Hello everyone. Welcome to our regularly scheduled May 6th City Council meeting. Will the lovely and
generous clerk please call the roll. Piedmont Smith. Zurich here. Sorry here. Daily here. Rollo here.
Ruff here.
Rosenberger here. Thank you Great At this time or is there any motion to change the agenda?
I Thank you. I do have a motion. I move to hear Ordinance 2026-06 before we move to first readings second
Okay there's been a motion and a second to hear ordinance twenty twenty six oh six first ahead of number
six legislation for first readings on the agenda. Oh I guess nobody is online. So all in favor please
say aye. All opposed. Same sign. Great. That passes.
And then I will go through the agenda summation. First we have minutes for approval and then we'll go
to reports from council members and then we have a report from Canopy Bloomington council committees.
We will go to our first period of general public comment and then we have appointments to boards and
commissions and then we'll start with ordinance twenty twenty six oh six in regard to what many people
know as Hopewell.
And then we will have our legislation for first ratings including ordinance twenty twenty six dash oh
seven to amend title eight of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled historic preservation and protection
and to establish a conservation district cottage Grove Conservation District ordinance twenty twenty
six oh eight amending and providing technical corrections to title twenty
ordinance twenty twenty six oh nine amending and providing technical corrections to chapter four ordinance
twenty twenty six ten amending and providing technical corrections to chapter six and ordinance twenty
twenty six eleven amending and providing technical corrections to chapter two then we will go to ordinate
legislation for second readings and resolutions resolution to
Directing the housing and neighborhood development department to develop a framework for long-term housing
affordability resolution 20 2606 and then resolution 20 2605 a resolution to initiate a proposal to
amend title 20 And finally, we will have additional public comment council schedule and then we will
adjourn and that took a really long time I am so sorry about that. Please forgive me at this time. Are
there any motions for minutes for approval?
I move to approve the minutes for January 22nd 2025 Okay, there's been a motion in a second all those
in favor, please say aye Thank you all those opposed Great that passes and now we will move on to reports
from council members any council members who would like to make a report tonight Councilmember Rosenberger.
Hi. Thank you. I wanted to say
The city has some new LP eyes around town quite a few actually leading pedestrian intervals at stoplights.
So this gives pedestrians a few seconds head start to get out on the crosswalks before any cars start
turning right normally. So that's pretty neat and it's just a little upgrade in safety for all of our
road users. So thank you to public works and engineering and planning and council for doing that.
Thank you. Any other reports? OK. Moving on, we have a report from Canopy Bloomington. Please take your
stage, and you'll begin when you're ready.
Hi, everyone. I'm Eva Hartman. I'm the executive director of Canopy Bloomington. And sitting right behind
me, we have Philippa Guthrie, who's the president of our board, Sarah Menci, who's the vice president
of our board, and then John Vickers, who is our outgoing community engagement director. And, oh, there we go.
I just want to show a quick video talking about our organization, what we've accomplished last year.
I know that we had come to see a lot of you about a year ago to talk about who we are. And I just want
to give a brief overview of that and then talk about what we've done so far. If you just click it, it
should go. Yeah.
We'll see if this works and if it doesn't. We can scratch the video if you want. Well, as they pull it up,
Um, canopy Bloomington is a nonprofit in Bloomington and we focus on engaging with residents and building
and caring for the urban forest here. Um, the video just would have gone over a few stats on what we've
done in 2025, but I also have a backup plan. So if you pull back up the presentation, I have the numbers,
um, and we can just go through those.
So in 2025, I just wanted to report on our volunteers. We had 1,400 volunteer hours and 300 active volunteers
with us in 2025. We worked with five different neighborhoods and attended 1,500 households, and most
of that work was done by our community engagement director.
All of those residents received information on how to receive free trees from our organization. And
then we went ahead and we planted 256 trees last year. So we got a lot of trees in the grounds. Most
of those went on private property. A few of those went in the right of way as we worked with the city.
And then we also hosted 18 educational events. So
In addition to planting all the trees, we want to inform residents about the benefits. They provide
reasons that you want to keep larger trees in your home and in your yard, but also why you want to keep
caring for the urban forest.
So we do a bunch of different educational events. We do tree walks, where we walk people around parks
and talk about the benefits and fun facts about trees. We have a book club. We have Trees 101, which
is focused more on caring for younger trees, and a few other things there, but I'm going to skip over
them for time's sake.
This just goes a little bit into our 2025 tree plantings. So working with seven different neighborhoods,
five different schools, two not-for-profits, and four individual plantings. One of the things we do,
like I said, is plant on private property, but we also combine that with education. So we really like
to work with schools. A lot of times we're working with Sycamore Land Trust. And then really anybody
who requests trees from us, we try to make it work through grants and different donations.
And something to note here is in 2025, we've planted 256 trees and this spring alone, we went ahead
and planted 248 trees. So we are already at that number this year and we're hoping to double that in
the fall. Thank you.
Just talking about how we connect with the city. So we have our youth tree tender program that goes
through parks and recreation We care for over 400 trees in the parks every single summer and we also
give educational development to high school students we work with Sean and the sustainability and economic
development office to do the cool corridor program so lining sidewalks with trees and
We went ahead and we planted 66 trees last year. And this year we planted 59 more as part of the program.
And then we're looking to do phase two starting this fall and planting them in the spring. So starting
that outreach to residents. And then we also do different partner tree plantings and events. We had
a block party at Butler Park last year. And then we also helped the city run the tree assistance program,
mainly working with Haskell on that one.
I just wanted to talk about this to highlight how important it is that we work together to grow the
urban forest because there's a lot of demand for it in the city. And then just a few ways you guys can
support us. So talking about our events in tree plantings, I know a few of you have come to our tree
plantings and have talked there. And I think it really is a big benefit to the residents to hear from you guys.
And then following us, interacting with our materials, sharing different events that we're putting on,
and just supporting urban forestry programming. So I mean, we're here talking to you, but there are
tons of different nonprofits that work in Bloomington, and a lot of them are focused on environmental
efforts. And so just supporting them when you can. Thank you guys. Thank you very much. Are there any
questions for our presenter?
Council Member Asare. Thank you. I just had a really quick question, and thank you so much for the work
that you do. Thank you. As many of our organizations are volunteer-led, and I know that we've launched
this sort of 100,000-hour volunteer thing in the city. I'm curious about whether you feel like that's
working well. I mean, very impressive numbers in terms of the amount of people who've come, and it's
been really exciting to see your events firsthand. But I'm just curious if you're having any pain points
in terms of getting volunteers.
10 times more, you know, and just in thinking sort of in a broader sense, reflecting on how we might
better build pipelines of volunteers and support you in that way as well. Yeah, that's a great question.
One of the things that we don't do is track where our volunteers come from all the time. So we know
if we're working with student groups, they're coming from IU, and that seems to be like a big base for
us. So I would say at least
one or two student groups join us at every single planting. But I don't know how they hear about us.
Sometimes it's through posters, sometimes it's through other clubs, but I also wonder if people hear
about us or if student groups are using the Bloomington Volunteer Network. We do pretty well on getting
enough volunteers for each of our plantings, but that doesn't mean that we can't always have more. And
so we could always talk more about how
We could maybe track how we're getting volunteers and how that could then like cycle into informing
your question whether Thank you so much. Thank you guys Now we have council committee reports are there
any Great moving right along to public comments if there's anyone who's come to speak for general public
comment So things not on the agenda
Please rise come to the podium state your name and you'll have three minutes And if you're on zoom,
please raise your hand Hello, my name is Zach Mueller move that just a little bit Here again, unfortunately
because I live at the intersection of Morningside Drive and Smith Road and
That was a great presentation just now. Excellent work, we're glad for all the work you guys are doing.
I was dividing my attention and I'm sorry for that. I wanted to pick like an arbitrary amount of time,
like the length of a presentation just as an example here. We have a chronic problem with people who
just do not even think about stopping at this stop sign. During the time that you were speaking, 23
vehicles rolled through that stop sign. Not rolled, kind of like, oh, almost stop and then they go.
did not observe the stop sign. I'm tired of hearing people screeching and yelling and seeing, there
was only one pedestrian that was in the crosswalk when cars decided not to use the stop sign as a stop
sign just now. Six months ago or more, a child was struck in the crosswalk. They had to have their jaw
wired shut
And more than a month ago, a whole troop of Girl Scouts, who were friends with this child, came here
and spoke at the transportation committee meeting. They got up in front of the people who were here,
said, you know, they were scared to do it. They did their civic duty. Yesterday, after I went and voted,
I got home, and there was, you know, maybe we don't, maybe pedestrians not getting hit, maybe that's
not gonna move the needle. How about the fact that I had to pick up a dead cat out of the middle of the,
Crosswalk yesterday because somebody had blown through the stop sign going south on Smith Road And I
couldn't call the city to do it because the city was closed yesterday And I think the city should have
been closed yesterday So I walked the cat this poor cat who did nothing other than exist and people
not wanting to stop at a stop sign because we can't make Enough of an impact to people to encourage
them to stop I had to walk this poor cat up to the veterinary clinic right up the street asked them
to scan for a microchip Poor little guy didn't have one
All he wanted to do was be a little cat and he like yeah, I know cats in the street Oh, no, like it's
it's a problem. Oh, no, sometimes animals get hit I bet that when we make our decisions about Hopewell
and other designed
Areas where we are going to build new housing. We're gonna do a really good job of making sure that
people stop at stop signs We have appropriate enforcement of speed limits. I'm willing to say we have
blue into police officer Thank you for your work here, sir You can park your car in my driveway anytime
you want and if you give a thousand tickets, I will give you a high five I'll give me give you two and
I'll give you a high five. I am so sick of this kids pedestrians cyclists animals
They're all running the risk of getting turned into pancakes at this intersection. I would rather be
anywhere right now than here. But I'm going to come back until somebody does something. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else in chambers? Anyone on Zoom? Great. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm so sorry. Please
approach the podium, state your name, and you'll have three minutes.
to initiate the hustle. Hi, Paul Rousseau, Bloomington resident. In case you missed it, like I did,
there was some very interesting news from Canada five weeks ago. The New Democratic Party, which is
one of Canada's major parties, elected Avi Lewis to be their new leader. He happens to be the husband
of Naomi Klein,
the famous author. I thought his acceptance speech was inspiring, so I would like to share part of it
as follows. In the last federal election, Canadians voted to say no to Trump and Trumpism. What they're
getting instead is our government following the United States into future of wars, fossil fuels, austerity,
and job killing generative AI. Our new Democratic Party has a different offer for this country.
Our plan is to Trump-proof the economy by investing massively in Canadian economic independence using
the unmatched power of public ownership to ensure the fundamentals of a good life. A network of public
providers for food, phones, and internet, a public housing developer, and public construction companies
to build millions of non-market homes, a 21st century electric grid, an EV bus revolution, and a heat
pump in every home
built with Canadian steel, creating tens of thousands of unionized jobs. Investing in the care economy
as true nation building, the education, health care, elder care, and child care that holds our social
fabric together, and finishing Tommy's dream, eyes, teeth, mental health, medicine. They are all part
of your health. They all have to be part of our universal public health care system.
If we want Canadians to feel more secure, then we have to invest in real security. Of course, we can
already hear the howls from the establishment, but how will you pay for all this? Well, let's remind
them that this country is awash in wealth. We can have nice things. Banks made $70 billion in profits
last year alone. Oil companies are expecting a new windfall in the tens of billions. Grocery Baron Galen
Weston alone is worth $20 billion.
It is time, far past time, to properly tax the corporations and billionaires that have been riding a
tidal wave of profits while the 99% have been suffering and struggling and use that money to directly
improve the lives of Canadians. The money is there. The money is there, my friends. We need a government
with the courage to go and get it for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in chambers?
Anyone on Zoom. Great. Thank you. Now we'll move on to appointments to boards and commissions. Anyone.
Well in that case then I move that ordinance twenty twenty six dash six be read by title and synopsis
only second. There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor. Do we need to roll call. All those
in favor please say aye aye. All those opposed. Great. Will the clerk please read by title and synopsis only.
Ordinance 2026-06 to amend the city of Bloomington zoning maps by rezoning a 6.3 acre property from
residential urban lot and residential multifamily within the transform redevelopment overlay to plan
unit development and to approve a district ordinance and preliminary plan. The synopsis is as follows.
This ordinance amends the zoning of the property from residential urban lot and residential multifamily
within the transform redevelopment overlay to plan unit development.
Thank you very much. I move that ordinance 2026-6 be adopted. Second. Great. Thank you. So would anyone
from the petitioner side like to give an update? No? OK. Would anyone like to move a reasonable condition
forward? Councilmember?
Madam chair, I would like I see councilman Stasberg's trade but I'd like I know we have maybe three
or two and a half Proposals around Permanent affordability. I think that's reasonable condition for
and What's the number of yours councilmember Piedmont Smith is it 17 now and and number seven sixteen and so
I don't know how best to do it but maybe I mean I think we've talked about for them but I'd love to
hear about 16. So it'd be maybe my motion. Madam Chair. Council member Piedmont Smith. I don't know
if that was a motion but since council member Stossberg is not here yet she was also unaware of the
change in the agenda and should be here soon. And since she's co-sponsor of one of these maybe we can address
Condition number six. It was with it was adopted on March 25th but is now being withdrawn by would like
to be withdrawn by the sponsor in favor of a written commitment. So I think we need to Revote or something
Councilmember Flaherty sure and we reconsider a reasonable condition six Second, okay. There's been
a motion in a second. All those in favor, please say aye aye All those opposed. No
It's just a motion. I don't think we need to vote on the motion to reconsider. Well, we extradited it.
I think did we accidentally just re-adopt it or affirm our adoption of it? The point is to vote no on
reasonable condition six, to withdraw reasonable condition six. We just voted in favor to reconsider
it. So now we can reconsider it. Gotcha.
We are reconsidering reasonable condition six it is reconsidered because we adopted it already I don't
really think of withdrawal as a motion but as applied to a motion reasonable condition six was about
all electric construction the State of Indiana the General Assembly some years ago passed a law Banning
regulation of electrification as a
you know, an energy issue. That's pretty common for conservative states. And we talked about kind of
the substance of this. The purpose of electrification is that it's the only compatible pathway with
our climate goals. It is dramatically healthier for in-home equipment. So there's lots of reasons to
do it. I think the general intent of the developer, the RDC, is to build all electric. Previously, the
legal guidance I've gotten both from city attorneys or corporation counsel and from our own city council attorneys
is that in the context of PUDs, incentives in the UDO, et cetera, that that's not the same thing as
mandating in code that we do electrification. So in other words, in the universe of PUDs and incentives,
this probably is legally okay based on the guidance we've gotten previously. That said, we thought it
would be better as a written commitment than a reasonable condition because that is probably even further
in the territory of safety in terms of
legal compatibility with our General Assembly Law on on supporting fossil fuels so that's why we were
withdrawing it because we have a written commitment instead that would address electrification and Efficiency
instead of reasonable conditions. And so I think the unless folks have questions, which I'm happy to
answer I think we would be voting no on I would recommend we vote no on reasonable condition six and
that would Function to unadopt it Thank you
Are there any questions for councilmember Flaherty. Great. Would anyone from the public like to speak
on reasonable condition six. Any comments on zoom. Great. Any comments from council. Great. In that
case will the clerk please call the roll on reasonable condition six.
Just to clarify, since you made the motion to reconsider it and you all voted on that already, do I
need a motion to actually un-adopt it or something like that? Or do you just want me to go ahead and
call it without that motion? To be clear, it'd be nice to have a new motion to withdraw Reasonable Condition
6 formally seconded. Wouldn't it be a motion to adopt and then we just vote no? I think we've already
done that. You've already done that, so you need to withdraw it. We've already adopted.
Yeah, sorry. Sorry. That's my fault I thought the proper motion was to reconsider the question and then
vote no on that question If the better motion is to vote to withdraw it I can do that instead So I move
we withdraw reasonable condition six Thank you, there's been a motion in a second to withdraw a reasonable
condition six will the clerk please call the roll Councilmember Flaherty, yes stuff
Pibon Smith. Yes Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes, Daley. Yes Rallo. Yes rough Rosenberger. Yes. Thank you Oh
Didn't know she was on okay and councilmember Stasberg Yes Thank you with a vote of nine zeroes
That passes and reasonable condition six has been withdrawn from ordinance twenty twenty six Oh six
councilmember Flaherty in the interest of time in the The coordination with councilman Stasberg as well.
I could also move then written written commitment one, which I do think we still need to Would be if
we need to formally adopt short So if they were second second There's
So this is written commitment one. Let me find it in my packet. Sorry. Does anybody have a page number
in the PDF offhand? It's just after the last reasonable condition.
Written commitment number one, I'm just struggling with the bookmarks a little bit to pull it up. Is
it the energy efficiency housing standards? It's page 21 in addendum one. Okay, thank you. Ah, I was
looking in the packet, not the addendum. Okay. So this was predominantly written, I think maybe entirely
written by Director Colleen Hansen.
