
to
try
and
work
out
any
technical
issues
and
like
I,
say
I,
think
it's
fairly
simple,
so
I
would
hope
it
goes
that
way.
So,
thank
you
very
much.
J
Things
to
know
to
bring
it
up
to
a
city
cub
and
didn't
have
time
to
prepare
a
an
official
report.
But
that's
about
all
I.
A
K
Ahead,
thank
you
and
and
I
appreciate
that
Mr
Lee
talking
about
it.
So
the
two
questions
I
have
I
guess:
first,
one
maybe
is
for
Mr
Lee
is.
Are
there
concerns
in
a
neighborhood
about
you
know
whatever
is
going
on
with
the
with
the
property
it
talks
about
that
there's.
The
petition
rest
should
make
good
faith
effort
to
address
concerns
that
adjoining
property
owners
and
immediate
neighborhood.
If
you
know
such
a
meeting
is
required
was
are
there
concerns
that
are
going
on
that
we
need
to
understand.
I
Not
that
I'm
completely
aware
of
I
think
there's
a
kind
of
an
ugly
buzzword
out
there.
Now
that's
been
created.
You
know
in
the
last
few
years,
duplex,
that's
and
so
I've
had
some
people
ask
me
and
I
said
that
that's
really
not
what
this
is
about
anyway.
I
So
and
when
I've
people
have
come
to
me
and
talked
to
me,
they
seem
very
satisfied
with
what's
going
on,
but
you
know
just
the
people
I've
talked
to
anyway.
I
K
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
Lee,
I
appreciate
it
and
I.
Have
one
more
question:
can
I
ask
it
president
Miss
Scanlon
what
uses
are
allowed
in
our
three
district
for
such
a
property.
E
Oh
yeah,
so
primarily
single
family
there
are
single
family
is
by
right.
Duplex
would
be
allowed
by
conditional
use
permit
with
the
conditions
that
go
along
with
duplex,
including
a
buffer
around
any
other
duplexes
permitted
by
conditional
use.
Also
conditional
uses
have
to
have
a
public
hearing.
E
We've
gone
through
I
believe
three
so
far
in
the
past
12
months,
so
so
duplex
would
be
allowed
as
a
conditional
use.
It
would
require
public
hearing.
Neighbors
would
get
noticed
there
being
opportunity
to
present
about
it.
E
There
are
a
few
other
buy
right,
uses
a
lot
in
the
districts
that
are
generally
compatible
with
single
family
Urban
agriculture
then
also
accessory
uses
like
home
daycare
artist
studio
there's
also,
you
can
get
a
conditional
use
for
a
home
occupation,
but
it's
generally,
the
the
purpose
of
the
R3
district
is
a
for
the
residential
use,
primarily
single
family,
with
the
conditional
for
duplex.
So
that's
so
other
commercial
uses,
industrial
uses
gas
stations
or
things
like
that.
Just
simply
are
not
allowed.
H
Number
two,
and
specifically,
if,
if
the
sidewalk
is
found
to
be
not
in
compliance
with
Ada
or
the
raw
way,
they
have
to
fix
it
or
it
has
to
be
fixed
now
and
I
presume
that's
before
the
plot
is
recorded.
Is
that
is
that
correct,
yeah.
E
You're
correct
that
it
has
to
be
fixed
now,
technically
speaking,
the
plot
is
recorded
first
and
then
they
have
up
to
if
you're
getting
the
number
of
years,
but
possibly
one
year
to
to
so
that
when
they
record
it,
they
put
a
performance
bond
and
then
they
have
a
certain
amount
of
time
to
finish
it.
If
they
don't,
then
the
city
calls
the
bond
to
finish
the
work
themselves.
E
So
so
technically
it
happens
after
recording
of
the
plot,
but
essentially
it
happens
simultaneously,
and
so
it
happens
now
it
doesn't
happen
some
vague
date
sometime
in
the
features.
H
E
H
In
some
ways,
would
it
be
fair
to
describe
that
as
a
public
benefit
that
because
the
the
property
is
being
planted,
and
now
this
needs
to
be
at
least
reviewed
and
then
corrected?
If
it's
found
to
be
non-compliant
that
having
that
herb
or
that
rounded
Corner
that
looks
like
it
is
not
necessarily
ADA
Compliant
I
I'm,
not
a
judge,
so
of
that
so
I
don't
know,
but
if
it's
demonstrated
to
not
being
blind
and
then
if,
where
I
saw,
the
driveway
put
that
those
would
actually
be
in
to
the
sidewalk
for
accessibility.
E
I
I'm
not
sure
if
public
benefit
is
it
has
a
technical
definition
anywhere
or
in
any
you
know,
tradition
or
whatever,
but
just
speaking
generally,
yes,
that
that's
a
benefit
that
for
the
public,
that
is
as
a
condition
of
subdivision
approval.
The
Udo
is
asking
for
certain
things
to
be
brought
up
to
what
the
city
expects
and
that's
that's
an
example
of
one
of
those
things
that
we
hope
will
benefit
the
public.
H
H
It
should
be
a
quick
one.
Well,
I
I
also
wondered
about
the
framing
of
the
phrase
in
the
event
that
which
I
think
is
a
you
know,
I
mean
that's
a
great
phrasing,
because
we
don't
know
when
there
might
be
some
other
work
to
be
done
around
and
the
need
to
align
those
sidewalks
and
I
wonder
if,
if
this
staff
have
any
idea
when
that
might
be
taken
up,
if
at
all
I
mean,
is
this
a
really
kind
of
far
distant
future?
H
Or
is
it
possible
that
there
might
be
some
work
that
would
need
to
be
done
or
that
would
that
would
be
considered?
That
is,
is
part
of
that
in
the
event
of
phrasing,
and
that's
that's
my
last
question.
Yeah.
E
We
looked
into
it.
There
are
absolutely
no
plans
of
any
stage
of
you,
know:
development
or
growth
to
redo
the
sidewalks
here,
either
publicly
or
privately.
At
this
time,
however,
the
as
the
Udo
and
or
more
specifically
the
transportation
plan,
makes
clear
it's
a
desire
of
the
city
to
to
upgrade
these
sidewalks.
E
So
there's
there's
a
there's,
a
desire
in
an
adopted
Transportation
plan,
but
there's
no
no
plans
on
the
books
to
implement
it
at
any
point
right
now,
so
the
condition
might
be
that
condition
for
a
very
long
time,
but
staff
felt
that
it
was
important
to
have
it
in
there
to
not
lose
that
opportunity
if
it
ever
came
along
in
the
future.
L
E
That's
correct
at
a
future
time
the
property
owner
of
lot
two
could
do
a
right-of-way
use.
Permit
application
to
modify
the
right-of-way
features
and
install
a
new
Drive
cut
up
to
one
would
be
compliant
with
the
Udo
as
well
at
18
feet
wide,
so
that
could
be
done
in
the
future.
E
If
that's
something
that
you
want
to
be
thinking
about,
so
so
in
the
future,
it
would
be
perfectly
allowable,
under
the
code
for
Lot
2,
to
have
an
118
foot
wide
driveway
off
of
either
Maxwell
or
Highland,
but
that's
not
part
of
the
proposal
at
this
time.
G
Thank
you,
I
think
I've
got
a
few
quick
questions,
one
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
for
the
petitioner
or
for
staff,
but
one
of
the
requests
is
for
the
secondary
plat
to
be
delegated
to
staff
and
I.
G
Hear
that
as
a
request,
and
also
just
noting
that
we've
had
a
series
of
similar
conditions
on
others,
similar
petitions
in
the
past
and
was
just
kind
of
curious
to
understand
that
knowing
we
have
a
plat
committee
as
well,
that
is
mostly
made
up
of
Staff
but
just
kind
of
curious
to
understand
the
nature
of
the
request
and,
and
it
just
explore
that
topic.
I
guess
a
little
bit
more.
G
E
Ask
you
know
what
the
possibility
of
Delegation
of
secondary
plot
to
the
plaque
committee,
as
opposed
to
just
staff.
E
Maybe
I'll
just
start
talking
and
Jackie
will
correct
me
when
I
say
something
wrong.
I
was
not
aware
that
that
was
an
option
to
delegate
to
the
black
committee.
F
Services
manager,
I
think
in
the
interest
of
timing
for
the
petitioners
in
cases
such
as
this
or
other
ones.
So
it's
kind
of
twofold
ones
that
are
very
simple
that
we
feel
like
we're
fleshed
out
enough
at
this
stage.
F
If
the
plan
commission
would
prefer
to
send
those
things
to
plaque
committee.
That
would
be
fine
as
well
with
us.
G
I
guess
a
question
to
the
petitioner
I
think
the
staff
report
covered
it,
but
with
the
right-of-way
dedication
like
a
note
that
there's
quite
a
bit
of
stuff
in
that
area,
that's
going
to
be
dedicated
as
right
away
like
just
making
sure
that
you're
aware
of
that
and
that
that
some
of
it
could
be
required
to
be
removed
by
the
Board
of
Public
Works
in
the
future
or
I
can't
speak
to
behalf
just
kind
of
curious
to
make
sure
your
understanding
of.
I
G
Thank
you
that
that
was
all
I
just
wanted
to
verify
that,
and
then
the
last
question
I
have
is
is
about
the
fourth
condition,
basically,
that
if
the
sidewalk
is
to
be
reconstructed
at
some
point
in
the
future,
the
property
owners
would
be
responsible
to
construct
it
I'm.
Just
knowing
how
projects
work.
G
E
E
If
the
city
comes
through
with
a
project,
it
would
make
sense
for
those
Property
Owners
to
contribute
their
fair
share
financially,
instead
of
actually
doing
the
work
themselves,
even
if
another
private
developer
had
some
reason
why
they
were
improving
the
whole
street,
it
might
make
sense
to
still
do
it
as
one
project
and
just
have
these
owners
contribute
financially.
So
if
you
have
ideas
about
a
better
way
to
phrase
that,
in
the
condition,
I
at
least
would
welcome
that
very
much.
A
M
A
A
D
A
Gabriel,
would
you
mind
bringing
the
staff
recommendation
back
up
onto
the
screen.
B
F
I
think
maybe
we
could
suggest
for
the
last
portion
of
the
of
number
four,
unless
you
wrote
something
Andrew
already,
which
currently
reads
at
that
time.
The
property
owners
of
the
subdivided
Lots
shall
be
required
to
construct
new
sidewalks
farther
from
the
curb
to
match
the
new
alignment.
Maybe
changing
that
to
something
like
at
that
time.
F
A
All
right,
so,
if
we're
going
to
have
a
motion
here,
you
can
make
the
motion
to
just
include
the
new
language
that
has,
as
just
stated,
by
staff
for
the
fourth
condition.
L
A
All
right
any
final
comments
before
we
call
the
roll
commissioner
Burrell.
M
Yes,
so
is
he
going
to
be
responsible
for
the
improvements
on
the
adjacent
property
or
or
in
his
own
lot?
One
and
lot
two.
E
So
I
I
think
I
can
answer
that
by
reading
back
the
proposed
language,
the
final
sentence
would
be:
where
does
it
start
in
the
event
that
new
sidewalks
adjacent
to
the
West
along
the
north
side
of
Maxwell
Lane
or
the
North
along
the
west
side
of
Highland
Avenue
or
ever
constructed?
According
to
the
dimensional
standards
in
the
transportation
plan?
Comma
this
part's
new?
N
A
Excellent
commissioner
St
John
is
it's.
Your
motion
stand
with
the
the
the
new
condition,
as
appears
on
the
screen.
Yeah.
L
Yes,
the
amended
fourth
condition
are.
A
G
K
A
A
All
right
motion
carries
and
the
petition
is
approved.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
We
will
now
move
on
to
our
series
of
Udo
amendments.
We
have
four
of
them
and
I
believe
Jackie.
Are
you
going
to
be
presenting
these?
F
F
Okay,
so
thank
you.
So,
as
Mr
Whistler
said,
we
have
a
series
of
four
text,
Amendment
ordinances
to
go
through
tonight
and
the
first
is
z00423
just
as
a
reminder.
We
have
been
coming
forward
once
a
calendar
year
with
text
amendments
that
we
have
worked
on
throughout
the
previous
year
to
address
issues
that
have
been
raised
or
items
that
have
come
from
playing
commission
or,
if
we've
occasionally
done
larger
policy
items,
but
typically
kind
of
smaller,
addressing
a
smaller
issues
and
clean
up.
So
the
last
became
effective
in
June
of
22..
F
You
actually
saw
a
more
recent
ordinance
change
when
we
did
the
tro
at
the
end
of
last
year
earlier
this
year,
but
this
is
part
of
our
regular
maintenance
ordinance.
So
the
first
one
is
the
technical
Corrections
ordinance.
The
petition
contains
a
number
of
Corrections
or
clarifications.
One
of
those
things
is
basically
just
running
a
spell
check
and
we
had
some
misspelled
words
from
the
tro
process
that
we
needed
to
take
care
of,
and
some
Extra
Spaces
or
lacking
parentheses
from
other
updates.
F
We've
done
where
the
the
update
has
had
made
something
a
tiny
bit
off.
We
had
just
regular
misspelled
words
or
misplay
a
couple
of
misplaced
references,
a
formatting
error
related
to
Vision
clearance
triangle,
we've
discussed
before
and
so
in
total.
There
are
19
listed
some
appearing
multiple
times
in
code,
and
so
these
are
for
clarity,
so
I
will
just
briefly
go
show
you
the
red
line.
F
The
first
one
is
basically
in
the
table
of
overlay:
sorry
of
zoning
districts,
downtown
character.
Overlay
appears
twice.
F
We
have
a
spell
a
number
of
spelling
errors,
some
table
labels
that
were
incorrect
in
chapter
four
and
then
again,
as
I
mentioned
the
vision,
clear
and
triangle
issue
that
is
in
here
a
number
of
times,
I
think
four
or
five
times
and
a
reference
that
was
left
over
from
the
old
code,
getting
rid
of
a
duplicate
definition
and
then
just
a
couple
of
clarifying
sentences
or
excuse
me
clarifying
words
and
some
of
the
definitions
at
the
end,
including
deleting
a
second
duplicate.
F
So
if
everyone's
had
a
chance
to
take
a
look,
I
could
answer
any
questions
or
if
you
have
ones
you
want
to
specifically
see.
Let
me
know.
A
A
F
F
This
petition
contains
amendments
for
chapter
three
related
to
use
specific
standards
for
uses
allowed
in
the
code,
they're
related
to
various
items,
including
alteration
to
the
required
non-residential
space
in
the
downtown
zoning
District,
which
is
something
that
was
requested
by
a
couple
of
the
flea
and
commission
members
at
a
public
meeting
and
discussed.
F
The
only
chapter
5
change
was
clarifying
how
we
regulate
existing
structures
involved
on
land
that
is
being
subdivided
or
as
we
call
it
lot
being
part
of
a
lot
line,
adjustment
which
is
exempt
from
subdivision,
because
the
code
hadn't
been
very
clear
about
how
to
deal
with
existing
development
on
those
lots
in
the
past,
and
then
we
have
chapter
7
amendments
that
chain
that
alter
a
few
of
our
definitions.
So
these
I
am
going
to
show
you
just
a
second,
because
I
think
these
were
one.
F
F
So
in
this
definition
of
basement,
it
lists
that
a
basement
shall
be
counted
as
a
story
for
determining
building
setbacks.
