WEBVTT 00:00:00.450 --> 00:00:10.074 - If we have a forum, I'd like to officially call this special session as a final quarter here on December 00:00:10.074 --> 00:00:19.331 - 15th at 4.03 p.m. Will the court please call the roll? Council Member Rosari? Hello. Daly? Just want 00:00:19.331 --> 00:00:28.497 - you to be like she has saying, John. By clarity? Here. Dean Oaksman? Here. Rallo? Good day. Roe St. 00:00:28.497 --> 00:00:30.238 - Margaret's absent. 00:00:30.786 --> 00:00:38.615 - Here. Dr. Here. And Zulik. Present. Thank you. So for the meeting today, this is a special session called 00:00:38.615 --> 00:00:46.223 - by the mayor about the Hopewell plans for Hopewell South. So we're going to start with framing remarks 00:00:46.223 --> 00:00:53.757 - from Mayor Thompson. We'll have a presentation from the consultant and planning director, Hiddle, and 00:00:53.757 --> 00:01:00.478 - then have a number of question and answer followed by Derma. So Mayor Thompson. Thank you. 00:01:00.802 --> 00:01:08.085 - President Stossford. I am really excited that we were able to pull this together. So thank you for the 00:01:08.085 --> 00:01:15.156 - special scheduling. We did invite the RDC to come as well. So just want to acknowledge that they're 00:01:15.156 --> 00:01:22.438 - present. Some of them, not all of them, because of course the RDC has been working with this property. 00:01:22.438 --> 00:01:26.398 - It's RDC owned property. And I want to just start with, 00:01:26.978 --> 00:01:34.199 - Letting you know sort of some history of Hopewell very quickly. Ali, our consultant is going to log 00:01:34.199 --> 00:01:41.564 - on and she's going to really take the bulk of the time here to present what we have. But after I sort 00:01:41.564 --> 00:01:49.001 - of tee things up, Director Hiddle is going to frame some of the planning implications here so that you 00:01:49.001 --> 00:01:53.406 - know what those are and what considerations have been given. 00:01:53.954 --> 00:02:02.768 - This is really, you know, we have submitted a PUD. What that means is that we have a really good directional 00:02:02.768 --> 00:02:10.854 - idea of where we want to go with Hopewell South. We have been through four years of master planning 00:02:10.854 --> 00:02:17.566 - as a city. We set up a task force at the beginning of the Thompson administration. 00:02:17.698 --> 00:02:25.824 - to relook at Hopewell given the change in cost in housing production and really see how we could get 00:02:25.824 --> 00:02:33.951 - Hopewell to a place where it's more attainable than what we thought it was going to be otherwise. We 00:02:33.951 --> 00:02:42.318 - have had a public session in October with sort of how we were thinking about Hopewell and where we were 00:02:42.318 --> 00:02:45.054 - going. There's room at the table. 00:02:45.538 --> 00:02:55.276 - And in addition, we have had a couple of council deliberation sessions about housing that have all impacted 00:02:55.276 --> 00:03:04.563 - this Hopewell PUD. So with that said, we have submitted the PUD. That doesn't mean that things are not 00:03:04.563 --> 00:03:08.350 - changeable. This is an opportunity today. 00:03:08.578 --> 00:03:16.167 - to ask questions, give input on blind spots that we may have, things that we haven't considered. Maybe 00:03:16.167 --> 00:03:23.682 - we totally missed the boat somewhere. That's what we want to hear from you all because we're still at 00:03:23.682 --> 00:03:31.124 - a point in the process that we can make some changes. With that said, it will seriously delay things 00:03:31.124 --> 00:03:37.534 - if we have to make such significant changes that we're going back to the drawing board 00:03:37.698 --> 00:03:46.630 - And we are really trying to mobilize Hopewell to get some housing available, even perhaps as soon as 00:03:46.630 --> 00:03:55.474 - the end of 2022. So we are, we engaged, the RDC engaged Flintlock Labs to put together this PUD. We 00:03:55.474 --> 00:04:02.814 - think that this really makes the most of the Hopewell South property. It includes, 00:04:02.946 --> 00:04:11.957 - The preservation of the old lesson center seven fourteen South Rogers while we're doing a study to see 00:04:11.957 --> 00:04:17.118 - if the police department will fit well into that facility. 00:04:17.474 --> 00:04:25.014 - And our goal really has been to seek to be an asset for attainable housing for young professionals, 00:04:25.014 --> 00:04:32.554 - first and foremost, something that's attractive to them as we are seeking to grow our wages and our 00:04:32.554 --> 00:04:40.094 - economy here in Bloomington. And that also means that it happens to be attractive to a lot of other 00:04:40.322 --> 00:04:50.135 - folks in town, people who want to be able to have an affordable place that they can walk to work, to 00:04:50.135 --> 00:04:59.948 - various other resources. And we have been hearing increasingly from seniors who want to downsize and 00:04:59.948 --> 00:05:09.470 - can't find a place that's affordable for them to purchase in the downtown setting. Again, the PUD 00:05:09.602 --> 00:05:19.725 - is in a place where we still can make some tweaks to it. I think we have really gotten to a place that 00:05:19.725 --> 00:05:28.766 - is amazing. I am thrilled with where this PUD is right now. We have gotten to a point where 00:05:28.866 --> 00:05:36.264 - A good number of these houses, and you'll see in the presentation, a good number of them are actually 00:05:36.264 --> 00:05:43.663 - affordable to the 80% and below of the area median income. And that is sort of miraculous, especially 00:05:43.663 --> 00:05:50.989 - without a bunch of government red tape that goes along with it. So they should be relatively easy to 00:05:50.989 --> 00:05:57.662 - produce. We do intend to have not only a developer workshop on how to build these, but also 00:05:57.762 --> 00:06:07.056 - some workshops for our local lenders to see what they have appetite for and how to get these loans to 00:06:07.056 --> 00:06:16.350 - be as workable as possible. So we're thrilled. I think what this does also is set a living example of 00:06:16.350 --> 00:06:20.542 - what some changes in the UDO would look like. 00:06:20.642 --> 00:06:28.854 - for Bloomington so that our community can walk through a neighborhood and see what does it look like 00:06:28.854 --> 00:06:37.147 - to have some compact lot sizes? What does it look like to have really realistic sized houses that are 00:06:37.147 --> 00:06:45.358 - not more than what somebody needs? And what that does of course is naturally keep them affordable so 00:06:45.358 --> 00:06:46.334 - that we can 00:06:46.978 --> 00:06:56.407 - offer homeownership opportunities to more and more people. So I am going to just hand it over to Director 00:06:56.407 --> 00:07:05.302 - Hiddle to talk about some of the zoning implications. Again, I think this is an incredibly exciting 00:07:05.302 --> 00:07:11.262 - point in the project and really a lot of gratitude to council both 00:07:12.226 --> 00:07:18.623 - in the past and currently and to the RDC especially who's been working really hard on getting help well 00:07:18.623 --> 00:07:24.466 - to a point where we are right now. Thank you, Mayor. I'm David Ittle, the Director of Planning 00:07:24.466 --> 00:07:30.802 - and Transportation for the City. Mr. Maybe a quick refresher on what exactly a PUD is. They don't come 00:07:30.802 --> 00:07:36.030 - down the pike very often. The last one was the Summit Planning and Development which 00:07:36.290 --> 00:07:41.815 - was approved just as I started about a year and a half ago. So, PUD, plan unit development, it's not 00:07:41.815 --> 00:07:47.286 - unique to Bloomington. Pretty much every city, every zoning district, every zoning jurisdiction has 00:07:47.286 --> 00:07:52.811 - an opportunity for a PUD. Sometimes they go by different names, but as often as not, it's just that. 00:07:52.811 --> 00:07:58.446 - And it is what you zone to, and none of the other zoning districts that exist allow for what it is you 00:07:58.446 --> 00:07:59.102 - want to do. 00:07:59.266 --> 00:08:06.247 - So we have a lot of zoning differences. We have dozens of them, R4 and MC and MNs and lots of different 00:08:06.247 --> 00:08:12.960 - combinations of letters. But none of them allow for what it is that's being proposed here, which is 00:08:12.960 --> 00:08:20.210 - a very diverse mixed set of uses, residential uses with different development standards and other different 00:08:20.210 --> 00:08:26.654 - regulations that our ordinance would ordinarily allow. So when that happens, you rezone the PUD 00:08:26.850 --> 00:08:32.851 - And you don't adhere to a given ordinance, a given set of regulations as to how you can use the property 00:08:32.851 --> 00:08:38.738 - and how you can build on it, but you write your own. And so what you write is what carries you through 00:08:38.738 --> 00:08:44.511 - the process. In this instance, as soon as I hand it off to Ali, she's going to talk about what she's 00:08:44.511 --> 00:08:48.798 - written along with the redevelopment commission, which is serving as their 00:08:48.994 --> 00:08:56.646 - petitioner here to describe development, proposed development on the property, as well as the potential 00:08:56.646 --> 00:09:04.224 - uses of the property. Hopewell, as a redevelopment site, is really the 24 acres of the former hospital 00:09:04.224 --> 00:09:11.728 - campus. It's been subject to a number of plans and studies. We are talking right now about what we're 00:09:11.728 --> 00:09:17.246 - calling Hopewell South, which is the area south of 1st Street on the Wiley 00:09:17.346 --> 00:09:42.878 - It encompasses three blocks. Could you take me to slide 32, please? Sorry to string that on you. 00:09:50.562 --> 00:09:58.081 - subject site is three blocks, one of which to eastern most of which you will call a little police station 00:09:58.081 --> 00:10:05.316 - block because it may very well be in line to become the police station. It's the brutalist structure, 00:10:05.316 --> 00:10:12.551 - architectural structure at 714 South Rogers and then west of there we have two more blocks that would 00:10:12.551 --> 00:10:19.006 - be developed residentially. Current zoning is R4 for the western two-thirds and RM for the 00:10:19.298 --> 00:10:25.782 - lot on which the police, the future potential police station stands. And then the TRL, the Transform 00:10:25.782 --> 00:10:32.652 - Redevelopment Overlay District, which was written in 2022, it was basically written for Hopewell, overlays 00:10:32.652 --> 00:10:39.458 - all of it except for the westernmost portions here. And the reasons it didn't expand to those westernmost 00:10:39.458 --> 00:10:46.006 - portions, you hear different stories from different people. One of them is potentially that there was 00:10:46.006 --> 00:10:48.446 - a desire to keep a predictable zoning 00:10:48.578 --> 00:10:55.925 - district here so that it properly and appropriately transitions to the residential neighborhood to the 00:10:55.925 --> 00:11:03.701 - south, which is in the middle of gardens. We think that what is being proposed here will do that, certainly. 00:11:03.701 --> 00:11:11.262 - So a number of plans have been put together, a number of studies in regards to Hill South over the years. 00:11:11.490 --> 00:11:18.634 - In 2018, the Urban Land Institute did one, and then in 2018, later, the comprehensive plan specifically 00:11:18.634 --> 00:11:25.778 - addressed Oakwell, but it didn't have a lot to say about it. It really said, we're calling this a focus 00:11:25.778 --> 00:11:32.853 - area, and we recommend that there be additional study done to give us a detailed idea of how this area 00:11:32.853 --> 00:11:37.662 - should develop and evolve over the years. That came together in 2021. 00:11:38.018 --> 00:11:44.419 - which is known as the Bloomington Hospital Site Redevelopment Master Plan Report. Never adopted as a 00:11:44.419 --> 00:11:50.883 - component of the comprehensive plan, but there is direct narrative link between the 2018 plan and it, 00:11:50.883 --> 00:11:57.537 - what I think makes it destructive at the very least. Just real quick, some of the themes from that plan, 00:11:57.537 --> 00:12:04.191 - which really echoed the themes that came forth from the Urban Plan Institute Plan 2018. There's a desire 00:12:04.191 --> 00:12:07.486 - for diversity of housing types, neighborhood scale, 00:12:07.586 --> 00:12:13.965 - which I think directly eschews the idea of monolithic mega projects being in this area. There's a stress 00:12:13.965 --> 00:12:20.041 - unlockability, connectivity, with an emphasis with engagement with the beeline and the public realm 00:12:20.041 --> 00:12:26.177 - generally. There's a desire to re-stitch, I think is the language used in one of the plans, which is 00:12:26.177 --> 00:12:32.374 - very appropriate, re-stitch the urban and street grid. There's a desire for aligning these abuses and 00:12:32.374 --> 00:12:34.622 - future flexibility and adaptability. 00:12:34.850 --> 00:12:43.776 - So those are sort of the themes that have been established by virtue of these studies and plans that 00:12:43.776 --> 00:12:52.702 - I think should instruct how we allow for this property to be developed going forward. I think that's 00:12:52.702 --> 00:13:00.126 - all. The line that this will travel, it's gone to the Development Review Committee. 00:13:00.322 --> 00:13:06.760 - Its next stop will be the plan commission. They think it's scheduled first with potentially two years 00:13:06.760 --> 00:13:13.513 - in front of the planning commission on January 12th. And then from there, it would go to the city council. 00:13:13.513 --> 00:13:20.140 - After that, if it's approved, the planning would take place. So the planning development ordinance would 00:13:20.140 --> 00:13:27.020 - be written and it would actually would instruct how the planning is to take place in terms of lot dimensions 00:13:27.020 --> 00:13:30.302 - and things like that. So the valley's in the house. 