It addresses both the energy efficiency and Electrification components. It has two sentences or paragraphs.
The first is about Designing the pre-approved plans that will go with the Hopewell PUD to achieve an
energy performance equivalent of the home energy rating system Her score of 65 or better better being
lower and the second is that construction document shall incorporate best practice air ceiling duct
placement within condition space and
and high-efficiency all-electric systems. And the building inspections shall confirm compliant installation
to details. So fairly self-explanatory. The one thing I'll note here is that we did not... I'm supporting
this written acknowledgement or written commitment, and I think we should approve it. I was a little
dissatisfied with where we landed on the first paragraph. Basically, Indiana has...
building energy code that is consistent with the 2018 set of international energy code standards. So
they've been doing these standards for many decades now. They update them about every three years. States
tend to adopt the newer versions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, blue states tend to adopt the latest versions
more readily than red states. For a long time, ours were stuck in 2009 levels. And then Indiana did
adopt 2018 levels. So when we think about
energy efficiency performance that goes above and beyond existing requirements in Indiana code, basically
what we're asking is we wanna do better than the 2018 code. The way the HERS rating system works as
well as some other rating systems, they look at 2006 code levels as a baseline, that's a score of 100
or equivalent to 100, and then each subsequent code has been getting better and better, so the scores
have been getting lower and lower based on those codes. And the next step up from 2018 would be the
2021 level code.
And all the information I could find about that suggested that a lower HERS score would have been more
appropriate. I'm not certain that this paragraph of a HERS score of 65 does any better than baseline
code, but I think the second paragraph does get at some of those practices that may or may not have
been covered. I had some back and forth with Director Kellyanne Hansen about it. She has some background
in this as well as a professional.
I was not able to independently verify the information, which is what I was seeking to do. And some
of the information I found suggested to me that a lower number there would have been more appropriate.
I'm sharing that because it's just the truth. It's my own reservations and orientation to it. And I
think what's also been revealed through this process is that we might want to consider updates to the
incentive section of the UDO, which really relies much more on lead standards and equivalent versus
thinking of energy code as, you know, trying to essentially have like a reach code where through incentives
we would allow folks to do better than the base level code in Indiana. It became a bigger conversation
that I thought we had time to really resolve. So, I just assented and here we are. So, that's it. Happy
to answer questions if you have them and I hope you support the written commitment. Thank you. Council
Member Asari.
Just a point of information or a question. Do we have to adopt written commitments like at the same
way we would with with regional conditions we vote for them or Are they are is there some implied like
they've already done it we could ask attorney Allen State code in the 1500 series does give the council
the ability to impose written commitments So that's I think the route we took here if there was a you know, I
Written commitment like signed by the chair of the RDC or something that would come separately. Maybe
we wouldn't need to vote on it. I don't know but One of the duties or not with the powers rather and
given to the council in the relevant section of code is to impose written commitments Second Yeah, yeah
the motion adopted on the table Are there any other council questions councilmember Rosenberger
Thank you. I'm sorry. I just need a little clarification I think on okay. So number one that says our
hers score of 65 or better Were you saying that? That is what is generally in our code and is how most
buildings are already built so It's not in our code what dictates building energy standards is state code and
The state code is consistent with the 2018 international code level. The information I could find seemed
to indicate that that level of code, a 2018 level, would in most instances meet or exceed this 65 number.
So what I was telling, yeah, I think you're getting the general idea that I couldn't find good information
to verify that 65 would in fact be better than what code already requires. Nevertheless,
I'm recommending we move forward because it gets a little complicated. The HERS rating scores are not
actually the exact same thing as the energy rating index used to assess code compliance. They depart
a little bit and so it's a little messy. I did talk to some folks from the Department of Energy who
work in the building codes office but I wasn't able to get resolution on it before it was time for the
meeting and again I think it's just
Thanks follow-up. Yes, I remember at our Deliberation that you were talking about the Department of
Energy scoring system as well. So You and director Killian Hansen, I guess went with hers When you said
you I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm not sure. Sorry. I'm not sure the hers isn't an appropriate system I think
that could be perfectly fine and a suitable one for this purpose It was more about the number and the
difficulty of getting clear on that
Okay, so yes, so the number seems low and then sorry you asked for some information that might show
that number 65 was okay and I mean, I guess with the director did the director give you any information
that this was a good number Based on her expertise, that's what she recommended also I welcome director
can enhance into to share if she would like about about the the
Her professional assessment that that's an appropriate number. I would say I couldn't find other information
to verify that personally The energy code and hers ratings are calculated very differently differently
hers ratings involve calculating air volume and the amount of air that is leaking to the outside of
the building envelope or
Ultimately how much efficiency that is being lost? Okay, so you can't just look at a model energy code
and say oh you're gonna get 80 or you're gonna get 70 you're gonna get 60 it's all related to the building
plan itself the type of insulation that goes into the home the efficiency of the equipment
in the home, your duct ceiling, or how much air you're losing through your duct work. There's a lot
that goes into it. So you are not going to be able to broadly say, by this score is going to automatically
correlate with an energy code, period, not gonna happen. 65 is aggressive.
Is going to cost money to get to a 65 I would say that the majority of the scores that I've seen through
people that are trying to pursue efficiency and new construction are around 80 75
I would say and I would encourage you to ask Wendy Goodlett who's here from habitat who they have been
a long time User of the her score and I would say that hers is the most commonly used for any kind of
residential construction Lead is the incorrect mechanism to use for efficiency ratings on single-family
residential period the reason
Initially councilmember Flaherty had indicated that he wanted a hers rating of 50 and this is a bit
crass and it was discussed at the work session But I tried to put it in layman's terms essentially small
homes are the hardest to deliver
lower energy score and part of that is related to the amount of volume that is within the home. Let's
look at the front door of the home. Every time that you open the front door, how much air is being lost
to the outside of the building envelope? You have to make up for that air exchange by ductwork or
It could be equipment, that kind of thing. In a 3,000 square foot home, that is much easier to account
for. In fact, you would probably have enough room to put in a geothermal system that would likely be
about $70,000. So we're adding a lot of costs to it. A lot of spray foam, a lot of other things to help
seal that building envelope. Unfortunately, on a small home, it is incredibly difficult to deliver because
of that air exchange.
even the most energy efficient argon filled double low E glass windows have a really low R value. You
also have very limited amount of duct work, so you're not gonna make up for it that way. And even to
get to a 65, I have concerns because I have a feeling that we're gonna end up with a P-TAC system as
the form of, which is, it's basically a ductless furnace that sits
up on the ceiling or otherwise. I would say it's probably the most equivalent to a baseboard. But either
way, those have a half-life of a normal furnace. So in these small homes that we're trying to deliver
efficiency, we've now met that, okay, in probably 10 years, somebody's gonna have to replace the PTAC
system. So again, it's all about cost. But what you're asking for is very difficult correlation.
Further, the layman terms, it's essentially, if you were trying to get to a 50, it's the equivalent
of a 500 pound person saying that they want to cut half their body weight, plausible. 100 pound person,
not plausible. So I think you're looking for something that doesn't exist. What we're committing to is
As much efficiency that is possible. We have to do the calculations. They have to take each individual
plan They have to calculate the air volume look at the air exchanges and try to design it appropriately
Thank you Did you want to go first or maybe just a point of clarification a couple the score I suggested
based on the research I did was a hers at 54 and
I was not suggesting that LEED be used. What I was indicating is that International Energy Conservation
Code levels often use the Energy Ratings Index, or ERI, as a code compliance pathway, and the ERI and
HERS are very closely related, but they depart in a few ways that made this a little bit of a complicated
question to answer.
I did ask folks at DOE for some examples of any jurisdictions that have used hers, and they gave some
examples of municipalities in Massachusetts for their reach code that have had scores in the low 40s,
for instance, for compliance. Massachusetts is much farther ahead of us than on energy efficiency. Generally,
they have also a better base level code. So it's okay, we're not gonna solve it. We have some fundamental
misunderstanding about some aspect of this.
We can agree to disagree. I'm recommending we approve the written commitment written commitment as written
by director Gillian Hanson. I Appreciate the efforts on it. It's just too much to resolve right now
is my opinion Councilmember sorry I'm so sorry director Gillian Hanson to ask you a question after I'm
sorry Just just a quick clarifying question Are you are?
just making sure that I've understood correctly the written commitment as is. I understand that is adding
some cost and so ideally you wouldn't want it, but are you, is the RDC and are you in your expertise,
are you happy with where the written commitment is currently? I am, but I will say you guys all have
really should have at least received a copy of a resolution that was passed on Monday night by the RDC.
Part of that indicates that they're okay with some of these things provided that it doesn't Cost us
too much to not hit some of the affordability goals So I can I don't have it right in front of me. Perhaps
you do There is a section on the energy efficiency that they have in there. I'm okay with the 65 I think
it's gonna be a lift especially for smaller homes and any energy rater will tell you that but
It does add costs but it's as close as we're going to get to an agreement right now. And just just out
of curiosity I mean with the with the difference between the small and large homes I mean do we think
about adding you know something like the mean of like the averages so you know so I mean just thought
thoughts on on that on either side.
I think the other thing that I would like to bring up is that there is some software change that is
occurring with hers ratings and energy efficiency rating systems all across the board that I Understand
is coming in the next six months or so so pinning down a number at this time They may not be equivalent
and we just have to understand that in the future 65 might mean something else But today's 65 was what
I was targeting Just so that's in the record
Great. Thank you. Any other questions? OK. I guess we can go to public comment on written acknowledgment
number one. Is there anyone in chambers that would like to speak on written acknowledgment number one?
Written commitment number one. On Zoom? Great. Thank you. We'll go back to comments. Any comments?
Councilmember Flaherty just briefly to Say my orientation to energy efficiency and electrification generally
is about creating affordable healthy homes Gas appliances cause childhood asthma and very high rates.
They're unhealthy for all of us. We shouldn't want those appliances This is a health issue efficiency.
Similarly, it lowers utility bills over time providing dramatic return on investment actually, even
though it does increase upfront costs to a degree and so I just want to be or to my colleagues to
think about costs in the context of this whole evening's discussion as investments in our community
for more affordable homes long-term, things like permanent affordability, even infrastructure that,
yes, costs money. Just like any sidewalk costs money, we could get rid of them all, but that'd be,
I think, a bad idea because we're committed to certain levels of quality for our community. And I think
efficiency and electrification should be some of those things, and the city's in a great position to
lead on that front. So thanks for your consideration. Any other comments?
In that case, will the clerk please call the roll on written condition one? It's councilmember Stasberg.
Yes He'd not Smith. Yes, Zulek. Yes. I'm sorry Yes daily Yes, Rallo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger.
Yes Flaherty. Yes. Thank you. Thank you with the vote of nine Oh written commitment number one passes
Would anyone like to introduce another reasonable condition and or make a different motion? Councilmember
Stasberg We only have the affordability ones left right that is correct I kind of want to propose that
we just discuss them as kind of a whole because honestly I was was reading all three of them going like
okay I kind of like this from this one and this from this one and this from this one and I was hoping
that there would be a little bit more time for me to think about how to put those together before we had to
But yeah, so I guess that means that I would like to make a motion to discuss the three Affordability
reasonable conditions second. Okay, there's been a motion in a second Would the clue all in favor, please
say aye aye all opposed great, I guess we will Discuss all of the affordability conditions. Would anyone
like to start? Oh and I
I should probably give up the gavel to councilmember Daley since councilmember Asara and I are co-sponsoring
one All right. Thank you very much Councilmember Stossberg, I'll just I'll just start because
with councilmember Rosenberger we have four that is has been not changed a whole lot except strengthening
the definition of permanent affordability and one of the reasons for that was that We we were not
Provided the information in a timely enough way to change anything or add anything with silent seconds,
etc Etc that we thought was convincing in apples to apples that made us feel comfortable about putting
it in in time for the packet today so Yeah, and I would appreciate hearing from councilmember Piedmont
Smith and council members you look and sorry about their thoughts on theirs to
Councilmember Rosenberger want to chime in on Amendment or RC number 4b or I don't need to chime in
right now. Okay Well, I would be happy to talk about number 16 Okay councilmember Piedmont Smith Thank
you. Sorry. I forgot I was conducting the I did too The gavel is traveling tonight I
So one thing that we heard from the RDC and from Director Killian Hanson is that it would be, the constraint
of specifying the method by which permanent affordability will be achieved would be burdensome and may
actually backfire and result in
homes not being built. If so this I'm trying to pull it up. I'm sorry we have too many packet addenda
here but this reasonable condition basically leaves it up to the RDC to decide how to maintain that
permanent affordability. It also decreases the minimum number of units that will be permanently affordable.
reasonable condition for B and reasonable condition 15 as well say that at least 50 percent of all dwelling
units must have be designated permanently affordable. So my reasonable condition says that it shall
be 35 percent of that 35 percent 15 percent should be affordable to households making 90 percent
of the area median income and then 20 percent shall be affordable for households making no more than
120 percent of the area median income. There's also a slight change at least from a reasonable condition
for B in the definition of permanent affordability there.
Definition includes a period of no less than 99 years or the life of the building during which the affordably
dedicated properties within the PUD will be restricted to being rented or sold at amounts determined
for low or very low income households as defined by HUD average median income. But then it says eligibility will be
to 90 percent and 120 percent AMI. Well that does not match what HUD has determined is low to very low
income levels. So I took that part out. So what we were looking for is the 90 percent 15 percent of
total units at affordable to people who make at or below 90 percent of the median income plus 20 percent
of units for people who make at or below 120 percent of area median income and leaving it up to
the RDC to determine the method. One final thing I think that's also different from 4b and I'm not sure
if it's in 15. Where is it. Oh it says permanent affordability mechanisms shall be designed in such
a manner that do not require additional public subsidy. I took that out. So
There might be a time when we want to provide additional public subsidy to keep this housing affordable.
It might be necessary. We don't know. So I took that requirement out. So that that's my reasonable condition
in a nutshell in a big nutshell that took 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Piedmont Smith.
Council Member Zulek or Sari, would either of you like to talk about yours? I'm happy to. I think in
the broadest sense,
was trying to capture two things. One was the desire that was presented by the RDC very clearly to add
more mechanisms, particularly if we had a very high level of requirement that they needed more tools,
and the toolbox was what was set at our roundtable, and so was trying to add all of those while maintaining
the sort of numbers that were requested
that were proposed by councilmember Stasberg and councilmember Yeah, I've just lost your last name it
just left my head Rosenberger and While also wanting to have a little bit more flexibility I think sort
of in all of the all of the things And so that that was in the large in the large sense what we were
trying to do happy to talk through any any bit of it more specifically but
personally, I I very much like I think the approach that Councilmember Piedmont Smith has taken I think
that it sort of elegantly does what we were trying to do so sort of I would my personal preference would
be that we Sort of move more in that direction, but I don't know if anything else you want to add I
second the sentiment Councilmember Piedmont Smith
Did you say Piedmont Smith. Sorry. OK. I forgot one other thing that my reasonable condition includes
which I think in some way or another would have been accomplished with the other two as well. So part
three says the petitioner should the petitioner shall report back to the Common Council every six months.
From the date of passage ordinance twenty twenty six oh six for five years regarding the methods and
progress on implementation of the PA requirements So we would get updates twice a year to see what methods
they're using how it's going. Etc Councilmember Zulek Do the petitioners have any response to that?
I just want to give the opportunity in case anyone would like to say something
Anna Killian Hansen again. I Think that thank you Councilmember Piedmont Smith. I do think that that
is more in line with what the RDC can do. I do also Want to draw attention back to the resolution that
came from the RDC directly voted on unanimously well four to one at least
That they are concerned about being able to deliver anything above and beyond or making commitments
right now Without knowing the cost of infrastructure the cost to build gas prices are rising What happens
if we can't build a unit for the what you want us to sell it for? We don't have bottomless amounts of
money to be able to subsidize between the cost of build like for instance, let's say that
Build is going to cost us fifty thousand dollars more just because lumber prices are going up gas prices
are going up What is that dollar amount across the number of units? That's pretty significant. So You
know could be millions of dollars that we would have to bring to the table just to get to your AMIs
if if we can't build it for that cost if we can great we'd love to deliver even more affordability,
but I just
Want to make sure that you guys have heard that the RDC feels like they really can only commit to the
25% right now Of course, we would love to report back as we're able So not trying to muddy the waters
just want to be perfectly clear with what they've authorized me to say Thank you Any questions from
council members on councilmember Rosenberg I'm
can be a question I don't know as one of the sponsors I just had some comments to I think the number
15 I think it looks really good and I just wanted to bring up some changes in it. Number two the unit
mix just add some words that say the unit mix shall be generally proportionate to the extent practicable
practicable.
which can mean totally different things to different people. So months ago I did talk with Nate Ferreira
who said unit mixes can be difficult to achieve. I think it's just in the realm of we don't want the
tiniest things to be the only permanent affordable, right? We're just all saying we want some three
bedrooms and two and ones and none's. Yeah.