If
the
front
exterior
of
the
basement
of
the
excuse
me
front,
exterior
wall
of
the
basement
facing
the
street
is
not
completely
below
grade,
we
are
also
adding
there
and
a
number
of
stories,
because
now
in
the
code,
as
you
know,
in
the
since
the
update
of
2020,
we
regulate
stories
as
well
as
height,
and
so
whether
or
not
the
basement
is
counted
as
a
story
is
something
that's
impactful
and
the
co.
F
F
To
amend
the
definition
of
footprint
again,
footprint
is
typically
thought
of,
obviously
as
the
enclosed
space
of
a
building,
but
we
are
clarifying
that
for
those
buildings
that
don't
have
walls
that
we
still
can
have
a
defined
footprint
if
necessary.
So
that's
part
of
the
change
for
that's
that
word
there
that
one's
not
too
complicated.
F
We
are
proposing
to
change
the
definition
of
a
landscape
area
because
we
have
come
across
a
couple
of
times
in
enforcement
that
sometimes
a
developer
will
want
to,
for
example,
plant
some
sort
of
like
growing
Moss
or
something
on
the
top
of
a
wall
and
and
have
that
be
counting
toward
their
required.
Green
Space
open
space,
and
that's
not
really
the
purpose
of
the
open,
Green
Space.
F
So
we
would
like
to
add
a
clarifying
sentence
to
this
existing
definition,
which
would
stay
the
same,
and
the
sentence
would
say
areas
on
the
top
of
buildings,
walls
and
Planters
or
other
similar
areas
do
not
count
as
landscape
area
for
the
purpose
of
minimum
landscape
area
requirements.
We
already
do
that
in
practice,
but
just
to
clarify
for
them.
F
We've
had
that
question
as
well
for
green
roofs,
whether
or
not
that
should
count,
and
it
does
not
correspond
with
our
definition
of
impervious
surface,
which
excludes
buildings
so
just
to
clarify
there
and
then
also
adding
oops
I
skipped
one
sorry
clarifying
the
definition
of
grade
again
trying
to
get
at.
Sometimes
you
know
we
don't
have
a
very
flat
City
in
a
lot
of
places
so
being
able
to
Define.
These
terms,
for
average
finished
grade
is
something
that
we
talk
about
in
the
code
and
it
doesn't
have
a
good
definition.
F
So
here
we
have
finished
grade
and
we
would
be
adding
average
finished
grade,
which
is
the
midpoint
between
the
highest
exposed,
finished
grade
and
lowest
exposed
finish
grade
as
measured
at
a
minimum
of
four
feet
from
the
exterior
of
the
building
facade.
So
that's
a
pretty
typical
definition
so
that
you're
measuring
that
area,
not
from
you
know,
someone
just
piling
dirt
up
against
the
building,
but
from
slightly
further
out
on
site
for
a
more
realistic
View.
F
So
we
only
had
a
handful
of
of
our
own
definition
changes
the
last
one
that
we
had
is
in
the
definition
of
change
in
use,
and
that
is
clarifying
here.
You
can
see
in
the
parenthetical
that,
if
you
are
doing
an
individual
tenant
space
update
in
a
in
a
basically
what
you
would
think
of
as
like
a
strip
mall
that
you
don't
have
to
that's,
not
technically
a
change
in
use,
it
doesn't
require
full
site
compliance
again.
We
already
do
that
in
practice,
but
it
isn't
very
clear
in
the
definition.
F
F
F
We
obviously
had
some
have
had
some
discussions
at
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
and
then
again
here
at
plan
commission
about
what
that
number
should
be
when
we
talked
about
it
as
a
group
and
kind
of
came
to
a
consensus.
What
we
have
offered,
basically,
is
you
can
see
it
here
is
changing,
instead
of
instead
of
just
a
straight
50
percent
of
the
ground
floor
area
being
required
to
be
non-residential
on
the
streets
on
this
map.
F
It
it's
or
5000
square
feet,
whichever
is
less
and
then
a
clarification
of
what
types
of
areas
count
as
non-residential,
because
we
have
heard
some
questions
about
that
in
the
past
or
that's
better.
We
don't
feel
comfortable
going
completely
to
zero,
because
the
comprehensive
plan
is
pretty
clear
that
it
once
does
not
want
residential
on
the
outward
facing
ground
floor
in
these
areas.
F
So
we
think
that
that
there
may
be
room
for
that
discussion,
but
we
it
would
need
to
be
a
comprehensive
Plan
update
first,
and
so
that
may
be
something
that
we
end
up
tackling
again,
but
at
this
stage,
without
doing
that,
update
first
I
think
we
felt
comfortable
going
down
to
this.
It
doesn't
solve
everyone's
problems,
but
does
open
it
up
a
little
bit
more
for
some
other
options
and
I
would
say
of
of
zo0523.
That's
probably
the
one
that
would
will
Garner
the
most
discussion
and
I
can
answer
any
questions.
O
Well,
it's
more
of
a
comment:
I
could
form
it
into
a
question,
but
I
guess
I'm
I
understand
why
it's
here,
it's
kind
of
the
nomenclature
or
the
terminology
being
used
as
one
percent
chance
to
include
the
hundred
year.
Flood
plain
I
guess
now.
These
are
conversations
I've
had
at
the
county
and
kind
of
across
the
state
with
other
agencies,
but
I
think
Christopher,
Burke
being
the
largest
notable
a
person
I've
listened
to
where
we're
occurring
the
same
type
of
flooding,
but
it's
outside
of
the
hundred
year,
flood
and
I.
O
Think
also.
It
gives
like
this
other
notion
that
this
only
occurs
every
100
Years
and
we're
seeing
these
areas
being
more
developed
which
cause
more
restrictions
in
our
drainage
ways.
So
we
do
see
some
of
the
same
impacts
that
are
outside
of
the
hundred
year
that
we're
typically
kind
of
defined
by
that
one
percent.
So
adding
the
hundred
year
I
think
has
a
misconception
of
how
frequent
this
may
occur.
O
O
So
I
understand
why
it's
there
it's
been
used
and
known
as
the
hundred
year
flood
plain,
but
I
I,
don't
know
how
much
we
would
want
to
add
that
back
into
our
ordinance,
because
again,
I
feel
like
it's
somewhat
misleading,
because
we
see
that
type
of
storm
more
frequently
and
I.
Guess
if
you
wanted
to
address
that,
since
you
are
bringing
these
revisions
to
us
today,.
F
Sure
so
I
think
I
could
be
wrong,
so
you
can
point
me
to
exactly
what
you're
talking
about,
but
first
of
all,
okay.
So
these
definitions
come
from
the
state
and
they're
mandatory.
We
have
to
use
them,
but
I
do
think
that
they
have
made
an
attempt
to
address
that
issue
in
a
number
of
these
definitions,
like
for
area
of
special
flood
Hazard
or
flood
Hazard
area.
Why?
Those
are
two
definitions:
I,
don't
know
special
flood
Hazard
area.
F
They
are
calling
it
the
one
percent,
as
opposed
to
calling
it
The,
Hundred
Year,
so
I
think
they
are
trying
to
get
away
from
that
and
leaving
it
in
like,
for
example,
in
the
base
flood,
because
for
what
you've
said
that
people
know
that
term
and
know
what
it
means.
But
yeah
I
agree
that
that
is
has
always
been
unclear.
F
What
that
means,
and
that
the
more
we
can,
the
more
we
can
point
out,
one
that
it's
a
one
percent
or
greater
chance
of
being
flooded
in
any
given
year,
just
as
an
education
piece
that
that
that
is
helpful,
I,
don't
know
that
we
can
do
that
in
these
definitions,
but
maybe
the
next
time
we
come
around
we
could
talk
about.
I
would
have
to
get
with
Mike
and
I'm,
not
sure
what
we
can
add
to
what
they,
what
they
propose.
Okay,.
C
F
F
O
Perfect
and
there
you
did
put
the
best
available
data
in
here
too,
that
I,
guess
and
I'll
just
make
a
note
of
it
that
there
is
some
legislation
moving
around
about
removing
the
best
available
floodplain
data,
so
I'll
just
I,
guess
take
time
to
mention
that.
H
Perhaps
Jack
you
could
comment
on
the
non-residential
change,
that's
being
proposed
to
address
the
plan
commission's
questions
or
concerns
about
this
and
I
wonder
if
there
were
other
options
that
you
just
didn't
feel
comfortable.
Considering
at
this
point
and
then
I
wonder
if
any
of
the
members
of
the
plant
Commission.
F
Sure
so,
as
I
said,
I
think
we
didn't,
we
ultimately
didn't
feel
comfortable,
basically
completely
removing
it.
So
some
of
the
other
options
would
be
change
the
streets
on
the
map,
but
then
it
was
kind
of
we
didn't
feel
that
it
would
be
best
to
just
kind
of
remove
five
or
six
of
the
streets.
We
just
didn't
know
that
that
would
be
as
impactful
as
actually
changing
the
regulation.
F
Even
though
this,
even
though
this
change
isn't
a
large
one,
I
think
we
were
also
trying
to
stay
in
line
with
a
comprehensive
plan
which
does
want
non-residential
on
these
Street
facing
buildings
so
trying
to
find
kind
of
a
line
there
in
between
wanting
to
be
more
wanting
to
be
cognizant
that
maybe
the
market
is
changing
and
that
that's
maybe
not
quite
realistic
anymore,
but
realizing
that
by
following
the
guiding
document
we
we
could
didn't
feel
we
could
completely
change
it
and
we
are
open
to
continuing
to
discussing
that
and
potentially
doing
a
comprehensive,
Plan
update.
F
But
at
this
time
this
is
kind
of
where
we
landed.
We
also
talked
about
doing
you
know,
instead
of
a
square
footage
potentially
like
we
have
in
other
areas
the
first
20
feet
or
something
along
those
lines,
but
based
on
the
sizes
and
configuration
of
most
of
the
lots
that
are
affected,
you
know
the
kind
of
more
historic
thinner
longer
lots.
We
felt
like
this
regulation
ended
up
making
the
most
sense
of
the
three
or
four
that
I
discussed,
but
yeah
we're
happy
for
any
input
and,
of
course,
Amendment.
M
So
5
000
square
feet.
It's
a
lot,
so
it
almost
seems
like
we're.
Not
changing
anything
I,
I
guess
I
would
be.
M
Can
I
ask
a
question
to
kiss
Chris
Corcoran
because
he
he
works
with
real
estate
with
commercial
spaces?
You
can
tell
me
what
would
be
an
average
commercial
space
square
footage.
P
I
said
square
feet
does
still
feel
like
a
quite
a
bit
of
space.
It's
I
know
several
spaces,
I
mean
there's
not
a
lot
of
5
000
square
feet,
spaces
in
our
downtown
and
I
haven't
had
one
on
the
market.
That's
been
on
the
market
for
quite
a
while,
and
it's
just
there's
not
there's
not
the
demand
for
it
right
now.
One
of
the
things
that's
nice,
well,
I,
guess.
The
first
question
is
what
made
you
come
up
with
five
thousand
and
first
off.
Thank
you
for
for
addressing
this.
Q
Scott
Robinson,
director
of
planning
and
transportation.
That
number
is
a
really
hard
number
to
come
up
with
nobody's
suggested.
A
number
a
comprehensive
plan
is
100
percent.
We
peeled
it
back
to
50
and
we
continue
to
hear
that.
That's
too
much
yet
I've
yet
to
hear
anybody
suggest
what
is
the
the
right
size?
The
map
staff
could
propose
portions
of
the
map
to
change
some
locations
work
great,
maybe
than
others.
Q
Many
of
them
will
probably
hit
right
around
that
5000
or
less
square
footage.
So
it's
still
going
to
be
less
than
50
percent.
We're
peeling
it
back,
but
it's
not
a
significant
change.
So
yes
you're
right,
it's
not
going
to
change
much,
but
it
will
depend
on
which
lot
you're
talking
about
so
I,
think
the
challenge
gets
into
those
narrow
street
frontages
that
are
very
deep
and
honestly
I
tried
to
come
up
with
a
proportion,
and
it's
it's
really
hard
to
come
up
with
the
the
right
number.
Q
If
you
look
at
what
we've
done
in
other
areas
about
the
setback,
the
20
feet,
that's
getting
pretty
low,
especially
on
our
higher
priority
corridors
like
Kirkwood
4th
Street,
where
you're
looking
at
probably
2
000
feet
or
less,
which
I
think
that's
a
pretty
significant
policy
change
and
I'm,
just
not
comfortable
bringing
that
forward
at
this
time,
but
I'm
happy
to
entertain
a
proposal.
Q
The
plan
Commission.
You
know
it's
up
to
you
to
make
that
decision,
we'll
forward
that
onto
city
council
I
know
it's
something
that
when
we
went
through
the
update
of
the
comprehensive
or
the
Udo,
you
know.
One
of
the
things
that
we
kept
hearing
about
is
we're
the
requirement
for
so
much
first
floor
non-residential
is
too
much,
and
so
we
continually
peel
that
back
I'm
concerned.
Q
However,
if
we
peel
it
too
far
back
we're
not
going
to
get
anything
and
that's
a
very
fine
balance
of
trying
to
figure
that
out,
because
there
are
areas
that
are
certainly
viable
and
we
we
still
continue
continue
to
see
interest
of
non-residential
uses
in
those
areas.
Q
P
It
is
a
challenge
and
one
of
the
things
I've
noticed
in
a
very
good
Market
people
take
larger
spaces
in
a
tough
Market.
People
want
to
want
to
have
a
smaller
space
so
being
able
to
to
give
a
developer
that
flexibility
to
shift
with
the
market
will
hopefully
not
lead
to
any.
You
know
they
can
fill
the
space
a
lot
faster
in
a
changing
Market.
One
of
the
thoughts
is-
and
you
know
this
could
always
be
for
discussion.
Is
you
know
just
the
linear
feet
of
the
building?
P
Could
there
be
a
formula
similar
to
what
we
do
with
the
signage
and
so
much
square
footage
that
you
could
add
to
it?
I
mean
yeah,
obviously,
I'd
love
to
have
a
discussion
about
it,
to
try
to
find
something
that
gave
flexibility
to
a
developer
or
a
building
owner
to
where
they
could
shift
with
the
market,
as
the
market
shifts.
Q
Yeah
again,
I
tried
to
come
up
with
a
proportion
looking
at
different
Lots
there.
It's
it's
hard
to
come
up
with
a
value
that
strikes
that
balance
of
just
right,
I
think
another
thing
that
that
you
know
is
somewhat
of
the
urban
legend.
Is
you
know,
oh
if
we
we
can
easily
convert
these
spaces
once
the
space
is
built
to
be
either
residential
or
non-residential?
Q
It's
it's
very
expensive
to
convert
it
later
in
the
future
and
I
think
that's
you
know
me
looking
around
the
country
at
places,
they're
doing
and
hearing
what
developers
say
once
you
build
it
to
spec
out
to
what
that
space
is
it's
very
hard
to
come
back
and
retrofit
that
that
space
and
what
we
want
on
our
first
floors?
Is
that
higher
taller
first
floor
story,
so
it
gives
that
feel
of
eyes
on
the
street
presence
Building
forward,
so
we
have
an
active
streetscape
residential
uses
tend
not
to
like
that.
Q
You
know
higher
first
floor
HVAC
building
codes
and
all
those
things
kind
of
make
it
more
challenging
to
convert
that.