00:13:30.562 --> 00:13:43.174 - She has permissions. Hi guys, I'm going to steal the screen share really quickly just so I can forward 00:13:43.174 --> 00:13:53.214 - slides as we talk through. I really appreciate you guys having me in today. I'm a 00:13:53.410 --> 00:13:59.606 - I'm dual licensed, I'm an architect and a landscape architect based in Fayetteville, Arkansas. We've 00:13:59.606 --> 00:14:05.741 - been really excited to be able to work with the city on this so far and are excited to talk through 00:14:05.741 --> 00:14:11.875 - where we are and hear feedback and really hone in on exactly what we're trying to do. We're calling 00:14:11.875 --> 00:14:18.317 - this a home catalog, so housing options made easy. We are a small multidisciplinary firm, as I mentioned 00:14:18.317 --> 00:14:23.102 - here in Arkansas, and Fayetteville is a real sister city to Bloomington here. 00:14:23.330 --> 00:14:29.806 - a very similar population. We are also a major state campus. We have similar student populations, similar 00:14:29.806 --> 00:14:36.160 - student housing challenges, and we're also a karst landscape with similar topography. We really enjoyed 00:14:36.160 --> 00:14:42.270 - working through and seeing how similar a lot of the challenges with housing that we have faced are. 00:14:42.786 --> 00:14:49.024 - I'm a former planning commissioner and so get nerdy about policy after many years of having to sit through 00:14:49.024 --> 00:14:55.379 - meetings and write zoning codes. I've been really enjoying working through the PUD process as an opportunity 00:14:55.379 --> 00:15:01.442 - both to hone in on exactly what we can do for Hopewell, but also always trying to make all of this work 00:15:01.442 --> 00:15:07.797 - more expandable to the rest of the city and as an opportunity to test some theories on some of the potential 00:15:07.797 --> 00:15:12.752 - housing affordability changes that might be brought forward later into the full UDO. 00:15:12.752 --> 00:15:17.941 - this is a really easy way to test them on a smaller scale to confirm that they're working exactly the 00:15:17.941 --> 00:15:21.502 - way that we think that they will before more broadly suggesting them. 00:15:22.274 --> 00:15:28.361 - We're also working with the national nonprofit, the Incremental Development Alliance, which has trained 00:15:28.361 --> 00:15:34.272 - around 10,000 people in 33 states in the last 10 years to develop in their own neighborhoods. It's a 00:15:34.272 --> 00:15:40.183 - nonprofit that's about training locals to develop for locals, working deeply within communities, not 00:15:40.183 --> 00:15:46.212 - as an extractive developer from out of town, but as somebody small being able to build an ADU in their 00:15:46.212 --> 00:15:52.240 - own backyard, being able to take an empty lot that's near them and put something in, being able to add 00:15:52.240 --> 00:15:57.720 - what is missing to their community. And so as part of this program, we're both fully designing and entitling 00:15:57.720 --> 00:16:02.898 - all of this housing. And then we're also training locals to develop it as both a capacity building and 00:16:02.898 --> 00:16:07.422 - as a calibration to ensure that this is really aligned to what locals are wanting to see. 00:16:08.898 --> 00:16:14.903 - We're also partnered with some of our good friends who are fellow INGTIF faculty, the Cronberg Urbanist 00:16:14.903 --> 00:16:21.023 - and Architects, which are based in Atlanta, who have incredible thought leadership on housing and housing 00:16:21.023 --> 00:16:26.797 - policy and the best ways to achieve really good built outcomes. Like me, Eric, their principal is a 00:16:26.797 --> 00:16:32.917 - small developer and an architect and so really only designs things that we know will work. We feel tested 00:16:32.917 --> 00:16:38.864 - and we've signed those personal guarantees to make stuff happen. We're both really focused on building 00:16:38.864 --> 00:16:44.839 - neighborhoods, focusing on real estate development as a way to build the background for people's lives. 00:16:44.839 --> 00:16:50.583 - That we need housing and we need really vibrant places that we can live and raise families and live 00:16:50.583 --> 00:16:56.386 - good lives and that that takes working within really complicated systems that are often trying to do 00:16:56.386 --> 00:16:57.822 - multiple things at once. 00:16:58.178 --> 00:17:04.219 - That's one of the things that we really try to bring to these programs is a very systems-wide set of 00:17:04.219 --> 00:17:10.200 - experience and thinking, trying to really get to a great built outcome that is what the city really 00:17:10.200 --> 00:17:16.182 - wants to see, but working within a lot of systems and codes that conflict sometimes and really what 00:17:16.182 --> 00:17:22.402 - we're seeing nationally really limit our ability to build the thing that we all say that we want. We're 00:17:22.402 --> 00:17:28.144 - trying to build lovable, sustainable, and attainable housing at a wide variety of price points, 00:17:28.144 --> 00:17:33.696 - which also means a wide variety of sizes. We've tackled this for a number of years through the lens 00:17:33.696 --> 00:17:39.249 - of pre-approved plans programs, and we've structured this in a way that it could be rolled out into 00:17:39.249 --> 00:17:44.968 - a city-wide pre-approved program. Those may be familiar to you guys. We helped with one in South Bend, 00:17:44.968 --> 00:17:50.520 - Indiana. We've worked on the one in Kalamazoo right across the border. We're also working on one in 00:17:50.520 --> 00:17:51.742 - Fort Wayne right now. 00:17:52.418 --> 00:17:58.896 - They can be a great way to calibrate to the consistent platted lot sizes within town to build the way 00:17:58.896 --> 00:18:05.437 - a lot of our historic neighborhoods were built, which is not a custom home on every lot, but is really 00:18:05.437 --> 00:18:11.979 - consistent and repeatable house designs that are calibrated to different family sizes, different times 00:18:11.979 --> 00:18:13.630 - in life, different needs. 00:18:13.826 --> 00:18:19.102 - They become really popular nationally because they can expedite development processes. They can cut 00:18:19.102 --> 00:18:24.377 - out a lot of the cost of housing that is coming from process, but it's not really leading to better 00:18:24.377 --> 00:18:29.706 - built outcomes. They can also reduce development costs. They can create local wealth because they're 00:18:29.706 --> 00:18:35.034 - more attainable to be built by small amateurs. They also develop better built outcomes often because 00:18:35.034 --> 00:18:40.468 - the architecture is being selected at the city level as being really desirable and compatible with the 00:18:40.468 --> 00:18:43.792 - character of neighborhoods. They can have simpler zoning often 00:18:43.792 --> 00:18:49.595 - because the architecture itself is already part of the program. It also often leads to a much greater 00:18:49.595 --> 00:18:55.285 - variety of housing options. We're going to talk a lot about the importance of that as we talk about 00:18:55.285 --> 00:19:01.032 - demographics. There is often this perception that the nuclear family that we're building housing for 00:19:01.032 --> 00:19:06.721 - often we think of as being 2.5 kids and that dog. That is not a common household type anymore. That 00:19:06.721 --> 00:19:09.566 - really was what the housing market was built for. 00:19:10.274 --> 00:19:16.294 - Through the boomer generation, we saw really strong household types being the leading buyer of housing. 00:19:16.294 --> 00:19:22.256 - We saw that driving a lot of our housing policy types and the way that we financed it and the way that 00:19:22.256 --> 00:19:28.334 - we built it was a three-bedroom house with a big yard. That is no longer our market. In a lot of places, 00:19:28.334 --> 00:19:34.238 - we're still limited to that type of housing product is the only thing that our zoning type allows us. 00:19:34.338 --> 00:19:40.648 - But in a huge proportion of our communities, that nuclear families are a very small percentage of our 00:19:40.648 --> 00:19:47.205 - household types. The single most common household type here is two people living with no kids. Generally, 00:19:47.205 --> 00:19:53.639 - that's a married couple, although sometimes that's roommates. But two adults, no children is about half 00:19:53.639 --> 00:19:58.526 - of our households. Another third of our households is one person living alone. 00:19:58.690 --> 00:20:03.972 - a full three-quarters of our households are sleeping in one bed at night and don't need a three-bedroom 00:20:03.972 --> 00:20:09.153 - house. Often both people are working. They do not want to be out doing yard work in the weekends. One 00:20:09.153 --> 00:20:14.232 - of the things that we're really seeing is a big mismatch that is leading to a lot of struggles with 00:20:14.232 --> 00:20:19.412 - cost. A bigger house on a bigger yard is more expensive than a smaller house with a smaller yard. But 00:20:19.412 --> 00:20:24.491 - we also have a huge amount of our housing stock, which is three or more bedroom houses. If you want 00:20:24.491 --> 00:20:28.656 - a large house with a large yard, we've got great news. There already are a lot of 00:20:28.656 --> 00:20:34.033 - those. The thing that we're not seeing within the market, which is really high desirability and is a 00:20:34.033 --> 00:20:39.410 - really good demographic fit to a lot of household types is smaller homes on smaller lots, often in a 00:20:39.410 --> 00:20:44.841 - more creative format with more of a focus on community space, social space, and connectivity and less 00:20:44.841 --> 00:20:50.165 - of a focus on car storage. This also really helps city budgets. One of the things that we're really 00:20:50.165 --> 00:20:55.702 - struggling with across the nation is that a lot of our cities are really tapped out in terms of general 00:20:55.702 --> 00:20:57.086 - funds, being able to fund 00:20:57.250 --> 00:21:03.803 - all of the infrastructure that we layer over relatively few large homes on large lots. It's not really 00:21:03.803 --> 00:21:10.293 - possible to get enough property tax, payroll tax, all of our different taxes into the city to be able 00:21:10.293 --> 00:21:16.718 - to pay for all of this infrastructure supported by just those two homes often lived in by one or two 00:21:16.718 --> 00:21:23.335 - people. This entire little section of land, this 0.7 acres that we're seeing in this diagram might only 00:21:23.335 --> 00:21:27.216 - have three total residents. One of those houses might be one 00:21:27.216 --> 00:21:29.950 - statistically one of them is probably going to be two. 00:21:31.106 --> 00:21:36.488 - Instead, one of the things that we're trying to legalize and test here is an alternative where in a 00:21:36.488 --> 00:21:41.871 - small part of the city, right here, two city blocks, a little less, that we can get a wider variety 00:21:41.871 --> 00:21:47.630 - of housing. We can still maintain the traditional sidewalks and tree plots and what we think of as feeling 00:21:47.630 --> 00:21:53.174 - like a really traditional neighborhood, but we can get a much wider variety of housing types and price 00:21:53.174 --> 00:21:58.879 - points so that you can find the kind of house that you want at a price point you can afford in a location 00:21:58.879 --> 00:22:01.086 - that you like with a lot more neighbors. 00:22:01.474 --> 00:22:07.127 - That also really helps our city budget standpoint as we begin to have many more people paying taxes 00:22:07.127 --> 00:22:12.779 - towards the same amount of infrastructure. We're seeing cities be able to balance budgets with this 00:22:12.779 --> 00:22:18.489 - style of development and it is more affordable to the people that live there. It often builds better 00:22:18.489 --> 00:22:24.198 - community. It's much more walkable and can support much better locally owned walkable businesses. It 00:22:24.198 --> 00:22:27.646 - also houses a significantly broader contingent of residents. 00:22:27.746 --> 00:22:32.988 - And at different price points and different phases of their life. We don't need the same unit when we're 00:22:32.988 --> 00:22:37.979 - 23 that we need when we're 43 that we need when we're 73. And so part of this is about diversity of 00:22:37.979 --> 00:22:43.121 - unit type, but it's also about being able to provide options to people within a neighborhood that they 00:22:43.121 --> 00:22:43.870 - like and know. 00:22:45.506 --> 00:22:50.730 - As we look at the specific kinds of housing that we're focused on in Bloomington, we see those same 00:22:50.730 --> 00:22:56.371 - national stats really played out here that we've got about a third of households are single-family detached 00:22:56.371 --> 00:23:01.700 - homes. We have a lot of multifamily, really large multifamily projects that is something we struggled 00:23:01.700 --> 00:23:06.923 - to understand sometimes too in our community. But we have very little single-family attached and we 00:23:06.923 --> 00:23:12.252 - have very little what we would call missing middle type housing. A lot of the code changes that we're 00:23:12.252 --> 00:23:13.662 - proposing within this PUD, 00:23:13.826 --> 00:23:19.331 - are geared around legalizing a type of housing that as we dug into, kind of stress testing, okay, why 00:23:19.331 --> 00:23:24.728 - aren't we getting these kinds of projects? We found that even in some of our newer, more permissive 00:23:24.728 --> 00:23:30.125 - zoning areas, we still had some things that we needed to calibrate to be able to see these kinds of 00:23:30.125 --> 00:23:31.582 - household types legalized. 00:23:32.738 --> 00:23:38.258 - As you can see, we're down here in blocks nine and 10 in the southwest corner of the Hopewell project. 00:23:38.258 --> 00:23:44.047 - And even within these initial drawings, we can see that there's some non-typical layouts that were promoted 00:23:44.047 --> 00:23:49.406 - in the original master plan that would not be legal under the current R4 zoning. And so even within 00:23:49.406 --> 00:23:54.980 - the early master plans, I think there was an anticipation that there would be some customization within 00:23:54.980 --> 00:24:00.286 - these blocks that would require a little bit of calibration. So what we're trying to achieve here, 00:24:00.450 --> 00:24:05.954 - We'd like, as we've talked about pretty extensively, a mix of housing types with a really good mix of 00:24:05.954 --> 00:24:11.349 - price points. We'd like to get to a pre-approved home design for each one of the lots to streamline 00:24:11.349 --> 00:24:16.907 - permitting and reduce costs. We're working to be able to deliver a fully buildable set of construction 00:24:16.907 --> 00:24:22.410 - documents for each lot that our small builders and small developers can show up to the permit office, 00:24:22.410 --> 00:24:25.054 - pay their further permit, and be ready to build. 00:24:25.538 --> 00:24:30.910 - This is really about building opportunities for local builders with training and with a lot of this 00:24:30.910 --> 00:24:36.603 - pre-work. Then providing frameworks to support permanently affordable and market rate houses both blended 00:24:36.603 --> 00:24:41.975 - into the neighborhood. We'll be doing ongoing community outreach and developer trainings to support 00:24:41.975 --> 00:24:47.508 - the built outcomes being piloted and the outcomes being what we intend them to be. We're about a third 00:24:47.508 --> 00:24:53.470 - of the way through the process here towards public launch. We're working through the PUD and plotting process. 