And I just know I think Councilmember Piedmont-Smith in the very beginning of this you had thought that
was really important. So I just also wanted to flag it for you I think like months ago when we were
talking about it. I do still appreciate the 50 percent rather than a 35 percent with a PUD. A PUD is
amendable at any time and I think we won't be unhappy that we
tried to get to 50% of permanent affordability in a PUD, and if it doesn't work, like it didn't work
at the Rolato, it can be amended to something less. But for me, I still say let's go for the best we
can. I think too, the petitioner has talked about making at least 71% affordable, so I don't think that
this should be a sticking point. I'm sorry, one more thing. Oh, with some number 15,
I think with a really good definition of permanent affordability I don't necessarily feel a need for
the petitioner to come back with for a resolution. I know that was in our the original because the mechanism wasn't
Really known and there wasn't a great definition of permanent affordability But I think with the definition
and when it has to meet those requirements, it's not as important to me that they come back So, I mean
I think the list also that you to put in here is totally okay But I don't also see a need for a list.
I guess okay Councilmember Stasberg Yeah, I think I don't have a question so much either as I
I guess some thoughts about the things that I liked about the other two Left 16 and 15. I think those
are the right numbers So I also like sticking with the 50% and I appreciate what councilmember Rosenberger
just said about that idea like we could amend it later if it really became Impossible to practically
do that, but that shooting for that goal might be really appropriate I I appreciate that councilmember
Piedmont Smith took out that low and
Very low. I we weren't thinking about how that was defined by HUD But you know since that is
very specifically defined by HUD. It should not have been in there To begin with and I think the rest
of that definition coincides and is the same and I appreciate that councilmember Piedmont Smith says
that it can be secured through any legal mechanism as opposed to the list because I feel like the list
ends up being bulky and I know that the like
the intention that was there, but I think it's just more succinct in Councilmember Piedmont-Smith, which
is why I kind of started out by the saying, like, there's some of each that I like.
I like that Councilmember Asari and Zulix has the public subsidy note in it because I think that that's
important to kind of keep in mind and I appreciate that it does say we're feasible but that is also
one of the reasons why I I also like the resolution of approval because resolutions don't actually have
any legal teeth but I think what that would do is it brings it out into the public eye again to be like
this is the plan that is happening with with
money in terms of potential subsidies or not subsidies and Staff time and that kind of thing. So I appreciate
that that is in there I'm not sure how I feel about the wording of that and I would need to have some
understanding because It says the sale of any dwelling unit and I certainly would not want a resolution
in front of us every time there was a sale but maybe
on the initial like we are using this affordability mechanism to do these. And I'm not sure if that's
totally clear in how this is phrased. But I like that. And let me see what else I highlighted. I already
said the 50. And then I think
I think that the unit mix from reasonable condition for and Functional equivalency is the same
and councilmember Piedmont Smith's as it is a number four. Is that correct? Because I like that that
phrasing I think though in 15 it's a little bit different So yeah, I don't I don't know if there's time
right now to make a new reasonable condition number 17 or 18 or whatever we're on to combine
Those those three things together and I don't know what anybody else thinks about that. But yeah, those
are my thoughts on that President Asari Thanks The first the question and then and then some some comments
we're at the last meeting we made some adjustments to reasonable conditions just vocally is that's that's
okay, I mean granted not to 27 lines of reasonable conditions, but
Is that okay? Attorney Allen as long as we're very clear about what the text is and what the wording
is going to be from the alteration So whichever one we pick and the alteration of the wording so that
it can be recorded and put with the minutes So that we're absolutely clear about what's accepted So
a couple of things I don't know if I'll do these in the right order exactly but I as relates to the
question of
Proportional mix I was a little bit concerned. We were a little concerned about it being very restrictive
And I think that that was something that came up during our roundtable as well that you know one of
the tools on the table is is that mix I but I appreciate what Councilman Rosenberger said that you know,
you don't want just all of the affordability to be in, you know efficiencies or something like that
which but but I do think with
many of the other reasonable conditions that we've made, I think you need to give somewhere, right?
And so I'm concerned that, I mean, as I think has been repeated multiple times, you don't want to make
this infeasible, sort of from go. And so that was sort of what we were trying to get at there. In terms,
though, of the amendment, I wonder as well about taking sort of
I wonder if we could take an opposite approach, which I'm just thinking about what Director Killian
Henson just said, the way that it was said as well, and just thinking about the resolution from the
RDC. Is there a way that we basically signal we'd like as much as possible? I think we all agree. They
agree on paper. They like as much as possible as well. So the intention is to, once we do know the physical
cost, et cetera, to sort of
put in writing the amount or something like that, which a minimum of X with a sort of target of Y or
something like that. I wonder how we feel about an approach of that nature. So basically coming back
and saying, we won't accept anything lower than 30%, 25%, whatever the number is. And then we say, but
we have a target of 50. And so come back to us when you actually know the cost and things and tell us
how close you can get to that realistically and what the exchanges would be or something like that.
good of the order putting it out there. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Before we head to public comment.
Are there any questions right now? Oh, we're still in discussion. Yeah, we are. Pardon me. This isn't
my day job. All right. Any other comments that are observations, queries, concerns, reactions,
Interpretive dances councilmember Stossberg. So at this point should we be trying with attorney Allen
to modify One of them because I mean I think that we could probably modify any of them We just have
to be specific and then it's like which one might be easiest to modify Is that what we should be doing
right now, I think that I think that's a reasonable thing and then we should move to adopt said amended
condition and then we would Have the questions and discussion and public comment and then a vote is
that is that what we should do? It sounds like that's where we're at Yes, we should get a reaction but
councilmember Piedmont Smith had something to say first and then we'll hedge reaction well, I mean I
think the the biggest point or the difference between reasonable condition and
15 and the other two is no 16 and the other two is the 35 percent versus 50 percent So I have no sense
of what direction the majority of the people up here would go so I don't know how we would revise it
to be Acceptable by a majority if we don't know what that majority would be Councilmember sorry, I would
lean towards the third I mean they've said that they're their line is 25 and so right so so again, I
think you know, we're
I guess the question that we all maybe need to consider explicitly is whether we are content, especially
at this point,
Have the RDC withdrawal after you know, if they say look we did we don't we're not happy with this and
we're gonna take it back, right? so so like I want to establish a Baseline that we're all comfortable
with that. We all think is actually attainable So I mean what's closer to what they're asking for so
I would lean towards the 35% Councilmember Flaherty Thanks Kind of others what two things one and
I think all three of these resolutions, or reasonable conditions rather, have the 15% reserved at 90%
AMI, and then a chunk at 120% AMI, which I think is important. It is now what's required for any new
PUD. It was not at the moment this PUD was brought, but I think as we've discussed, it actually was
meant to be in effect at that time, had the statutory timeline's been met. And so I think meeting that
standard is important. That's central to me. The other is on this,
right, like what we can achieve and there's some degree of uncertainty, it also seems like it's a function
of what affordability mechanisms we use, which complicates things a little bit. In particular, leveraging
the value of the land in the form of ground leases or something else gives us much greater opportunity
to advance affordability than not. I know there are differences of opinion about operational complications
that introduces,
you know, and whether or not that's the right approach. I guess I'm just struggling a little bit with
that aspect, this idea that we can or can't do something. I think baked into statements like that are
probably unspoken assumptions about what mechanisms we're using, and we're kind of giving the flexibility
to use any mechanism, but like the answer to the question that Cosmo Versaria was posing is in part
a function of the mechanism chosen. And so I'm not quite sure how to deal with that, I guess.
I wanted to, I guess,
Express that that is something I'm grappling with I would lean toward something that looks like reasonable
condition 15 and if if We have to revisit it we can but you know anyway Thank you, we're Director Killian
Hanson. Were you waiting to I had said we would go to you next and we didn't and I'm so sorry were you
waiting to speak and
I would just like some clarity whether you guys are introducing the language about proportional units
I mean if you guys looked at the exact the exhibits in the packet You would notice that some of the
three bedrooms are around five targeted around five or six hundred thousand So those are gonna be the
hardest ones to deliver at the AMIs that you're talking about So just so you know that's gonna be another
subsidy that we're gonna have to come up with if we can which who knows at that point so
Thank you. Councilmember Zulek, did you? No, you're done. Councilmember Stasberg. Just to that point
that Dr. Killian Hansen brought up, I was thinking about changing that wording from must be proportionate
to potentially in terms of amending what we have to create something new to be must be as proportionate
as possible to the market rate units. I think that that makes it pretty strong, like we want it
very proportional, but also maybe leaves the flexibility of space that might be necessary. So that would
be my proposal to try to really maintain the proportionality, but give the flexibility. OK, thank you.
Any other? Sounds to me like we need to pick which resolution we're essentially going to be amending,
which is closest at this point. Reasonable condition, pardon me.
I was actually honestly wondering whether it would be easier to modify reasonable condition Well, I
think it depends on whether we're gonna do the 50% or the 35% I feel like it would be easier to add
language than to take away language and for me personally, I feel like I want to add language from number
15 to one of the other two agreed and So yeah, and and I guess I would also be in favor of doing the
50 and kind of
Setting that bar high and Encouraging then maybe as councilmember Flaherty said other techniques and
not just relying on one Councilmember sorry I Lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. Oh, let me let me
come back to her Well, then I'll make a comment right now. I I really like the idea that councilmember
sorry I believe it was who said putting that range in there minimum of X
Maximum or with a goal of X not a target of thank you. Not maximum. I I don't think we should set it
at 50 right now I think that could cause greater problems or heartache down the road. So I think I like
the idea of that target range For what it's worth anybody else Council members do look I second that
but I also lean towards the 35% in favor of flexibility Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you
Does anybody have, I think it seems to make the most sense to pick either 15 or 16. Oh, I'd like to
recognize, thank you, I could not think of the word. Controller McKim, thank you. Thank you very much,
Jeff McKim, and actually I'm speaking here as the treasurer of the Redevelopment Commission.
The RDC is, I just want to make sure that everybody understands that the RDC's revenue
comes almost entirely from tax increment financing revenues developed within our allocation areas. Several
of those TIF districts began expiring in 2029, with others following from 2031 to 2040. This means that
the RDC operates with a finite and declining revenue horizon.
At the same time, the RDC is already responsible for substantial long-term obligations, including debt
service on prior projects and major commitments already underway or planned. And those commitments together
already bring the RDC close to its practical bonding capacity. So I just want to make sure that everyone
understands that anything that, any requirements for
a subsidy out of the RDC essentially come at the expense of potentially completing the project, of completing
other future projects that have already been committed to. So I just want to make sure that everybody
understands and thinks, understands that every additional requirement, say for
50% of permanent affordability does potentially have trade-offs and comes at the expense of other public
projects We just we unfortunately the the TIF is not a bottomless Source of revenue and in fact, we're
going to you know, we're going to see a decline over time. So thank you I just wanted to make that clear
Thank You controller McKim. Does anybody have language right now that they would like to? I
put forward for this new reasonable condition councilmember Piedmont Smith, I do not but I Would move
for a five or ten minute recess so that we can get this language That was my backup plan. Yeah second.
Okay, I move for a five minute Reese councilmember Stossberg I guess I just have a question of how we're
gonna do this then and not have issues with Quorum stuff. So like who's gonna
Be over there with Larry. I'm ending things right now Should maybe the sponsor so I assumed it was At
least one representative from well one one condition to and Kate D or sorry councilmember Rosemary Do
you want to go or you want me to go? Okay Yeah, if we're in a recess I move I move for a 10-minute recess Do we
We don't have to just call a 10-minute recess? Sorry. I was just saying there was a... All right, there
is a 10-minute recess. I'll see y'all soon. We're back in session. That's been our 11-minute break.
I apologize. All right, do we have a working reasonable condition that we would like to discuss or propose? Ready.
It looks like we do not. They do. OK. So that is being sent over to our counsel attorney Alan and then
we can hear more about it and talk about it.
I got nothing in the meantime. We're gonna try to speed the rest of this along. I know that this is
taking a long time, and that's why we wanted to get it out of the way first. Yeah. So we're gonna try
to wrap this up and then move on, because we've got a lot of stuff on our agenda tonight, and it's all
very important, and we wanna make sure that we give everything really due diligence. Are we ready? I
don't mean to rush you guys, but I mean to rush you guys. Yes, I shared the document with Attorney Allen.
Do you want to just give them a quick overview while they put it up?
Wants to talk so this is still reasonable condition 16. We're going out we need to change up there Okay,
thank you. Who wants to introduce this and talk us through I? Will thank you councilmember Piedmont
Smith All right, so we used reasonable condition 16 as the basis and then the changes are in red so we have
Instead of 35% of dwelling units, we said at least 35% of dwelling units with a goal of 50% of all dwelling
units. So we have the permanent affordability. And then in correlation with that, you'll see
under eligibility, we have a minimum of 15% to be available for 90% AMI households and a minimum of
20% to be available for 120% AMI households. And then,
The mix of units as far as the bedroom square footage et cetera must be as proportionate as possible
to the market rate units. So allowing a little more flexibility there. And then we took a couple of
things from a reasonable condition 15. So permanent affordability mechanisms should where feasible be
structured to remain enforceable independent of ongoing public subsidy. So we're saying we would prefer
not to have
more public subsidy in the future, but if you have to, then you have to. And then number four, we want
to know about the affordability instrument that they're going to use, that the petitioner's going to
use, including how to keep it permanently affordable. So we're asking them to come back to the Common
Council for approval. So those are the differences with, so the synopsis has not been updated.
Yeah, ignore that So that is it and happy to Try to answer questions on this. All right. Thank you very
much councilman Sorry council member Sussberg. I guess I want to ask attorney Alan the thing that we
were trying to kind of figure out at the end was the
The prior to recording the number four if you could scroll down to number four Where it says prior to
recording of a new affordability instrument or the sale of any dwelling unit? I just I just want to
make sure that the language matches the intent and so the intent is that They would come with a resolution
detailing their affordability plan either when they
develop a new one and are using a new one or the first sale of a property. And so it's like if they're,
say, using silent second mortgages, then the first time they use a silent second mortgage, they come
and they tell us all about silent second mortgages and we have a resolution that we approve of how they're
doing this. But the second time they use a silent second mortgage, they don't have to do that.
but if they use silent second mortgages for a few and then they're gonna do land leases for a few, then
they come back with a land lease one as kind of a next or in the first one they could have a resolution
that has a whole collection of things that they've already planned on and some specifics around that.
So that's the intention of that piece and then that they need to do that with their affordability plan
before anything gets sold.
If the first sale is a market rate thing that doesn't count as affordability We would still want there
to be kind of a known plan of how they're going to do the affordability Even before the first sale does
that make sense and does that language actually say? What we're intending and is that what other people
thought that we were intending as well? I'll just say briefly in the terms of the way I would read this
I read this as saying this would be
because of the or the sale of any dwelling unit with the PUD it would mean they would have to come before
you for each sale and I think maybe if you wanted to have it just be the first one you might say prior
to the first recording of a new affordability or the first sale of any dwelling unit within the PUD
and then have some clarifying language but you know you could you could amend that as a
Do I have to formally amend that right now did this did this get formally introduced has not been introduced
We are discussing it, but it oh excellent worst Oh because we're still under the discussing the affordability
things wonderful. So councilmember Piedmont Smith Oh good. Wonderful. You added that so she added or
the first sale of Should it be a dwelling unit? instead of any dwelling unit, I Don't think there's
a problem with any versus a
Okay, I just don't want to because there'll be multiple dwelling units So it would still be the first
sale of any dwelling or or yeah, you could say a dwelling unit within the PUD Let's take a dwelling
unit Right now with the intention Attorney Allen in my opinion it does I don't know does the administration
have a different opinion?
and my colleagues was my Description of what I had intended for that Does in the language does that
align with y'all's intention, especially I guess I'm looking at council members to look in a sorry Yes,
okay. Yeah, and I think I think what what what this also? Enables again is you know is is them?
When we get to the stage if it's not feasible while they still have to come back to us So it builds
in that that that back-and-forth mechanism. So so I think I think it's good Yeah, and I also want to
say that also builds in a public comment period related to that too because whenever we have resolutions
There's an automatic public comment period associated with resolutions and that that was an important
piece for me to have
Okay, thank you. I actually wanted to get administration's reaction to this reasonable condition. So
I have fair housing concerns about this because what is ultimately going to happen is When we're selling
each model Each you know first first silent second mortgage We have to have a buyer
to do the math, and so council will then be voting up or down on an individual buyer, essentially. Now,
you all will say that you're voting on principal, but what happens is you have a personality tied to
that, and so I have a fair housing concern about that. It just blows up fair housing, and furthermore,
This is not really how real estate works. So if we're gonna say, you can buy this house, but we don't
know how you can finance it yet until we get it approved by council, especially seeing that we, I think
we've been in front of council with this project 32 hours already. It's not how real estate works. So
I think we're gonna seriously handicap the neighborhood.