So
so
as
we
can
continue
to
change
that
number,
it
gets
harder
to
see
how
those
spaces
will
change
over
time.
So
yeah
I,
agree,
I,
agree
the
flexibility
with
markets
and
trends
that
we're
seeing
is
a
way
that
we
can
help
factor
into
that.
But
I
think
the
expectation
is:
could
this
space
be
converted
in
the
future
to
residential
or
non-residential
I?
P
Being
that
I
represent
many
of
these
retail
spaces,
those
are
conversations
that
are
being
had
when
we
battle
tested
the
market
to
try
to
find
somebody.
You
know
we're
we're.
Turning
to
that
as
a
possible
option.
Obviously
the
cost
is
high,
but
they
don't.
You
know
they
don't
really
want
to
go
to
that
cost,
but
they
don't
want
the
space
to
be
vacant
anymore
either.
So
I
have
another
question
the
so
not
including
the
residential
access
areas.
P
Q
Yeah
again,
I
think
the
idea
is
really
trying
to
capture
what
is
part
of
the
intent
of
the
non-residential
component
on
the
first
floor
versus
putting
uses
that
are
maybe
not
necessarily
associated
with
that
non-residential
component
they're.
Really
like
it's
a
duck.
You
know
that
walks
and
Walks
Like
A
Duck
like
it's,
it's
purely
for
the
intent
of
the
residential
uses.
We
shouldn't
be
counting
that
towards
that
now,
there's
there's
some
gray
area
about
how
we
do
that
and
I.
Q
Think
again,
that's
what
the
language
we
proposed
is
to
help
clarify
counting
some
of
those
other
spaces.
If
it's
purely
part
of
the
non-residential
use,
then
you
can
count
that,
but
it
might
not
be
the
you
know
it
might
be
the
kitchen
or
whatever
that's
in
the
back
or
mechanical
and
those
kind
of
square
footage
requirements.
P
Last
question
I
have
is
so
obviously
this
is
better
than
what
we
have
just
reducing
it.
If
we
feel
we
need
to
adjust
it
in
the
future.
What
what
is
our
process?
How
would
we
go
about
that.
Q
Well,
ideally,
you
know
the
perfect
world
we
we
do
need
to
look
at
our
comprehensive
plan
and
kind
of
Base,
our
our
policy
guidance
on
that
as
as
Ms
scandala
noted,
it
says
100,
you
know
the
first
floor
should
be
non-residential.
So
we'll
have
to
take
a
look
at
that.
You
know
we
can
go
back
and
strategically
look
at
the
map
and
help
clarify
which
areas
might
have
more
flexibility
to
do
that
outside
of
the
map
of
the
downtown
we've,
certainly
Incorporated
a
lower
standard
than
those
areas
highlighted
in
the
the
downtown.
Q
Comprehensive
plan
was
adopted
in
2018,
it's
hard
to
believe
that
I'm,
even
mentioning
the
fact
that
maybe
we
should
be
looking
at
updating
that,
but
you
know,
but
these
are
documents
that
we
need
to
keep
relevant
and
fresh,
and
you
know
there's
some
other
things
that
with
the
udl
you
know,
there'll
be
a
new
Administration
next
year
and
I'm
sure
they'll
have
their
administrative
priorities
and
that's
something
to
be
mindful
which
direction
will
need
to
be
so.
Q
I,
don't
want
to
preemptively
do
something
that
might
be
might
not
be
consistent
with,
but
the
next
Administration
sees
as
a
priority
for
both
the
updated
the
comprehensive
plan
and
or
Udo.
M
Yes,
so
I
do
understand
the
the
Frontage
of
the
building
being
commercial
completely
commercial
and
I
understand
what
we're
talking
about
lobbies
or
garage
thinking,
the
equivalence
of
that.
So
my
question
is
so
when
you
talk
50
percent,
let's
say
the
footprint
is
ten
thousand
you're
going
pretty
deep
into
the
footprint?
M
That's
you
know
that
that's
what
I
was
talking
about,
not
that
I'm
not
saying
to
take
away
the
commercial
spaces
in
the
front,
but
to
make
it
make
it
more
flexible
for
each
each
building
to
make
use
of
the
of
the
first
floor
in
another
way
and
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
so
when
I
think
of
50
I,
think
it's
a
little
high
but
but
I
understand,
I,
understand
where
everybody
is
I
was
hoping
we
would
be,
will
be
with
a
lesser
percentage
at
this
point.
So.
A
Thank
you,
I
think,
when
we
get
back
to
comments
that
we
can
consider
an
amendment
on
that,
if
they,
if
you
have
a
specific
idea,
I
have
a
specific
idea
that
I'll
that
I'll
share,
but
maybe
not
during
The
Question
period,
we'll
we'll
come
back
to
that.
A
All
right,
singhan
is
there
any
public
comments.
A
Just
come
on
up
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
you'll
have
up
to
five
minutes
to
to
make
comment
and
just
a
reminder
if
you're
online
and
would
like
to
make
comment
just
to
find
that
reactions,
button
and
click
raise
hand
or
send
a
chat
message
to
Jackie
Scanlon,
and
we
will
recognize
you
to
make
your
comment
online.
R
All
right,
thank
you
good
evening.
My
name
is
Dave
harstad
I
am
a
commercial
real
estate
broker
in
Bloomington
and
a
property
owner
downtown
I.
Do
care
deeply
about
having
an
activated
Street
front
in
the
downtown
Zone,
and
so
I
do
think
that
having
front
and
John's
commercial
furniture
on
street
is
an
important
policy
objective
for
the
city.
R
Choosing
a
depth
of
of
Street
Frontage
might
be
a
way
to
go,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
that
depth.
You
look
at
shopping,
centers,
even
Suburban
shopping
centers.
The
trend
is
away
from
80
foot
depths
and
even
60
foot
depths,
and
you
know
you
see
shopping
centers
and
Suburban
areas
that
are
40
and
50
foot
depths,
and
so
my
where
my
head
goes
and
again,
you
guys
can
figure
out
the
details
but
I
think
having
an
active
Street
Front
with
a
shallower
depth
might
be
a
solution.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
All
right
seeing
them,
we
are
back
to
the
commission
for
any
additional
questions
or
comments.
K
My
question
relates
to
there.
There
was
discussion
of.
K
Altering
modifying
the
Udo
related
to
affordable
housing
issues
and
I
I
had
asked
some
questions
and
there
was
going
to
be
some
undertaking
of
a
change
of
Udo
standards,
perhaps
related
to
incentivizing,
affordable
housing
even
further,
and
it
was
said
to
me
that
it
was
in
the
springtime
and
somewhere
around
March
and
well,
it's
March
and
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
is
this.
Is
this
the
when
the
Udo
is
generally
modified
in
relation
to
what
we
found
out
over
the
last.
C
K
B
K
F
Well,
that
isn't
in
this
ordinance
chapter
four
is
where
incentives
lived
and
that's
that's
in
the
next
one.
We'll
talk
about
I,
don't
know
that
their
I
don't
know
that
there
is
much
in
their
deepening
those
incentives
there
are.
There
is
some
clarification
to
how
they
work
to
make
them
be
easier
to,
but
yeah.
We
will
discuss
that
when
we
get
to
zero
zero
six,
two
three,
but
not
in
this
one,
because
this
one
doesn't
cover
that
topic.
Okay,.
K
Thank
you
for
responding
to
that.
K
O
O
My
comment
from
earlier
and
just
applaud
the
administration
with
being
proactive
to
put
in
the
best
available
data
for
floodplain,
even
if
it
is
stricken
from
state
law,
local
ordinances
will
still
Trump
that
so
I
just
wanted
to
close
that
loop.
I
didn't
finish
my
part
of
my
statement.
There.
L
I
just
clarify
this:
the
non-residential
ground
floor
standard,
so
Mr,
Robinson
I,
think
you
said
the
comprehensive
plan
is
a
hundred
percent
and
the
Udo
has
50
percent
and-
and
the
point
is
to
protect
that
ground
floor
Street
environment.
If
you
will
looking
at
the
map,
I
mean
it's
completely.
You
know
Kirkwood
Courthouse,
Square,
all
the
things
where
we
expect
to
see
non-residential.
So
if
that's
the
case,
it
seems
like
the
50
percent
is
not
actually
doing
that.
It's
because
someone
could
divide
the
50
percent
vertically.
L
If
you
will
from
the
front
to
the
back
and
now
half
of
the
street
front
is
non-residential
and
half
the
street
front
is
residential
I.
Believe
that's
the
case.
So
the
50
idea
doesn't
actually
protect
that
street
facing
environment
and
so
I
would
I
had
the
exact
same
thought.
It
seems
that
it
should
reflect
that
the
street
facing
Frontage
square
footage,
whatever
that
is,
is
non-residential
100
and
then
some
portion
behind
it
and
and
I
guess.
L
That's
not
a
question
I'm,
not
phrasing
it
as
a
question,
but
it
sort
of
kind
of
is:
is
that
even
an
option
if
one
were
to
propose
that
kind
of
change.
F
Yes,
so
I
would
say
in
practice
we
haven't
seen,
and
anyone
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
We
haven't
seen
someone
who
has
Street
Frontage
and
then
is
wanting
to
use
only
a
portion
of
it
and
going
all
the
way
back
for
their
50
that
just
the
way
that
the
buildings
in
these
areas
are
doesn't
work
that
way
really
in
a
new
build.
That
could
probably
be
maybe
more
possible,
but.
A
I've
actually
took
a
stab
at
an
amendment.
L
C
L
That's
and
can
I
just
reply
to
her
comments.
Yeah
so
I
agree
with
you
that
yeah,
probably
no
one's
going
to
divide
it
that
way,
but
we're
sort
of
in
the
technical
rule
book
of
the
board
game,
and
so
it
feels
like
everything
needs
to
be
very
precise.
So
thank
you
for
that.
A
Yeah,
so
what
I?
What
I
propose
is
that
we
replace
the
the
current
language
or
the
current
proposed
language
that
says
a
minimum
of
50
of
the
total
ground
floor
area
or
5
000
square
feet,
whichever
is
less
of
a
building
located
along
each
Street
Frontage,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
We
replace
that,
with
the
ground
floor
area,
extending
a
minimum
of
15
feet
from
the
building
facade
on
each
Street
Frontage
identified
by
a
black
line
in
figure,
47.
A
That
just
that
ensures
that
at
least
you
have
you've
got
usable
space.
It's
not
just
a
you
know:
false
use,
not
just
a
just
a
storefront
window.
You
actually
have
you
know
usable
space
there
that
extends
from
from
the
facade,
and
we
could
add
the
word
from
the
entirety
of
the
the
entire
length
of
the
facade.
If
that
makes
it
even
clearer.
A
You
know
usable
space.
If
that's
you
know
a
little
shop
or
office
I'm
that
I
don't
think
that's
a
magic
number,
but
that's
the
number
that
I
think
in
my
mind,
if
anything
less
than
that
is
not
real
space,
it's
just
sort
of
for
show.
F
So
this
gets
hard
it's
hard
like,
for
example,
at
Suite
118
on
the
east
side
of
the
square,
it's
one
building
and
then
like
the
way
that
it's
broken
up.
You
know
it's
on
the
first
floor,
it's
commercial.
They
have
offices,
there
I
think
like
a
rental
for
somebody
else,
but
then
there's
a
stairwell
that
leads
to
the
rest,
but
I
mean
on
their
Frontage.
It's
just
one
thing:
you
can't
tell
it's
different,
but
the
you
know
right,
eight
feet
or
whatever
is
is
not
commercial.
F
It's
it
leads
to
the
upstairs
or
whatever.
So
just
when
we're
thinking
about
so
I
think
the
percentage
I
just
I
don't
know
I.
Would
that
would
be
something
you
know
something
that
we
talk
about,
because
when
you
do
a
percentage,
then
you
can
say
like
okay,
that
part's
not
included,
but
it
goes
back
a
tiny
bit
more
or
whatever,
where,
if
we're
saying
the
entirety
of
this
rectangle
up
against
the
road
has
to
be
commercial
that
isn't
going
to
be
necessarily
possible
for
all
of
our
existing.
F
A
F
S
B
F
Yeah,
the
other
thing
to
think
about
is
that
the
rest
of
downtown
outside
of
the
areas
identified.
As
you
know,
highly
commercial
pedestrian
commercial
is
20.,
so
we
would
be
saying
here
less
commercial
in
these
areas
than
you
know,
on
11th,
Street
or
whatever
you
know
somewhere
else
in
the
in
the
MD
by
if
it,
if
you
went
15.,
sorry
go
ahead.
Flavia.
F
M
M
With
the
director-
and
you
know,
a
plan
commission
and
also
with
with
the
Planning
Commission,
this
is
not
a
simple
solution,
because
there
are
so
many
different
types
of
buildings
and
sometimes
if
you
have
a
large
apartment
complex,
you
might
need
a
foia
that
will
require
you
know
I,
don't
existing
Freedom,
Frontage
or
or
more.
So
it's
not
a
cookie
cutter,
it's
very
difficult
to
to
set
it
up
I.
M
You
know,
vitality
and
vibrancy.
Downtown
I
I
understand
all
that.
What
I'm
one
of
my
I
think
we
need
to
really
put
our
heads
together
and
and
see
what
works
best
and
that's
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
it
out,
because
if
you
ask
50
and
you
have
a
small
footprint,
you
know
it
can
create
a
lot
of
issues.
But
if
the
building
is
skinny,
it's
another
situation
and
if
the
building,
if
you
have
to
put
an
entrance
for
a
residential,
that's
another
issue.
M
If
you
have
to
put
a
parking
garage,
that's
another
issue
and
that's
I,
understand
the
complications
and
how
difficult
it
is
to
get
this
done.
But
I
think
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
discussed
with
people
that
know
businesses
and
know
what
the
businesses
need.
I'm,
not
talking
about
getting
away
without
putting
residential.
On
the
first
floor,
that's
not
what
I'm
trying
to
say
here,
but
what
what
is
feasible!
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
say
does
that
make
sense.
A
Yes,
thank
you
any
other
I'll
hold
off
on
making
a
motion
on
that
at
this
time,
then.
P
You
know
I
support
the
the
comprehensive
plan
and
I
think
proposing
that
your
proposal
would
would
still
be
in
line
with
the
comprehensive
time.
But
it's
going
to
build
flexibility
for
that
developer,
whether
it's
15
feet
or
20
feet,
or
you
know
whatever
that
number
is.
But
then
the
developer
could
then
choose
to
go
bigger
if
they
wanted
to.
If
they
wanted
to
provide
more
square
footage,
but
at
least
it
would
give
them
the
flexibility
to
adapt
to
the
market
and
still
have
the
street
Frontage,
which
I
think
we
all
would
like
to
have.
L
Wonder,
given
how
complex
this
is,
how
feasible
it
is
to
if
we
so
chose
to
not
consider
this
one
particular
Amendment
tonight
and
you
all,
as
the
experts
go
back
and
figure
it
out,
which
I
know
it
sounds
pretty
complicated,
but
I
don't
know
that
we're
all
gonna
I
mean
I,
appreciate
you
putting
words.
F
Well,
a
couple
things:
if
you
direct
us
to
do
it,
we
will
try.
I
do
think
our
base.
Starting
point
is
that
I
think
we
understand
what
the
comprehensive
plan
wants
to
do
kind
of
like
in
a
macro,
but
it
specifically
says
just
none.