00:24:53.570 --> 00:24:59.266 - We'll be finalizing land planning, the plans catalogs, and starting to do deeper developer and lender 00:24:59.266 --> 00:25:04.961 - roundtables to confirm a lot of the early assumptions that came from interviews with locals. A little 00:25:04.961 --> 00:25:10.768 - bit deeper run-through of some of the changes here, and some examples of the kinds of places that we're 00:25:10.768 --> 00:25:16.464 - trying to get to. A lot of our historic villages have a higher density than what we allow in a lot of 00:25:16.464 --> 00:25:22.104 - our new neighborhoods, and that often requires that we do some smaller streets. Smaller streets tend 00:25:22.104 --> 00:25:22.718 - to be much 00:25:22.818 --> 00:25:27.916 - safer for pedestrian. They can be more of a shared street environment. We do still need to balance fire 00:25:27.916 --> 00:25:33.015 - code. I'll preface a smaller street need with everything that we're showing you as fully compliant with 00:25:33.015 --> 00:25:34.142 - all of our fire codes. 00:25:35.234 --> 00:25:41.615 - We're also experimenting on some non-typical frontage. We've seen quite a few situations where houses 00:25:41.615 --> 00:25:48.059 - having front doors and front porches that open out into green spaces and common spaces are really high 00:25:48.059 --> 00:25:54.502 - desirability, especially for our couple of likely young families with young kids. Having a front porch 00:25:54.502 --> 00:26:01.196 - that doesn't open out into a car space significantly improves our community engagement and our sociability 00:26:01.196 --> 00:26:05.200 - space rather than having your front door open out into traffic. 00:26:05.200 --> 00:26:09.841 - It also helps again with that budget that we've got units that have much lower infrastructure costs 00:26:09.841 --> 00:26:14.110 - for the city to maintain relative to the tax dollars that they are providing into the city. 00:26:15.426 --> 00:26:20.875 - We're also trying to reintroduce some housing types and density that we're not seeing in some places 00:26:20.875 --> 00:26:26.270 - in the city. Hopefully you're familiar with diagrams of missing middle housing. We've seen a lot of 00:26:26.270 --> 00:26:31.665 - these types of housing were very common and very popular prior to modern zoning being passed in the 00:26:31.665 --> 00:26:37.330 - 1970s. In a lot of places, a lot of these kinds of programs are really trying to reintroduce these kinds 00:26:37.330 --> 00:26:42.779 - of housing that we used as a country very successfully for a number of decades prior to zoning codes 00:26:42.779 --> 00:26:43.966 - making those illegal. 00:26:45.378 --> 00:26:51.115 - We'll give you a quick case study too of the kinds of things that we think might be attainable as changes 00:26:51.115 --> 00:26:56.527 - later on, although this is not directly proposed within our project, but just to give an example of 00:26:56.527 --> 00:27:02.102 - the kinds of studies that we've been doing about how this might impact citywide. If we look at a block 00:27:02.102 --> 00:27:05.566 - over next to Rossell Cemetery, this is between Elm and Waldron, 00:27:05.666 --> 00:27:10.680 - One of the things that Bloomington has is a really strong benefit is the large number of platted, unbuilt 00:27:10.680 --> 00:27:15.457 - alleys in the city. A lot of cities that have very deep lots, the way that you do really struggle to 00:27:15.457 --> 00:27:20.376 - get any sort of effective infill accomplished when there aren't any alleys in the back. Even when those 00:27:20.376 --> 00:27:25.390 - are unbuilt, the fact that they are platted is really useful because it means that residents could choose 00:27:25.390 --> 00:27:27.518 - to use them, could choose to build them out. 00:27:27.618 --> 00:27:33.519 - The lot depths in Bloomington are very unusual. You have very deep lots relative to most cities of your 00:27:33.519 --> 00:27:39.421 - size, which does then present this opportunity as we start to look at accessory dwelling units are very 00:27:39.421 --> 00:27:45.379 - popular nationally. One of the challenges with this accessory dwelling units is that you're then selling 00:27:45.379 --> 00:27:51.053 - packages of two houses. The overall attainability of those homes is very low. It's very hard to buy 00:27:51.053 --> 00:27:54.174 - two houses for the price of one, you're instead buying 00:27:54.274 --> 00:28:01.139 - two houses for the price of two. That really increases the price to play. It can really impact our housing 00:28:01.139 --> 00:28:07.683 - affordability only being able to have accessory dwelling units that are on those specific lots. Being 00:28:07.683 --> 00:28:14.162 - able to plat rear lots using alleys as frontages can create an opportunity for citizens to decide to 00:28:14.162 --> 00:28:18.910 - build units in the back of their lots in yard that they may not be using. 00:28:19.458 --> 00:28:25.131 - In this case, you actually can yield what most cities would say is an average lot size in the front 00:28:25.131 --> 00:28:30.861 - without losing any existing units, without losing the existing character of our historic streets, we 00:28:30.861 --> 00:28:36.534 - can get an opportunity for infill in the back. This is one of the things that we're testing through 00:28:36.534 --> 00:28:42.434 - some of the policy changes that we're showing is being able to use some alleys as frontages. As we look 00:28:42.434 --> 00:28:45.214 - at site plan and PUD, what we're proposing here, 00:28:45.346 --> 00:28:51.022 - Again, we've got three blocks, although blocks eight and nine are legally currently one block. We are 00:28:51.022 --> 00:28:56.754 - constrained with Jackson as a right-of-way in the middle of block eight and nine, has an already built 00:28:56.754 --> 00:29:02.708 - apron that needs to be aligned. You'll see that alignment is relatively fixed. Jackson does not go through 00:29:02.708 --> 00:29:08.551 - to the south, and so it does currently have a jog in it that allows a little bit more space for housing. 00:29:08.551 --> 00:29:14.227 - Wiley Street along our south edge is an existing 36-foot right-of-way. Rogers is a 41 and some change 00:29:14.227 --> 00:29:15.006 - right-of-way. 00:29:15.106 --> 00:29:21.254 - First Street is our widest right-of-way, so that one's 66 feet. Fairview is a relatively narrow 16-foot 00:29:21.254 --> 00:29:27.224 - right-of-way here. The pink hatch that you're seeing is the proposed right-of-way dedications. We're 00:29:27.224 --> 00:29:33.372 - proposing that Wiley Street and First would stay as is in terms of width, and that Fairview would widen 00:29:33.372 --> 00:29:39.284 - to a more typical right-of-way, and Jackson would widen to a little narrower than a typical street. 00:29:39.284 --> 00:29:44.190 - We're showing Rogers would dedicate up to functionally the existing building edge, 00:29:44.354 --> 00:29:50.923 - but that we are trying to preserve that building. I'll also preface that a PUD is really land use-based, 00:29:50.923 --> 00:29:57.367 - so it's functionally custom zoning for the lot. The site design is going to be coordinated, especially 00:29:57.367 --> 00:30:03.811 - on Block 8 as studies for the reuse that building are followed. We are showing those diagrammatically, 00:30:03.811 --> 00:30:08.190 - but there are some caveats on exact specifics, especially on Block 8. 00:30:08.994 --> 00:30:15.718 - One of the things that we really ran through at the beginning is what we could do under current R4 zoning 00:30:15.718 --> 00:30:22.061 - by right. Because we've got such deep lots along our Block 10 over here on the west, we end up with 00:30:22.061 --> 00:30:28.595 - relatively few blocks that are all larger than our minimum lot size. We're stuck with that minimum lot 00:30:28.595 --> 00:30:35.002 - width and the minimum lot size because we can't do anything without a rear frontage by right. We end 00:30:35.002 --> 00:30:38.110 - up with only a handful of lots over on Block 10. 00:30:38.850 --> 00:30:45.865 - On Block 9 then, with our R4 by right zoning, we end up with a little bit of a no man's land in the 00:30:45.865 --> 00:30:52.880 - back, which we were proposing to be a detention pond, but by right currently, we've got 28 lots can 00:30:52.880 --> 00:31:00.176 - be created under the existing R4 zoning. We've also provided a finished lot value. This is both taxable 00:31:00.176 --> 00:31:06.910 - to the city as an important value of the use of your land. We often describe cities like farms. 00:31:07.010 --> 00:31:12.333 - You have a limited number of fields and we have to be able to both responsibly work within them. We 00:31:12.333 --> 00:31:17.762 - have to be able to farm those in a way that we can afford to keep the farm. We also have to really be 00:31:17.762 --> 00:31:23.084 - respective of soil health. We can't be extractive on this. We want to have a long-term view as good 00:31:23.084 --> 00:31:28.566 - farmers. But we want to think about ways that we're using land in a way that both provides housing for 00:31:28.566 --> 00:31:34.155 - residents and supports an economically sustainable city. As you'd notice that finished lot value, that's 00:31:34.155 --> 00:31:36.976 - important to note from a taxation benefit as well as 00:31:36.976 --> 00:31:43.068 - value of the land itself. You see our average home price is pushed up above kind of $400,000. And so 00:31:43.068 --> 00:31:49.100 - this is in line with what we're seeing in terms of the average sale prices in Bloomington. And that 00:31:49.100 --> 00:31:55.253 - makes sense, right? We've got an overall land value and infrastructure costs that can only be divided 00:31:55.253 --> 00:32:01.285 - into so many pieces. And so those pieces are more expensive than what we'll see as we move forward. 00:32:01.285 --> 00:32:02.974 - So in our initial proposal, 00:32:03.106 --> 00:32:11.535 - We also assumed then we analyzed what happens if we take a full 60-foot right-of-way on all of our frontages, 00:32:11.535 --> 00:32:19.197 - if that extra right-of-way is taken out of farmable land, so to speak, and it's moved from an asset 00:32:19.197 --> 00:32:26.936 - into a liability for the city as land to maintain, that is infrastructure that the city maintains at 00:32:26.936 --> 00:32:32.606 - cost. We've got 84 homes. A really great impact to the city if we can get 00:32:32.834 --> 00:32:40.364 - all of these code changes passed in this version, but still about a doubling in value over what we can 00:32:40.364 --> 00:32:47.968 - do in a standard R4. But then in our final version, we've got almost 100 units. We've done some smaller 00:32:47.968 --> 00:32:51.550 - writes of way, we just picked our units back up. 00:32:51.714 --> 00:32:57.577 - We also have fronted houses into green spaces. We've got a trail frontage in an old alley that provides 00:32:57.577 --> 00:33:03.271 - us a second door frontage. Then we've got what really is functioning a green street. Pedestrian only 00:33:03.271 --> 00:33:08.908 - with community space in the middle, we've got bike storage, we've got a community pavilion. What we 00:33:08.908 --> 00:33:15.166 - might see typically in a neighborhood as a street is instead both green infrastructure space and social space. 00:33:16.610 --> 00:33:23.843 - We have picked up a few small multifamily buildings, which again, in terms of reintroducing typologies, 00:33:23.843 --> 00:33:31.006 - these are not big, you know, five-story, 200 apartments. These are relatively small buildings that are 00:33:31.106 --> 00:33:37.157 - Here in our mid-block, and then we've got another little one that is facing the police department that's 00:33:37.157 --> 00:33:43.092 - providing a little bit of screening to those parking lot lights, and then one that is helping mitigate 00:33:43.092 --> 00:33:49.143 - some large grade on the existing site. We've got four small buildings that are really still half-scaled, 00:33:49.143 --> 00:33:54.964 - and then we've got everything from really small micro units that are affordable below 50 percent AMI 00:33:54.964 --> 00:34:01.072 - for a homebuyer, which the mortgage payment on is significantly less than even a subsidized apartment is. 00:34:01.072 --> 00:34:06.207 - got some one bedroom, one level and two bedroom, one level fully accessible units. And then we've got 00:34:06.207 --> 00:34:11.744 - everything up to some of our bigger corner lots are maintained for more of a family three bedroom, relatively 00:34:11.744 --> 00:34:16.829 - nice house. So we have not very many of those, but they help hold the corners and mitigate from some 00:34:16.829 --> 00:34:22.366 - of the scale of existing neighborhoods into some of the smaller units that we keep more interior to the site. 00:34:23.938 --> 00:34:29.391 - From an accessibility standpoint, topography of the site is one of our biggest challenges here because 00:34:29.391 --> 00:34:34.738 - we need a really level site in order to be able to get parking space and kind of accessible route to 00:34:34.738 --> 00:34:40.139 - the front door and a zero step entry into a house. And so the limitation, you can see some clustering 00:34:40.139 --> 00:34:45.804 - here. We're up on a little bit of a ridge line where we've got some units that we can get fully wheelchair 00:34:45.804 --> 00:34:51.469 - accessible is shown in the blue, which is a higher standard than is required within that universal design. 00:34:51.469 --> 00:34:53.904 - So universal design is going to be zero step. 00:34:53.904 --> 00:35:00.979 - wider doorways. It is going to be adaptable to be wheelchair accessible. Full ADA is going to have full 00:35:00.979 --> 00:35:08.326 - commercial turnarounds, the full letter of the law on wheelchair accessibility built in from the beginning. 00:35:08.326 --> 00:35:15.401 - So our light blue, our full ADA units, the dark blue, our bedroom downstairs, zero step entry, a little 00:35:15.401 --> 00:35:16.830 - bit more accessible. 00:35:18.466 --> 00:35:25.109 - We've also overlaid both a pedestrian network here in the green, which again is our continuous front 00:35:25.109 --> 00:35:31.686 - door facing to the interior of our site. We've got traditional pedestrian infrastructure, sidewalks 00:35:31.686 --> 00:35:38.460 - along the streets, and then the blue is our vehicular traffic. We've got some low volume speed traffic 00:35:38.460 --> 00:35:39.710 - through our lanes. 00:35:39.842 --> 00:35:46.864 - which have parking off of them for driveways. We also then have more traditional kind of higher volume 00:35:46.864 --> 00:35:49.182 - streets surrounding these blocks. 