Council member, sorry, yeah. Yeah, I think that's very helpful, Mayor Thompson. The intention here is
more about the, it's not about saying every single time that there is a sale, you must come and get
an approval. It's saying that we should have some agreement about how, about how permanent affordability
is going to work, the combination of tools, because we've said, use all the tools that are permissible
to you, but we wanna know what combination of tools are being used. I think that's really all we're
trying to,
Trigger here understood, but unless we do it ahead of time You're gonna get into a personality approval
And the the combination that we may need to use for different home buyers could be different I see I
see so because of their economics Etc and so you're you're going to just blow up fair housing. I
Could you explain that? By the time that we can tell you the exact mix, so I may need Shared Equity
and Second Soft combined, or I may need Land Trust and Second Soft combined, you're going to get several
scenarios, and the first time we do any combo package, we have to come to you.
in order to get to the combo package, we have to have somebody who is willing to buy the house who has
a lender lined up, et cetera, et cetera. And then council essentially says yes or no, that will work
or won't work. And because there's already a name tied to the property, you don't have fair housing
anymore. I have a follow-up.
I'd like you her from our counsel attorney Do you have a commentary on The mayor's position just in
terms of the I think I think it's maybe talking past each other I don't disagree with the mayor's that
if there was a requirement to have the specific individual Come before and that specific mix the the
word this is going to turn on number four is the definition of implementation framework and so if by
framework you mean
In the general sense and this is how it seems to read to me Which is is the most general sense of the
approaches which could just be as general as the administration being able to say In general, these
are the the menu of tools that we are going to use in all house buyers without giving you a specific
buyer by buyer Breakdown of who's going to buy what which we already have done so I mean you have the
list already and it
It was included in the PUD itself and it has been further expanded by your Requested reasonable conditions
Councilmember Stossberg first of all, it would not be my intention with number four once again it goes
back to like is it worded right for to have to come back with each of those combinations and
Right, so if you'd say like, okay, we're gonna do silent seconds and we're gonna do shared equity and
we're gonna do land leases, and if those three things are like, yeah, those all sound good, then if
you have to combine somebody,
there wouldn't be an intent in what I was thinking at least that you would have to come back and say,
okay, then we're gonna combine these two as like an instrument. So I don't know if that phrasing has
to be worded a little bit for that. To the second concern of why you already have a list, the reason
why I haven't approved the list or liked the list is that I don't actually know how it's gonna work.
And I actually, I mean, you've provided some numbers and I provided a memo back that was like, well,
your math is a little bit wrong in this. So like, how is this gonna work?
And I still haven't, I don't feel like I have a good answer of how this is gonna work without the increased
public subsidy as time goes on. I don't feel like I know how this is going to be administrated.
who is going to hold the silent seconds. I've gotten varying answers about the possibilities of who
might hold the silent seconds, but I don't know who actually might hold the silent seconds, and that's
the kind of information that I would expect to be presented with this kind of resolution, where you
actually have some of the details ironed out, that there has been approach like, well, we're gonna do
like this, this, this, like we have this plan on how this is gonna work, but you don't actually have
any of the specifics nailed down, and that has been the entire problem for the last two months.
So you can't sit here and say that, oh, well, we've given you all that. No, you've given us the concepts
of all of it without any actual firm plans around it. And that's why I'm saying, hey, come back and
actually tell us how you're going to do this, because you haven't actually done that. So I hear that
you're frustrated and that the bulk of information that has been passed along may not be understood.
but there has been quite extensive documentation. Our staff has worked tirelessly to answer all iterations
of this financing. I will remind council that we are approving PUD land use, not financing for the land
use. And while I appreciate that council has concerns about
being on the hook for finances, et cetera, the administration and the RDC has not made a funding request
to counsel. The mechanisms that have been provided will secure permanency and the affordability and
self-sustain. And that's why we have a menu so that we can be flexible and work with individual buyers
based on their needs.
Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. If whoever is sharing the text could refresh I have proposed language
that may clarify what we're actually seeking here. I did it in a suggesting mode so you should be able
to see why is that not
Can you make sure it shows suggestions. Here we go. Nothing like making sausage in public I guess while
we're looking for that I just wanted to make sure that all council members got
the second memo from Director Killian Hansen which was sent this afternoon. It did clarify some of the
misperceptions in math. So I tried to clarify what we're actually after and hopefully this would
Alleviate a concern about tying it to a specific buyer councilmember. Sorry has a question Mayor Thompson
or director Henson Could you explain one thing because I think maybe this is where this is maybe maybe
the the tension here Was the intention is the intention as described in the PUD to to
fit a tool to an individual buyer each time that a sale happens? That's correct. How would you do that
with something like a land trust? We don't intend to use a land trust. We understand you want it as
part of the options, and certainly if the market changes, we could.
We don't have any intention. We heard very clearly from Nate Ferreira, who directs our current land
trust, that there are challenges there in our market and that by adding more land trust houses, we would
then flood the market and thereby make the land trust that's already in existence harder to build.
But I think what I'm, and again, if somebody can help me, because I'm clearly missing it, is like, how
are you, so you have a place, and then you go, we have a buyer, and this buyer needs affordability,
and we need X percent of these houses to be affordable. So I'm not understanding the mechanism by which
those things are matched,
and how that's not a housing fairness issue. I will narrate this for accessibility, but this is the
best way I've ever been able to describe how these second softs work. And you can do it with various
mechanisms. So we have the house, and some people can afford in
their standard mortgage to build the house with the roof, okay? Others cannot without a second soft
mortgage or we cannot guarantee permanent affordability without a second soft mortgage. And so the second
soft covers the difference between this part of the house and this part.
I can still write upside down too. But some people's second soft has to be this big and their house
is this big. So we have to adapt. If you come in at 65% and we can make the math work to give you a
second soft on whatever, a $100,000 house,
Then that second soft is bigger, because we're protecting ourselves from the house flipping and you
getting the full equity. We're tracking, okay. But if you make 80% and you're only buying an $80,000
house, you may be able to do it just with like $15,000 of a second soft. Or you may need a combination.
of different things. And so those combinations have to be decided at sale time. And we may use the same
combination for many of the properties, in which case I understand we would only have to come back once.
But my question to council, I guess, is why wouldn't you approve all of the affordability mechanisms
now? You have them.
Councilmember Flaherty, thank you. I think I agree with the mayor I I don't know if we need this section
as long as we have good definitions of Permanent affordability and the legal requirement of its term.
I think that was the issue that was animating the early discussions around affordability and why we
wanted to have the financial mechanism because the financial mechanism is defined in code a couple of
options we knew what those ones were and
They are in code. If we're gonna suggest something different, we need to know what it is. And I think,
yes, there were options given, but it was the, are we sure this is gonna match our expectations of permanent
affordability, which are also things that were defined in code. So in the definitions in the UDO section,
the 99-year requirement, that kind of thing, were spelled out. And so if we were getting rid of that,
that was less clear. But I think reasonable condition 15
accomplished that quite well and listed kind of a full menu of options that I think are satisfactory.
So I, like reasonable, reasonable vision of 15 with section nine struck from it is attractive to me.
I think that still reflects a 50% total number. Which I'm okay with and adjusting later. I think, I'll
just reiterate the thing I said the last, you know, lastly.
Confident we could get there if we were willing to leverage the value of the land I think there are
ideological differences about whether that's the right path or whether we should do that Councilmember
Rosenberger At the beginning of this conversation, I still think that what councilmember Flaherty just
said I still agree with that that Reasonable condition 15. I think when we have the good definition
of PA permanent affordability I don't feel a need that
Anything needs to come back here for approval because it has to meet those requirements. And I so yes
I would agree with the RC 15 and again still going for the 50 percent and adjusting it later on if necessary.
All right. Any other comments. Council member Stossberg.
Still have the outstanding question of where the actual money and that silent second is coming from
like is the city subsidizing that in the beginning and then is it subsidizing it every time like like
what's the staff plan around that, you know, I had a conversation with an RDC member who was discussing
like the actual like mission statement of the RDC with me around the
the the land swap stuff that they discussed on Monday and it was like well the RDC they're not landlords
and while these sales would not be rentals it also demands significant staff time and so that is once
again why it's like okay this this does concern me and I appreciate what councilmember Flaherty said
and so if I don't
I would not feel comfortable simply striking nine from number 15 unless we at the very least put in
a reporting requirement. But I mean, I think that it matters how it is that these things are actually
working and how much city money subsidy is going into it because ultimately, let's remember,
we're subsidizing relatively few people
and how much are we actually subsidizing those relatively few people with? And that, I mean, I appreciate
once again that Habitat uses this. I think Habitat is a great organization, but I think that the mission
statement of Habitat and the funds that they use is different than the city.
And, you know, if Habitat needs to come up with more money for a silent second mortgage to bridge more
of a gap with somebody, then they can have a fundraising campaign and work on coming up with more of
that money. If the city has to, what do we just say, like, oh, sorry, we can't do that, or do we just,
like, you know, pull some more tax dollars over? Like, those are the questions that I'm interested in
right now, and we can say all we want. Like, oh, we're talking about land use, we're not talking about
financing, but a PUD does have this permanent affordability piece in it, and we are the fiscal body.
It's the responsibility of the petitioner at this point to be able to explain to us Well enough for
us to understand and explain to the public well enough for the public to understand What their plans
are with this city-owned property? Okay, I think we're getting kind of far off this topic again now
councilmember
Sorry. Sorry. So we have the mechanism to amend this in the future, I think, has been established. I
think the question of, you know, sort of
And I think now I'm more fully understanding the earlier comment that Councilmember Flaherty made about,
you know, so much of this is actually about the mechanism that one chooses at the end of the day. And
so I think that, you know, if we need space to be convinced of, you know, the appropriateness of that
mechanism later and or to think, well, actually, it works very well. So we want a higher amount of these
to be permanently affordable.
I think that we have that on the table regardless of clause four is what I'm realizing. And so I would
say just pertinent to this conversation, based on the way that they described it, four would be, is
not what we're trying to achieve. But I think that what you're trying, what you just said, Council Member
Stasberg, I share that desire. So I think that, but I think we have that mechanism regardless. Like
I think that we can ask for that to happen at any point because
We could make the amendment if necessary. So so so what I think we should strike we should just strike
for because it's it's creating an issue and then we can actually introduce this and and discuss it Just
because I don't think that I don't think that for changes substantially what it is that we're really
trying to achieve here All right, with that being said when you said that we have the power to change
this and this might be a question
The attorney too. Did you mean like we could bring the PUD back to amend it? Like as counsel Or can
only a petitioner bring a PUD back because I would think that only the petitioner would be able to bring
the bring a PUD back for amendment
Taken so I mean, but if we're setting here we say 35 to 50 and then we have the thing Don't we have
that they have to report back every six months. I mean do we want just like some approval mechanism
separate? rather than approving the whole the whole packet of I miss I'm just trying to understand like
how how forward will work in practice if we're leaning mostly towards second, you know second soft mortgages,
so Well, I think how forward work in practice if it was
basically just seconds offs then you know, they would just come back once and talk about seconds offs
and how seconds offs were gonna work and then that Would be like the end of of four Which is why there's
still five in there. Yeah for just kind of generally reporting on how hopeful is going Yeah Councilmember
Zulek does anyone else feel strongly about keeping or removing section four? Because I'm fine to remove
it as well
So did you were you asking to speak or were you acknowledging Sydney. I'm sorry. Council members. Well
I think it's obvious since I'm the one in this document and I crossed it out. So yes I'm willing to
get rid of number four because I think it's just confusing. All right. Thank you very much. I do we
have a motion. Oh no. Council member Rosenberger I think we have to review this whole document. I mean
number three I guess I would like to talk to whoever
kind of wrote that. It's just in a legal document, there's really no reason to have a phrase that says
we're feasible. It's just that nothing is enforceable in this. So if anyone really wanted something
to be done, is this okay with what you wanted? It's just like there's nothing that's like legally clear
or enforceable here. So I don't know whose this is, but that's my question about number three.
This came from reasonable condition 15 I believe. Okay. So if we remove where feasible then we're saying
there can't be any ongoing public subsidy. So it made it may not. It was to just say should.
Is that what you mean. Council member sorry or shall. That's the difference. I think should would be
should also doesn't mean anything. It's OK. That is not anything that is like legally enforceable in court.
It's fine, but shall is meaningful, should, is if you prefer. Say shall then. Shall changes the meaning.
Obviously, that's the intention, but wasn't part of the issue how this could have a negative impact.
That's why it was where feasible. Well, then it adds the next sentence is then, however. Right.
The use of it shall be permitted. The use of public subsidy to establish blah blah blah blah blah. Yeah.
Shall be permitted. Yeah. We can. Yeah. I mean we can at this point. Yeah. At this point it's up to
you. I'd like to move approval of reasonable condition 17 as on the screen. Second.
All right. I have a motion in a second any questions about this questions from council members right
now Councilmember Rallo Yes, I appreciate the work that's been done and the negotiation that's occurred
I'm troubled just simply because when we look at maximizing affordable housing at Hopewell Which we
should be focused on because we own the property. This is something that we is really a
I think you know, it's it's gonna be bench. It's gonna set the standard We have a range of a Could you
scroll up So that I can determine if yeah, it's still there so a minimum of 15% of total dwelling units
shall be reserved for households earning at or below 90% so at or below
below 90% still is Workforce housing if it's at the upper limit of that, so That is That's not necessarily
low income Could be but it may not be and then we have 20% Be reserved for households earning at or
below 120 percent AMI
120 percent AMI is really the the threshold between workforce housing and market rate So in other words,
this is all going to sort of fit into workforce housing it seems to me that's what is Potentially probably
going to happen. That's the probability Although it may trend toward market rate I would be much more
comfortable with
And I remember having this discussion with Mayor Thompson some weeks ago. Having a cutoff at 110% AMI.
And I would like to know how my colleagues feel about that. Because that would at least be, we would
be in the range of workforce housing and not trending toward market rate. I'll put that out there because
I was very favorable to a 50%
a hard 50% Of affordable units So perhaps perhaps the administration would like to Tell us if 110% am
I fits within their Their conception of Point of point of order member. Oh, I believe we are on a
Questions regarding reasonable condition 17. I just asked so my question was councilmember Rallo. Is
this are you proposing an amendment to I'm taking the temperature of the room. I I'm going to propose
an amendment if I think it's agreeable to my colleagues. I Mean I I Will propose the amendment then
110% so instead of 120 percent AMI
110 percent AMI to make sure that it's it's fully within the workforce housing bracket mayor Thompson
so director Killian Hansen is pulling the numbers but hundred hundred twenty is Is not even close to
market now in our 120 of median in Bloomington will not get you a market rate house but director Killian
Hansen is pulling the numbers to see a
If we can do it at 110 Any other questions councilmember Stossberg, I I would be okay leaving it at
120 because that's what's currently in the udio Councilmember, sorry I don't I don't know procedurally
what the right thing to say is but Given I think we're very we're very close on this. I know director
Killeen Henson is going to get numbers. Can can we
Just table this to and now move on to the first reading things and come back to it I don't know how
one does that like can we just pause for so you're here. Actually, I thought you had left the room So
we had charts they break it down every 20% so 30% 50% 60% 80% Okay
So we have the math up to one hundred and twenty percent. So basically what you're saying is that for
one person household and a lot of these are one bedrooms the max purchase price for one hundred percent
of the area median income would be two hundred and forty three thousand. The max purchase price of one
hundred and twenty percent is two eighty six. Now
I'd also like you to think about some of the documentation that was in your packet land trust house
if the land is included 277 How many houses fall between these ranges? I just I appreciate where you
guys are calm coming from and if it were up to me We would make them all 80% AMI
But that means that the math has to work out. We have to know what the cost to build is We can't subsidize
every single unit and to Hopi's point, you know at some point potentially the land will become part
of the subsidy Maybe that's what gets rolled over into a down payment and closing cost assistance one
time not repeatedly so
We have to, I know what the goal is and it's admirable and it's the mission that I live every single
day here while I work for this community to deliver affordable housing and to think otherwise is really
offensive, to be perfectly honest with you. But look, we don't know the math. I would love to be able
to do even lower, but until we know the math, we can't do it. So please let us come back to you once
we know the numbers and tell you what we can deliver to you. Don't strap us with something that doesn't
get built.
Sorry director Killian Hansen, would you be okay with us passing this like this? I'm sorry say that
again in its current form would is this something that you you all would be happy with us passing? Could
you possibly scroll down and I would like to look at what you have potentially struck Yes with four struck
And and let me just also say that if you guys are into affordable housing and you want us to deliver
it Let us use every tool in the toolkit Thank you
Hi Dana cool Kerr legal department and I'm the attorney assigned to the Redevelopment Commission and
The Redevelopment Commission is only able tonight to speak in regards with its resolution And so also
just for the record Anything that would pass tonight
that changes the actual text of the PUD would be considered in my legal opinion to be an amendment outside
of the purview of the common council and would not be a reasonable condition. So I would like that on
the record. Thank you all so much. Okay thank you. Any other questions. I'm sorry I'm lost where we're
at. Did you have a motion on the table.