You
know
100
non-residential,
so
it
feels
to
us
like
when
we're
making
arguments
to
developers
who
or
whoever
about
following
the
guiding
documents
that
we
don't
then
want
to
not
be
to
kind
of
reasoning
ourselves
out
of
following
them
ourselves.
F
We
do
think
that
you
should
probably
do
a
comprehensive
plan
Amendment,
because
you
know,
like
you're,
saying
we've
heard
from
a
lot
of
very
educated
Realtors
some
here
in
this
room.
Some.
You
know
that
we've
talked
to
otherwise
that
maybe
those
we
need
to
have
a
larger
conversation
with
downtown
users
and
downtown
owners,
and
what
really
could
fix?
What's
what's
wrong
with
it
now,
first
of
all,
and
what
what
could
actually
fix
that
problem.
F
I
think
this
amendment
moves
closer
to
I
mean
you
know
it
moves
its
moves,
the
needle
a
little
bit
not
as
much
as
some
people
would
like
so
I
I,
don't
think
including
it
would
do
much
harm
even
the
caveat.
The
end,
that's
how
we
already
that's
how
we
already
treat
the
difference
between
residential
and
non-residential.
This
would
just
be
clarifying
so
that
someone
kind
of
knew
what
they
were
getting
into
when
they
read
it
a
little
more
clearly
but
yeah
I
do
think
we
recognize
this.
Isn't
you
know
as
Mrs
burlesque?
F
A
M
You
know
not
necessarily.
It
needs
to
take
the
whole
first
floor
or
you
know
space
or
50,
and
maybe
we
continue
this
discussion,
but
I
I
would
be
I
would
love
to
hear
from
owners.
M
There's
a
you
know,
you
can
drive
downtown
and
you
can
see
a
lot
of
empty
spaces
that
are
not
being
rented.
Why
aren't
they
being
rented?
Is
it
too
expensive?
Is
it
too
small?
Is
it
too
big
I
mean
what
is
going
on,
because
what
the
goal
is
to
make
our
city
vibrant
and
to
make
our
city
walkable
and
to
make
our
city
you
know
full
of
white
tail.
M
So
what
can
we
do
to
change
that
and
that's
that's
what
I
I'd
be
interested
in
knowing
and
I
know
that
that
is
not
easy
and
Jackie,
but
we
need
to
start
somehow
so.
A
Yeah
I
think
this
is
you
know
we
it's
already.
The
Udo
is
already
with
what
we've
got
on
the
table
here
tonight:
inconsistent
with.
What's
in
the
comprehensive
plan,
so
I,
don't
think
that's
a
reason
we
shouldn't
get
this
right.
I'm
happy
to
you
know,
support
an
amendment
to
the
comprehensive
plan
as
well.
A
If
you
know
that's
what
we
want
to
do
to
to
make
them
consistent,
but
I,
don't
think
we
should
I,
don't
think
we
should
pass
the
5
000
square
foot
language-
if,
if
there's
consensus
here
in
this
board
that
that's
not
what
we
want,
we
don't
want
to
give
people
Whiplash
by
passing
this
along
and
then
next
month,
coming
back
with
another
another
change,
I
think
we
should.
We
should
get
this
right
before
we
move
it
along.
That's
that's
my
personal
opinion.
A
H
Yes,
if
that's
a
real
disruption
to
what
the
staff
has
planned,
if
there
is
a
acknowledgment
here
that
we
may
not
be
solving
anything
or
may
not
really
be
addressing
anything
in
way
that
if
we
tried
something
slightly
different
that
might
use
some
of
the
language
either
that's
feed
from
the
facade
or
or
something
else
that
that
we
could,
we
could
get
it
right
before
moving
it
forward.
If.
C
D
H
H
P
I
agree
with
commissioner
Whistler
The
Challenge
I
see
is,
is
there's
projects
being
designed
right
now
and
developed
right
now
under
this
plan,
and
even
if
we
decide
to
pass
the
5
000
square
feet
with
the
thought
of
of
doing
something
different
it
would
it
would
to
have
someone
have
to
hit
this
requirement
to
build
their
building?
Well,
it
may
it
they
may
or
may
not
decide
to
move
forward.
P
O
I,
don't
really
have
a
position
on
kind
of
a
lot
of
the
discussion,
except
for
we're
talking
a
lot
about
Street,
Frontage
and
I
just
want
to
bring
up
the
Nuance
that
the
Alleyways
are
really
important
too
for
Access
and
if
we're
thinking
about
making
you
know
the
back
part
of
buildings
residential,
are
we
going
to
run
into
an
issue
with
you
know
Common
space
for
the
commercial
use
for
loading
and
unloading,
so
just
wanted
to
throw
one
other
Nuance
in
there
for
consideration
to
really
try
to
get
this
right,
but
I,
you
know
defer
to
planning
here
with
incremental
steps,
so
you
can
kind
of
assess
how
things
are
moving
forward
and
what's
the
right,
Next
Step.
L
So
we
can
motion
approval
I'm,
asking
of
this
zo-05-23.
N
Sure
you
have
to
decide
what
you
want
to
do.
You
can
either
not
vote
on
it
right
now,
which
I
think
has
been
suggested
as
a
package,
this
entire
zoning
ordinance.
If
you
want
to
forward
everything
except
the
change
to
the
downtown
first
floor,
non-residential
space,
what
I
would
recommend
is
amending
that
out
and
considering
that
at
a
separate
time.
N
So
so
that
would
mean
all
of
the
other
changes
proposed
by
staff
would
go
forward
with
that
90-day
clock
to
go
to
City
Council,
but
that
portion
would
be
put
off
and
delayed
and
would
likely
have
to
be
part
of
some
sort
of
separate
zoning
ordinance
Amendment.
Does
that
make
sense.
C
A
N
A
Q
Planning
and
transportation
director
great
question,
commissioner
Whistler
I-
think
if,
if
the
commission
were
to
decide
to
move
forward
with
the
ordinances
tonight,
it's
likely
that
they
will
be
heard
at
one
package
with
Council
and
if
you
chose
to
bring
forward
pulled
out
the
first
floor
as
a
separate
amendment,
I
can't
tell
you
what
that
would
look
like
at
with
the
council
schedule.
Q
They
may
be
able
to
fold
it
into
their
scheduling
process.
You
know
because
they
do
have
that
90-day
window,
but
you
know
this
would
be
kicked
down.
You
know,
30
days
down
the
the
you
know:
clock,
they're,
they're
scheduling,
typically,
how
it
goes
is
they'll
have
their
summer
recess
and
then,
when
they
come
back
from
their
summer
recess,
they
have
a
very
short
period
where
they
kind
of
take
up
their
usual
business.
Q
Before
they
I
see
council
member
Smith's
nodding
his
head,
then
we
get
into
budget
season
which
gets
very
complicated,
getting
other
legislation
through
Council,
so
they're,
very
mindful
of
trying
to
take
care
of
business
before
they
go
on
recess,
so
I
think
we're
okay.
You
know
this
is
March
April
that
we
start
getting
into
a.
Q
We
start
really
compressing
their
schedule
moving
forward,
so
I
I
think
what
I
would
recommend
is:
let's
keep
our
business
moving
forward
if
you're
not
comfortable
with
something,
let's
pull
it
out,
spend
time
and
work
on
it
and
get
it
right
before
we
bring
it
to
council.
That
would
be
my
recommendation.
N
A
Excuse
me
so
I
I
would
suggest
that
I
would
suggest
that
we
that
we
entertain
an
amendment
to
just
remove
this
particular
change.
This
proposed
change
of
chapter
three
citation
20.03.
A
.010
E1
and
then
we
vote
on
the
remainder
of
these
changes
and
moving
them
along.
A
Amend
this
ordinance
to
remove
the
changes
proposed
to
chapter
three
citation
20.03.010e1.
N
Right
I'm,
sorry
I'm,
going
to
jump
in
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody
understands
what
they're
voting
on.
Are
you
voting
to
amend
the
proposed
zoning
ordinance
or
you
moving
to
both
amend
the
zoning
ordinance
and
forward
with
a
positive.
A
H
Just
I
just
have
a
quick
comment,
I
think
I'm.
Sorry,
it
makes
the
most
sense
say
this
quickly
is:
is
there
the
rest
of
the
immense
in
this
Sartorius
and
and
don't
deserve,
deserve
to
help
back,
because
each
one
and
I
suspect
this
could
be
a
controversial
issue
or
something
that
the
council
separately
and
I
would
hate
to
see
the
rest
of
the
Amendments
that
seem
less
controversial,
be
held
up
because
of
this?
So
I
think
this
might
be
a
why.
A
A
Correct
so
we
would
be
moving
along.
We
this
this
package
of
changes
without
the
change
to
20.03.010e1.
F
So
this
is
a
vote
on
whether
or
not
to
remove
the
amendment
related
to
20.03.010e1,
correct,
related
to
non-residential
ground
floor
standards
from
the
rest
of
z00523
cochrom.
A
A
Yes,
all
right
so
that
Amendment
passes
and
we
of
course,
I
think,
along
with
that,
would
like
to
strongly
encourage
staff
to
work
with
us
to
come
up
with
some
new
language
for
our
April
meeting
and
I'm
happy
to
volunteer
to
participate
in
some
offline
discussions
about
that.
If
we
need
to
so,
we
are
then
back
to
005-23
any
other
final
comments
or
questions
on
that.
F
I
have
one
procedural
thing
to
add
I'm,
so
sorry
I
forgot
to
say
at
the
beginning,
these
ordinances
are
not
they're
subject
to
two
hearings.
O
A
At
the
end,
to
fix
the
first
one,
sorry
about
that
yep,
so
yes,
the
motion
should
include
a
waiver
of
the
second
hearing.
Is
there
emotion.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Can
we
now
have
a
motion?
Well
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
make
it
I
move
that
we
waive
the
second
hearing
on
0-04-23.
Second,
any
questions
or
comments:
okay,
Jackie!
Would
you
please
call
the
roll
on
waiver
of
the
second
hearing
on
Zeos
zero,
four,
twenty
three.
B
B
F
So
this
is
zero,
zero,
six,
six
decks
23,
and
this
is
for
chapter
four,
so
another
one
of
our
usually
more
meaty
chapter
discussions,
and
let
me
get
us
to
the
right
page
here.
F
Okay,
so
by
way
of
synopsis,
because
this
is
development,
standards
and
incentives
for
all
districts,
the
Amendments
kind
of
run-
the
gamut
I
will
just
briefly
go
over
them
as
I
go
through
them.
The
one
that
we
will
maybe
want
to
talk
about.
The
most
I
think
that
we
have
heard
a
little
bit
of
feedback
on
is
that
we
updated
the
maximum
vehicle
parking
allowance
table.
We
added
maximums
where
there
was
currently
No
Limit.
So
this
is
something
we
had
heard
from
some
council
members
being
concerned
about.
F
F
So
we
went
through
and
I
believe
it
was
68
updates,
which
is
quite
a
number
of
uses,
to
have
absolutely
no
limit
on
the
number
of
parking,
so
the
maximums
that
we
having
so
we're
proposing
maximums
for
those
they
were
based
on
the
characteristics
of
the
use,
as
well
as
looking
at
typical
allowances
in
other
codes
or
other
places
and
needs
of
other
existing
facilities.
F
A
couple
of
the
uses
in
the
table
we
upped,
so
that
was
increasing
parking
space
allowance
for
both
the
use
of
restaurant
and
fitness
center
large,
based
on
a
number
of
recent
variances
that
we've
had
in
the
last
year
or
so
so
we'll
get
to
that
shortly.
F
But
that
is
probably
the
the
one
that
you
will
maybe
find
some
interest
from
the
public
in
there
are
54
total
amendments
identified,
including
that
we
are
entirely
replacing
the
floodplain
section
so
again,
I'm
happy
to
look
at
that
if
you
have
questions,
but
otherwise,
basically
just
syncing
with
the
state,
so
the
first
first
update
we
have
for
this
ordinance
is
that
clarifying
that
parking,
the
I-69
is
not
out
of
front
yard.
When
we're
talking
about
setbacks.
F
That
is
the
way
that
we
operate,
but
just
putting
that
directly
into
the
code
for
clarification
purposes
as
properties
along
the
highway
will
go
to
develop,
and
then
you
can
see
here
in
table
4-6
clarifying.
These
are
some
step
back
exceptions.
We
are
adding
some
of
the
primarily
single,
the
other
two
primarily
single-family
zoning
districts,
to
a
front
entry
exception
that
was
put
in
either
last
year
or
the
year
before
that
was
written
by
a
local
architect,
so
that
there
could
be
extra
space
for
front
entry
there.
F
And
then
you
can
see
also
in
the
table
clarifying
language
for
additions
to
existing
structures
that
are
located
in
required
setbacks.
That
applies
to
first
floor
editions,
so
the
language
right
now
is
that
if
you're
doing
a
first
floor
Edition
you
can
use
an
existing
setback
on
a
non-conforming
lot
and
we're
clarifying
that
you
can
build
up
without
having
to
get
a
variance.
We
have
had
a
couple
of
those
recently.
F
What
the
first
one
is
kind
of
small
but
important
in
that
we
are
putting
in
code
that
you
cannot
use
plastic
netting
or
mesh
as
as
either
erosion,
control
or
landscape
control
on
the
property.
Obviously,
that
plastic
doesn't
biodegrade
and
we
we
have
been
encouraging
landscapers
now
for
some
time.
So
all
of
the
local
landscapers
are
familiar
with
this.
To
use
a
biodegradable
product
and
we've
had
people
have
to
take
this
out
when
their
plans
indicated
that
they
weren't
going
to
use
it
so
putting
that
in
code.
F
The
next
is
requiring
alley
access,
so
Ali
access,
if
you
have
an
improved
alley,
is
already
required
in
the
R3
and
R4.
So
we
are
adding
the
other,
primarily
single-family
districts,
as
well
as
our
less
intense
multi-family
residential
and
the
downtown
zoning
District.
So
again,
if
you
have
an
improved
alley
and
you
are
doing
in
development,
the
vehicular
access
needs
to
be
off
of
the
alley
and.
F
Sorry
I
thought
I
had
something
bad,
but
I,
don't
again,
as
I
said
before,
we
completely
replaced
the
floodplain
section
so
you'll
see
in
the
red
line,
some
of
it.
We
were
able
to
kind
of
piece
in
and
then
there's
whole
sections
that
are
gone
and
replaced
at
the
end
again
to
sync
with
the
state.
F
We
do
have
a
regulation
related
to
conditional
use
in
the
flood
plain
that
is
more
than
what
is
required
by
the
state,
but
otherwise
we
are
allowed
to
do
that,
and
otherwise
it
should
be
the
same
for
parking
for
maximum
vehicle
parking
for
multi-family.
F
That
was
one
that
we
called
out
as
separate,
because
the
way
that
maximum
parking
was
written
is
that
it
was
based
on
minimum
parking,
but
there
is
no
minimum
parking,
so
we
just
put
in
some
language
to
clarify
if
you
had
minimum
parking
that
number
that
it
would
be
125
of
that
number,
so
kind
of
just
clarifying
something
that
was
not
written
quite
well
previously.