00:35:51.170 --> 00:35:56.846 - In terms of creating lots, we currently have six lots on site. And so as we begin kind of a first phase 00:35:56.846 --> 00:36:02.359 - of one of the proposals is that we'll create four lots in the northwest corner here where we already 00:36:02.359 --> 00:36:08.199 - have infrastructure. Those can be done via lot line adjustments. Those will be built to our four standards 00:36:08.199 --> 00:36:13.820 - so that we can go ahead and get a first phase running. Lot five then will be the rest of this. Lot six 00:36:13.820 --> 00:36:15.294 - is these two large blocks. 00:36:15.458 --> 00:36:22.206 - And then we'll plot the following lot lines to create all of the smaller lots within the neighborhood. 00:36:22.206 --> 00:36:28.561 - So that will allow us to start with five initial houses while the plot process is still working. 00:36:28.561 --> 00:36:33.278 - Conceptually, the site is really roughly running kind of from the south 00:36:33.442 --> 00:36:39.048 - west to the northeast. We'll be handling water quality through green infrastructure within the neighborhood 00:36:39.048 --> 00:36:44.343 - through the hatched areas. We'll have a common storm park with the Block 10 user, which is likely the 00:36:44.343 --> 00:36:49.533 - police department, and there will likely be some underground storage underneath the surface parking 00:36:49.533 --> 00:36:54.776 - lot. That's an existing surface parking lot that is remaining more or less in the same location, but 00:36:54.776 --> 00:36:58.046 - we'll have green infrastructure and screening added around it. 00:36:59.778 --> 00:37:05.708 - Trash is remaining within Jackson Street and Fairview Street. While fire access does work through the 00:37:05.708 --> 00:37:11.755 - lanes, the fire trucks have a little smaller turning radius than the trash trucks do. We've worked with 00:37:11.755 --> 00:37:17.859 - both of those departments to ensure that trash pickup and fire access, police response, and all of those 00:37:17.859 --> 00:37:20.766 - features work fine with the proposed circulation. 00:37:22.306 --> 00:37:28.499 - For custom street sections, we're proposing that First Street would remain as is. It has currently been 00:37:28.499 --> 00:37:31.358 - improved. We are discussing an option dependent 00:37:31.458 --> 00:37:37.062 - potentially add some parking in some of those blocks on street. Generally, first street is proposed 00:37:37.062 --> 00:37:42.779 - to remain as is. Roger Street is proposed to be a slightly modified section to be able to work around 00:37:42.779 --> 00:37:48.383 - the narrow existing right-of-way and the narrow right-of-way around the existing building. We do an 00:37:48.383 --> 00:37:54.268 - eight-foot multi-use path so that we have pedestrian and bike on both sides of the street with on-street 00:37:54.268 --> 00:37:56.734 - parking both sides and typical drive lanes. 00:37:58.722 --> 00:38:05.648 - Jackson Street is proposed to have on-street parking and sidewalks and street trees. Fairview Street 00:38:05.648 --> 00:38:12.711 - is a very similar right-of-way. Those are slightly narrower than our typical at a 48-foot right-of-way 00:38:12.711 --> 00:38:19.980 - with one lane of on-street parking. Then Wiley Street is proposed to remain as is. It's a historic street 00:38:19.980 --> 00:38:22.174 - section that fits the character 00:38:22.338 --> 00:38:27.865 - and quality of the neighborhood itself. We're proposing leaving that as is. That also lets us improve 00:38:27.865 --> 00:38:33.338 - our tree preservation. There's some really nice trees at the back of the sidewalk along our southern 00:38:33.338 --> 00:38:38.919 - block. We've proposed holding houses back from those so we can maintain that tree line along Wiley and 00:38:38.919 --> 00:38:44.446 - reduce the change for residents south of Wiley of what they see as they look out their front porches. 00:38:44.546 --> 00:38:50.127 - And then our lanes really are functionally rear alleys. We've introduced a new street type so that we 00:38:50.127 --> 00:38:55.653 - can call those street frontage, but that's really intended to be a relatively typical alley section. 00:38:55.653 --> 00:39:01.233 - This is your back door, your garbage is back there, and the condensers are back there. You're pulling 00:39:01.233 --> 00:39:05.118 - into your driveway, but your front door is facing onto a green street. 00:39:06.850 --> 00:39:13.686 - The unit types and unit mixes, we can kind of run through the catalog if that's helpful later, but we're 00:39:13.686 --> 00:39:20.327 - showing some kind of examples of our smallest unit type, which is called the Aster, up to some of our 00:39:20.327 --> 00:39:27.228 - largest unit types at the corners. And there is a wide variety of kind of size and shape will feel really 00:39:27.228 --> 00:39:33.999 - familiar architectural language with these. And again, these will be provided to the builders with full 00:39:33.999 --> 00:39:34.910 - construction. 00:39:35.106 --> 00:39:40.835 - documents for these units and almost all of these units are things that we have built before and we 00:39:40.835 --> 00:39:46.736 - know work and are really marketable and desirable. So we're here for questions. I know we'll have some 00:39:46.736 --> 00:39:52.466 - and then I've also got contact information for all of us if you've got questions that come up after 00:39:52.466 --> 00:39:53.726 - today's conversation. 00:39:56.034 --> 00:40:03.611 - Great. Thank you so much for the record. That was Allison Quinlan from Flintlock Labs. So now we're 00:40:03.611 --> 00:40:11.189 - down to the council member question and answer period. Is it also permissible council president for 00:40:11.189 --> 00:40:18.766 - RDC members to ask questions? Let's start with council members. RDC has been meeting 17 minutes. So 00:40:18.766 --> 00:40:25.662 - some of the other proposals, not the one you're bringing through, but some of the A and B, 00:40:25.858 --> 00:40:32.296 - you had price points indicated, but you don't have any for that, the math for the proposed PUD. So what 00:40:32.296 --> 00:40:38.796 - are you envisioning the price points of the housing to be? Let me pull that exhibit up and we will share 00:40:38.796 --> 00:40:45.235 - that. And I apologize, we'd had an option three that we're on option five now, the option three I think 00:40:45.235 --> 00:40:49.630 - included our price points. In general too, let me fix our screen view. 00:40:57.602 --> 00:41:04.265 - We, in general, at R4, our average home price is around $400,000. With being able to make all the code 00:41:04.265 --> 00:41:10.863 - changes, but having a 60-foot right of way on all of our streets, we were about $350,000. Our current 00:41:10.863 --> 00:41:17.396 - price point here is $270,000. So we've been able to bring our overall price point down through these 00:41:17.396 --> 00:41:21.342 - code changes by about 40%. Alec, can you get the range, too? 00:41:21.794 --> 00:41:28.902 - Yes, so they range from our smallest unit, our Aster, which is our little studio, is $83,000. So that 00:41:28.902 --> 00:41:35.941 - is affordable without subsidy at market rate to 35% AMI. And then our most expensive house, so we've 00:41:35.941 --> 00:41:42.980 - got two of them on the corners, our big family houses are $650,000. So those are affordable to right 00:41:42.980 --> 00:41:46.046 - under 200% AMI. And so you'll see our Aster 00:41:46.178 --> 00:41:54.482 - we're able to stay low because we have a lot of the smaller, more affordable units and only a handful 00:41:54.482 --> 00:42:02.623 - of the more expensive units. Is that for purchase, those prices? These are purchase prices and I'll 00:42:02.623 --> 00:42:09.950 - clarify too, we're not saying this house will go for sale. This is early analysis to say, 00:42:10.082 --> 00:42:16.290 - using comps of current homes that are being sold in Bloomington and getting an average price for square 00:42:16.290 --> 00:42:22.259 - foot and then applying those to the homes of this size. This is what these would sell for at market 00:42:22.259 --> 00:42:28.766 - rates with no subsidy, you know, with none of the there will be affordability protections. We're proposing a 00:42:28.866 --> 00:42:35.843 - Forgivable down payment assistance for qualified homebuyers. There will be additional affordability 00:42:35.843 --> 00:42:43.168 - layered onto this, but this is just an early analysis of what housing currently sells for in Bloomington 00:42:43.168 --> 00:42:50.842 - in the current market. This is what these houses would sell for today. That's what the city giving developers 00:42:50.842 --> 00:42:53.982 - land or not? Well, it's not a good question. 00:42:56.418 --> 00:43:02.359 - The land is not intended to be provided for free. There's discussions about four qualified home buyers 00:43:02.359 --> 00:43:08.704 - for the affordable units. That the value of the land may end up being two buyers, the down payment assistance 00:43:08.704 --> 00:43:14.530 - that is forgivable over a number of years. But the land is not intended to be provided. Within these 00:43:14.530 --> 00:43:20.471 - numbers, this is just an, if everything was market rate with no subsidy, this is what the price points 00:43:20.471 --> 00:43:25.086 - would be naturally. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions from council members? 00:43:26.370 --> 00:43:34.369 - I see Council Member Rallo's hand up. Go ahead, please. Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. I had 00:43:34.369 --> 00:43:42.528 - also a question about home price and for your Plan A and B. Could you send us some material about the 00:43:42.528 --> 00:43:50.767 - average home price in Bloomington? Because I'm coming up with the number of around low to mid 300, and 00:43:50.767 --> 00:43:55.166 - you were mentioning something higher. But in any case, 00:43:56.130 --> 00:44:07.668 - Yeah, I was concerned about the range, but you're saying that there are only a couple of homes that 00:44:07.668 --> 00:44:20.245 - are 676,000 or whatever approximate. Could you provide a list of the number of homes that would be available 00:44:20.245 --> 00:44:26.014 - that would be say under 200,000 or say 200,000 or 00:44:26.274 --> 00:44:34.625 - close to that. In other words, I'd like the number, how many homes would we expect that would be truly 00:44:34.625 --> 00:44:43.057 - affordable? Yes. We'll send this detailed spreadsheet out, but we can give more detail about which home 00:44:43.057 --> 00:44:51.976 - plan has which number of units. One of the things that we typically do when we're doing an overall assessment 00:44:51.976 --> 00:44:56.030 - is eliminate a lot of the kinds of homes from our 00:44:56.354 --> 00:45:02.202 - comparables research that we couldn't produce now. For instance, if we've got a house that's very affordable 00:45:02.202 --> 00:45:06.334 - because it's in very bad shape, we're going to want to pull that out of this 00:45:06.626 --> 00:45:11.995 - kind of comparables group because that's not something that is really going to be used as a comparable 00:45:11.995 --> 00:45:17.468 - when we're selling it. And so we did end up with a lot of the new construction and kind of what is legal 00:45:17.468 --> 00:45:22.681 - now with seeing an overall higher comparable because our overall average is getting brought down by 00:45:22.681 --> 00:45:28.050 - people who are buying homes that are then tearing them down and they're functionally paying lot value. 00:45:28.050 --> 00:45:33.366 - But yes, I can send some more data on that. So you can send that data, you can send the whatever, the 00:45:33.366 --> 00:45:34.878 - home design, square footage, 00:45:35.618 --> 00:45:44.596 - the likely price, et cetera, and to know exactly what would be proposed here. Yes. Okay. Actually, that 00:45:44.596 --> 00:45:53.401 - was part of my planning commission lunch packet actually, so I am sending that right now via email to 00:45:53.401 --> 00:46:02.206 - everybody. You just give me a second to attach it. Then we've got that spreadsheet pulled up to share 00:46:02.370 --> 00:46:10.810 - So that you guys can see this and we can zoom in because I know that these on screen and in person these 00:46:10.810 --> 00:46:15.070 - numbers may be very small. Yeah, I didn't know that. 00:46:18.178 --> 00:46:24.448 - One of the things to discuss too, just as a caveat, when we start talking about affordability in housing, 00:46:24.448 --> 00:46:30.480 - I always want to give a couple of level setting for everybody. That everything is going to be tied to 00:46:30.480 --> 00:46:36.632 - AMI, so area median income. Area median income for a one person household is different than area median 00:46:36.632 --> 00:46:42.014 - income for a two person household. We've got a chart that is a typical census data that is 00:46:42.114 --> 00:46:49.974 - provided and available of what the area median income is for a one-person household, for a two-person, 00:46:49.974 --> 00:46:57.758 - for a three-person household. Each one of these is tied. We've got an AMI level over on the second to 00:46:57.758 --> 00:47:00.734 - last column, which is the household is 00:47:00.994 --> 00:47:08.017 - Affordable, which means that federal standards define that affordable housing is no more than 30 percent 00:47:08.017 --> 00:47:15.308 - of your total gross income going to housing. That is not just your mortgage payment, that is your utilities, 00:47:15.308 --> 00:47:22.130 - that is your home insurance, that is all of your houses related to your housing or your costs related 00:47:22.130 --> 00:47:28.819 - to your housing. We have in a really the dumb simple math version of this is our area median income 00:47:28.819 --> 00:47:29.822 - divided by 12, 00:47:29.954 --> 00:47:36.938 - And then 30% of that, we need to make sure all of these housing related costs aren't more than that 00:47:36.938 --> 00:47:44.061 - number. And so if it's affordable to 100% AMI, that means that a person making the area median income 00:47:44.061 --> 00:47:49.438 - of your town is not spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing. 00:47:49.602 --> 00:47:55.311 - In order to be affordable, that is the standard by which they're measuring it. But there is a little 00:47:55.311 --> 00:48:01.245 - bit of striation here because we've got one-bedroom units and studio units, we've got two-bedroom units, 00:48:01.245 --> 00:48:07.067 - we've got three-bedroom units. We're assuming that a two-bedroom unit is a two-person household. We're 00:48:07.067 --> 00:48:12.945 - assuming that a three-person household. We're assuming that one-bedroom and studio unit is a one-person 00:48:12.945 --> 00:48:16.958 - household. There's a little bit of variety built into the spreadsheet. 