Attempted to make a motion. It wasn't seconded. I would draw my attempt. I think I'm satisfied Thank
you. Any other questions about this reasonable condition 16 councilmember Piedmont Smith Yes, if I could
just ask Attorney Allen to give his legal opinion on whether this would be considered a reasonable condition
I believe it would be considered a legal condition or a reasonable condition. Additionally, the consideration
of PUDs is in a specific part of Indiana code, and that code specifically defines PUDs as a legislative
function as part of the ordinance. And so even if it's a change, it doesn't necessarily change the outcome.
And furthermore, there's nothing the RDC could potentially say to bind the council in this matter.
Thank you. All right. Thank you. With that I think we will go to public comment on reasonable conditions
16 17. Thank you. Reasonable conditions 17. Is there anybody in the public who would like to speak on
reasonable conditions 17. No. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You have three minutes.
Good evening everybody John zodi and the executive director of CDFI friendly Bloomington. I want to
be clear that The administration has not asked me to speak tonight, but I feel compelled to do so because
I Just sitting here as a former city employee. I have to be mindful of What happens next right? So if
the council passes something what? What are their directives that the administration needs to carry
out and I do want to just
Keep in mind when we talk about enforceability and the steps that staff would need to go through here,
that that does put a certain administrative burden on the folks that work here at the city. As the mayor
said earlier, we're talking about individual people looking at purchasing a home. Buyers vary.
And as a result, subsidies will need to vary. And flexibility is critical when you're trying to help
one person. There's one person in the hand department, at least that I know of right now, who does housing
counseling, talks to people who are trying to get into a position to buy a home. And that one person
has a lot on their plate. And the city, you know, the state,
State legislature's not doing any favors to local government. And so we look at possible future constraints
of staff Control arm and Kim was up here talking about future revenue constraints under the RDC the
Potential that exists for this neighbor to be transformative is cannot be overstated we're talking about
a small portion six acres 98 houses and
a certain percentage of which we're talking about being in a certain range. I'm encouraging the council
to keep ranges in mind, to keep flexibility in mind. We're talking about individuals. I talked to three
lenders in the last couple of weeks. One is a community development finance institution, and two were
traditional lenders. And I said, would you lend on homes that have deed restrictions? And they said,
we'll have to see them. We need to see the restriction.
You don't know a lot of this until you've got that buyer in place who's trying to get a mortgage or
a developer trying to get a construction loan. And you don't know this until you know all the factors
that are in place and what that capital stack, that stack of money that needs to come into place at
the right time and all the right factors lining up. You don't know all that stuff until you have that
person or that project in front of you. And then the lender has to take that in, ask for all the due
diligence.
That's needed to try to move that forward if possible. So it requires an incredible amount of administration
time Both for people here and on the project side So as my time expires, I'll just encourage you to
keep those ranges in mind keep enforceability in mind and Provide the administration and the staff the
maximum amount of flexibility to get this project done. Thank you Thank you very much next public comment
right here in the room in chambers
Good evening. I'm Deborah Meyerson. I serve as president of the Redevelopment Commission aka the petitioner
But I'm only representing myself this evening You do have the resolution that was adopted by the RDC
on Monday evening to speak on behalf of the Redevelopment Commission I just wanted to add my personal
comments to really encourage I really appreciate and I'm grateful for the dedication and thoughtfulness
that council is bringing to the hopeful South PUD discussion and
I just want to underscore it's so important to have the certainty of what tools are available and so
provide the flexibility as Mr. Zodi commented. That's gonna be so important. We also need the time factor.
The more things take longer time, even once the Hope LPD is passed, once we can build it, things that
slow things down just make it harder
to build and it takes more time. So just encourage thought for how to streamline things, how to make
council's goals known as these regional conditions do, but to provide that flexibility so that the project
can be built successfully. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Do we have any commenters
on Zoom? No commenters on Zoom. Okay, back here in chambers, thank you.
Good evening council, this is Chris Ramsey from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and I want
to echo the sentiments of the two previous speakers who know housing far more than I do or the chamber
does specifically. I'm speaking for the business community and the question tonight is whether Bloomington
can still execute complex housing projects and I don't think the jury's in yet on that. We are in the
weeds on that and the concern is not the goal. The concern is the feasibility of implementation
the unintended consequences. So what's emerging is not like a disagreement on affordability goals, it's
the disagreement on how much regulation conditions a project can absorb before affordability and feasibility
start competing with each other. And I think that's where we're at now. If we're talking about reasonable,
35 is more reasonable than 50%. What's even more reasonable than 35 is 25% affordability and perpetuity.
But the key I think we losing in a little bit is this is just 6.3 acres. This is just the south neighborhood.
We have more to build and I would say less complicated early on the better and see how that works out.
We're getting very much in the weeds. From the audience perspective, it's getting complex. We're getting
into a lot of the finance and not just the land use. We need to make sure that
Frankly that the requirements don't become too complex to execute and the end result is no project and
no affordability We need housing at all price points. The process needs to move forward eventually Maybe
it's not going to be exactly what you want for the particular PUD, but there's other PUDs to be had and
Much of Bloomington's affordability, I think, of this framework is built around rental housing models,
kind of lost in here, not permanently restricted owner-occupied housing, which is, again, much more
restrictive and much needed in giving all the tools to the hand department, to the RDC, to make this
happen. So I would encourage this body to move forward and not let perfection be the enemy here. Let's
go toward good and make this a
Reasonable condition we can all forward with and say we've completed a complex housing project. Thank
you Thank you very much Looks like we might have another commenter in chambers here. Come on up to the
microphone. You have three minutes Or so the dangers of speaking extemporaneously We cannot separate
the issue of the PUD from affordability because affordability is what
qualified this as a PUD in the first place. And it's rather tiresome to keep hearing that excuse. The
only true permanently affordable mechanism is shared equity. Community land trust is the primary one
used around the country. All the other mechanisms will require a continuous input, a continual input
Every time there's a new buyer what I would predict will happen is that you will if you monitor it for
five years Is that hardly anybody will sell the house and fuck their house in five years? And so everything
will look fine until the first sale comes up and you find out it's no longer affordable for the next
person That's the that's what happens with a fixed subsidy to use the mayor's Analogy with a roof. It's
like you pay for the roof and then the house doubles in size and you still have that same size roof
It just doesn't cover it
It's just mathematics But I think what's going on here is that there's an there's an ideological difference
as some of the council members have suggested There's an ideological opposition to allowing a homeowner
to only get part of the equity accrual but in my mind, it's a fair balance between helping out a homeowner
getting out of rent in particular and the best use of public dollars as again some of you have already
said it's a matter of
Helping a few a lot versus helping many a little bit less and As in public dollars, I would I would
take the second choice It is exasperating to hear about how how the administration is warning against
using a land trust, but actually while the land trust is what would
automatically make all the homes under it more affordable. Because you're talking about the homeowner
having to buy only the price of the house or the improvements on the land and not the land.
So it automatically reduces the price by two thirds. Everything becomes more affordable. It's just that
you don't get the equity accrual. How important is that equity accrual? Aren't we talking about permanent
affordability? If you want certainty, I would say 50% must be in a land trust, period.
I think right now, the mirror's just dug in our heels and just doesn't want it. Can you dig in your
heels? I don't know. Thank you. Thank you. Did we have any other commenters on Zoom pop up? Nope, okay.
Do we have one more commenter here in chambers? Steve Olin. I've been privy to
many such difficult Decisions as you're making now Over the years and I've been familiar with some that
happened before my time. I just want to point Once again to the garages at Morton Street and 7th Street
when they were approved in the early aughts They were approved that the ordinance called for fees to
increase every several years and for the council to pay attention to it and
We didn't discover this and I didn't discover this is a council until 2015 something like that The fees
had never been increased council made no effort to track the results of that ordinance after they adopted
it In 20, I think it was 17 when the council first adopted Special conditions for the project that became
with the building like urban station the buildings on South Walnut
At the time the discourse was something like Well, this is the best we can do now and then within a
few months within a year. We realized that That the city could have done better could have gotten more
out of that developer but for the most part what I'm concerned about here is that Regardless of that
I mean I I know that the buck stops with the electives in the room the mayor and the nine of you are
the ones who
have the ability to drive this discussion, driving this discussion, and you all as legislators have
the right to fully understand the question at hand. And it's been a struggle sitting out here to fully
understand the question. I don't know what the answers are. I do know that you're making a decision
that will last a century. That you're making a decision that you may have trouble monitoring once it's made.
And either if you can come up with some kind of a mechanism that allows you to, I mean it seemed like
you're making an effort to do that with the checking in every six months for five years. This is a decision
that's gonna last more than five years. So you're developing an entire neighborhood. A century from
now people are gonna ask how it was built. And I'd ask you to keep that in mind and not be afraid to
take the time you need to make the right decision, whatever that is. I'm agnostic on the actual solution.
I just want to encourage you
to make the right decision, even if it takes a little longer. It's not right for anyone to tell you
that you should hurry up and decide already. I get that the moment is on you. I get that it's important.
That's all the reason why you need to have the bravery to take the time you need to make the right decision,
to fully understand what it is you're about to do. Thank you. Thank you very much.
One last check, do we have anybody on Zoom? We do have someone on Zoom. Okay, another public commenter.
Go ahead, you can unmute yourself and you have three minutes. Hi, this is Cody Toothman. I am an employee
with the hand department who is also a housing counselor. I will have to say that I do agree with nearly
everybody who's spoken this evening. There are many different
advantages and downfalls you can have with any kind of mechanism for affordability, especially in the
long term. However, in my duties as a housing counselor, the one thing that I definitely experience
is that there is certainly not a one size fits all model that will encompass the needs of every family,
which is why I'm definitely in support of a range of possibilities to determine that affordability and
help carry it forward.
In counseling everybody every day and seeing these changes, I do think it is important, at least to
highlight the disadvantages that anything can have. And I believe that some of that information has
been presented to the council as well.
echoing everybody's point that came up here, I don't think there's any harm in viewing all of these
options to see what we can do for people, to see how we can secure these things. And there is a way
beyond a land trust to actually ensure that affordability can continue forward. So I do happen to disagree
with that one point. But to that note,
all of these things, even some of the models that have been presented have actually been engaged with
land trusts throughout the country and some of which are becoming increasingly popular, whether it be
index models for determining affordability or the like. So it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to
be employed within a land trust though. So I would say to keep those things in mind with anything that
we present forward and
as we have more information as it moves forward to completion, then we can actually make better
determinations once we know those things further. All right, thank you very much. I think that wraps
it up for public commenters. Yes, okay, wonderful. So now we come back to council for council comment.
We did question, yeah, thank you. Council comment, anybody have a comment on reasonable condition 17?
All right council member Stossberg. So I've been thinking really hard about this affordability issue
with this beauty for like a long time it feels like now. And I appreciate everybody who just commented
in general on it. And I think honestly I have to vote no on this.
reasonable condition partly because for is struck and I appreciate that for made things complex and
I'm not sure that it was phrased perfectly but especially I mean we had a former member of City staff
and the actually former hand director speak and then Hand employee speak and both of them talked about
flexibility and both of them talked about The kind of
intense part of of working with people and the staff time that takes and it takes incredible staff time
and I feel like as part of the fiscal body like I'm really I really want this to be successful right
and It makes me really uncomfortable to kind of be
totally okaying something without having to come back in public at all to use these mechanisms because
I know that the hand department is really stretched right now and we are asking the hand department
to do a whole lot more. We're asking somebody to do a whole lot more. Maybe I should say somebody because
we haven't actually been told who's gonna do it, but who else would do it besides the hand department?
And I know that the administration has been working on various collaborative stuff with other community
organizations in town, but nothing is actually finalized and firmed up. And so without that finalized
and firmed up, I feel really financially insecure about, well, what kind of subsidy is going to be there
in the future? Number three does talk about things should be independent of ongoing public subsidy.
But, well, we can use them if we really have to, and I guess I think that ultimately in the future as
these sales go on, depending on which mechanisms are used and how they're used, we're just going to
have to subsidize more and more and more in one way or another, whether that's larger silent seconds
or whether that's more staff members, and to guarantee that right now without
any kind of specific ask to come back to council about, you know, council saying, yeah, let's do that.
Because those things can get buried in budgets really easily. And so I, that's, yeah, I sadly am just
gonna have to vote no on this reasonable condition, thanks. Council Member Zulek. Yeah, could you, anyone
in this room who doesn't own property, could you please raise your hand? Right.
So just to be clear, there are about five people in this room of 60 who do not own property. And I've
heard a lot of people who own property say that there is no urgency. There is urgency for those of us
who do not own. There is urgency.
You might not see it, but it's there. It's across our community. It's the 850 people who pick up their
mail at the Shalom Center. It's the people who sleep outside at night. It's the people who are nervous
because they don't know if they have any resources to protect them when they're renting an apartment.
Like, this is urgent. We need to vote on this tonight. It is embarrassing to do anything further. Any
other comments? Councilmember Piedmont-Smith.
Yeah, um, obviously I'm going to vote for this reasonable condition. Um, I do want to, uh, go back to
just say, I think overall the Pewdie proposal is really good. It's a lot better than what could be built
by right. Um, but I do, I do think I agree with Mr. Russo that, um, there seems to be an ideological
block on the
part of the mayor's administration against community land trusts or land leases, whereas that really
seems to be the only way to not need further public subsidy down the road. So maybe it doesn't seem
feasible now, but I encourage the administration, the RDC in hand, to keep that avenue open as an option
in the future. All right. Thank you.
Councilmember rough then councilmember Rosenberger then councilmember Flaherty. I'm lining you guys
up and then councilmember. Sorry Remember your order. Thank you There's been a lot of discussion on
the complexities of finance and regulations of construction and what the state will allow and won't
and Complications at all facets of doing this project and of the council's
role or roles that the council maybe practically can't play, though council has made many priorities
clear, but we're often find ourselves feeling, or at least I speak for myself, feeling like, well, what
can we really do? Well, one thing we can do, and Councilmember Zulik just talked about the urgency in
the numbers of people.
One thing we can do that doesn't mess with really the mechanisms or the financing tools are allowing
the flexibility It's making the percentage going for the high percentage going for the high bar on percentage
of units of affordable units, so I agree councilman Brazilic and I'm gonna I'm not gonna support this
with a 35% one thing that
I feel like can be Set clear is a high bar on on the the amount of affordability we're going to have
in the in the project and Then fine let the tools the flexibility in the financing and all the other
tools be at play but Unless it's a Commit to 50% and then if it doesn't work If that turns out to be
problematic
It can be changed later, but it would be The bodies represent the larger legislative body the handles
pods PUDs and I just don't feel like the the council this one area where I Think it's hard to argue
that We're meddling to
to recognize the need in the community and say we need to go go we need to aim high as high as possible.
So I'm probably going to vote no for that reason. Council member Rosenbacher did you want to make comment.
Hi. Yes thank you. I just have a couple of notes trying to parse them out of my notes on the general PD.
I think it is still worth saying land trusts are the most effective and successful method of permanent
affordability comparing Arlington Road land trust with what might happen in a walkable neighborhood
downtown is pretty different. It's unfortunate. I think tonight was the first night we've heard that
they don't plan to use the land trust whatsoever in this PUD. Also I have said this often too but talking to the
person running the land trust we have sold seven homes with as low as I think 37 percent am I which
is very awesome and as high as one hundred and five percent am I because anyone over one hundred five
percent am I has been buying market right.
It's hard to support anything with 35 percent AMI or permanent affordability. A range is useless. I
think we've heard multiple times in this discussion we all want 100 percent permanent affordability.
So why not put that at the top of the range.
Also this PD came to us with 15% permanent affordability, which was not even it was lower than what
the UDO requires is lower than what our city code requires that we had to fight to get it up to 25%
and it's taken almost all of these three months to get a reasonable condition that is now sitting at
35%. So I think I am
a lot of an optimist and like to take advantage of opportunities. This is such a rare opportunity in
some of the memos we got talking about we would never make a private developer do this. I think that
is correct because this is a rare opportunity that we can create more permanently affordable homes than
we would require of a private developer. And that's why I think the 50 percent is really important.
I also think
We aren't going to look back and regret 50 percent and say dang I wish we would have gone lower in the
PUD. I'm basically the way I'm leaning on this is I think however it's like an interesting vote here
that something needs to get approved but I don't necessarily know that this is it.
Of course one of the reasons I ran for council in 2019 is because we freaking need more housing here
like of all kinds we need more rentals we need housing rentals we need all kinds of housing sizes we
need condos we need everything I mean mostly the missing middle that we've talked a ton about we need
them at all the price points we need them at market rate we need them at permanently affordable. My
other comments I think I will hold for the general PD discussion but I'm just going to see how things
pan out on this one.
Councilmember Flaherty Yeah, I'm also on the fence I tend to favor reasonable condition 15 with section
9 struck and would definitely vote for that Which was at the 50% level? Just wanted to comment briefly.
I mean the It's what's become very clear among other things from this and the delays that have been
involved in working through it is that when you try to do things that aren't in code and like it doesn't
go well and
this PUD literally is not code compliant still to this date. What they brought to us is not code compliant.