F
F
Those
do
have
a
change
so
I'm
going
to
show
them
to
you
now
they
didn't
make
it
over
in
the
copying
pasting
that
I
did
because
the
formatting
of
these
tables
is
a
lot,
so
those
will
be
fixed
in
the
version
that
goes
to
council,
and
this
is
what
we
are
proposing.
F
So
it's
two
and
a
half
spaces
per
1000
for
the
group
CARE
home
and
facility,
and
then
for
nursing,
convalescent
one
space
per
six,
infirmer,
nursing
home
bed
and
plus
one
space
per
three
rooming
units
and
then
aligning
the
opioid
rehab
home
with
some
of
our
other
two
and
a
half
space
per
1000
uses
such
as
Supportive
Housing.
You
can
see
down
here,
so
those
four
were
not
shown
as
changed
in
the
table
that
you
received.
F
Again,
I'll
just
kind
of
briefly
go
through
these
I'm,
not
going
to
read
every
single
one
but
I'm
happy
to
go
back
to
talk
about
the
ones
that
you'd
like
to
we
used
for
some
of
the
kind
of
less
typical
ones
like
park
or
something
we
we,
you
know,
use
real
life
examples
and
tried
to
figure
out
what
what
a
still
generous
but
reasonable
cap
would
be.
F
F
It's
not
realistic
that
we're
going
to
get
some
of
these
use
very
many
of
these
uses,
but
we
did
feel
that
it
was
appropriate
to
put
a
cap
on
them
and
then
for
some
of
the
uses,
for
example
like
police
fire
or
rescue
station,
making
an
allowance
for
the
fact
that
some
of
that
job
requires
a
vehicle
so
that
they're
they're
going
to
need
a
little
more
space
likely
than
than
a
typical
office
situation.
Would.
F
H
F
Here
this
is
related
to
the
affordable
and
senior
housing
incentives,
so
the
way
that
it
was
written
indicated
that
you
would
have
to
meet
both
of
these
requirements
to
have
the
reduction
for
affordable
and
senior
housing.
But
we
think
the
initial
per
the
initial
intent
was
for
them
to
be
separate
that
you
were
meeting
one
or
the
other
so
clarifying
that
and
making
that
process
slightly
easier.
F
Okay,
so
this
section
is
related
to
again
alley
access.
It's
just
referenced
more
than
once
in
code,
so
this
is
the
second
location
where
that
is
located.
F
And
then
the
language
removal
is
something
that
we
have
a
hard
time
with.
Sometimes
when
there
is
development
for
multi-family
that
this
20
feet
by
40
feet
has
been
too
restrictive
and
doesn't
quite
make
sense.
So
we're
proposing
to
take
that
out.
F
This
is
in
the
primarily
mixed-use
districts
and
then
for
exterior
facades,
trying
to
clarify
how
to
read
that
language
or
how
to
apply
that
language
to
to
a
building
so
breaking
down
the
requirements
into
modules
that
we
think
wasn't
quite
clear
before
so,
requiring
that
each
module
be
looked
at
separately
and
that
they
each
have
each
meet
the
three
architectural
requirements
and
then
adjusting
those
requirements
again,
based
on
the
feedback
that
we
received
from
the
public
from
the
local,
Architects
I
should
say-
and
we
did
something
similar
here
for
primary
pedestrian
entry
and
made
a
number
of
clarifications
or
changes
based
on
what
the
local
architect's
feedback
was
about,
what
kind
of
made
more
sense,
better
ways
to
describe
or
better
things
to
include
than
what
was
previously
there.
F
So
we
thought
some
of
these
changes
would
be
quite
helpful
and
are
proposing
them
here
and
then
we
are
also
proposing
changes
in
the
residential.
So
that
would
be
primarily
for
multi-family
again
with
metal
and
again
with
the
primary
pedestrian
entry
and
exterior
facade
with
requirements,
and
so
we
can
look
at
go
back
to
that.
If
you
need
to.
F
We
worked
with
other
departments,
including
parks
and
city
of
Bloomington
utilities,
to
work
on
separation
of
Street
trees
from
utility
lines,
that's
something
we
go
around
and
around
about
and
Engineering
as
well,
and
we
came
to
a
conclusion
that
we
think
works
for
everyone,
so
that
large
canopy
trees
shall
be
planted
at
least
10
feet
from
public
sanitary
sewer,
water
service
lines
and
natural
gas
lines.
The
difference
there
from
current
language
is
adding
public
and
then
also
these
caveats.
F
Medium
and
small
trees
shall
be
planted
at
least
five
feet
from
public
sanitary
sewer,
water
service
signs
and
natural
gas
lines,
except
that
those
trees
planted
less
than
five
feet
from
public
sanitary
sewer,
water
service
lines
and
natural
gas
lines
may
be
approved
by
the
director,
and
obviously
the
director
would
consult
with
the
relevant
parties
as
well.
They
just
didn't
feel
that
they
needed
to
be
listed
here.
F
If
10
feet
can't
be
done,
you
can
use
a
smaller
tree
because
they're
less
impactful
on
the
utilities,
and
if
that
can't
be
done,
then
there
can
be
a
discussion
with
parks
and
engineering
and
CBU
about
doing
doing
something.
Even
less
Parks
is
spending
doing
a
large
project
for
their
Bicentennial
Tree
project
and
this
the
way
that
the
regulations
were
written
and
have
been
for
a
long
time
would
just
not
allow
a
large
majority
of
the
trees
that
they
need
to
replace.
F
So
some
language
change
and
then
just
some
clarification
here
again
at
the
bottom,
where
there
are
utility
conflicts
that
we
are
officially
engaging.
The
urban
Forester,
that's
something
that
we
already
do,
but
but
working
with
parks
and
wanting
to
include
that
again.
Just
for
clarity
for
anyone
using
the
Udo
that
that
that
that's
kind
of
the
way
to
go
okay,
so
we
took
out
a
reference
to
distribution.
F
We
heard
from
the
senior
zoning
planner
that
that
was
no
longer
necessary
based
on
some
of
the
other
requirements
in
code,
and
then
we
added
these
two
references,
one
to
Green
infrastructure,
basically
indicating
that
any
green
infrastructure
facility
would
be
required
to
use
native
seeds
or
plugs
and
then
installation
prior
to
occupancy
that
all
Landscaping
basically
be
required
before
you
can
have
occupancy.
That,
again
is
something
we
already
do,
but
thought
having
it
clarified
in
code
would
be
helpful
and
then
finally
I
think
on
this
page
species
identification.
F
Again
a
suggestion
from
the
senior
environmental
planner
and
then
a
number
of
the
rest
of
these
that
you
see
here,
I
would
say
the
next
10
or
12,
or
so.
These
are
again
all
from
the
senior
environmental
planner
and
they
are
kind
of
changing
the
changing.
Some
of
the
verbiage,
clarifying,
for
example,
that
the
caliper
listed
for
trees
is
a
minimum,
and
then
we
have
new
tables
for
all
of
our
allowed
plantings.
F
So
that's
Street,
trees,
interior
tree
species
table
that
we're
now
just
calling
permitted
shrub
species
and
then
permitted
herbaceous
flowering
perennial
plant
species.
So
you
can
see
those
in
the
chapter
basically
they're,
just
completely
replaced
so
utilizing
some
of
the
existing
species,
but
clarifying
those
that
need
to
be
added
or
removed
and
I
believe
that's
based
on
her
consultation,
not
only
with
the
environmental
commission,
but
also
the
urban
Forester
and
other
Parks
staff.
One
of
those
tables
is
mislabeled
in
the
red
line,
so
that
will
be
fixed
to
table
17
where
it
says
15
now.
F
Otherwise
those
should
be
good
to
go
foreign.
Let's
see.
Okay,
these
were
these
are
important
related
to
Street
trees.
F
These
next
few
changes
so
basically
clarifying
that
each
of
these
regulations
has
its
own
purpose,
so
this
first
one
is
related
to
number,
so
the
minimum
number
of
required
Street
trees
currently
now
is
based
on
one
street
tree
every
40
feet
of
Frontage
we're
increasing
the
number
of
trees
by
reducing
that
number
to
every
30
feet,
but
clarifying
here
that
this
this
sometimes
we
have
sometimes
an
issue
with
this
with
developers
and
staffs
reading
of
this
that
this
is
just
for
numbers,
so
you
start
out
with
the
number
that's
required,
and
then
you
move
down
the
line
to
location
and
separation
and
that
well,
ideally,
none
should
be
planted
more
than
30
feet
apart
that
there
are
some
situations
where
that
is
needed
and
it
is
allowed.
F
So
code
was
pretty
unclear
about
that
previously
and
then
just
putting
in
some
references
to
the
administrative
manual
where
we
will
be
putting
in
stabilization
and
mulching
requirements
that
are
recommended
by
the
tree.
Commission.
F
First
here
we
added
some
uses
that
cannot
be
in
your
buffer
yards.
This
is
something
we
have
an
issue
with
occasionally
so
buildings
parking
areas,
swimming
pools
and
drive.
Aisles
are
not
allowed
within
the
area
that
you're
supposed
to
be
using
to
buffer
the
uses
next
door
to
you,
because
those
are
supposed
to
be
filled
with
vegetation
and
then
we
are
changing
the
table.
So
the
existing
table
does
seem
simpler,
it's
based
on
use,
but
it
really
just
is
not
working
for
us
very
well.
F
It's
not
nuanced
enough,
so
we
went
back
to
zoning
district
and
basically,
if
the
develop
the
development
is
in
the
zoning
District
that
runs
down
the
left
side
of
the
table,
then
you
see
what
the
adjacent
zoning
district
is
along
the
top,
and
that
is
how
you
determine
what
buffer
yard
to
have.
We
are
changing
our
buffer
yards
a
little
bit.
We
have
run
into
a
number
of
issues
on
smaller
developing
sites,
which
is
something
that
we're
encouraging.
F
You
know
smaller
smaller
multi-family
development,
but
the
lots
are
so
small
that
they
don't
often
have
room
for
a
full
buffer
yard
and
full
building
setback.
So,
while
the
code
right
now
has
those
two
things
next
to
each
other,
we
will
allow
them
to
be
stacked.
So
you
will
still
have
to
have
the
same
number
of
plantings,
but
we
have
seen
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
and
I
believe
the
hearing
officer
Grant
variances
for
smaller
Lots.
F
So
we
are
just
going
ahead
and
saying
that
you
don't
need
the
extra
space
for
the
building
setback
that
those
two
things
can
be
considered
at
this
in
the
same
location
and
again,
the
plantings
don't
go
down,
and
additionally,
the
impervious
surface
coverage
doesn't
go
down
either
so
still
providing
Green
Space
on
the
lot
so
parking
lot.
Landscaping
is
next.
We
have
a
clarification
that
if
you
have
sidewalk
immediately
adjacent
to
your
parking
spaces
that
you
can
have
your
rear
required
shrubs
immediately
on
the
outside
of
the
parking
outside
of
the
sidewalk.
F
That's
something
that
has
been
unclear
and
comes
up
quite
a
bit
clarifying
that
those
trees
that
are
within
your
Islands
do
not
count
toward
other
requirements
again
trying
to
get
as
much
coverage
over
the
parking
lot,
as
makes
sense,
and
it's
possible.
F
We
are
now
to
screening.
This
is
something
that
comes
up
in
the
downtown
quite
a
bit
and
we
are
exempting
ground-mounted
equipment
within
10
feet
and
of
approved
alley
and
improved
platted
alley.
Excuse
me
from
screening,
so
the
way
code
is
written.
Now
you
basically
have
to
screen
your.
You
know
your
Duke
box
that
you're
getting
on
the
back
of
your
property,
even
if
there
is
no
other
property
besides
Ally
immediately
adjacent.
F
Onto
signage
right
now,
all
public
signs
are
exempt
from
having
to
receive
a
signed
permit.
We
are
proposing
that
city
of
Bloomington
Public
signs
be
exempt
from
the
regulations
as
well,
so
that
it's
kind
of
unclear,
for
example,
where
they
can
be
located
or
size
requirements.
I
I,
think
the
way
that
this
code
used
to
be
administered
was
that
they
were
just
exempt
period,
but
the
technical
language
says
that
they're
just
exempt
from
a
permit,
so
we
are
adding
that
they
should
be
exempt
from
the
regulations.
F
F
Hang
in
there,
we've
made
a
couple
of
proposals
to
changes
for
drive-through
uses.
Again,
as
most
of
you
know,
we
can't
regulate
content
of
signs,
so
we
have
to
write
them
for
uses
if
we
want
them
to
be
different
from
other
sign
regulations.
So
these
sign
regulations
are
written
for
uses
that
utilize
drive-throughs.
What
we
are
trying
to
write
in
here
is
those
electronic
reader
board
signs
you
see
in
the
drive
through
that
tells
you
what
you've
ordered
either
as
a
portion
of
the
large
sign
or
the
one.
F
That's
right
next
to
you
at
the
window,
currently
they've
just
become
kind
of
ubiquitous
and
we've
seen
some
variances
variance
requests
for
that.
We
don't
really
have
any
way
to
approve
that
in
that
way
easily.
So
we
kind
of
tried
to
write
them
in
here
in
a
limited
way,
so
that
they
would
be
optional
for
people
to
be
able
to
use
those
we've
found
that
obviously
they're
all
over
town
and
that
they're
not
causing
issues
I.
Think,
let's
see,
and
then
we
change
some
sinus
sinus
regulations
for
multi-family
dwelling
uses.
F
There
is
a
difference
between
there's
a
difference
in
scale
of
what
you're
allowed
to
do.
14
units
or
less
15
units,
or
more
so
trying
to
kind
of
make
that
simpler
and
have
it
apply,
apply
more
evenly
across
across
the
use.
So
we
replace
the
language
for
multi-family
in
our
two
residential
multi-family
districts,
with
the
language
that
was
already
in
the
mixed
use,
District
so
applying
to
multi-family
in
the
same
way
across
those
districts.
S
F
D
F
Adding
some
language
for
multi-tenant
signage
for
the
Mixed
use,
neighborhood
District
previously,
if
you
were
doing
any
multi-family
in
that
District
No
signage,
was
allowed
so
adding
a
limited,
120
square
foot
sign
which
is
a
portion
of
what
would
be
allowed
in
a
more
intense
District
and
finally,
just
clarifying
that
electronic
reader
boards
are
also
prohibited
in
the
I
believe
this
is
in
the
MD
yeah
in
the
MD
zoning
district
for
science
and
that's
all
I
have
for
that.
F
One
I'm
happy
to
go
back
and
look
at
anything
that
piqued
your
interest.
Things.
P
So
concerning
the
parking
and
the
new
ratios
that
you
have
did
you:
where
did
we
come
up
the
numbers
or
just?
Is
it
the
ratios
industry
standards
or
on
some
of
those
limits
that
we're
proposing.
F
Sorry
so
from
different
places
right,
yes,
some
of
them
are
kind
of
standard.
Some
are
ones
that
we've
seen
work
based
on
ones,
we've
seen
that
haven't
worked,
and
so
we've
tweaked
those,
for
example,
for
some
of
the
more
common
uses.
Some
of
the
ones
that
didn't
have
limits
were
similar
to
uses
that
did
have
limits.
So
then
we
just
kind
of
tried
to
match
those
some
of
the
kind
of
bigger
ones
that
would
maybe
be
more
impactful.
We
looked
up
those
types
of
uses
in
other
places,
so,
for
example,
like
jail
or
Stadium.