00:48:17.058 --> 00:48:25.586 - those are all tied to the current incomes of residents in the last measured year. And so we've got in 00:48:25.586 --> 00:48:34.197 - terms of units that are affordable at under 100% AMI, that is 70 of our units out of 98. So that means 00:48:34.197 --> 00:48:42.893 - 71% of units that are proposed within Hopewell South are gonna be affordable under federal definitions. 00:48:42.893 --> 00:48:45.150 - Thank you. Are there other 00:48:45.890 --> 00:48:54.028 - Thank you. What does the city envision doing with the land? I guess, is it all going to be like individual 00:48:54.028 --> 00:49:02.014 - lots sold to individuals at market rates? Is that what's envisioned? Or we don't know. We haven't gotten 00:49:02.014 --> 00:49:09.772 - there yet. Okay. I noticed, so yeah, look at the details maybe that we don't have yet. I'm looking at 00:49:09.772 --> 00:49:12.510 - the chart on the screen and it says 00:49:13.442 --> 00:49:20.396 - looks like there's a six-unit and 12-unit building, but otherwise all one-unit buildings. Looking at 00:49:20.396 --> 00:49:27.625 - some of the comparisons, for instance, using R4 zoning, it said 28 ohms, but of course, R4 zoning allows 00:49:27.625 --> 00:49:34.166 - multi-family, allows five-plexes, tri-plexes, so four-plexes, for instance, would be 112 ohms, 00:49:34.166 --> 00:49:40.638 - which would, of course, have different value, but also have different price points for units. 00:49:40.866 --> 00:49:46.999 - Can you tell me a little bit more about the range of scenarios that we're exploring, I guess, with the 00:49:46.999 --> 00:49:53.250 - existing zoning codes, including what it's zoned for right now, as well as any of the other zoning zones 00:49:53.250 --> 00:49:59.443 - that we have available to us in the recently updated UDF? Yes, and let me come back to those site plans 00:49:59.443 --> 00:50:05.635 - so that we can look at that together. So one of the things that we're finding and are finding typically 00:50:05.635 --> 00:50:07.838 - is being challenging with, you know, 00:50:08.226 --> 00:50:14.523 - Three to three and four units buildings, especially this is true. Duplexes tend to be pretty easy to 00:50:14.523 --> 00:50:21.194 - build because they can still be built under international residential code. We don't need fire sprinklers. 00:50:21.194 --> 00:50:27.677 - We can typically then park them in the back if it's a duplex. One of the challenges with a 35-foot wide 00:50:27.677 --> 00:50:32.478 - lot to be built with a fourplex is that it's not really possible to park it. 00:50:32.706 --> 00:50:38.232 - you've only got 35 feet of width in the back that you can pull into and so that's typically only like 00:50:38.232 --> 00:50:43.812 - three parking spaces and so unless we have really good on-street parking that we can count towards our 00:50:43.812 --> 00:50:49.664 - parking minimums, which is not currently something that we can do by right, we can build legally a fourplex 00:50:49.664 --> 00:50:51.614 - but we can't make it pencil because 00:50:51.746 --> 00:50:57.769 - we've got to get fire sprinklers and it's a one lot with a four plex in there, but then we also can't 00:50:57.769 --> 00:51:03.675 - get the parking to work. Duplexes then become really appealing typically. Duplexes are ADUs, but we 00:51:03.675 --> 00:51:09.757 - again get into that same affordability problem. If we've got 28 different lots that each have a duplex 00:51:09.757 --> 00:51:13.182 - on them, the only way to sell those at an affordable rate 00:51:13.282 --> 00:51:19.139 - is to be able to sell them individually, right? If we're selling two houses, two houses are more expensive 00:51:19.139 --> 00:51:24.668 - than one house, and so that's essentially what a duplex is doing. And so even if we can get a duplex 00:51:24.668 --> 00:51:30.307 - that we can park on the lot, because we probably could get three spaces to work for that duplex parked 00:51:30.307 --> 00:51:32.606 - off the rear alley, we then struggle with 00:51:32.770 --> 00:51:38.717 - We have a condo association in order to be able to sell those individually, which means we then have 00:51:38.717 --> 00:51:44.958 - 28 different condo associations that are all unrelated on the site, which becomes very complicated to do. 00:51:45.186 --> 00:51:50.968 - Practically, very few places are seeing that happen and I think that's one of the things that we often 00:51:50.968 --> 00:51:56.918 - find when we are hired in a new town is there's this desire to build a type of housing that is legalized, 00:51:56.918 --> 00:52:02.587 - but the market is not producing it. Often that means that there's an analogy that is really commonly 00:52:02.587 --> 00:52:07.134 - being used right now, which I think is great. It's not mine, but I'll borrow it. 00:52:07.234 --> 00:52:12.701 - which is that housing is like a door with a bunch of deadbolts on it. Imagine your old school apartment 00:52:12.701 --> 00:52:18.064 - door that you've got seven deadbolts on it and you've got keys, maybe you don't lock them all all the 00:52:18.064 --> 00:52:23.479 - time, but housing is like that. Zoning is one of the deadbolts and we've got to get zoning open to get 00:52:23.479 --> 00:52:28.894 - the door open. But often even once we've fixed zoning and you can build a fourplex in our four zoning, 00:52:28.894 --> 00:52:34.256 - we're still not seeing people do it. Part of the reason is building code. It's those fire sprinklers. 00:52:34.256 --> 00:52:37.200 - Part of the reason is parking, that's another deadbolt. 00:52:37.200 --> 00:52:42.445 - And then part of the reason is ownership structure and finance. So one of the other downsides of needing 00:52:42.445 --> 00:52:47.540 - to condo a building in order to sell units individually, if it's a really small building, is that you 00:52:47.540 --> 00:52:52.635 - need a condo association. Condo financing is harder than single family home financing. It's harder to 00:52:52.635 --> 00:52:53.534 - go get a loan for 00:52:53.666 --> 00:52:59.335 - You know, go get a mortgage for your condo, and you've got owner occupancy requirements and so only 00:52:59.335 --> 00:53:05.118 - a certain number of condos can get financing, you know, if they're not already sold an owner occupied 00:53:05.118 --> 00:53:08.350 - and so often then you end up with those condo buildings. 00:53:08.834 --> 00:53:14.408 - The units haven't all sold yet. The first home buyer can't get a mortgage and has to be a cash buyer 00:53:14.408 --> 00:53:20.147 - because they can't get a mortgage for it because the other units aren't currently occupied because they 00:53:20.147 --> 00:53:25.831 - haven't been purchased yet. You end up in this really complicated death spiral of housing, which a lot 00:53:25.831 --> 00:53:31.571 - of people are finding themselves in, where even when something is on paper legal, there's still a bunch 00:53:31.571 --> 00:53:37.310 - of other deadbolts that still exist. While yes, 28 homes times four would be about the number of houses 00:53:37.310 --> 00:53:38.800 - that we're proposing, it's 00:53:38.800 --> 00:53:44.538 - It's really challenging to be able to build those and then be able to execute them at an affordable 00:53:44.538 --> 00:53:50.276 - price point to a home buyer who can get a mortgage. So one of the biggest things that we're really, 00:53:50.276 --> 00:53:56.243 - one of the things that most of these PUD changes are based around, right? And one of the most important 00:53:56.243 --> 00:54:02.096 - things to kind of keep in our heads as necessary to get to attainable housing is to be able to access 00:54:02.096 --> 00:54:07.949 - federally backed, you know, subsidized mortgages that everybody uses for their big single family home 00:54:07.949 --> 00:54:08.752 - on their lot. 00:54:08.752 --> 00:54:14.845 - to be able to get to a unit on a piece of land that is owned fee simple. And so we need property corners, 00:54:14.845 --> 00:54:20.651 - we need a property description, and we need people to own the outsides of their building. And so one 00:54:20.651 --> 00:54:26.916 - of the best ways that we can do that is being able to plot very narrow, very small lots. So we've personally 00:54:26.916 --> 00:54:30.078 - built in our town on lots as small as 800 square feet. 00:54:30.178 --> 00:54:36.607 - R4 has a 4,000 square foot lot area minimum. One of the things that we're asking for is no lot area 00:54:36.607 --> 00:54:43.036 - minimum, which then allows us to do things like on our final lot plan, we've got a couple of little 00:54:43.036 --> 00:54:49.465 - Aster duplexes that each one of these Asters is a duplex, but they're each platted on their own lot 00:54:49.465 --> 00:54:56.215 - so they can each be sold fee simple, they're not a condo, they can be sold and you can use a traditional 00:54:56.215 --> 00:54:57.694 - mortgage to buy those. 00:54:57.922 --> 00:55:05.220 - Yes, it is more complicated. Absolutely. I did breeze by kind of some of the things that are allowable, 00:55:05.220 --> 00:55:12.517 - but hopefully that's helpful context to kind of understand how many different deadbolts we have to work 00:55:12.517 --> 00:55:19.674 - with and to get stuff done. Thank you. Great. Other customer questions? Just want to thank you to the 00:55:19.674 --> 00:55:24.446 - RDC members who have joined us and enjoy the rest of their meeting. 00:55:26.914 --> 00:55:34.405 - Council Member Rallo, raise your hands up from the floor. Do you have a second question? I have a second 00:55:34.405 --> 00:55:41.539 - question. Okay. Is there anybody else who needs first round question before we go to Council Member 00:55:41.539 --> 00:55:48.958 - Rallo for a second? Okay. Go ahead, Council Member Rallo. Well, I was just wondering a little bit about 00:55:48.958 --> 00:55:56.734 - background. So the way I understand it is that Flintlock is going to be recruiting and training builders and 00:55:57.474 --> 00:56:05.508 - I wonder if this has been, have you achieved that previously? Is that correct? Am I understanding that 00:56:05.508 --> 00:56:06.366 - correctly? 00:56:07.042 --> 00:56:13.194 - Yeah. That's something we're working with the Incremental Development Alliance to do, which is one of 00:56:13.194 --> 00:56:19.347 - their core mission and the thing they've been doing for the last 10 years. They've all the way served 00:56:19.347 --> 00:56:25.801 - as master developer on projects like this in places like Memphis previously, but this model of recruiting, 00:56:25.801 --> 00:56:32.013 - training, supporting local developers all the way through the process while having no actual developer 00:56:32.013 --> 00:56:35.934 - role themselves is really typical to their work. Okay. Could you 00:56:36.930 --> 00:56:43.654 - Could you include or could you tell us what the developer profit margin is in this? Is a percentage 00:56:43.654 --> 00:56:50.378 - of the list price of the home in this process? We're currently calculating and a lot of our work we 00:56:50.378 --> 00:56:57.237 - try to have be very pro forma driven because we know that there is an opportunity for a city to layer 00:56:57.237 --> 00:57:04.163 - lots of different affordability subsidies in specifically for qualified home buyers. We typically only 00:57:04.163 --> 00:57:06.046 - try to show things that are 00:57:06.210 --> 00:57:14.418 - marketable, financeable, and buildable at market rate assumptions. And so we typically are assuming 00:57:14.418 --> 00:57:16.798 - that we need a minimum of an 00:57:16.898 --> 00:57:23.289 - I'd like to really preface this, we're guaranteeing no one a return. We're guaranteeing no one any amount 00:57:23.289 --> 00:57:29.379 - of profit. Our assumptions for design is that we want to build things in that we know work at market 00:57:29.379 --> 00:57:35.770 - rate with about a 20 percent return on total purchase price because that is what a bank typically expects 00:57:35.770 --> 00:57:41.920 - to see before they'll give a construction loan. There's a lot of the details about the exact way that 00:57:41.920 --> 00:57:46.864 - the land sale is going to be financed and how is homebuyer assistance going to be 00:57:46.864 --> 00:57:53.961 - provided that will be worked out through the development process and in a separate framework. But in 00:57:53.961 --> 00:58:00.988 - our initial assumptions, we want to assume that the project works at the minimum financially viable 00:58:00.988 --> 00:58:08.085 - level, which is typically for most regional banks about a 20 percent profit margin prior to anything 00:58:08.085 --> 00:58:15.393 - going wrong, which is an important element to remember for this process. One other quick question. Have 00:58:15.393 --> 00:58:16.798 - you in any of these 00:58:17.122 --> 00:58:25.206 - past projects. We've been considering SROs, single room occupancy dwellings as a means of transitional 00:58:25.206 --> 00:58:33.211 - housing. Since we control this property, the likelihood is that it's occurring is pretty slim, but it 00:58:33.211 --> 00:58:39.646 - might be far likelier at Hopewell. Has this been considered and discussed at all? 00:58:41.762 --> 00:58:47.875 - We've specifically discussed or recommended any SROs. I'm an enormous SRO advocate. We currently have 00:58:47.875 --> 00:58:53.868 - an SRO project that we're pitching here in Fayetteville that would be our first self-developed SRO. 00:58:53.868 --> 00:58:59.861 - We tend to try to test things before we develop them ourselves as R&D to make sure they work before 00:58:59.861 --> 00:59:05.915 - we recommend other people do them. We've got a 68 unit SRO that we're currently recommending on city 00:59:05.915 --> 00:59:11.728 - land that's in our town. If that is of interest, that is certainly something that, for instance, 00:59:11.728 --> 00:59:18.979 - the Faulkner's, which is our largest set of buildings here, one or both of those could easily be swapped 00:59:18.979 --> 00:59:26.023 - out for more of an SRO format, if that is of interest. That's not been directly discussed previously, 00:59:26.023 --> 00:59:32.998 - but really small units with good public space are a great way to build in attainable housing at deep 00:59:32.998 --> 00:59:40.318 - price points that are hard to match otherwise. Excellent responses. Thank you for answering my questions. 