And what's funny is that we're being told a reasonable condition is still, isn't even legally valid
according to the city attorney, which flies in the face of all other legal advice we've gotten for a
long, long time. So that's causing delays. That is causing all the delays. If they just would have met
code on infrastructure, on affordability and all the things, we would have passed it in a meeting. So
that's too bad.
I really do have reservations about the unwillingness to use the value of the land in a land trust model
to ensure permanent affordability because I think the devil's in the details there and it actually will
lead to dramatically different fiscal picture and obligations into the future to maintain permanent
affordability. But I'm not sure if we, what I'm worried will happen if we pass at the 50% level
come back and change it if it's not feasible is that the administration, ostensibly the petitioner or
RDC, will just come back and say it's not feasible because we don't want to use a land trust. If it's
not feasible with the tools that we're willing to use is what I think the conversation is going to look
like. Then we're back in the exact same place, which is that there seems to be an ideological difference
between maybe a majority of council members and the mayor who's driving the bus here.
Just don't I don't know where that leaves us. I really are it's something of an impasse on that particular
issue So I truly don't know how many vote on this condition, but I know I would support 15 with section
9 removed to make it simpler. Thanks Councilmember sorry, thank you and and thank you to all all of
all my colleagues You know, I think as as relates to You know what the what happens next question if
If we pass something with 50%, I think regardless, they're going to come back and say that that's not
gonna work at some point. The more than likely outcome is gonna be something like that and or that they
withdraw it and we're just sort of back at the drawing board. You know,
My thought is that in working together with the first of three hopeful things here, I think that yes,
we want supply of housing. We want a diversity of housing. I think that those two things are being met
in the foundational proposal. And I agree that we want more permanent affordable housing. And I think
particularly because this
Land that we own I think that that's what does make this distinct. I think the councilmember Rosenberger's
point But but but I I really think that um, I think that we We should move forward on voting for this
now We've given them tools to allow for multiple different iterations here. I mean we are talking about
a long horizon and
So the possibility of using, for example, a second soft mortgage or a silent mortgage on the
first transaction and then converting that to a land trust or something like that. I think all of those
things are possible within the framework that we've established here. So I just think that we're elevating
the amount of permanent affordability
I don't want to do that to the extent that we diminish supply or make the buildout phases take forever,
for example. Not forever, but they could take a very long time. I think some of the examples that we're
pulling on from land trust models, what we have in town, is that it's been quite a slow time to find
buyers. For that, I really
would hope that we could vote for this. I think if we vote for this, we can then vote for the whole
PUD and move on with our lives. But yeah, and so yeah, that's none eloquent, but my thoughts on this.
All right. Thank you, everyone. And so now, I think we can take a vote on reasonable condition 17.
Okay, that's Councilmember Piedmont Smith. Yes. Zulek. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Daily. Yes. Rollo.
No. No. Rosenberger. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Flaherty. Yes.
And Stasberg no All right, thank you very much that passes reasonable condition 17 6 to 3 My smart ring
is incredibly concerned about my stress levels right now. So I'm gonna pass the gavel back over to Vice
President Zulek Welcome are there any final comments on or final questions on the PUD as a whole?
Great, we will go to public comments. If anyone would like to speak on the PUD as a whole, this will
be the last opportunity tonight to speak on Hopewell. Please join us at the podium. Okay, none,
any on Zoom? Okay, then thank you all for making that brief. We'll go back to council comment, final
council comment. Council member Flaherty. I'll try to keep it brief. I spoke on some of these issues
already, which is just that
It took me a moment to realize, I think the structural challenge with all this was really that normally
we rely heavily on staff to review and represent the city's interests, vis-a-vis a petitioner, and in
this case, functionally, they were one and the same. The RDC and the reviewers, the people we rely on
in staff, it was just one basic thing. Director Hittle at one point kind of referred to the RDC's hired
support and said, you know, let her cook.
And that to me was like the moment it all clicked. I was like, oh, right. They're just bringing the
petition. And that's okay. It amplifies the role and the responsibility and the diligence required of
counsel when that's the case, which I think is part of what was going on here the last two months. And
then second, I think the fact that there were so many deviations from what our plans say, what code requires,
what we would typically and always have required of other petitioners. So if those things had not been
true, I think we would have very quickly gotten to resolution on this PUD as well. And so those are
the two major structural things or substantive things that I wanted to reflect on and hope that we can
try to avoid replicating in the future. It's also clear that some code updates on permanent affordability
so that we just have that defined and clear would be very, very useful.
So I hope we can do those things and and improve on this next time here at PD's I also hope we can adopt
the policy changes to the UDO that Accomplish almost everything this PUD needed to needed the PUD to
accomplish by making it just allowed instead So with that I I'm glad to support where we ultimately
got on this beauty. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Councilmember Stasberg
Appreciate councilmember Flaherty's words right now. I There were just so many pieces of struggle in
getting where we are right now and I think that he highlighted where those were coming from and I also
want to highlight the amount of misinformation and spin that has been put out around this PUD and how
disappointing and frustrating that that has been and I think that that
The misinformation especially is just absurd. And one of the things that I have not highlighted, but
I will right now, is that this got spun as like, well, by right, you can only put 27 dwelling units
on it, or 28, one of those figures. But actually, by right, duplexes are allowed in R4.
and multifamily is a conditional use in R4 as R4 plexes and triplexes. And so some of this reasoning
and just that spin and you know, I am not a politician. I mean, I'm sitting up here, I know, but I cringe
at that. That is not like any word that I would ever use and part of that is because of the amount of spin that
you know, we all know politicians put spin on things, right? And I really just, the spin makes me cringe.
And I was telling this to a couple people, like, I am not good at spin because I just like my, like,
about my RBF just gives me away. I'm like, no, this is not cool. And if there's anything that you know,
I'm not gonna BS you around stuff. And if I feel a certain way, I'm just gonna say it. And that and
spin are not really conducive to each other. But it's just really disappointing that the community heard
so much spin around this in ways that were not productive toward
an outcome that any of us wanted, any of the nine of us up here, any of the community members out there,
any of the staff, any of the RDC. This was not productive use of our time. And the spin really helped
make it even less productive. And I hope that there can be less spin and more accurate information in
the future. Thank you. Anyone else?
Councilmember Rosenberger. Thanks. Thank you a couple things to add to this Pudds are they can be hard
right and they in the last administration we tried to change code to discourage Pudds and I kind of
thought we were done doing Pudds and I hope that we are I hope there were some lessons learned from
the petitioner that maybe
Don't bring a PUD that's inferior to our code, at least. Changing the code would have been faster here,
so I would love for everyone to work together. I know we have at least one resolution on the table that
will get the ball rolling to have some discussions, to send it to Planning and Plan Commission to change
our code so that what the petitioner wanted to do could get done, and other developers could do it too.
There was a lot of spin, I guess that's a generous word, about this PUD. This PUD came to us I think
at the end of February. That's 26 months after the administration started. We've had this PUD for then
three months. It took 27 months
Bring something and when it passed the planned Commission planned Commission said the City Council would
fix it And so it didn't come to us ready. It came to us a mess and a miss and I think honestly we've
done the best we could To get to a place that is passable. I think it is Neat to have little lots. I
have been encouraging decreasing minimum lot sizes across our city Since I got here and before I got here
I think that would be exciting if we actually do and let others do what the RDC is about to do. So I
hope that this is, I guess, the beginning of a conversation. I don't think this PUD needs to be built
and then studied. I think that we need to do the things that we want to do here.
The petitioners consultant did say let us do this and then maybe code will change But I just very much
disagreed with that that just kind of stuck with me that I wish we would have been an example of Working
to change code and then or I wish the petitioner would have been an example of working to change code
And then letting other people do it, too. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you to everyone
up here and everywhere for working on this other comments councilman Rosario
I just want to thank first and foremost the public and those of you who are here today. I know you want
to talk about what we're about to talk about and we are going to give you a lot of time now because
you've been patient. So we're so grateful, so very grateful for that. But of course also to the public
who's been here now for two and a half months, you know, engaged
even previously with so many of these conversations. Just so grateful for your patience and also your
contributions, diligence, care about not just this process, but about the results. And I think that
we've heard from people all across the city on all sides of all of these arguments that we've had. And
I know that
our processes sometimes and sort of the way that we have to make sausages. I mean, sausage making is
kind of gross in reality, but the way that we have to go about it is very frustrating. I think it's
frustrating to all of us as well. I think that we, in addition to the many powerful points that my colleague
Council Member Flaherty raised, I think that this has also illustrated some strains that exist in some of just
general processes. And I know that many of our residents, when we try to change our processes, get very
frustrated that we spend all of this time trying to talk about how things are introduced and what motions
we allow and all of those type of things. But I think it also showed a lot of pain there. But also,
the last thing that I'll say is that in addition to supporting this, I want to thank all my colleagues
because I think that, again,
I think to the point that Councilmember Stasberg raised, you know, I think that we've had a lot of heated
discussions, but I think it's notable that, you know, people have really put in a lot of time in studying
and trying to come up with the best answers and trying to work with people across the city.
So just again, thank you to all of you for working so hard on this as well. So very happy to be voting
for it today. Anyone else? Councilmember Rallo.
Thanks very briefly. I just want to say thanks to my colleagues and thanks the administration for working
through this What turned out to be a very difficult? Pud but and I am somewhat disappointed This is
clearly workforce housing and I think that we need to set the bar higher in the future But what I would
like to do right now since as was brought up by my colleague councilmember Flaherty and
corporate council Apparently continues to challenge our statutory ability to apply reasonable conditions
to PUDs I am I think that this is a bad precedent if this continues so we had a determination by our
Attorney our outside council that determined otherwise and
It was given to all of us on council Under attorney-client privilege. I am one client of nine and so
I would like to make a motion to submit that information from outside council to the minutes and I've
discussed this with our city clerk Nicole Bolden she She's agreeable to this supportive of it and so
I'd like to make the motion to submit that to the minutes for this meeting
Second point of order There is a motion on the table legislation we need to do that first You're right
councilmember Rollo, would you like to withdraw your motion? I would withdraw the motion and make it
as soon as we dispose of the great Pud thank you. Is there a motion to approve the PUD with well, I
think we have to do one with the reasonable conditions and
pending approval of the RDC a Specific motion. I don't need to oh, okay in that case. Will the clerk
please call the roll? Yes, councilmember Zulek, yes I'm sorry. Yes, daily. Yes Rollo. Yes rough. Yes
Rosenberger
Yes, clarity. Yes Stasburg Piedmont Smith. Yes Thank you with a vote of 9-0 that passes Legislation
for a first reading I'd like to make my motion that I just described to submit a
information provided by our outside council regarding our ability to Make reasonable conditions the
PUDs second great. There's been a motion and a second any discussion Okay, well the clerk Councilmember
Flaherty I guess I on the fly if Councillor Allen, do you have any
Opinions about the downside risks of releasing attorney-client privileged information memos. They were
provided to the council with respect to our legal authority I understand the motivation. I don't really
just disagree with the the impulse but It's a decision. I don't take lightly. So I guess what I'm curious
as a lawyer for your Assessment of any any risks or downsides to doing so I
Think the largest downside is just know that you are completely waiving any privilege that you had in
regard to this memo So the entire text of the memo is subject to public inspection. So Okay, thank you
I I'm honestly just right I'm not sure I feel comfortable with that without like reading rereading the
thing with that in mind like I don't remember What was said and that okay councilmembers are welcome
to vote. No councilmember Stossberg. I
Yeah, I was gonna ask a similar question of Attorney Allen so I agree with councilmember Flaherty that
I don't feel comfortable with that without going back and like reviewing that Memo right now, but I
would be very open to having that kind of on our agenda for our next meeting Councilmember Rallo, would
you be interested in withdrawing to introduce it for next time so that council members can adequately
review it? I
Yes, I would be I would like a unanimous vote. So yes, this is you know public records request could
Could get the information too, but I would like it in the minutes. So yes, I would draw it. Okay, great
Thank you in that case. We'll move on to legislation for first readings. I Move that ordinance 2026-07
be read by title and synopsis only Great there's been a motion and a second all those in favor, please say aye
All those opposed will the clerk please read by title and synopsis only ordinance 2026 07 Yes ordinance
2026 dash 07 to amend title 8 of the blooming to municipal code entitled historic preservation and protection
and to establish a conservation district cottage Grove Conservation District
Synopsis is as follows this ordinance amends chapter eight point two zero of the Bloomington Municipal
Code entitled list of designated historic and conservation districts in order to designate the cottage
Grove Conservation District a neighborhood of 122 properties in the city of Bloomington Monroe County,
Indiana as a conservation district Thank you, I'm not done sorry the majority of structures
The majority of structures in the proposed district date from the years before and after World War I
and are built in the folk Victorian and Queen Anne styles representative of this period in Bloomington's
history. Houses from the late 1910s and 1920s are mostly craftsman style with a conspicuous number of
limestone Tudor revival houses.
Many of the pre-war houses were built by employees of the showers brother furniture company and bear
the hallmarks of carpenter built folk housing. Well, many of the larger post-war houses are associated
with Bloomington's booming limestone industry. The neighborhood demonstrates a high degree of integrity
and many notable houses. Great. Thank you. I moved to discuss ordinance 20, 26 dash zero seven. Second.
Thank you. Do we have anyone from the administration who'd like to present on this today?
Please don't we have to vote on the motion to discuss Would anyone like to discuss the motion on the
table Okay, it needs a two-thirds majority one discussion point, okay It's allowed just please vote
for it so that these wonderful people don't need to go home without us discussing it Will the clerk
please call the roll?
You can't just do this as a voice vote if you want. Okay, all in favor, please say aye aye aye all opposed
great well Person who is here from the administration, please approach the podium state your name and
give us your wonderful presentation Noah Sandweis historic preservation program manager Department of
Housing and Neighborhood Development Clicker
So there's a lot of information in your packet, so I'm going to keep this presentation sort of to a
synopsis. Thank you for having me tonight, and thank you to everybody who showed up for this item. I
want to start with giving a little background on the area that we're talking about. The so-called Cottage
Grove Historic District was identified in early Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology surveys
as an area eligible for designation on the National Register of Historic Places. Despite being labeled
in the Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory as a historic district, the neighborhood has
never been designated on the local, state, or national level. The area received local recognition for
its architectural significance in 1974 when the 1852 Greek Revival Mansion of General Morton C. Hunter
was demolished amidst much public outcry.
Although only a couple of buildings from this era remain in the district, the neighborhood was recognized
by state historians for the density and integrity of early 20th century houses. Aside from some mid-century
infill, most of the houses in the proposed district date from the early 20th century. As of the current
city survey of historic structures, 15 of the 122 houses in the proposed district are rated notable
for their architectural significance, and one is rated outstanding.
90 of the remaining houses are contributing This would place the cottage Grove historic district among
Bloomington's neighborhoods with the most consistent architectural significance The push to designate
the conservation district in the cottage Grove neighborhood was initiated by a neighborhood residents
in response to an increasing number of demolitions in the surrounding area Including the proposed demolition
of 115 East 12th Street located within the proposed district
Because of the historic significance of the house's association with a prominent local sculptor,
Ivan Adams, the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission nominated the property for designation
to the Bloomington Common Council, and it was individually designated on December 17th, 2025. Meanwhile,
a group of residents began seeking designation for the wider area, sending letters to property owners
and hosting a series of three public meetings at the Monroe County Public Library
to discuss the prospect of nominating a conservation district. On December 17th, 2025, petitioner Dr.
John Butler submitted an application to the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission. The public
hearing and the vote of the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission on this matter was postponed
until February 12th. A number of public comments were received both in the lead up to and during the
meeting, some of which are included in your packet.
According to the staff evaluation and Commission vote this area is eligible for local designation under
three criteria First being criteria one for historic significance Category C for exemplifying the cultural
political economic social or historical heritage of the community the cottage Grove neighborhood was
largely built to provide housing for employees of the nearby showers furniture company and the limestone
industry and
which dominated the economy of turn of the century Bloomington. Like many Bloomington neighborhoods
from this area, Cottage Grove was economically mixed. Most of these houses were associated with workers
in these industries, and as will be explained further, material and architectural features in the built
environment attest to the important role that these businesses played in the development of the area.
Further, for architectural significance, criteria 2E and 2G.
contains any architectural style, detail, or element in danger of being lost. The applicants list several
unusual buildings and features, including Bloomington's only example of a brick, queen, and style house,
and Bloomington's only example of a bungalow with a belvedere, an original feature that would stand
out on any bungalow. Another particularly rare building type can be found at 217 East 10th Street in
the form of a Civil War era hall and parlor house
that faithfully displays Greek revival features popular in the early 1800s. Several similar examples
can be found in Bloomington, but this farmhouse would rank among Bloomington's oldest extant buildings.
The neighboring house at 221 East 10th Street is an example of another uncommon 19th century housing
type, a double pen. Under criterion 2G, exemplifies the built environment in an era of history characterized
by distinctive architectural style
The bulk of this neighborhood is constituted of buildings that date from the years immediately before
and after World War I. Pre-war houses, mostly working class, predominate in the eastern part of the
district. Like in contemporary neighborhoods west of downtown, most of these are built in the folk Victorian
or Queen Anne style. Many in the Gabledale form commonly associated with this period in Bloomington's history.