F
J
F
Then
also
I'll
say
that
the
limits
that
we're
showing
are
limits
for
the
use,
but
it's
for
surface
parking
right.
So
if
you're
in
a
district
that
also
allows
parking
garages
which
most
of
them
mixed-use
districts
do
you
could
build
a
parking
garage
if
you're
not
going
to
get
the
number
that
you
need
on
Surface
parking
and
so
for
us
as
a
following
kind
of
policy
guidelines.
We
don't
want
to
encourage
surface
parking,
so
we
actually
think
most
of
these
numbers
are
pretty
generous.
F
But
if
someone
thought
that
they
weren't,
they
could
still
get
the
parking
if
they
did
structured
parking
and
so
I
think
that's
in
line
with
you
know:
encouraging
more
green
and
kind
of
less
less
land
for
just
for
cars.
Basically,.
P
And
before
they
were
just
no
limits
at
all
correct,
correct,
I
guess
some
of
my
concern
with
some
of
the
employment
uses
is
I:
guess
did
they
did
they
figure
in
like
shift
changes
and
and
because
I'd
like
when
I
go
by?
Oh
cattle
went
down
there,
it
gets
real
busy
as
a
as
cars
are
coming
and
out
and.
P
F
Do
think
they're
very
yes
I,
do
think
they're,
generous
I
think
they
might
feel
worrisome
to
people
because
we
didn't
have
them
before.
But,
for
example,
I
mean
Catalan
is
like
almost
800
000
square
feet,
so
they
could
have
if
they
weren't
in
a
PUD
and
they
were
building
today.
You
know
all
these
ifs.
They
could
have
2
640
parking
spaces,
surface
parking
spaces,
and
so
is
that
something
that
we,
as
you
know,
is
that
something
we
want
they
could
even
under
these
numbers,
I
think
that
they
are
generous,
I.
F
Think
if
we
were
tipping,
you
know
3
000
spaces.
We
may
need
to
be
talking
about
structured
parking
with
them
at
some
point.
So
for
not
them
particularly,
but
for
an
outfit
of
that
size,
it's
I.
I
do
think
that
we
think
that
they
are
generous,
yeah.
S
F
Yes,
I
think
because
the
way
or
this
is
this
was
why
we
proposed
it
because
they're
like
two
separate
headings:
it's
not
that
the
bump
out
trees
are
kind
of
like
nested
or
whatever
under
the
interior
trees.
So
if
you
have,
for
example,
a
site
with
no
parking
lot,
you
know
you're
having.
However
many
interior
trees,
you
have
to
have
based
on
your
open,
Green,
Space,
and
so
then
to
us.
F
If
you're
offsetting,
if
you're
taking
some
of
that
land
away
to
be
parking,
then
parking
lots
have
their
own
landscaping
requirements
and
one
of
those
is
Island
trees.
And
then
you
analyze
the
rest
of
your
open
space
as
your
interior
space,
as
you
would.
If
the
parking
lot
wasn't
there,
we
we
have
kind
of
seen
over
the
course
I
would
say
at
least
the
last
year
numbers
that
they
seem
too
low.
F
When
they're
saying
oh
well,
we're
using
this
for
that
and
kind
of
double
counting
things,
and
it's
not
that
the
sites
can't
support
the
the
number
of
trees.
It's
just
that
they
you
know,
would
prefer
to
do
less
so
increasing
the
tree
coverage
around.
You
know
mature
tree
coverage
around
the
parking.
Lots,
I
think
is
something
that
we
want
to
do
from
kind
of
an
environmental
standpoint.
G
P
F
F
And
I'll
say
the
convention
center,
one
didn't
change
so
it
looks
like
it
changed,
but
it's
not
actually
it
was
just
written
oddly.
So
it
had
it
had
a
I'm.
Sorry
I,
don't
remember
what
page
that's
on.
D
B
F
Oh
I
see
it
I'm
so
sorry
conference
or
thank
you
or
Convention
Center.
So
two
spaces
per
1000
square
foot
of
ground
floor
four
surface
parking.
It
already
is
for
surface
parking
and
then,
if
they
wanted
to
do
a
structured
parking
garage,
we
took
out
a
limit
on
structured
parking
garages
just
period
And.
Basically,
if
you're
doing
a
garage,
you're
just
limited
by
all
the
other
design
standards
from
your
site,
you
know
block
coverage,
those
types
of
things:
height.
D
K
Okay,
now
I'm
going
to
cause
trouble.
So,
given
it
you
know,
we
have
a
problem
with
affordable
housing.
You
know
and
the
lack
of
access
to
a
lack
of
places.
We
don't
have
enough.
Supply
people
are
building
places
down
by
Crane
and
taking
away
some
of
our
people
that
live
here
with
their
nice
salaries,
cookies
building
something
in
Owen
County,
so
I
know
this
has
been
on
my
mind
for
at
least
a
year
have
have
you
all
looked
at
different
ways
to
change
the
affordable
housing
criteria.
K
That's
on
page
309
to
help
increase
the
or
incentivize
to
help.
So
people
can
commercial
Builders
and
can
to
help
them
make
it
easier
for
them
to
make
it
faster
to
make
it
so
that
we
can
increase
that
Supply.
K
So
I'm
wondering
I,
don't
see
any
changes
in
that
here
and
so
I'm
kind
of
surprised
actually
and
wonder:
I
mean
I!
Think
you
guys
are
all
wonderful
and
smart
people
and
everything.
So
how
is
that?
F
Yeah
I
think
one
of
the
answers
is:
we
did
some
changes
last
year,
you'll
recall
to
the
affordable
housing
incentives
and
yeah,
so
we
did
some
and
we're
kind
of
still
in
the
process
of
seeing
what
is
going
on
with
those
I
can
let
Scott.
K
Q
Jack
here
are
you
good
thank
you,
councilmember
Smith,
Scott,
Robinson
planning
and
transportation
director
great
question.
As
you
know,
we
keep
trying
to
sweeten
the
pot
for
the
incentives.
So
last
year
we
changed
the
metrics
of
the
floor
plates.
If
you
remember
that
whole
thing,
we
tried
to
equalize
what
we
were
seeing
earlier
versions
as
everybody
was
doing
sustainability
and
not
affordability.
So
we
changed
the
metrics
to
make
those
more
of
a
equal
bang
for
their
buck
and
then,
if
they
do
both
they
get
kind
of
a
bigger
bang
for
their
Buck.
Q
So
we're
still
seeing
what
we're
getting
from
the
development
community
on
that.
You
also
remember
if
we
just
brought
through
the
tro,
the
overlay
For
Hopewell,
and
we
did
tweak
the
affordability
there,
so
we
added
more
bang
for
your
buck
for
affordability,
but,
as
you
know,
Hopewell
we're
still
putting
the
infrastructure
and
plotting
in
there
when
we
hope
to
have.
We
have
some
rfis
requests
for
information
out
to
the
development
Community
to
look
at
some
development
proposals,
so
I
think
right
now
we're
still
waiting
to
kind
of
hear
response
from
the
development
community
on.
Q
If
these
incentives
are
right,
sized
or
not,
we
still
are
fairly
limited
on
available
land
in
Bloomington.
So
most
of
the
things
we're
looking
at
are
Redevelopment
and
there
are
some
challenges
to
what
developers
are
looking
at
their
formulas
on
how
they,
you
know
the
development
types
of
buildings
they're
getting
and
we're
trying
to
steer
them
to
smaller,
more
discrete
buildings
rather
than
larger.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
The
Balancing
Act
that
we're
currently
in
so
no,
there
is
nothing
in
this
current
proposal.
Q
That's
that's
changing
that
formula,
but
we're
still
very
aware
of
ways.
We
can
help
sweeten
that
pot
for
affordable
housing,
I'm
hopeful,
the
tro
overlay-
will
will
have
something
fairly
soon.
Once
we
get
those
rfis
back
and
hopefully
get
some
success
stories
with
the
incentives
that
we
tailored
for
that
part
of
Bloomington.
K
Q
It's
it's
very
dependent
on
the
project
in
some
of
the
complexities,
so
one
of
the
projects
was
a
PUD
approved
up
on
north
Bloomington
up
on
Arlington
Atlas
Jackie.
What's
it
called
Atlas
on
17th?
Q
Yes,
in
that
project
they
dedicated
land
to
the
city,
so
we're
very
close
to
having
that
land
turned
over
to
the
city,
and
we
have
two
housing
providers
developers
ready
to
start
building
some
affordable
units
up
there
that
was
approved,
I,
believe
in
20
2019.
It
was
pre-udo
that
PUD
was
approved,
so
I
mean
it's.
It
takes
time
depending
on
the
project
and
there's
others,
the
annex
that
is
on
Third
Street,
there's
affordability,
there.
Those
will
be
online.
Q
This
fall
I
believe
they
seem
to
be
on
schedule
with
that,
and
so
I
believe
that
project
was
approved
2020.
Q
Q
Takes
a
couple
years
to
see
some
of
these
things
come
to
fruition
habitat
you
know
with
their
Assad
Assad's
place.
You
know
that
took
City
County,
help
to
get
that
land
ready
and
they're
getting
units
built
down
there,
and
so
we're
seeing
units
being
built,
but
again
numbers
we're
not
seeing
a
lot
happening
on
a
daily
basis,
but
they'll
have
a
lot
overall.
At
the
end.
Q
Q
So
I
mean
the
good
news.
Is
you
know,
there's
been
a
lot
approved
throughout
the
community?
It's
just
it's
going
to
take
time
to
start
seeing
those
get
put
into
the
system
once
they're
approved
and
ready
to
go
forward.
So.
R
Right,
thank
you.
So
much
again,
my
name
is
Dave.
Harstad
I
am
a
resident
in
a
downtown
property
owner
and
a
broker
in
town
and
I'm
rising
to
comment
on
a
couple
of
things.
First,
just
very
briefly:
the
Landscaping
requirements
more
just
a
question
than
anything
I'm,
just
wondering
if
someone
who
is
compliant
under
this
present
code
has
a
change
of
use
or
something
else
that
triggers
bringing
things
into
compliance.
If
you
planted,
you
know
15,
ginkgo's
or
non-native
pollinator
friendly
type
plants.
R
If
that
results
in
someone
having
to
cut
down
all
15
trees
that
they
planted
and
have
to
replace
them
with
Oaks
or
whatever
native
plants
there
are
so
I
would
love
to
get
a
response
to
that.
Second,
and
the
main
reason
I'm
here
is
I,
want
to
talk
about
the
well
specifically
I
want
to
ask
you
to
to
withdraw
or
or
pull
back
from
consideration
this
maximum
vehicle
parking
allowance.
R
At
the
end
of
the
day,
this
is
a
really
small
town.
We
had
this
air
formality
here.
I
know
all
of
you.
You
all
know
each
other
when
at
when
commissioner
Cochran
asked
you
know
where
these
things
came
from
there
was,
you
know
all
these
issues,
but
I
didn't
hear
when
it
comes
to
regulating
parking
at
stadiums
that
you
called
IU,
Athletics
and
sat
down
with
them
and
talked
through
it.
R
R
Think
that
many
of
this
you
know
this
expansion
into
this
vehicle
caps
is,
is
really
really
dangerous
in
the
downtown
area.
I
sort
of
get
it
right,
it's
problematic,
but
particularly
in
in
Suburban
areas
with
Industries
I
spent
a
lot
of
my
time
working
with
manufacturers
and
Distributors
and
those
those
sorts
of
uses.
You
know
they
they
you
can't
just
park
on
street
right
I
mean
downtown.
If
you,
if
you
can't
park
in
your
Park
in
your
private
parking
lot,
there's
a
surface
parking
lot
there
for
you.
R
If
you're
out
in
the
middle
of
the
county
in
areas
that
might
be
annexed,
you've
got
a
real
problem.
In
addition
to
that,
if
you've
got
a
53-foot
trailer,
it
may
have
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
worth
of
equipment
in
it
and
it
needs
to
be
in
a
parking
spot
and
each
use
is
different
and
so
I
think
you
know,
I
understand
the
sustainability
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff
that
we
all
agree
on.
R
But
the
larger
issue
here
for
me
is
that
this
is
going
to
cause
a
lot
of
issues
with
a
lot
of
people.
It
is,
among
others,
it'll,
probably
lead
to
more
meetings,
for
you.
R
It'll
probably
lead
to
more
bza
meetings
for
variances,
and
so
you
know
what
I
hear
in
my
practice
again
and
again
again,
unfortunately,
and
I-
don't
I,
don't
mean
this
to
be
a
personal
shot
at
anyone,
but
our
planning
department
is
very
slow
in
getting
things
done
these
days,
you
talk
to
people
in
the
real
estate
business
and
things
will
sit
on
the
desk
for
a
very
very
long
time,
and
so
anything
that
leads
to
more
meetings
more
delay.
R
R
You
know
so
the
jail.
Why
would
the
jail
have
a
limitation
of
two
spaces
per
thousand,
but
this
building
here
as
we
expand
it?
Why
would
why
would
the
city
get
four
spaces
per
thousand
plus
unlimited
police
and
fire
that
there
may
be
a
good
reason
for
that?
But
it's
just
you
know
it's
just
it
seems
self-dealing
and
anytime
a
city
is
you
know,
saying
to
the
public
that
you
know
do
as
I
say
and
not
as
I
do
that's?
What
causes
me
to
come
here
and
testify
I,
just
I
I.
R
We
could
go
through
each
one
of
these
parking
things
one
by
one
and
pick
them
apart,
but
the
larger
issue
here
is
that
we
got
to
talk
to
each
other
and
the
city
needs
to
play
by
the
same
rules
as
everybody
else,
and
we
just
you
know
it's
just.
R
We
need
better
processes
and
we
need
to
think
about
what
policies
are
we
actually
trying
to
advance
by
putting
parking
maximums
in
in
are
the
policies
that
we're
adopting
actually
advancing
that,
and
are
you
evaluating
that
and
looking
at
that
in
in
with
fact-based
research,
to
show
that
you
know
yes,
what
we're
doing
is
actually
having
an
impact
on
climate
or
whatever.
So
thank
you.
A
All
right
so
now
we
were
back
to
the
commission
for
any
additional
comments.
Commissioner,
internet
Randall.
O
I
just
have
a
procedural
question
depending
on
the
favor
of
the
plan.
Commission
tonight
are
we
serving
as
a
recommendation
to
the
common
Council.
So
if
we
move
this
forward,
then.
O
All
and
then,
if
there
was
amendments
to
it,
we'd
be
moving
it
forward
with
a
positive
negative
or
no
recommendation
as
well
correct.
O
And
then
I
guess
to
wrap
up
this
procedural
question.
If
this
is
moved
to
a
a
following
meeting
or
tabled,
does
it
move
to
the
common
Council
regardless.
N
No,
it
wouldn't
move
to
the
common
Council.
If
you
decide
to
continue
your
consideration
of
the
amendment,
it
would
not
go
to
Common
Council
yet
so.
O
Okay,
so
there
is
some
measures
here
where
the
commission
can
take
consideration
on
what
needs
to
be
done
before
the
common
Council
hears
it.
So
I
just
really
wanted
to
identify
the
tools
in
our
toolbox
when
we're
looking
at
something
like
this,
because
there
are
certain
things
that
you
know
I
think
are
going
to
be
problematic
for
one
I
think
accessory
dwellings.
In
some
cases,
no
additional
parking
is
probably
needed.