00:59:42.306 --> 00:59:49.215 - Thank you. Are there any questions from council members? Right, I heard council members. Thanks. Thank 00:59:49.215 --> 00:59:56.124 - you so much for the presentation. One of the questions, and this may be building off of council member 00:59:56.124 --> 01:00:03.033 - Flaherty's earlier question, could you talk a little bit more about the demand signals that are market 01:00:03.033 --> 01:00:08.734 - infertility that we have about each of the types of housing? I sort of get that the, 01:00:08.930 --> 01:00:16.721 - you know, the story here is very much tied to this sort of mixed housing approach. So, like, how do 01:00:16.721 --> 01:00:24.902 - we know that this is the right mix? Like, why not more, what do you call it, the single efficiency units 01:00:24.902 --> 01:00:32.849 - or whatever we call those? Yeah, like, why not more of those? So, how do we arrive at this mix as the 01:00:32.849 --> 01:00:35.966 - right mix? Let me come back over to our 01:00:36.098 --> 01:00:44.190 - I'm gonna, I know spreadsheets are not very exciting as. I love spreadsheets, macros and stuff. I love it. 01:00:44.546 --> 01:00:51.525 - The first thing that we're often analyzing trying to get to unit mix, and the thing that a lot of developers 01:00:51.525 --> 01:00:57.928 - are going to look at first is what's our proportion of one-bedroom to two-bedroom to three-bedroom. 01:00:57.928 --> 01:01:04.523 - We have stacked our one, two, and three-bedroom proportions to match population on household size more 01:01:04.523 --> 01:01:10.990 - or less exactly for Bloomington. We're maybe a little heavy on our one-bedrooms, we're at 48 instead 01:01:10.990 --> 01:01:14.512 - of 45 percent, trying to get our affordability numbers 01:01:14.512 --> 01:01:19.655 - down a little bit and you know this is a tetris game too right there is some of this that's like okay 01:01:19.655 --> 01:01:24.698 - well we have this one lot left what will fit on that lot but we we're typically trying to match our 01:01:24.698 --> 01:01:29.791 - household types within within the community as our first stack of one you know one to three bedrooms 01:01:29.791 --> 01:01:34.833 - i'll admit to one thing that we really have discussed pretty heavily within the planning department 01:01:34.833 --> 01:01:39.926 - is that the accessibility standards within the city of bloomington are really unusual for us this is 01:01:39.926 --> 01:01:44.464 - the first community we worked in that has such a high percentage of an accessibility unit 01:01:44.464 --> 01:01:51.030 - which is it's challenging from a topographic standpoint. The reality is there's so many of those that 01:01:51.030 --> 01:01:57.725 - we can get a parking space to a front door. We are stacked with a little bit more slightly larger units 01:01:57.725 --> 01:02:04.613 - that are slightly more expensive because it's a one-story. You like us have tough soils and so foundations 01:02:04.613 --> 01:02:11.308 - are a little higher. A larger one-story unit to be accessible is slightly more expensive than a smaller 01:02:11.308 --> 01:02:14.334 - footprint, same square footage, but two-story. 01:02:14.818 --> 01:02:21.548 - So we do have a higher stack of our accessible units than we might in some other unit mixes that we 01:02:21.548 --> 01:02:22.558 - would propose. 01:02:22.658 --> 01:02:29.338 - Then we try to do an intermixed unit type, unit size within the neighborhood as well as that we don't 01:02:29.338 --> 01:02:36.477 - have one big cluster of all of our studio units are in one place. They're really evenly scattered throughout 01:02:36.477 --> 01:02:43.091 - the neighborhood is relatively important. Then from a large bedroom unit, those are really slated to 01:02:43.091 --> 01:02:49.771 - some of the financial analysis of looking at what is the thing with the fewest days on market that is 01:02:49.771 --> 01:02:51.998 - showing as really high desirable, 01:02:52.226 --> 01:02:59.408 - desirability and those are in some instances, those bigger, more expensive houses. The chinkapin is 01:02:59.408 --> 01:03:06.949 - our largest three-bedroom that I think is our most expensive house. We have three of those, that's three 01:03:06.949 --> 01:03:13.054 - of our corners on our main block nine. Then we also have the Elm is one of the other 01:03:13.538 --> 01:03:19.414 - Larger ones and so we have five of those and those have been one of our most popular three bedroom place 01:03:19.414 --> 01:03:25.011 - a very tight three bedroom that still you know kind of has all checks all the family boxes. So it's 01:03:25.011 --> 01:03:30.775 - an 1800 square foot floor plan that's been very popular in a lot of communities and so it's it's about 01:03:30.775 --> 01:03:32.062 - 520 again at you know. 01:03:32.354 --> 01:03:39.660 - average price per square foot equivalencies, and so we have slightly more of those than the slightly 01:03:39.660 --> 01:03:47.183 - nicer ones. But we've got about eight, so eight or nine percent of units are kind of those larger, more 01:03:47.183 --> 01:03:54.489 - expensive family homes, while then we've got eight are the little micro units that are affordable at 01:03:54.489 --> 01:03:55.646 - 35 percent AMI. 01:03:56.194 --> 01:04:01.566 - There is not a science to it. I don't want to lie and say, okay, well, we needed exactly 7.5 01:04:01.566 --> 01:04:07.343 - of this one. But some of this is a Tetris game, some of this is matching existing demographics, and 01:04:07.343 --> 01:04:13.178 - then some of this is analysis of what's selling quickly and what is popular. What sits on the market 01:04:13.178 --> 01:04:18.955 - for six months? What has 30 days on the market, which means somebody made an offer first day and it 01:04:18.955 --> 01:04:24.789 - closed. Awesome. Then just to follow up with in terms of mechanics and maybe this is more a question 01:04:24.789 --> 01:04:25.598 - for planning. 01:04:25.890 --> 01:04:33.012 - But in your experience doing PUDs like this, have people ever, have developers ever deviated from the 01:04:33.012 --> 01:04:40.064 - plans? I mean, as I understand it, the incentive is that you have these pre-approved plans, but that 01:04:40.064 --> 01:04:47.047 - doesn't keep a developer from buying a plot and then doing something else with it, right? Using the 01:04:47.047 --> 01:04:48.862 - normal allowed standards. 01:04:50.146 --> 01:04:56.467 - So the goals with these, you know, this is yet to be kind of fully fleshed out. So I'll describe the 01:04:56.467 --> 01:05:02.788 - goal rather than the full kind of policy. But the goal of these is that these would be sold. And one 01:05:02.788 --> 01:05:09.109 - of the conditions of sale of the land is that you are buying the land to build only the provided set 01:05:09.109 --> 01:05:10.110 - of floor plans. 01:05:10.274 --> 01:05:17.148 - And so we do have a mechanism by which the RDC could allow people to, there's a built in set of modifications 01:05:17.148 --> 01:05:21.022 - that are allowable in any of our pre-approved plans programs. 01:05:21.122 --> 01:05:26.687 - You can remove this one bathroom window if you decide that you want to. The portrayaling can be this 01:05:26.687 --> 01:05:32.416 - or it can be this. There's some amount of variety that is not impacting overall quality or neighborhood 01:05:32.416 --> 01:05:37.926 - that is within the purview of a developer. The intention though is that these are being sold with a 01:05:37.926 --> 01:05:40.350 - contractual agreement to build a house with 01:05:40.514 --> 01:05:46.401 - with the plans that you are seeing, and that there is an opportunity to swap houses. There are some 01:05:46.401 --> 01:05:52.406 - of these houses that have the same footprint, and so there's an allowable way that the RDC could okay 01:05:52.406 --> 01:05:54.878 - a developer if it's three years from now. 01:05:55.074 --> 01:06:00.633 - there's one of the unit types that has been less popular than what was expected and there's one that's 01:06:00.633 --> 01:06:06.191 - planned but they have another unit that's the same size. The RDC could choose to swap for another plan 01:06:06.191 --> 01:06:11.588 - in the catalog as the intent although the lots are very calibrated as you see to the exact width of 01:06:11.588 --> 01:06:17.092 - those houses and so there's a limited amount of switching that you could do but the intent is there's 01:06:17.092 --> 01:06:21.086 - a little flexibility but it's really driven by the RDC being able to make 01:06:21.506 --> 01:06:27.853 - call the ball, if it's three to five years from now, the market has shifted, they have something really 01:06:27.853 --> 01:06:34.017 - specific that they want to do, but they are structured where the PUD allowances are only houses that 01:06:34.017 --> 01:06:40.181 - are within this catalog or a pre-approved catalog approved by the city council, so that there's some 01:06:40.181 --> 01:06:46.467 - ability to be flexible later that they could come and ask to add another unit type to the catalog, but 01:06:46.467 --> 01:06:51.166 - that you buy the lot to build the house that we're providing you. Thank you. 01:06:51.618 --> 01:06:59.838 - Yeah. Council member Clarity, do you still have another question? Yeah. I guess one question is whether 01:06:59.838 --> 01:07:07.901 - a, so the transform overlay was mentioned by director a little earlier. We've used overlays to change 01:07:07.901 --> 01:07:16.200 - things about the base zoning district that don't quite fit the context of something unique like downtown 01:07:16.200 --> 01:07:18.334 - or in this case, you know, 01:07:18.498 --> 01:07:24.431 - a redevelopment area that has a massive parking garage outside, you know, for instance, I think parking 01:07:24.431 --> 01:07:30.306 - minimums were eliminated. I think I also heard that this section or portions of it may not fall within 01:07:30.306 --> 01:07:36.010 - the overlay district. I'm curious if the overlay district could be expanded to include this section 01:07:36.010 --> 01:07:41.772 - and if an overlay might've been a reasonable way to approach this as opposed to a PUD. I'm thinking, 01:07:41.772 --> 01:07:45.822 - I had more questions about PUDs and their administration over time and 01:07:46.018 --> 01:07:52.980 - some challenges we've experienced as a city there historically, but more specifically initially, would 01:07:52.980 --> 01:07:57.374 - an overlay be able to accomplish what's being accomplished here? 01:07:59.042 --> 01:08:06.533 - We did analyze during a PUD, it's a heavy lift. Prior to proposing the PUD, we worked through with the 01:08:06.533 --> 01:08:13.805 - city on could expanding the TRO accomplish this? The short answer was no. The frontage on lanes and 01:08:13.805 --> 01:08:21.150 - the ability to do custom street sections was one of the biggest elements of the PUD that allows this 01:08:21.150 --> 01:08:21.950 - to happen. 01:08:22.082 --> 01:08:28.647 - Minimum lot size in the TRO was still bigger than some of these that we're proposing for some of our 01:08:28.647 --> 01:08:35.277 - really deeply affordable units. It would have gotten us a lot closer, but it still wasn't all the way 01:08:35.277 --> 01:08:41.843 - there. I also tend to be a sometimes PUD suspicious person as a planning commissioner who has had to 01:08:41.843 --> 01:08:48.733 - administer really old PUDs. I don't want to say it's no administrative additional burden. This one seemed 01:08:48.733 --> 01:08:52.048 - worth proposing because of the opportunity to test 01:08:52.048 --> 01:08:57.774 - some of these really specific code changes that we think could really help with housing affordability, 01:08:57.774 --> 01:09:03.334 - attainability within the city generally, but which we would not feel comfortable proposing citywide 01:09:03.334 --> 01:09:09.227 - without more of a pilot test. This is an opportunity to test some of those elements on a small controlled 01:09:09.227 --> 01:09:14.787 - scale, which then can be assessed whether or not those are desirable for broader output. Thank you. 01:09:14.787 --> 01:09:20.958 - What a clarification. I didn't mean that overlay as it exists now. I meant the overlay as it could be amended. 01:09:21.282 --> 01:09:26.931 - So you mentioned lot size minimums that could be changed. You know, for instance, are other things that 01:09:26.931 --> 01:09:32.852 - overly district? The street, the street widths, custom street sections is a really big one because otherwise 01:09:32.852 --> 01:09:38.610 - the transportation plan would have to be amended in order to provide that. And so custom street sections, 01:09:38.610 --> 01:09:41.054 - lot frontage to allow for that green street. 01:09:41.186 --> 01:09:48.337 - and then a lot size and a lot width minimums were some of the high-level things. I don't want to say 01:09:48.337 --> 01:09:55.418 - that's a fully comprehensive list, but off the top of my head, those were some of the elements that 01:09:55.418 --> 01:10:02.570 - pushed us to a PUD rather than an overlay. Are there other questions? I have a couple more practical 01:10:02.570 --> 01:10:06.110 - questions, I guess, and some of us might be like, 01:10:06.594 --> 01:10:12.239 - Because I am the council representative on the planning commission. And so as long as it might be like, 01:10:12.239 --> 01:10:17.667 - hey, we put the planning commission, can you talk about this a little bit? But like, I'm looking at 01:10:17.667 --> 01:10:23.204 - the plan for trash collection. And like, so is, is there first an expectation that city sanitation is 01:10:23.204 --> 01:10:28.849 - going to be picking up? Yes. Okay. So with that and kind of being like, okay, so there's trash on these 01:10:28.849 --> 01:10:33.246 - very specific corners and then there's going to be one trash container per unit. 01:10:33.506 --> 01:10:40.532 - there are going to be a lot of trash containers on these corners on pickup days. And I just really anticipate 01:10:40.532 --> 01:10:46.984 - that being highly problematic in terms of just the sheer number of containers then that are on these 01:10:46.984 --> 01:10:51.838 - very limited corners. So is that something that you all have thought about? 01:10:52.610 --> 01:10:58.127 - That is something that we've we've gone all the way to laying out the size of rolling bins in plan and 01:10:58.127 --> 01:11:03.482 - we will likely be proposing some permeable pavers in some of those corners so that we've got a hard 01:11:03.482 --> 01:11:09.374 - surface that those cans are going on. That's really clear and we will likely have one or two parallel spaces. 01:11:09.570 --> 01:11:14.754 - along Fairview that will be blocked that like when you've got street cleaning and you can't park on 01:11:14.754 --> 01:11:20.145 - this side of the street for two hours this morning of the week that on trash morning that parking space 01:11:20.145 --> 01:11:25.433 - is not available and it's being used for cans. But yes, that's being fully laid out. And you know, it 01:11:25.433 --> 01:11:28.958 - is because a lot of these units can actually pull up to the street. 01:11:29.058 --> 01:11:34.502 - And we're using basically each one of the lane corners, right? So for instance, this corner of Jackson 01:11:34.502 --> 01:11:40.000 - Street, if you guys can see that little hand down here next to these parking spaces, it's actually just 01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:41.374 - these three little units. 