Houses from the late 1910s and 1920s are mostly craftsman style with a conspicuous number of limestone
Tudor revival houses. Many of the pre-war houses were built by employees of the Showers Brothers Furniture
Company and bear some of the hallmarks of the carpenter built folk housing, while many of the larger
post-war houses are associated with the blooming limestone industry. In parts of this neighborhood,
brick sidewalks and limestone retaining walls distinguish this early Bloomington neighborhood.
So a little more information on what's being proposed here is the object up for discussion is a conservation
district And this is slightly different from a historic district, which now makes up All the designated
areas in Bloomington within the area of a conservation district Regulation is less stringent than in
a historic district in a conservation district a certificate of appropriateness is required for the
demolition of any building the moving of any building and
or the construction of a new principal or accessory structure subject to view from a public way. At
the end of a three-year period, the district shall become a historic district unless a majority of property
owners in the district object to the commission in writing to the elevation of a historic district.
Set objections must be received by the commission not earlier than 180 days or later than 60 days before
the third anniversary of the adoption of the conservation district.
In Bloomington it has been the practice of the city staff to notify all property owners prior to this
deadline So to summarize Some of the significance of the area that we're looking at here the majority
of the structures in this proposed district Date from the years before and after World War one and are
mostly built up in the folk Victorian Queen Anne tutor revival and craftsman styles many of the pre-war
houses were built by employees of the showers brothers furniture company and
bearing hallmarks of their carpentry industry, while many of the post-war houses are more closely associated
with the Bloomington limestone industry, which was then at its zenith. This neighborhood possesses one
of the highest degrees of integrity and significance for its historic building structure in the city,
and has long been recognized as possessing significant
architectural and historical value Great, thank you very much. Are there any questions? Okay Councilmember
Stossberg, I have questions if nobody else has questions. Oh, well, yeah So I guess I technically have
have three things I
You said that this is a conservation not a district not a historic district But that it would automatically
roll into a historic district unless the majority of property owners Said don't do that Has it ever
happened that a majority of property owners in Bloomington have said don't do that in Bloomington? It
hasn't happened. This is something that I'm not sure why but it's a change that the state legislature
made to the conservation district ordinance Say that again This is a change that
The state legislature it hadn't made to the conservation ordinance a while back There have not been
any examples in Bloomington of a conservation district that has stayed a conservation district past
this point Okay, that that's I guess what I'm asking and I just want to make sure that everybody is
like clear about that the other
question I have if I can go on is how does the size of this district compared to other historic districts
in terms of the hundred and twenty two homes and the It I'd say it looks a little smaller than average
some of our larger historic districts have several hundred homes Great, thank you and then the third
thing and I'm
I don't know if you can totally answer this or not, but I appreciate that you had the whole like list
of Owners and properties in the packet and then I of course did a little math about that because like
that's what I do and I noticed that unless I miss Missed one There's only nine properties where the
owners have the same address as the property which is about 7% 35 owners Have addresses outside of Bloomington
Which is almost 29% and then there are 16 owners that have addresses out of state out of Indiana, which
is about 13% So the question is How and I don't know that's why I was like, do you are you able to answer
this question or not? Because the question is how What's the plan on involving all of the owners that
do not live on the property? in the district with the decisions
district standards or do we not have to approach that until it's a historic district but given that
So many conservation districts roll into historic districts like what's the plan for that? and then
you know in terms of what you've already done in terms of reaching out like like all of those all of
those owners have already been reached out to how many have you heard from that kind of those kinds
of statistics information sure, so letters were sent to the property owners and
during the initial nomination process when the applicants were holding their public meetings, subsequently
letters were sent prior to the historic preservation commission's vote, again after the vote and then
once this meeting was scheduled. All of the letters that I've received in writing are included in your
packet. I have received a couple more phone calls, mostly people
inquiring about more information there were also several people who showed up to comment at the Historic
Preservation Commission meeting where this item was brought up also in the future, you know, of course
for when the district would be Potentially up for elevation to a historic district as well as as a courtesy when
Matters that are going to affect You know local guidelines are brought up, you know further mailers
can be sent out Okay, those are all my questions I guess I I would be interested in knowing for a second
reading what percentage of those of property owners actually Contacted you in some way. I just have
a lot of concerns So then I know that part of the part of the concern is that there are so many
properties that are not being lived in by the owner and like I get that that's part of the issue, but
I just want to make sure that we're Hearing from everybody about this. Thanks. Thank you councilmember
Flaherty Yeah, thank you just covering a couple of questions Currently our demolition demolition delay
Ordinance does that apply to all homes full stop or is it for certain designations contributing and
and hire so yeah, so
It doesn't apply in historic districts because they'll have their own standards about when a building
can be demolished. Um, that's So I'm currently even under current conditions. So what it applies to
our full demolition of contributing notable and outstanding buildings as well as In a few cases substantial
alterations to notable or outstanding buildings, okay and notable and outstanding buildings are
Do those have any protections by virtue of that designation at the state level? No, or that has to be
made locally. It has to be made. Yeah got it Okay, and could you tell me more about the I had to step
out for a moment So I apologize if I missed it but about the non-contributing structures, which are
quite small number in the neighborhood or in the proposed district Just a little bit more about like
why? They would be non-contributing is that they've been altered so materially over time even though
they were built in the same period or were there a
Is it because of past demos and they were built more recently? Just a bit more about those structures.
It's a mix. So I think there's 15 or 16 non-contributing buildings in this area with 122 primary structures.
I'd say out of those, most of them date from this area's period of significance but have been altered
to the point where you can't tell what their original significance is
There also is some later infill. Mm-hmm, got it. And then maybe last question. I think I'm generally
supportive of where we're headed. The reservations I have had around historic districts and conservation
districts I think are twofold. One is the democratic-ish process that leads to them I think is stacked
in a kind of particular way that can
that rubs, that I struggle with a bit. So there's that. And then the second is kind of what happens
with things like those non-contributing homes or making alterations. I've just lived in historic districts
most of my time in Bloomington, and I think they can be really terrific and really great for preserving
kind of the overall district and preserving homes in a much wider swath. We don't have to consider them
one at a time through demolition layer, things like that.
but then at the same time you end up with these non contributing structures or maybe a structure that's
contributing but Still has a bunch of features that maybe a porch or a you know something that like
just really isn't Historically accurate or significant and then they end up facing these really high
costs and burdens For a home that really doesn't maybe warrant strong protection, but nevertheless has
gotten swept in with the district and
How do you think about that challenge? And I know we've talked about it before with the HPC, but that's
another concern I have, I guess, when we move forward with conservation districts that I just assume
will become historic districts. Can that be dealt, is that dealt with most appropriately by the district
standards themselves? So, yeah, by and large, non-contributing buildings in historic districts
Treated with the same rules with which you would treat a new building when it comes to alterations just
don't make it more non-conforming with the district and then the rules for demolition are much looser
because one of the criteria for demolition in a historic district is considering Does this property
contribute to what makes this building? Sorry, what makes this district historically significant? So
that means that usually a property owner can get permission to
from the Commission fairly easily to demolish a non-contributing building and that would also Apply
to removing non-historic features Mm-hmm. Okay Images Claire. Sorry very last thing clarifying that
last point because I've definitely had constituents Express concern or frustration to me over time who
live in historic districts who have had denials from the HPC about
their ability to alter things that are not of his historic character, that are not consistent with the
neighborhood, that kind of thing. So it seems like it's burdensome even in those cases. So maybe that's,
I guess I was seeking to clarify your last comments, which is that even when in the case of like a remodel
or a modification, if the features we're talking about are not historically significant, that generally
under the guidelines and under HPC's decision making,
they should allow those types of alterations, is that right? Generally, and I guess sort of, I can only
guess to what the specific comments you've received from constituents might be, but like I had mentioned,
there are still guidelines that would pertain to new construction, and that's broadly speaking going
to include alterations to non-contributing buildings with really the goal to
Make them more non-contributing As in like if you construction must match or try to match the historical
style as opposed to being a different style is that yes, okay, and There is a set of let's see what
the numbers I think it's There's a set of Guidelines for that are actually included in state and local
ordinances so a lot of historic districts will
You know write their own guidelines about What they call for a new construction but really that the
purpose of that should be to clarify What these points in the statute? Mean in the context
of that neighborhood. Okay. Great. Thank you so much questions Great let's go to public comment Anyone
who'd like to speak on this ordinance
please approach the podium. You'll have three minutes and state your name if you'd be so willing. Welcome.
Hello. Hi, my name is Dr. John Butler. I'm the person who sort of filed the first thing that set this
all in motion. I think this is an excellent opportunity for you guys to protect this neighborhood, and
I think it's an excellent idea for Bloomington for several reasons.
Number one, this neighborhood has a clear cultural and historical significance. These buildings represent
a collection of buildings that truly speak to Bloomington's history and to Bloomington's culture. And
so to lose those would be unfortunate. These buildings are affordable housing.
You guys have been talking all night about affordable housing If these get torn down, they're not going
to be replaced by something more affordable. They're Organic they've grown up on their lots. Many of
these are small lots My wife and I inherited a house in this neighborhood its lot size is I think 60 feet and
60 foot square, so it's a very small lot. Some of these are very modest houses There's also nicer houses.
It's an it's an interesting egalitarian mix We don't build neighborhoods like this anymore. We tend
to segregate people by class and by wealth and In the turn of the century That's something they just
didn't do so that the owner of the factory and the workers of the factory lived cheek and jowl in the
same neighborhood I think that's special
I think it would be a shame if we lost that. I think it's a good idea environmentally. All these houses
represent materials that have already been committed to housing. And if you tear them down, then to
replace them, you have to get new materials. And when you do tear these houses down, the materials that
are in them, they're not reused, they're destroyed, they're wasted, they're carted off in a dumpster.
And this is hard, these houses are made with old growth,
hardwood lumber that you just can't get anymore. So culturally, I think economically, environmentally,
all these reasons are great reasons. But I think maybe perhaps the most important is that this neighborhood
represents a collection of people who have chosen to live in downtown Bloomington and sort of living
the very lives that you guys are trying to encourage with your Hope Well
Development and it's already here and all you have to do is protect it So for all those reasons, I would
like you to support this. Thank you very much Thank you and next speaker and if anyone has any comments
on zoom, please feel free to raise your hand Elizabeth Cox ash I live in McDowell Gardens.
This is Bloomington's very first historic conservation district a lot of these rules were written up by us and
and we were 60% rental, 40% owner-occupied. This was 25 years ago, and we're arguing the same things
that happened 25 years ago. The advantage of now is we have the historic concern,
history of how these things are successful and how they protect these historic homes. These homes have
the hardwoods of 160 years ago when Bloomington had hardwood. So when you're tearing down these things,
you're tearing down all these things that were very valuable many years ago. Also, the cost of building
these 100 years ago
was much less, so therefore, that's what keeps them affordable, is because the labor costs were not
the same 100 years ago than they are now. I wish we had the homes that are in this district
in our neighborhood. We have much humbler homes.
To let this conservation district go away and not approve would be really sad. This is what makes Bloomington
look like Bloomington. Each community has certain homes that the builders have made them look
As an example, up north, you get more of the German influence. So you get more of the beveled glass,
and you also get the colored glass in the windows. Down here, you don't get that as much. So you need
to keep these homes. You need to protect them. So please approve this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker,
you'll have three minutes.
Paul Ash, I'm also McDole. Anyhow, one of the things that we encountered was especially out of town
investors, absentee landlords, and they swore, oh my, this historic district will ruin our property
values. Well, look at what the property values were years ago in McDole.
And look at what they are now So, you know What's going to happen is like my wife just said, you know,
you're going to have a flip You're going to have an awful lot more owner occupants and they're going
to be fixing up these cute little homes That's what happened in our neighborhood Thank you very much
next speaker Hi, my name is Jordan Evans
I'm here tonight on behalf of the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association, which I do serve as the president
of. I do ask that you guys deny this. First off, the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association was never
consulted on any of this. We found out about this through the mail and have adamantly gone against this
since. The area that is sectioned out in their map is mostly the High Point neighborhood, which
It did have its own neighborhood association, which should have been the one, in my opinion, to bring
this in front of you. I also would like to kind of circle back to what you guys have spent a significant
amount of time talking about tonight, and that's affordable housing. This neighborhood is close to campus,
is, as Councilmember Stossberger said, 93% out-of-state owners, so that is mostly rentals.
Our worry is that these restrictions for the buildings that have been there for over a hundred years
Are going to make costs too high to keep those rents workable for anybody I do ask also that you
consider the existing neighborhood associations, their boundaries, and their function, and keep that
in mind when making this decision. The Old Northeast has been happy to be engaged. We are just yet to
be engaged on this subject. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have anybody on Zoom? Great.
We'll go to Zoom now. And if you'll be unmuted and you have three minutes, please state your name. Chris Sturbaum.
You know, as council, you're allowed to consider affordability issues that the Historic Commission is
not allowed to consider. And our experience has been, like in Prospect Hill, you can rent a two-bedroom.
I know of four two-bedrooms that are renting for $800, which is $400 a bedroom. And nothing anybody
builds is gonna come close to these kind of mom and pop prices that these
old historic houses are renting for throughout the neighborhood. McDowell, I know there's a whole house
for $800 plus utilities. It's a small house, but you're not gonna build anything like that. And these
protections protect small houses, medium-sized houses, duplexes, they all function together. And the
core neighborhood is really a beautiful form that's been imitated
And once you wreck it, it's wrecked. And you know, it's interesting that none of these have ever been
overturned. And people say, oh, that's because it's automatic. And no, it's because people end up supporting
them that didn't support them when they started. I mean, they've had peaceful transitions because people
end up going, there's nothing really wrong here. This is working. And you know, we've seen,
Developments these days, people consider a house by the units they can make out of it, so they value
the property as the land underneath it. Four-bedroom student apartments will generate $3,600 to $4,800
a month, $900 to $1,200 a bed. And when you incentivize that kind of demolitions, you're going to make
money by tearing these houses down.
people who are opposed to this are really saying because those are great rentals throughout the neighborhood
and they're affordable rentals, they're reasonable. But the incentive to make that much more money,
as soon as you, when you don't protect that neighborhood, the value of the place is the dirt on that
ground and the house scraped off it and something built that's gonna be renting for 1200 a bedroom.
That isn't affordable. And I really hope you consider giving this a chance. And if, you know, if all
those rental owners really hate it in the end, they'll be able to vote this down when it comes time.
But this is going to be a really good thing for the neighborhood, for the people that care about the
neighborhood, for the people that live in the neighborhood and all the renters in that neighborhood.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next person in Zoom, if you could unmute yourself and state
your name for the record, you'll have three minutes. If your hand is still raised and you'd still like
to speak, please unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes for the
Hi, did I get unmuted this time? Yes, go ahead. Oh good, thank you. My name is Jan Sorby and I want
to encourage everybody to support this historic district. They're a group of really, really wonderful
houses and in a lot of communities for a district to become a district, they often think of that as
a community good.
And they see it as a win-win for the entire city. And a lot of times it's because the link to our past,
it's a tangible link. The architecture is there, it shows us how people live and how they worked. Very
important. I mean, if we didn't have examples of that, would we ever appreciate living without
air conditioning these days? You know, opening windows, cross ventilation,
facing a house a certain way to get morning sun and afternoon shade. These are all very important items
and things to think about when you're choosing to become a historic district is the embodiment that
these houses present to future generations as well. It's a wonderful educational tool for people that
are coming up now, kids. And also,
I think it's really important to acknowledge the hard work these people have gone through because their
affordable housing was being destroyed one by one. And when it came down to the integrity of
their neighborhood, they were losing it. And the modest houses that younger people, maybe in their 30s,
could buy and slowly fix up. And in terms of the bylaws that the,
neighborhood has come up with. They're not onerous. They're not anything but a general way of fitting
into the structures that are there so that doesn't detract from the consistency and the wholeness of
this wonderful area. So I'm just here to encourage you to look at this benefit for the whole city. These
houses are in a way
what defines Bloomington is why people want to stay in Bloomington and why we have tourism that comes
to Bloomington. If we become this vanilla city that is absolutely unidentifiable as any other city in
the world, do you think we'll really keep our coolness? Do you think we'll really keep younger people
starting out and wanting to stay in this town if it's nothing but a vanilla?
city that has no character. So that's it. And please support these wonderful people. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else on Zoom? OK, we'll go to them after the next person in chambers. You
can approach the podium and state your name, and you'll have three minutes. Hi. I'm Melody Barnett Duesner,
and I serve on the Historic Preservation Commission. I'm a historian of American art at IU, and I
Rent a house in Bryan Park. I was one of the five people who raised my hand when councilmember Zoellick
asked who did not own property and I'm one of those people I absolutely love living in Bryan Park, which
is also a very distinctive Bloomington neighborhood and also is not a historic district and I have been
unable to make the leap from being a renter to an owner in a neighborhood that I love or
Partly because I cannot compete with the people who will buy up small houses and tear them down in order
to build something that they can sell for more. And so I want to just make a plug for affordability
with these historic neighborhoods.