O
O
Until
it's
sold
and
then
maybe
someone
that
drives
a
car
is
eventually
renting
that
accessory
dwelling,
so
I
do
think
what
we're
looking
at
is
probably
needed,
and
maybe
addressing
a
lot
of
comments
of
you
know
like
let's
put
limits
on
parking
spaces,
but
yeah
I
I
agree
with
our
public
speaker
today
that
we
would.
We
probably
should
iron
out
some
of
these
first
before
just
simply
moving
it
forward.
N
I
do
want
to
just
mention
for
clarity.
There
is
a
I
believe,
a
60-day
time
period.
I,
don't
think.
We've
ever
encountered
that
so
I
would
want
to
check
to
make
sure
I've
got
the
time
period
right,
but
once
the
commission
holds
a
public
hearing,
I
believe
you
have
60
days
to
vote
on
it
before
it
would
be
forwarded.
So
there
is
a
clock
out
there.
L
F
L
So
you
wouldn't
have
to
change
the
tree
correct
and
then
actually
have
three
questions
in
terms
of
the
government.
The
com
comment
about
government
parking
is
the
government
service
facility.
Is
that
that
considered
this
building?
L
F
Okay,
so
the
technical
definition
of
government
service
facility
is
a
facility
owned,
operated
or
occupied
by
any
level
of
government
to
provide
a
governmental
service,
but
not
including
offices
for
the
provision
of
governmental
services
or
facilities
for
any
government
operations
separately
defined
in
this
Udo.
So
I
think
we
would.
C
L
Okay,
so
yeah
go
ahead,
so
you're
going
from
no
limit
on
a
building
like
this
to
limited
parking
for
the
city
of
Bloomington.
Yes,
okay,
just
want
to
clarify
and
also
I'm
confused
by
the
language
that
a
detached
garage
has
no
additional
parking.
So
you
can
build
a
detached
garage,
but
you
can't
have
parking.
It
must
be
in
the.
F
Garage,
so
this
address
I'll
address
your
question
and
also
addresses
trons
single
family
detached
and
attached
units.
Don't
have
any
limit
so
doing
something
accessory
to
them
also
doesn't
need
a
lit.
All
can
have
a
limit
because
your
house
could
have
800
parking
spaces.
So
if
you
decide
to
build
an
Adu
and
your
driveway,
you
make
it.
You
know
20
feet
longer
to
accommodate
one
extra
car
you're
allowed
to
do
that.
That's
fine!
Or
if
you
build
a
detached
garage,
you
can
have
have
the
driveway
there
as.
L
F
F
Them
and
finding
something:
okay,
that's
appropriate
and
I
will
say
you
know
the
point
of
saying:
oh,
we
want
to
treat
everyone
the
same.
We
do.
We
have,
however,
many
uses
in
there
already
that
are
limited.
Why
do
these
other
uses
Get
No
Limit?
It
doesn't
there's
no
logical
reason
for
that
and
we
have
heard
from
the
public.
F
We
have
a
had
a
very
robust,
comprehensive
plan
conversation
and
we
have
set
as
a
community
that
we
don't
want
to
prioritize
parking,
and
we
have
put
that
in
in
many
other
ways,
and
in
this
way
we
just
didn't
do
that
when
we
did
the
full
update
and
we
haven't-
and
we
are
responsive.
However,
slowly
feel
free
to
advocate
for
us
to
have
more
staff.
We
are
responsive
and
we
we've
had
numerous
restaurant
variances.
F
So
we're
going
back
and
asking
you
to
increase
that,
and
we
understand
that
it's
low
if
it
were
to
come
out
that
one
of
these,
even
though
we've
looked
at
them,
ended
up
being
too
low.
We
would
come
back
and
ask
you
to
change
it
and
we
would
work
with
them
as
we've
done
the
other
uses
so
that
they
could,
you
know
reasonably
be
able
to
operate
on
their
properties.
L
That's
a
good
point:
I
mean
it
when
you
do
when
you
say
why
do
we
limit
these
others
like?
Why
is
to
me?
Why
is
the
hospital
limited
on
parking
and
and
others
have
no
limits,
so
that
is
a
good
point.
Thank
you
for
making
that,
because
there
probably
is
a
case
to
be
made
for
several
of
these,
that
they
should
not
have
been
no
limit
in
to
begin
with,
and.
B
F
And
I'd
also
like
to
point
out:
I
I
think
you
all
know
this,
but
we
don't
regulate
IU,
trustee,
owned
property,
so
asking
IU
what
their
thoughts
are
on
a
stadium
is
moot.
They
can
build
as
many
stadiums
as
they
want
and
there's
nothing
we
can
do
about
it.
We
tried
to
look
at
other
stadiums
for
the
types
of
private
or
private
partnership,
stadiums
that
have
been
built
in
communities
of
our
size
in
this
region
and
what
those
what
they
did
and
made
sure
that
our
numbers
made
sense
for
them.
F
Are
we
going
to
get
you
know?
Maybe
you
all
know
secret
thing
and
we're
getting
some
sort
of
AAA
team
here
or
something.
If
something
comes
through
that
that
isn't
going
to
work
out,
we
will
work
with
them,
but
based
on
what
we've
seen
development
in
the
last
four
years
of
these
types
of
uses,
these
numbers
are
appropriate.
Q
I
just
want
to
help
maybe
clarify
why
some
of
these
were
changed.
Miss
scandalin
did
mention
that
when
we
brought
the
tro
overlay
through
the
process,
which
you
first
reviewed
and
recommended
a
positive
positive
recommendation
to
council,
it
was
during
that
conversation
with
our
elected
officials
that
they
expect
us
to
have
maximums
in
our
code,
because
during
that
process
the
question
came
up
is
like:
why
do
some
uses?
Don't
have
parking
maximums,
so
I
am
honoring
their
requests
saying
that
we
would
bring
this
forward
at
this
time
now.
Q
Is
it
you
know
spot
on
right
on
I
I,
think
Miss
Scanlon
provided
a
pretty
good
context
that
we
we
have
a
pretty
good,
educated
guess,
but
if
it's
wrong
we'll
fix
it,
we've
been
back
every
year
consistently
with
text
amendments
we're
actually
considering
bringing
forward
another
batch
later
this
year,
just
depending
on
you
know,
feedback
that
we
hear
so
again.
If
we
don't
get
it
right
tonight,
we
can
take
a
similar
approach.
If
you
want
to
pull
it
out,
you
can
we
can
move
forward,
but
I
fully
expect.
Q
H
Yes,
I
I,
probably
feel
like
most
of
this
has
already
been
discussed,
but
I
just
want
to
lift
up
or
invite
the
staff
specifically
to
respond
to
the
critique
about
the
strategy
that
was
used
and
the
idea
of
asking
asking
people
about
what
would
work
sounds.
B
H
A
nice
folksy,
you
know,
you
know
kind
of
community-based
strategy
and
I,
don't
I,
don't
mean
to
make
light
of
it,
but
it
sounds
like
you
used
a
a
process
and
I
wonder
if
you
wanted
to
elaborate
on
any
of
that.
You
know
you
indicated
that
you
went
to
some
other
places
to
determine
to
other
sites
and
locales
to
make
this
determination.
Is
there
anything
else
that
indicates
what
you
did
to
derive
these
limits.
F
Sure
I
would
just
say
again,
you
know
yes,
so,
for
example,
we
looked
at
other
jail
facilities
that
are
proposed
or
have
been
built
around
the
state
or
in
the
region.
In
the
last
handful
of
years
we
did
do
that
when
we
had
the
rezone
as
well,
so
we
had
some
of
that
data
from
when
we
did
that
again.
Looking
up,
you
know
small-scale
stadiums,
looking
looking
at
Catalan,
how
much
parking
do
they
have?
How
much
parking
would
they
be
allowed?
F
If
we
were
to
have
you
know
something
of
that
nature
again
so
trying
to
look
at
the
uses
that
are
already
regulated
in
the
code
and
of
those
that
weren't
regulated
were
there
any
that
were
similar,
and
so
we
could
use
those
as
a
guide
and
then
those
that
didn't
have
you
know
a
touch
Point
already
in
the
code
trying
to
find
a
real
life
example,
if
possible-
and
you
know
seeing
how
many,
if
our
regulation
that
we
were
proposing
made
sense
for
what
they
had
on
the
ground
or
what
they
would
want
to
propose.
H
It
sounds
to
me
like
there's:
there's
multiple
policies
being
Advanced.
One
is
a
response
to
the
council's
request
for
limits
and
and
parking
concerns,
but
the
other
one
is
not
wanting
to
prioritize
parking
and
then
this
fairness
aspect
that
was
just
raised
by
commissioner
St
John's
question
about
setting
the
need
to
be
equal,
or
at
least
Equitable,
about
setting
some
limits
for
all,
because
previously
some
didn't
are
there
any
other
policies
that
are
being
advanced.
F
I
would
say,
and
we
can
we
yeah
sorry,
we
and
we
can
call
them
out
for
counsel,
but
you
know
there:
there
are
numerous
policies
and
goals
in
the
comprehensive
plan
you
know
related
to,
as
I
said,
not
prioritizing
parking,
but
also
prioritizing
the
use
of
space
for
something
else
for
green
space
or
habitable
space
or
people,
and
not.
You
know,
focusing
only
letting
the
kind
of
historic
planning
model
of
letting
the
parking
dictate.
What
else
can
go
there
so
kind
of
getting
away
from
that
I.
F
Think
yeah
is
something
that
we,
if
you
guys,
choose
to
move
this
forward,
something
that
we
can
include
for
Council,
though
they
asked
us
to
do
this,
but
just
for
clarification
for
public
purposes
of
of
what
kind
of
goals
we're
trying
to
meet
with
that
one.
L
I'm
glad
you
did
this
and
I
feel
badly
asking
some
of
these
questions,
because
I
feel
like
I'm
picking
apart,
someone's
really
hard
work,
so
it
doesn't
feel
great,
but
I
am
going
to
ask
a
couple
questions.
So
please
bear
with
me
so
a
couple
of
them
like
how
what
about
like
and
I,
don't
even
golf.
So
two
spaces
per
golf
hole.
What
how'd
you
do
that
that's
so
18
holes,
36
people,
they
have
a
golf
tournament
and
it's
foursomes
on
all
18
holes
and
there's
not
going
to
be
enough
space
yeah.
T
Ryan
rolling
planning
services
manager
it
just
matches
the
existing
use.
Golf
Course
I
didn't
add
a
whole
lot
of
logic
to
that
one
not
to
make
myself
sound
foolish,
but
I
matched
the
existing
use
for
Country
Club
to
golf
course.
So
if
that's
the
one
you're
asking
about
so.
T
Yeah
they
had
to
meet
that
two
space
per
whole
limit,
potentially
not
at
the
time,
but
they
would,
if
they
came
in
today,
he's.
B
L
All
right,
yeah
I,
don't
know
if
I
had
another
one.
I
was
just
kind
of
curious.
There
was
a
community
center.
One
I
was
wondering
about
that.
Didn't
seem
like
very
many
if
they
had
some
big
like
Community
event
and
I,
guess
the
same
with
the
convention
center
I.
You
know
again
that
just
like
speaks
to
surface
parking
lot.
Usually
when
you
see
a
convention
center,
but
it's
a
Convention
Center
I
mean
it's
a
lot
of
cars.
Yeah.
F
So
from
you
know,
out
of
town
we've
obviously
had
a
lot
of
conventions
in
our
discussion
in
this
community
in
the
last,
however,
many
years
and
I
mean
I
think
we
fully
expect
right
that
there
will
be
some
sort
of
structured
parking
involved
or
in
the
area
or
something
which
is
just
not
regulated,
number
wise,
so
a
supportive
structure
plus
you
know,
if
there's
a
hotel
there,
that
those
things
will
add.
L
Important
I
understand
too
yeah
and
I
understand
you're,
taking
direction
from
the
city
council
who's
going
to
Common
Council
who's,
going
to
do
what
they're
going
to
do
and
I
don't
love
surface
parking
either,
but
I
also
do
not
do
anything
but
drive
a
car
to
get
to
work
and
I
won't
ever
ride
a
bike
or
walk
because
I
live
in
a
place
that
that's
I
can't
go
in
these
clothes
to
work.
So
I
think
there
is
a
balance
there.
So
I
appreciate
what
you
all
are
trying
to
do
in
response
to
the
council's
request.
L
P
Respectfully
to
the
council,
you
for
the
request,
but
are
you
seeing
any
issues
with
the
way
the
policy
was
or
written
before,
as
you
present
or
work
with
the
different
companies
and
the
different
businesses
in
town.
F
Sure
a
handful
so
you've
seen
in
the
other
years,
we've
come
forward.
We've
done
like
one-offs,
where
we
had
a
use
and
part
of
the
problem
is
some
of
the
code.
Some
of
the
code
is
reliant
on
this
number.
So
oh
I'm
not
going
to
say
this
right,
where
it's
based
on
whatever
the
maximum
of
your
parking
is,
helps
us
toward
other
numbers
and
when
they
didn't
have
it,
then
we
weren't
sure
what
to
do
so.
F
So
you've
seen
one
offs
where,
where
someone
came
forward
with
the
development
and
that
was
hindering
them
being
able
to
easily
develop
it
because
they
didn't
have
a
number
and
we
we
do
see
I
would
say
we
have
seen
some
developments
that
probably
could
have
gone
better
if
they
had
had
Maxes
because
like
for
limited
compliance,
for
example,
you
have
to
remove
excess
asphalt,
either
over
if
you're
over
here
impervious
or,
if
you're,
over
your
maximum
parking,
and
so
we've
had
some
locations
that
are
quite
old.
F
You
know
some
sort
of
like
a
kind
of
factory
storage,
building
with
just
entirely
almost
entirely
covered
in
Asphalt,
but
then
not
been
able
to
have
them.
Take
any
of
it
up
because
it
didn't
have
a
maximum
parking
number,
because
their
use
doesn't
have
one.
So
that
would
help
us
address
that
as
well,
which
would
go
toward
kind
of
the
goal
of
getting
getting
more
grain,
and
we
have
had
some
people
willingly
kind
of
work
with
us
on
those
areas.
A
On
the
location
of
trees,
relative
to
utilities,
there's
the
change
for
the
distinction
between
large
trees
and
small
trees,
but
it
was
there
a
corresponding
change
in
the
limit
that
that
says.
If
you
are
in
proximity
to
utilities,
you
can
have
small
trees
instead
of
large
trees,
or
we
just
assuming
that
those
kinds
of
things
are
going
to
be
handled
as.
A
Saying
in
the
event
that
so
there's
there's
a
change
to
that
to
account
for
tree
plots
that
are
in
proximity
to
utilities,
correct
and
we're
saying
that
you
small
trees,
don't
have
to
be
10
feet
away.
They
can
only
be
five
feet
away,
but
that
doesn't
necessarily
that
one
change
doesn't
necessarily
eliminate
the
need
for
large
trees
right
in
in
a
particular
project.
So
is
there
a
corresponding
change
that
allows
for
small
trees
instead
of
large
trees?.
F
A
F
F
I
think
this
answers
your
question,
but
let
me
know
if
it
doesn't
on
page
276.
It
says
the
minimum
number
of
required
Street
trees
to
be
planted
shall
be
one
large
canopy
tree
for
every
30
feet
of
property
that
abut's
a
public
right-of-way
if
medium
or
small
trees
are
allowed.