01:11:41.602 --> 01:11:47.382 - this ADU in this house and then these two units. In some of these, it's a one-bedroom house, it doesn't 01:11:47.382 --> 01:11:52.995 - need to have the largest size can. We're guessing on using the medium-sized can for all of them, but 01:11:52.995 --> 01:11:58.664 - then we're assuming that there will also be some smaller ones that are being used. But yes, those are 01:11:58.664 --> 01:12:04.444 - being dimensionally laid out and it's being considered having a hard surface material for those to rest 01:12:04.444 --> 01:12:08.446 - on. I would appreciate seeing those details at the fine pressure model. 01:12:13.122 --> 01:12:20.751 - I think that, I guess the other thing that I wanted to know about were the parking, the perpendicular 01:12:20.751 --> 01:12:28.306 - parking spaces for Jackson and Wiley. And what are those, like are those visitor parking spaces, are 01:12:28.306 --> 01:12:36.234 - those parking spaces for those units? Like what is the vision there and why are they perpendicular spaces 01:12:36.234 --> 01:12:41.694 - as opposed to empty spaces which tends to be more unusual at this point. 01:12:42.594 --> 01:12:48.710 - Jackson Street went back and forth through each one of these iterations with the city as the preference 01:12:48.710 --> 01:12:54.591 - from police and from our side was that it's more of an alley. It doesn't go all the way through, it 01:12:54.591 --> 01:13:00.590 - is very low traffic. We really only have one street frontage because we've got the back of a building 01:13:00.590 --> 01:13:02.942 - and a parking lot along the other side. 01:13:03.202 --> 01:13:09.158 - So we started out with a very, it was an alley. We then kind of graduated up to, okay, it should actually 01:13:09.158 --> 01:13:14.890 - have sidewalks. So if we're going to do sidewalks, it should have street trees. It got itself all the 01:13:14.890 --> 01:13:16.126 - way back to a street. 01:13:16.546 --> 01:13:21.727 - challenges with this existing building and with us pushing our right of way as far to that building 01:13:21.727 --> 01:13:26.959 - as we could get it, was that the police department is frankly pretty crunched for parking. And so as 01:13:26.959 --> 01:13:32.192 - we looked through different ways that we could make up that balance to them, head-in parking in this 01:13:32.192 --> 01:13:37.373 - area, we both had really good topography to be able to achieve that. We had a really good door that 01:13:37.373 --> 01:13:42.553 - it could come into. They had a specific division that needed some extra parking that didn't need to 01:13:42.553 --> 01:13:43.486 - be within secured 01:13:43.586 --> 01:13:48.664 - secured parking and so the intention of these is that they are police, you know, specific spaces. 01:13:48.664 --> 01:13:54.001 - We can, when we load spaces onto an alley or onto a street, it's significantly more pavement efficient 01:13:54.001 --> 01:13:58.302 - because we're not making another drive aisle just to load the parking spaces onto. 01:13:58.914 --> 01:14:05.469 - We did make Jackson, part of Jackson's custom street section nature is that it can have head-in parking. 01:14:05.469 --> 01:14:11.774 - Part of the benefit of it being head-in instead of angle because Jackson is not a through street and 01:14:11.774 --> 01:14:18.079 - Wiley is relatively low traffic is that if they are head-in, then people can access and come in both 01:14:18.079 --> 01:14:24.634 - coming and going back up to first instead of pushing more traffic onto Wiley. Some of that is just being 01:14:24.634 --> 01:14:27.006 - reflective of it's a very low traffic 01:14:27.170 --> 01:14:33.245 - street, we are not expecting, um, back in to be problematic whatsoever. And in a lot of ways, we actually 01:14:33.245 --> 01:14:39.263 - want the extra traffic calming of the little bit of extra friction, but we'd like those to be accessible 01:14:39.263 --> 01:14:45.167 - from both directions to really push as much police traffic up, much less residential, much wider right 01:14:45.167 --> 01:14:51.013 - of way, larger setbacks, um, versus pushing any additional traffic down onto Wiley. Okay. And then to 01:14:51.013 --> 01:14:56.286 - follow up on that, I feel like that whole explanation was finished on the back of, of this, 01:14:56.834 --> 01:15:03.203 - current building on South Rockers becoming a police station, which he also said, you know, that that 01:15:03.203 --> 01:15:09.634 - was still in process of being studied. That is also something that would need to come through council 01:15:09.634 --> 01:15:16.129 - as a bond and a completely separate thing. So how much of this whole concept is kind of hinging around 01:15:16.129 --> 01:15:22.498 - this assumption that that is going to end up being a future police headquarters? So we have built in 01:15:22.498 --> 01:15:24.894 - in the PUD quite a bit of flexibility 01:15:24.994 --> 01:15:30.537 - for the recognition that everything that's being shown on Block 8, which is this police block, is very 01:15:30.537 --> 01:15:36.133 - conceptual. Everything that's being shown on Block 9 and 10, the housing, is not very conceptual. Those 01:15:36.133 --> 01:15:41.730 - are fully designed houses and I can tell you where their parking space and their trash goes. Everything 01:15:41.730 --> 01:15:47.542 - that is on Block 8 here, their design consultants came on weeks ago. They are still in very early analysis. 01:15:47.542 --> 01:15:50.878 - We have built-in flexibility that everything on this block is 01:15:50.978 --> 01:15:57.302 - conceptual and will be adjusted. There are some things that when we show them in the PUD, the number 01:15:57.302 --> 01:16:03.939 - of accesses onto streets and roughly where those go are less flexible and would require more modification 01:16:03.939 --> 01:16:07.070 - if those came back and changed. Things like that. 01:16:07.202 --> 01:16:12.791 - are somewhat set. We wanted to show some of the head-end parking on Jackson because we wrote Jackson 01:16:12.791 --> 01:16:18.381 - that head-end parking was allowed, and so we wanted to show that that was possible. The east side of 01:16:18.381 --> 01:16:23.970 - the center line of the street, we want to recognize might be slightly different as long as it's like 01:16:23.970 --> 01:16:29.670 - the transportation plan within the standard street sections, that there's a little bit of variety that 01:16:29.670 --> 01:16:30.334 - is allowed. 01:16:30.530 --> 01:16:38.143 - But if the building was removed and this block was entirely redeveloped, it would more or less default 01:16:38.143 --> 01:16:45.609 - back to the existing TRO overlay standards because the PUD only modifies the underlying standards in 01:16:45.609 --> 01:16:53.000 - the specific ways that are listed and we've only listed a handful of modifications to code. The PUD 01:16:53.000 --> 01:17:00.318 - for that block is relatively light. In terms of changes that you all would see from normal zoning, 01:17:00.450 --> 01:17:09.618 - if for some reason the building came down and had a totally different user. Thank you. Other council 01:17:09.618 --> 01:17:19.240 - member questions? All right. Oh, yeah, this was clarity. Thank you. Thank you for the explanation earlier 01:17:19.240 --> 01:17:29.406 - about some of the challenges with missing middle housing types from a financing and administrative perspective. 01:17:30.082 --> 01:17:37.006 - What I'm hearing from you is that basically, despite zoning allowing duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, 01:17:37.006 --> 01:17:43.929 - they're too difficult to build. So what we really need is smaller single-family homes on smaller lots 01:17:43.929 --> 01:17:51.328 - in order to have market rate affordability for homeownership. Is that right? For homeownership specifically, 01:17:51.328 --> 01:17:58.387 - that has been the single thing that we have been able to find that is fitting through the most of these 01:17:58.387 --> 01:17:59.134 - deadbolts. 01:17:59.266 --> 01:18:05.819 - And townhouses can count, you know, attached single family houses can still work for that, but really 01:18:05.819 --> 01:18:06.718 - small format. 01:18:06.818 --> 01:18:12.943 - Homes on their own lots has been the only thing that we are finding that works for homeownership 01:18:12.943 --> 01:18:19.700 - specifically. If we were only trying to gear this towards affordability and we were really gearing towards 01:18:19.700 --> 01:18:26.078 - a larger percentage of rentals, we might see more multifamily in what we would propose, but with the 01:18:26.078 --> 01:18:32.456 - really explicit goal here of promoting homeownership, small homes on small lots or where it's at. No 01:18:32.456 --> 01:18:35.550 - zoning district at the City of New England's UDO 01:18:35.906 --> 01:18:42.688 - makes it legal to build that type of market rate affordability, is that right? None that we were able 01:18:42.688 --> 01:18:49.404 - to find had both a lot width minimum and a lot size minimum and setbacks that worked for what we are 01:18:49.404 --> 01:18:56.253 - currently showing you. Okay, that's disappointing. We should perhaps propose a lot of change that. Why 01:18:56.253 --> 01:19:03.035 - not develop a new zoning district though or change an existing one? If this is like a good idea, it's 01:19:03.035 --> 01:19:04.830 - been proven out elsewhere. 01:19:05.762 --> 01:19:11.009 - I'm struggling with the TUV aspect of it, I'm sure you can tell, because we've had a lot of 01:19:11.009 --> 01:19:16.882 - mixed experiences, they become stale over time, difficult to administer, costly, et cetera, et cetera. 01:19:16.882 --> 01:19:22.756 - And in some instances, like within the parking, for instance, actually don't meet our standards, which 01:19:22.756 --> 01:19:28.687 - is a concern. So I guess, yeah, why not make a zoning district that allows this, even if it's only here 01:19:28.687 --> 01:19:34.846 - to start, and then allow that zoning district to apply in a targeted way elsewhere over time, for instance, 01:19:35.202 --> 01:19:41.244 - Corner lots in gridded neighborhoods where lots of it is easy places where we improve the alley to allow 01:19:41.244 --> 01:19:47.344 - that type of subdivision you were demonstrating on the lot between third and fourth Street, for instance, 01:19:47.344 --> 01:19:53.502 - and nonprofit bill. So, yeah, tell me tell me what you do not. Custom Street sections is the short answer. 01:19:53.602 --> 01:19:59.216 - I do think that new zoning districts and that exactly the mechanism that you are describing is something 01:19:59.216 --> 01:20:04.776 - we've used a number of times where we test a new zoning district just on one lot or we've even had some 01:20:04.776 --> 01:20:10.443 - communities where we pass a new district, but it's functionally opt-in. People can come and ask to rezone 01:20:10.443 --> 01:20:15.789 - to it, but it's not put on the map anywhere, although it's adopted first, which is a great way once 01:20:15.789 --> 01:20:18.302 - some of these other things are worked through. 01:20:18.434 --> 01:20:24.962 - The custom street sections is the reason that the PUD really took the lead on the approach that we could 01:20:24.962 --> 01:20:31.179 - use because I do think that a modification to the transportation plan to allow for some more narrow 01:20:31.179 --> 01:20:37.396 - street sections long-term is a really great recommendation and that's a pretty big lift in terms of 01:20:37.396 --> 01:20:43.737 - administrative process before anything can happen. The PUD allows us to get rolling and to see how it 01:20:43.737 --> 01:20:48.400 - works while some of these other processes that are much longer process can 01:20:48.400 --> 01:20:55.685 - take place. Well, I think it's a small follow up. That's OK. Which is, let's assume the world in the 01:20:55.685 --> 01:21:03.042 - next five years where we do some of these things, maybe develop or amend existing zoning districts to 01:21:03.042 --> 01:21:09.894 - have the lot dimensional requirements that would fit with this as a zoning district and update 01:21:09.894 --> 01:21:14.366 - the transportation plan, the comprehensive plan to allow more 01:21:14.626 --> 01:21:21.073 - I don't know what it is exactly. I have to learn more about it. Flexibility of respect to non-car streets 01:21:21.073 --> 01:21:27.338 - as frontage, for instance. Would the idea be to like, I'm wondering about like this, as it's like over 01:21:27.338 --> 01:21:33.724 - time, decades in the future, right? It'd be really nice if when we do sweep anxiety changes 10, 20 years 01:21:33.724 --> 01:21:40.414 - from now, that this is part of it and we don't leave this behind as a P and D. That was a great idea in 2025. 01:21:40.706 --> 01:21:46.876 - But come 20, 40, we're much more enlightened on something else. And this is left behind, you know, like 01:21:46.876 --> 01:21:52.867 - so many PDs have been in that, that our recent UDO re-mapping process that went a really long way to 01:21:52.867 --> 01:21:58.325 - overcome this patchwork we had on over blue maintaining over 87 PDs or whatever it was. So. 01:21:58.325 --> 01:22:04.317 - Thought on that, the ability to adapt this, um, in the future, I guess, to, to do the normal process 01:22:04.317 --> 01:22:06.334 - instead of its own special thing. 01:22:08.354 --> 01:22:14.859 - think that the more that that can be done, the more positive impact you're going to see about housing 01:22:14.859 --> 01:22:21.301 - everywhere. I think modifying your existing zoning districts that are already on the map is going to 01:22:21.301 --> 01:22:27.743 - be the most impactful way to do that. I know that there's political challenge and that's not as easy 01:22:27.743 --> 01:22:34.184 - as just saying it. I can fully appreciate that too. Maybe a good question for David too. I can fully 01:22:34.184 --> 01:22:37.118 - hear you on the challenges of PUDs over time. 01:22:37.730 --> 01:22:43.366 - I absolutely agree. I'm also not sure whether this could be designed to sunset that the intention is 01:22:43.366 --> 01:22:48.946 - to build exactly what you're seeing. And a lot of the PUD is written around that, right? That there 01:22:48.946 --> 01:22:54.527 - aren't intended to be really significant architectural standards for the existing buildings because 01:22:54.527 --> 01:23:00.386 - we're showing you what every single building looks like and it can't be modified. But then modifications 01:23:00.386 --> 01:23:06.134 - to buildings default back to the prevailing architectural standards at the time. And so we've intended 01:23:06.134 --> 01:23:07.696 - it to be able to be default 01:23:07.696 --> 01:23:14.951 - back to zoning, but I'm not sure if you could build in a sunset to a PUD that allows it to be built 01:23:14.951 --> 01:23:22.568 - and then it automatically sunsets unless extended. I can add a little bit to that. The UDO stopped short 01:23:22.568 --> 01:23:30.113 - of forcing PUDs to be absorbed into an existing zone district, but it does strongly encourage that they 01:23:30.113 --> 01:23:34.974 - be absorbed into an existing zone district. I would certainly hope 01:23:35.074 --> 01:23:42.964 - that in 5, 10 years time we do have the district that accommodates the things that are being shown here. 01:23:42.964 --> 01:23:50.629 - And so when that happens, as I think over the past several years, we've taken down dozens of pea weed 01:23:50.629 --> 01:23:58.144 - and assigned them standard conventional bone districts. Close to 100? Close to 100. I would imagine 01:23:58.144 --> 01:24:01.150 - that's exactly what would be done here. 01:24:02.946 --> 01:24:10.078 - Thank you. Any other last questions from council members? Okay, that was technically the last thing 01:24:10.078 --> 01:24:17.210 - on our agenda. Mayor Thompson, is there any other types of information or general feedback that you 01:24:17.210 --> 01:24:24.343 - appreciate right now as part of this session or Allie or Director Kiddle? I think it's just, I want 01:24:24.343 --> 01:24:31.760 - to express that this meeting is an effort to keep you all in the loop before it's a thumbs up or thumbs 01:24:31.760 --> 01:24:32.830 - down decision. 01:24:33.122 --> 01:24:41.795 - And so this is a good time to provide feedback and concerns while we're still working with the PUD. 01:24:41.795 --> 01:24:50.468 - And my hope is that this is an active conversation and it's not a, you know, we don't hear anything 01:24:50.468 --> 01:24:59.142 - and then we get to council meeting and there's a whole bunch of changes asked for, or we just don't 01:24:59.142 --> 01:25:01.310 - like the PUD in the end. 01:25:01.602 --> 01:25:08.541 - This is an effort at co-creating and keeping you plugged in throughout the process. So that sounds to 01:25:08.541 --> 01:25:15.684 - me like maybe feedback from council members would be appreciated if anybody has a comment perhaps around 01:25:15.684 --> 01:25:22.487 - what they've heard or any specific concerns that they would like to see addressed before it goes to 01:25:22.487 --> 01:25:29.426 - council in a more official way. Council member, I'll see if that's what happened. Well, I just wonder 01:25:29.426 --> 01:25:30.174 - if I like, 01:25:30.786 --> 01:25:39.229 - the plan in general. I like the PUD in general. And I do note that if council member Rosenbarger's resolution 01:25:39.229 --> 01:25:47.135 - last spring is on board, then a lot of these missing middle things would have been allowed to be built 01:25:47.135 --> 01:25:54.888 - sooner throughout the community. So I did want to point that out. But in general, the sticking point 01:25:54.888 --> 01:26:00.414 - for triplexes and fourplexes seems to be the financing. And I wonder if 01:26:00.866 --> 01:26:09.794 - there have been any conversations with CDFI, Renly Bloomington, or any other funders to make financing 01:26:09.794 --> 01:26:18.549 - more available for those kind of types? We have had, I don't know if you're asking me, but I'll tell 01:26:18.549 --> 01:26:27.217 - you what I know, we have had conversations with lenders, CDFI, et cetera. It's just right now, it's 01:26:27.217 --> 01:26:30.078 - hard to get done unless you have 01:26:30.530 --> 01:26:38.863 - a good model for doing it. And the reason that we are getting some flexes built elsewhere is because 01:26:38.863 --> 01:26:47.362 - they're all rentals and then they're rentals primarily for students. We're still not housing our young 01:26:47.362 --> 01:26:55.695 - professions. We're not. And once they're big enough that they need a sprinkler system, it's not just 01:26:55.695 --> 01:26:57.758 - that a mortgage would be 01:26:58.178 --> 01:27:05.960 - more affordable, the rent also goes up. The developer has more money in that unit. And so if we can 01:27:05.960 --> 01:27:14.442 - look at developing things that fit the code that don't require that, that's where we get some affordability. 01:27:14.442 --> 01:27:22.302 - Yeah, I want to reinforce that. It's not a small change for cost. So International Residential Code, 01:27:22.302 --> 01:27:25.726 - the IRC, is one or two units or townhouses. 01:27:26.082 --> 01:27:31.186 - Anything under the international residential code can be built by a residential contractor. We don't 01:27:31.186 --> 01:27:36.291 - need fire sprinklers. You don't have weird fire separations where you've got, you know, fire cocking 01:27:36.291 --> 01:27:41.395 - or lightweight chipcrete that's on top of a floor plate, which is a really it's a custom detail that 01:27:41.395 --> 01:27:45.438 - like commercial contractors can do what we're finding. And we've done a number. 01:27:45.634 --> 01:27:51.092 - of just volunteer basis, state level code changes, both the incremental development alliance and our 01:27:51.092 --> 01:27:56.550 - office. We just introduced a bill in Oklahoma to move more units under the international residential 01:27:56.550 --> 01:28:02.063 - code. We successfully, one of our alumni and faculty got one passed in Tennessee. We've passed one in 01:28:02.063 --> 01:28:06.494 - North Carolina. We've passed one in New Hampshire that's existing buildings only. 01:28:06.658 --> 01:28:11.668 - they don't have a lot of new construction, so that was effective. Dallas is recently, because in Texas, 01:28:11.668 --> 01:28:16.534 - states have their own power to pass their own building code, so Dallas has now legalized up to eight 01:28:16.534 --> 01:28:18.846 - units under the International Residential Code. 01:28:18.946 --> 01:28:25.170 - But the thing that we are finding, having done the state code change in Tennessee was in 2019, I think. 01:28:25.170 --> 01:28:31.334 - And so since then, Cronberg is one of our partners on this project and a good friend has built several 01:28:31.334 --> 01:28:37.498 - multiplexes under IRC and under IBC. So the International Building Code, three units or more, it's the 01:28:37.498 --> 01:28:40.670 - same code we used to do like airports and factories. 01:28:41.250 --> 01:28:46.666 - They've built them both in Chattanooga and then with the same builder, same floor plans, just the different 01:28:46.666 --> 01:28:51.731 - codes, and then cross pricing of the two of them to be able to field test what kind of a cost change 01:28:51.731 --> 01:28:56.745 - that makes. The same building built under IBC is approximately 40% more expensive, which means your 01:28:56.745 --> 01:28:57.598 - rent needs to be 01:28:57.730 --> 01:29:03.723 - 40% or more more expensive. So it's not just the financing. There is a huge threshold by which we have 01:29:03.723 --> 01:29:09.542 - very few communities in America that we've ever worked that you can build one fourplex and make any 01:29:09.542 --> 01:29:15.360 - money. It doesn't pencil. You can't make it work. And so a lot of that is building code driven. And 01:29:15.360 --> 01:29:21.470 - so we are working on that at the state level. And we've had some conversations about a potential Indiana 01:29:21.470 --> 01:29:27.696 - bill. Because there are so many communities in Indiana, they're struggling with exactly the same question. 01:29:27.696 --> 01:29:34.506 - is a delinearal state, which means communities cannot pass their own building code that conflicts with 01:29:34.506 --> 01:29:41.250 - the state fire code. So it would need to be done at the state level. But three and fourplex buildings 01:29:41.250 --> 01:29:47.995 - nowhere in America for building code reasons really make any sense. You can get a traditional 30-year 01:29:47.995 --> 01:29:54.871 - residential mortgage, an FHA loan, a secondary market mortgage for up to 40 residential units on a lot. 01:29:54.871 --> 01:29:57.648 - So you can get a mortgage for a fourplex. 01:29:57.648 --> 01:30:02.794 - You don't have any comps for fourplexes, even if it would work, which means we can't get an appraisal 01:30:02.794 --> 01:30:07.991 - that works yet. And if we have to build it under IBC, no one can build it and make any money. And even 01:30:07.991 --> 01:30:13.087 - if a foundation came in and did it, which is what's happening in Chattanooga, the rents in them have 01:30:13.087 --> 01:30:17.022 - to be so high to cover the construction costs that they don't make sense yet. 01:30:17.122 --> 01:30:23.789 - That is something that zoning is fixed, but we still got a bunch of other dead bolts that we've got 01:30:23.789 --> 01:30:30.656 - to work through. There are ways that some of those corner three-bedroom houses could be converted into 01:30:30.656 --> 01:30:37.523 - a four-plex later if building code changes were made, but it doesn't make any sense for us to show and 01:30:37.523 --> 01:30:44.190 - legalize building something that then is not going to be able to be financeable and nobody is going 01:30:44.190 --> 01:30:46.590 - to be able to make work. Thank you. 01:30:46.818 --> 01:30:53.428 - Other comments from council members? Thank you. I'll share some thoughts with you, Bec. I'm very excited 01:30:53.428 --> 01:30:59.974 - about the value of the lands that may be possible to use as downhandle systems. I think that's a really 01:30:59.974 --> 01:31:06.647 - cool aspect of the project in addition to the smaller streets. And I'm really interested in the developer 01:31:06.647 --> 01:31:13.445 - and lender workshops. And if it would be possible to attend, I would love to just to be able to communicate 01:31:13.445 --> 01:31:15.774 - that with the rest of the community. 01:31:16.066 --> 01:31:25.665 - Is there anything else that I wanted to say? Thank you for this. Any other passing member points of 01:31:25.665 --> 01:31:35.935 - feedback or comments? Just a question for us too. The presentation is very helpful, by way of information, 01:31:35.935 --> 01:31:43.806 - but I think it puts in the fine commission packet is probably much more detailed. 01:31:45.026 --> 01:31:51.151 - A lot of it was duplicative. Well, this is just a presentation. I mean, there's no, like, it's code, 01:31:51.151 --> 01:31:57.336 - essentially, right? I mean, it's like a substitute for code, like an actual VEV of what all the exact 01:31:57.336 --> 01:32:00.126 - standards are. Like, that's not what you get. 01:32:00.386 --> 01:32:06.543 - Honestly, I mean, what we got was kind of like a preview for our session as opposed to an accidental 01:32:06.543 --> 01:32:12.761 - petition. No, we have not gotten the petition yet at all. I'm not sure if the petition is going to be 01:32:12.761 --> 01:32:19.041 - a little bit more detailed. There is a little bit more detail about the unit types of those plans, but 01:32:19.041 --> 01:32:25.137 - I think not as much detail. OK, thinking of the mayor's request for feedback, it's definitely happy 01:32:25.137 --> 01:32:30.014 - to try to do that. It is also a little hard until you actually see the proposed 01:32:30.274 --> 01:32:39.195 - zoning district standards or PUD district standards to fully comprehend it slash give detailed feedback. 01:32:39.195 --> 01:32:47.775 - My only feedback I guess is that I appreciate this session. It might have been nice a little earlier 01:32:47.775 --> 01:32:57.036 - to talk about whether or not we wanted to go PUD versus zoning district approach. I expressed some hesitancy 01:32:57.036 --> 01:33:00.094 - about using a PUD as a tool for our 01:33:00.450 --> 01:33:07.066 - our best thinking on affordability. If this is really what we think is that it's gonna move the needle, 01:33:07.066 --> 01:33:13.491 - like we should be talking about it in the context of our zoning code and what needs to change in our 01:33:13.491 --> 01:33:20.297 - zoning code. So not that's precluded necessarily by this, but it does add layers that might be unnecessary 01:33:20.297 --> 01:33:27.358 - in my view and are like kind of suboptimal. So that's my general concern, but I need to sort of find a review. 01:33:29.602 --> 01:33:37.660 - Thank you. Other council member comments about it. I guess my primary comment also revolved around that 01:33:37.660 --> 01:33:45.796 - idea is that it really need to be a community and the primary reason that seems to be the street escapes 01:33:45.796 --> 01:33:54.009 - and that seems to open up kind of a bigger concern for me about exactly how inflexible the transportation 01:33:54.009 --> 01:33:56.798 - plan might be in terms of trying to 01:33:58.594 --> 01:34:06.035 - trying to make our goals kind of work together in line in ways that there may be less aligned right 01:34:06.035 --> 01:34:13.922 - now. I'm also generally skeptical, I guess, and I mean, to get a PV right now, you have to have a minimum 01:34:13.922 --> 01:34:21.437 - acreage. And that is probably at least partly why that last quorum of the proposed police station is 01:34:21.437 --> 01:34:27.166 - in there. And I guess I just have in general a lot more questions about that 01:34:27.362 --> 01:34:34.906 - building and that whole project, which was, you know, originally kind of spent the demo and a replacement 01:34:34.906 --> 01:34:42.664 - entirely. So, I have more questions about that kind of place, but I don't think it's necessarily appropriate 01:34:42.664 --> 01:34:50.066 - here, but I also wonder whether DOD is really the right tool for this job, but maybe it's the only tool 01:34:50.066 --> 01:34:51.774 - for this job, but yeah. 01:34:53.922 --> 01:34:59.998 - I think that is an accurate assessment of, we did go back and forth a number of times 01:35:00.322 --> 01:35:06.140 - Pretty in-depth with RBC and with planning to assess that we did all get to the point we thought was 01:35:06.140 --> 01:35:11.901 - that this was the best tool to get it accomplished. That doesn't mean it was a perfect tool, but it 01:35:11.901 --> 01:35:17.661 - was the tool that we could use to get to a lot of these things relatively quickly without coming to 01:35:17.661 --> 01:35:23.595 - you guys with a really comprehensive and intense zoning set of revisions that was going to feel pretty 01:35:23.595 --> 01:35:24.286 - aggressive. 01:35:29.090 --> 01:35:36.950 - There are no other last comments. Anybody? Thank you to the mayor for calling us in. Yeah. And thank 01:35:36.950 --> 01:35:44.733 - you to Allison, and there's a lot of people. There are fewer people in our now than there were when 01:35:44.733 --> 01:35:52.827 - we started, but there is interest from us. So thank you everybody for coming. Thank you, Allie. Thanks, 01:35:52.827 --> 01:35:58.430 - guys. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I will adjourn.