Two
medium
or
small
trees
can
be
substituted
for
each
large
canopy
tree.
A
Got
it?
Thank
you,
you're
welcome,
commissioner
brill.
M
C
M
For
new
businesses
or
new
for
us
to
attract
healthy
businesses
to
to
our
area
and
cars
are
not
going
to
go
away.
I
understand
you
know
if
we
want
to
add
public
transportation
that
is
Affordable
for
everybody.
That
would
make
it
easier,
but
not
everybody
can
walk
to
work
or
or
bike
to
work,
especially
when,
because
of
affordable
housing,
a
lot
of
our
people
live
in
Owen,
County
or
green
town,
and
they
have
to
drive
so
I.
M
What
I'm,
seeing
here
I
am
in
a
board
of
zoning
appeals
I'm,
going
to
see
a
lot
of
businesses
come
forth
with
appeals
to
change
and
Vary
the
parking
standards
for
their
project
and
and
that
that's
a
concern
to
me
when,
when
we
get
very
specific
and
make
the
numbers
so
tight,
I
think
it
would
generate
more
work
for
the
for
the
Department
of
planning
and
transportation,
not
less
so
anyway.
Just
trying
to
make
sense
of
this
I
appreciate
everybody's
work.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
I
think
I
would
add.
Add
to
that
that
sentiment.
I,
don't
think
that
I
wouldn't
characterize
the
current
state
of
the
Udo
as
prioritizing
parking.
There
are
yes,
there
are.
There
are
zones
where
there
are
no
caps,
but
there
are
plenty
of
other
limits
in
terms
of
Green
Space
requirements
and
and
impervious
service
requirements
that
most
certainly
limit
the
amount
of
it's
not
like.
It's
not
like.
A
You
can
have
unlimited
parking
right,
there's
not
a
specific
limit
on
the
number
of
spaces,
but
there
are
many
things
in
the
Udo
that
limit
the
amount
of
parking
you
can
have
on
on
any
on
any
property.
So
I
don't
think
we
I
wouldn't
characterize
it
as
we
are
prioritizing
parking
and
I
it
does.
It
does
seem
a
little
bit
to
me
like
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem
here.
I
I,
don't
think
that
we've
I
at
least
I'm
not
aware
of
very
specific
problems
we've
had
with
you
know
over
building
of
parking.
A
F
F
C
C
F
That
yeah
no
I
just
want
to
try
one
address,
but
I
don't
see
that
that's
accurate,
yeah
I
mean
it's
kind
of
yes,
I
mean
it's
up
to
you,
guys,
obviously,
as
Scott
said
I
think
if
you
take
it
out,
they
might
put
it
back
in
and
like
that's
their
you
know,
then
I'll
come
back
to
you.
Then
I'll
go
back
to.
A
Them
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
it's
something
that
we
can
just
ignore.
I
think
you're,
absolutely
right!
If
we
just
take
it
out,
the
council
is
going
to
put
it
right
back
in
right.
I,
don't
have
any
doubt
about
that,
but
I
do
feel,
like
you
know,
there's
enough
questions
here
that
maybe
it's
something
we
want
to
take
a
little
more
time
on
and
make
sure
we've
got
it
right.
Similarly,
to
how
we
dealt
with
the
the
previous
issue,
yeah
go.
S
Ahead
and
clarify:
what's
the
history
when
because
we
know
that
to
point
out
the
fairness
aspect
right,
so
some
already
had
limits
some
didn't:
when
did
the
ones
who
have
them
get
those
and
I'm
sure
that
wasn't
necessarily
all
at
one
time,
but
is
there
some
context
there.
F
Let
me
I'm
trying
to
look
at
the
old
code.
I
will
say.
I
know,
I
already
said
this,
but
the
some
have
been
added
in
the
last
few
years
as
they've
come
up
to
us
as
needing
to
be
added
mostly
in
the
context
of
The
Limited
compliance
situation
hold
on
something.
F
F
S
C
E
L
The
the
second
hearing,
the
purpose
of
a
second
hearing,
is
to
give
us
more
time,
if
we're
not
ready
sure,
but
also
to
give
the
public
more
time.
Yeah
okay
feels
a
little
bit
like
a
significant
change
to
make
to
the
udl
the
parking
changes
that
maybe
with
only
one
person
here
tonight
and
people
in
the
public,
not
aware
that
this
was
being
discussed.
L
May
warrant
a
second
hearing,
so
that
the
public
can
weigh
in
more
and
I
totally
understand.
The
common
council
is
going
to
do
what
they
want,
but
that's
after
this
body,
and
we
have
to
do
in
my
opinion-
what's
right
for
us
at
the
moment
and
not
in
an
anticipatory
way
of
what
they
may
or
may
not
do
so
and
I
think
they
expect
us
to
quite
frankly.
So
thanks
for
the
clarification.
A
Yeah
I
would
I
would
Echo
that
I'm
a
little
surprised
that
the
lack
of
public
comment
on
such
a
substantial
package
of
changes
so
I
think
there
is
some
Merit
in
having
another
hearing
and
inviting
some
more
public
comment
on
not
just
on
the
parking
issue,
but
on
a
number
of
issues
here.
But
we
are
rapidly
approaching
our
9
pm
deadline
and
if
we
don't
take
action
on
this
in
the
next
15
minutes,
we're
going
to
be
we're
going
to
be
facing
another
hearing
anyway,
right
I
think
we
can't
introduce
another.
F
A
Okay,
are
there
any
other
questions
on
z006-23.
A
All
right,
I
think
we
need
to
get
a
motion
on
the
table.
I
think
the
the
potential
options
are
a
motion
to
to
amend
this
and
remove
the
parking
another
motion
would
be
to
Simply
continue
this
to
a
second
hearing.
F
I
think
there's
an
awesome
question,
so
we
have
a
couple
things
going
on
with
table
4-10
so
maybe
remove.
The
excuse
me
remove
the
proposed
amendment
related
to
the
roughly
70
uses
in
table
four
dash
10
and
that
added
new
maximums
or
that
decreased
maximums.
F
P
It
just
was
some
commentary.
I
agree
with
commissioner
Burrell
that
it's
gonna
people
will
go
and
ask
for
a
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
to
make
an
exception
and
I
I
have
cases
well
that,
where
a
building
might
have
show
the
part
general
public
sees
the
parking
they
may
choose
to
purchase
a
building
based
on
the
parking.
Only
when
it's
brought
to
code,
they're
asked
to
remove
some
of
that
parking.
Just
I
think
just
from
the
general
public
standpoint
it'd
be
good
to
have
more
discussion
about
it
and
again
not.
A
All
right,
so,
the
the
the
motion
is
to
remove
all
changes
in
table.
F
M
D
M
A
A
A
Whatever
well
that's
up
to
whoever's
making
the
motion,
but
we
can,
we
can
recommend
to
forward
it
to
the
council
with
a
positive
recommendation,
negative
recognition,
no
recommendation
I
think
we
sounds
like
we're
generally
positive
on
it
without
the
parking
changes.
So
would
someone
like
to
make
that
motion.
A
A
D
K
N
I'm
going
to
jump
in
very
quickly
just
as
a
reminder
once
the
clock
strikes,
9
30
or
just
before
it
hits
9
30.
If
this
petition
is
still
being
considered,
the
board
will
have
to
either
vote
to
suspend
the
rules
or
adjournment
will
happen
at
9,
30
and
we'll
work
to
schedule
a
special
session
to
finish
right.
Considering
this
petition
so.
B
F
F
So
we
have
a
handful
five
or
six
amendments
that
extend
the
appeal
period
from
five
days
to
ten
days
for
various
department
or
commission
decisions,
a
recommendation
from
the
legal
department
I
believe
we
had
a
couple
of
unnecessary
or
duplicate
regulations
removed.
F
We
clarified
when
a
change
in
use
is
required
for
a
grading
permit
and
we
clarified
a
couple
of
other
things
that
were
just
written
oddly,
so
that
site
plan
expiration
timeline
of
one
year.
Is
you
if
you
want
to
request
extension?
It
has
to
be
within
that
year
and
for
demolition
delay
expiration
that
it
is
good
for
one
year
again,
it
was
just
written
written
kind
of
poorly
the
language
related
to
grading.
F
Permit
exceptions
was,
is
clarified
and
a
more
language
related
to
lot
life
lot
line
shifts
similar
to
what
we
discussed
earlier
tonight,
but
just
in
chapter
six,
we
synced
the
period
for
saying
that
you
have
abandoned
a
site
to
a
year
which
is
similar
in
another
part
of
the
Udo,
and
we
have
changed
the
requirements
for
site
plan
reviews
such
that.
F
Let's
see
and
then
updating
existing
language
related
to
the
adjacent
of
excuse
me,
the
update
of
adjacent
pedestrian
facilities
in
The
Limited
compliance
situation
to
reflect
the
past
practice
and
policy.
So
there
are
21
of
these
amendments.
F
If
you
want
I
will
briefly
show
them
again.
This
first
one
is
just
the
one
of
the
five
to
ten
day
changes.
B
F
Here
in
this
section
removing
this
requirement
because
it
is
covered
basically
by
the
other
requirements,
so
is
redundant
and
not
necessary.
We
had
another
five
to
ten
day
appeal
period
on
this
page
as
well.
F
Here's
where
we
had
a
reference
that
was
incorrect,
that
we
updated
as
well
as
taking
out
one
of
these
triggers
for
minor
site
plan
review,
because
you
can't
meet
it
without
meeting
one
of
the
other
triggers
so
again,
I'm
just
replacing
something
that
was
redundant.
F
Doing
some
language
changes
from
to
match
the
new
state
code
for
flood
plain,
which
they
now
call
it
a
flood
Fringe
instead
of
a
floodway
fringe
so
going
through
the
code
and
updating
that
clarifying
our
one-year
period
of
approval
for
site
plans
in
this
case
minor
site
plans.
But
we
did
that
for
both
major
and
minor.
D
F
This
is
one
just
using
updating
old
language
where
we
used
to
say
non-residential
or
single-family
districts.
We
now
say
mixed
use,
and
then
we
listed
out
the
districts
that
applied
for
this
particular
regulation
related
to
contributing
structures.
We
removed
some
publishing
requirements
for
demolition
delay
that
we
have
not
done
because
it
is
the
require
it
is
in
the
purview
of
hand
to
handle
noticing
for
those
and
then
again
clarifying
that
a
demolition
delay.
F
Approval
from
the
HPC
is
only
good
for
one
year
and
here
clarifying
that,
if
you're
doing
trying
to
treat
the
plexes
similar
to
a
single
family
detached
so
that
land
disturbing
activity
on
for
those
uses
is
treated
the
same
as
a
single
detach
and
is
exempt
from
grading
permit
requirements.
F
This
is
what
I
was
talking
about
doing
a
lot
line
shift
clarifying.
This
is
under
exemptions,
because
it's
in
the
subdivision
control
portion
of
the
code,
and
it's
saying
that
you
don't
have
to
do
a
subdivision
if
you
are
Within
These
boundaries
and
I
believe
this
comes
generally
from
the
state.
F
F
Here
there
we
go
the
time
limit
change
here
we
have
again
talking
about
Abandonment
for
non-conforming
use
going
to
a
year
and.
F
The
cumulative
additions
that
I
mentioned
earlier
and
then
the
last
one
is
related
to
some
related
to
pedestrian
facilities
in
a
limited
compliance
situation.
The
way
that
the
code
is
written,
all
of
the
facilities
in
front
of
your
property
needs
to
be
updated
to
meet
the
Ada
past
practice
was
that
that
actually
only
applied
to
curb
ramps,
and
we
have
gotten
some
feedback
and
are
changing
that
back
to
curb
ramps
explicitly
to
be
clear.
G
I
guess
just
a
quick
question
on
the
last
item
about
The
Pedestrian
facilities
like
we
just,
for
example,
reviewed
a
maybe
a
different
situation
where
there
was
a
subdivision
and
it
was
a
curb
ramp-
was
a
discussion
topic,
but
so
was
the
driveway
where
there's
maybe
curbs
and
I
guess
just
curb
Rams
I.
Think
big
picture
are
the
biggest
issue
that
the
city
is
required
to
address
through
different
projects,
but
just
curious.
F
Yeah,
that's
a
great
question,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
what
you
all
like
to
do
so
I
did
consult
with
this
engineering
staff
to
see
if
there
was
like
a
better
term
than
curb
ramps,
because
that
is
what
we're
trying
to
get
to
like
the
intersection
of
the
sidewalk
with
the
vehicular
space.
So
if
there
is
a
better
term
or
more
terms
that
need
to
put
in
we're
open
to
that
curb
ramps
was
what
I
got
back
from
that
discussion.
F
I.
We
do
want
it
to
be
limited,
because
we
just
we
have
we've
had
a
couple
of
projects
where
we
tried
to
do
the
full
bore
based
on
what
the
language
is
and
had
some
pushback
and
and
the
way
that
used
to
be
done
was
just
those
interfaces
and
I
think
we're
comfortable
going
back
to
that
talking
to
other
departments,
including
the
cfrd
community
and
Family
Resources,
but
yeah.
If
there's
better
language,
that
incorporates
more
of
that
interface
we'd
be
happy
to
entertain
it.
F
A
L
I'll
move
approval
or
move
that
we
advance
0-07-23
to
the
common
council
with
a
positive
recommendation
and
wave
the
second
hearing.
A
B
G
G
B
A
All
right,
excellent-
that
is
our
our
final
petition
for
the
evening
before
we
adjourn
quickly.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
giving
staff
the
appropriate
direction
for
what
we're
expecting
at
our
next
meeting,
we've
had
two
amendments
tonight
one
was
to
remove
the
changes
to
first
floor,
residential
or
non-residential
requirements,
and
then
the
second
was
Park
maximums.
A
Are
we
expecting?
Is
it?
Is
it
just
quickly?
Is
it
your
desire
to
have
updated
versions
of
both
of
those
for
our
next
meeting
in
April,
Mr
Cochran
said
your
intention
with
your
yeah.
A
Any
anybody
disagree
that
that
that's
our
what
we're
expecting
okay
well
I
would
just
say:
that's
that
is
a
bit
of
a
burden
on
staff,
so
I
hope
I
know
I
will
be
do
whatever
I
can
I'm
spring
break
is
next
week,
so
I
can't
help
next
week,
but
any
other
chance.
I
can
I'm
I'm
happy
to
join
in
and
I
hope.
We
all
will
because
I
know
it's
it's
going
to
be
some
work
to
make
sure
we
keep
this
moving.
So
all.
L
Right
I
do
have
one
comment.
Final
comment:
I
just
want
to
thank
staff,
and
particularly
Ms
Scanlon,
who
walked
us
through
20
pages
of
changes
and
single-handedly
led
and
facilitated
I'm.
It
was
6
30
when
you
started
and
it's
905
and
I
know
you
had
a
little
help
here
and
there,
but
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
that
work.
L
These
20
pages
are
what,
like
eight
point
font.
So
like
it's
a
it's
a
lot
and
I.
Just
really
appreciate
that,
because
any
comments
made
tonight
about
that
might
be
perceived
as
lack
of
effort
on
the
part
of
staff.
I
think
tonight
was
a
complete
contradiction
of
that
statement.
So
thank
you.
A
Yes
agreed
any
final
comments,
announcements
questions
all
right,
we
are
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everybody.