And to also mention that there are a couple of practical concerns that I just want to remind everyone
of. And one is, I guess, on the level of thinking about where we have flexibility and where we don't
in terms of how the town is administered. We have a lot of flexibility in how each historic neighborhood
decides to write their own guidelines or conservation district. They get to make those decisions.
They do not take a one size fits all approach. They can adopt other guidelines that other neighborhoods
have already put together or they can completely start from scratch. And so this is not a case where,
say, Cottage Grove will need to follow the same guidelines as Elm Heights or something like that. But
that's a place where we have a lot of flexibility. But an area where we don't have flexibility is in terms of
unprotected neighborhoods that are not a conservation or historic district anyone can tear anything
down at any time for any reason and I think that's one of the things that when people are sort of discussing
properties for demolition delay at historic preservation people are shocked that
you know, looking at us like, well, you've got to stop it. Like somebody wants to tear down this perfectly
good house or historic house. We can't do anything about it. And in very, very rare cases, like the
Ivan Adams house, we were able to bring one before you, but it's, it's so hard. And so I think people
don't quite realize how unprotected a lot of homes are if there's not a conservation or historic district
over the top of it.
Um, so I strongly support the creation of this district and I would encourage you to do that too.
Thank you. Thank you. And now we'll go to, do we still have a person with their hand raised on zoom?
Great. Um, if you could unmute yourself, you'll have three minutes. My name is Michael Brahms. I apologize
if there's background noise. Um, I live, uh, out of Lewington. It's late and where I had to step out
of it's loud, but, uh,
I am an out-of-state property owner. I've owned property in that neighborhood for over 25 years. I know
one of the council members was curious about how out-of-town property owners would kind of be involved
in the standards. I know from my personal experience, the Butler's and everyone involved have done a
great job reaching out to me and making me aware where there's meetings and involving me to the extent
I wanted to be involved.
Um, and then, uh, I know as an out of town property owner that my renters finding value, uh, in actually
the house, the houses, uh, in the neighborhood, as opposed to kind of more multifamily structures. A
lot of times when I have renters, they're specifically looking for a house. Uh, if they didn't want
to live in a house, they'd live, uh, downtown or somewhere else. And so.
From my perspective, I do see value in preserving the neighborhood and hopefully having standards that
will kind of preserve some of the qualities of the neighborhoods that my renters are looking for when
they come to rent houses. Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers, if you
could approach the podium, you'll have three minutes. Hi, Paul Russo.
I know this neighborhood pretty well, because I go through it almost every day. And I'm going through
it on bicycle, so I can see things really well. And oddly enough, today, I was right on the edge of
this proposed district, right across the street from it, at 614 North Grant, a house that's being proposed
for demolition. And just as I went by, one of the students walked out of the house. And I said, do you
live here? And he said, yes. So we had a little chat.
He and his three roommates are paying $550 a month in rent in a house that's built in 1910, but it's
gonna get torn down because it's not inside the district. It's really interesting to me that this has
come before you today on the same day you're talking about possibly implementing land trusts,
because as I, I think I send information to all of you by email, and you'll notice that in
the land trust in Madison and the land trust in State College, Pennsylvania, most of their homes were
rehabilitation homes. And my understanding of how land trusts start to work when they get established
is that they have a pool of money ready to go in case an opportunity comes up. And so if you combine
land trusts with the historic preservation that slows things down, it's a perfect way to jump in and
grab naturally occurring affordable housing
own the land, rehabilitate the house, house doesn't get torn down, and the renter's like the guy who's
gonna lose his house that I talked to today, doesn't lose his rent. I strongly support this application.
It's a wonderful neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have
three minutes. Hello, I'm Jenny Southern. I live in the Elm Heights neighborhood, and we have a historic district.
Outside of her historic district we found out in the last couple of weeks that two houses are going
to be torn down and you would think oh they're they're old ready houses or something like that. But
no these are huge colonial style brick houses one I would say of notable character.
It's on the corner of Atwater. You probably have walked past it or driven past it a million times. Behind
Bear's Place at Atwater, and it used to be Jordan, it's now Eagleson. And then there's a second one
behind it. Each one of these houses are in very good condition, lovely landscaping, and they've been
run pretty much as rooming houses for the last 50 years that I know of. The rent in these houses are
$400 to $500 per bedroom,
Each house has 10 to 11 people in them. They are legal. They are grandfathered as they are. And yet
they've been applied to be torn down. Um, I can also say that the Brian park neighborhood is also having
several houses. I'm not sure it has been approved yet being torn down as we speak, uh, two of them and
an empty lot to put up the new duplexes. Now I know we've all been promised that if we build enough rentals,
that the rents will go down. That doesn't seem to be working. Not in this town, not the way they're
done right now. When they do happen, they're at least $1,200. For the brand new ones, they're $1,200
per bedroom. We sat for three hours listening about affordability and how we all wanted to buy houses
of our own.
I just wanted to say, you know, the rentals downtown are hard, hard to find an affordable one. You can
find all the non affordable ones you could possibly desire. Uh, but the affordable ones are extremely
rare. And yet we're talking about right in this couple of weeks, losing quite a few of them and every
historic commission or historic meeting that I seem to go to,
which I'm one of the people that has to go to those. I'm not on the commission, but I do represent my
neighborhood sometimes has several somewhere in the downtown being torn down. Um, it's not working for
us, but, um, maybe you can think of it and make it work in the future, but I encourage you to try to
salvage more of these old neighborhoods for affordable living and encouraging families to buy homes.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody on zoom?
Great. Thank you. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes, please state your name Good evening.
My name is Doug Horne. I'm a general partner in Stassi and horn which owns three buildings located within
the section of Cottage Grove addition to the city of Bloomington that is included in the in this area
being considered this evening and
Only a third of the Cottage Grove addition is included with this grouping of houses in a number of different
developments and additions to the city. My comments are focused mostly on the Cottage Grove addition
to the city, which expands beyond this area to the east by two blocks.
And I wanna begin by thanking each of you for your service to our city, your fine attention to the complex
layers that seemingly are straightforward issue can present. We feel this historic conservancy request
is one of such issues. You've been provided with exceptionally well-crafted historic analysis of the area.
and been afforded a positive recommendation for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission, but
forgive me, but let me build on that analysis and add a few layers to the discussion that are beyond
the purview of the HPC as they should be, instead leaving you to balance all issues as elected officials
and make the best decisions for the whole of our community. In this limited time, I'd encourage you
to consider the historical municipal planning
that has provided vision for the future of this area for many decades under numerous administrations
and associated planned commissions. Looking back in time as increased residential density in proximity
to the university became a necessity, municipal planning identified certain areas including the central
section of Cottage Grove addition, essentially a three block run of property between Grant and Dunn
Street as appropriate for high density multifamily redevelopment.
One of the key elements of this decision was the recognition that the cheaply built turn of the century
spec homes had deteriorated significantly and outlived their physical and useful life. Many were initially
built on piers without true foundation, central heating, or indoor plumbing, and a much different product
than initially developed along North Washington and the west side, I'm sorry,
North Washington and the west side of North Lincoln Street, which is the predominant features that appear
in the reporting of this contrived neighborhood. The high density zoning allowed for the construction
of multi-family apartment buildings, some on single lots, others on spanning multiple lots, but over
the decades,
Multiple master plans medium and high-density zoning continue to be expanded in the area until today
We're recently enacted zoning of the entirety of this proposed. Thank you very much. That was your time
If you'd like to you can send it to council at bloomington.in.gov to give your full report. Thank you
Thank you Next speaker if you could approach the podium, you'll have three minutes. I
My name is Karen Duffy and I serve on the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission First I want
to thank you so much for taking our comments tonight we came not knowing whether This was going to happen
or not and you've had a long difficult meeting already and I really appreciate your openness to addressing
our concern to I'll just take a minute to
Emphasize something because so many previous comments have have brought up and address so beautifully
other issues just want to underscore something fundamental in the proposal that was forwarded to you
and was clarified stated clearly by Mr. Sandweiss which is that this is
This neighborhood has a really unusual number of highly rated houses and has been identified as a potential
ideal neighborhood really for protection for decades. I was looking in 2004 publication of the inventory
of houses in Bloomington and it was
Stated right there. I mean I could read that as my statement tonight and what we said was still be true
that it was going to be subject to the whims of the real estate market without protections, which it
did not have at the time, but it was always waiting for people to organize a
Support within the neighborhood there was no strong neighborhood association to put it through which
often is the agency to do that but Mr. Butler has and his wife and Neighbors have have done this beautifully
and worked very hard had open meetings. I attended several of them and garnered interest and support and
So I think everything is in place. This seems to be their time. I hope you agree. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Next speaker in chambers. You'll have three minutes. Hi my name is Amy Butler.
My husband and I and neighbors have worked really hard on this. Sorry. This has been emotional. It's
been a long hard process. We knocked on every door in the neighborhood. We sent multiple emails multiple
We have met with multiple of you Thank you so much for your time to walk our neighborhood with us to
see the wonderful houses that we have that we are trying to save We've heard crickets from quite quite
a few of the larger Property under the property owners and that own multiple houses in our neighborhood
we don't get any feedback from them, but
Earlier old Northeast neighborhood Jordan Evans came up and said that we did not include him He actually
in Doug horn day and they came to our first meeting at the library My husband and I also met with Doug
horn for about seven hours We gave him, you know We were wanting to include some houses on 12th Street
beyond grant and he didn't want us to do that. He wanted to keep our Being at grant so we stopped at
grant, you know, we gave into that. Um, I
We have talked to multiple small landlords that are supportive of us. We have multiple homeowners that
live in their houses there that are supportive of us. I have a petition. We went around and
got 84 signatures, 74 of which are students who live in the neighborhood who want to save these old
houses because they think there was something worth saving. They'd like to come back in 20 years and
say, hey, I lived in that house.
We are definitely happy with people being able to add on to their houses. These are useful old houses.
We can add on to them. We can. We're happy with accessory dwelling units. We have density. We're not
against that. But you know this is an important neighborhood for Bloomington and there are people who
care about it. And I really hope that you will consider voting for this vote for Cottage Grove is a
vote for affordability.
Any house that gets torn down, we don't get it back. But anything that replaces it, I guarantee you
the rent is always higher in every single instance. And it will be 300 or more higher per month per
bedroom. I will guarantee you that. But I please ask you to vote for Cottage Grove. It's an easy thing
to do to save affordable housing if that's what you guys want to do for Bloomington, because that's
what Bloomington really needs. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next speaker, and then if you could also sign in, which I'm so sorry to everyone,
I keep forgetting to remind people. The pin is hard to see. And whenever you're ready, you'll have three
minutes. My name is Jeremy Hackard, and I'm instantly regretting that I brought my notes on my phone.
So bear with me. I'm currently serving as the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. I'm speaking
to give my full support
For this conservation district the HPC is limited in what we can Consider for designation. It has to
be historically or architecturally significant Not everything that comes before the HPC can be saved
nor should it be just because something old doesn't mean that it is significant even in historic districts
just last our last meeting and Garden Hill we had a non-contributing building and
that was asked for demolition and asked for a new building to be built in its place. We approved it
because we could not make a legitimate argument that that house was historically significant. So just
because a contributing building is in a district doesn't mean it's locked in place. But it does provide
protections for those other buildings that are contributing, notable and outstanding. For me, when it
comes to Cartridge Grove, the area clearly meets the architectural and historical significance requirements
of our historic preservation ordinance, as noted very well in the staff report. One thing I wanted to
add about the architectural significance, it will have more notable homes than Maple Heights,
Garden Hill, and McDole, and have the same number as the near west side. So there is precedence for
this. During the historic preservation commission meeting where this was discussed, we approved this
seven nothing.
During that discussion, Duncan Campbell, who served on our commission for decades, noted he thought
it was one of the most thorough reports that he had seen on a conservation district proposal. I thoroughly
agree with him. I only have two years of experience on the commission to judge that by, but in my opinion,
it looks pretty good. I commend Amy Butler, John Butler, James Ford, and others for leading this effort.
They put in the time and energy to reach out to their neighbors.
Hold input meetings and work with city staff to make the conservation district proposal possible.
Please vote. Yes on this proposal. Thank you Thank you very much. Anybody on zoom great. Thank you If
you could sign in state your name and you'll have three minutes Good evening, my name is Eric host and
I am currently the
President of the Elm Heights neighborhood association and The president of the council of neighborhood
associations, but I'm not here tonight To speak on behalf of either of those bodies. I am here to speak
in support of this petition and also in support of historic districts and conservation districts I currently
do not live in the historic district, but I have seen firsthand the
Benefits of this process because it involves neighbors In discussions important discussions about their
neighborhood I want to commend Amy Butler and John Butler and James Ford and all of their Neighbors
for bringing this forward. It's been an impressive process They've invested time and effort
And I think they've done a very good job and along with city staff. I want to give credit to Noah Sandweis
and also the HPC. But in regards to historic districts and as they evolve over time, we're currently
going through a guidelines revision process. And what we're finding is that there is a way to
discuss and revise guidelines in support of the times as they change, and also the owners, the current
owners of properties. So I expect that same process will occur in Cottage Grove, and in the time I have
remaining, I also wanna address the affordability issue, because the most affordable homes are the homes
that exist.
for many reasons, not the homes that are constructed because it's very expensive to build. We also have
a city where we have a majority of our residents are renting. And that has changed the dynamic of the
housing market. So I would ask you to support this petition and to
to continue to talk about affordability. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, if you could
sign in, state your name, and you'll have three minutes. I think you know my name. Anyway,
this is Christopher Emge from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, and I wanna say some great
public comment tonight on Cottage Grove Conservation District, and the Chamber is agnostic to this particular
petition, but I just wanna make sure we have some common ground here that
These are not just preservation policies. It's a land use and redevelopment policy. And I think Council
Member Flaherty sort of brought that up on some burdens and high costs that we should always have that
sort of scope and make sure that a single demolition is not automatically leading to permanent expansion
of regulatory across an entire neighborhood. I think Mr. Horn brought some interesting aspects of it.
These homes are 115 years old.
and not all homes are built to last that long and are they structurally sound? These are things that
I think we need to make sure that certain demolitions and exterior modifications are not too burdensome.
We are talking about a very high rental mixed owner occupied area with a lot of ramifications on certain
feasibility and redeveloped flexibility as the university keeps growing.
I understand the neighbors here and many of them speak very fondly of the neighborhood. I love those
little houses there. I got a text from my wife who does as well and who rented one many years ago. So
I want to say that preservation absolutely has value and neighborhood character matters, but there's
just make sure a balance is happening and that this council, this body is asking the right questions.
Thanks. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak?
Approach the podium state your name for the record sign in and you'll have three minutes My name is
Jerry Stasney I along with Doug Horn own multiple homes in this area I've worked in this area for 40 years I
Of course, we had the old Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Association, which I was the president at
some portion in time. We do believe in historic preservation. Janine Butler, Sandy Cole, Marge Hudgens,
myself, and Doug worked with the university to preserve the homes on 8th Street. They were beautiful
homes, architecturally. There are a lot of homes, however, in the old Northeast that are not quite of
that stature.
some of them do need to be taken down and new homes or new Apartments houses put up so that for the
next 100 years We can have some a good product for the students to live in or anybody that's near the
university Several years ago the old Northeast had a group of individuals that wanted to
break away from the old Northeast and form what was called High Point. And most of the homes, I believe,
that were shown on this evening were from that area. There are much nicer homes on North Washington,
on North Lincoln, between 12th Street and 8th Street. There's some very nice homes. A lot of the other
homes are just pretty much mixed, and a lot of them are in need of being torn down and newer homes being put up.
And while people say that it's better to have older homes because they're inexpensively maintained,
I would kind of disagree with that. We've remodeled many, many homes and have spent hundreds of thousands
of dollars on restoring the homes. And what it does is it gives a home
for students or whoever would like to live there, but it has new electricity, new plumbing,
whatever it is. It's not cheap to do those types of things. So what I would say as far as this proposal
is, would be to keep the preservation between Lincoln and Washington Street, which is high point. And
understand, I've walked through this neighborhood and I saw folks walking through the neighborhood with
their pencils and papers and going by homes, and I thought to myself, I can't tell you how many bags
of trash, how many homes that I have painted, and how hard we have worked over the years to maintain
this neighborhood. So while I appreciate the folks wanting to have a certain portion of the area considered
historic, I think you ought to look at the neighborhood and say it's probably Washington Street and
Lincoln from 12th to 8th.
A lot of the other ones. Thank you very much. That is your time new ones, but thank you. That is your
time. Thank you very much Would anybody like to make any final comment on ordinance 2026-07 Councilmember
Flaherty I have some additional questions and to folks anticipated voting tonight or a second reading
how to remind me I think that
There have been multiple council members who have already indicated that they expect answers for questions
that couldn't be answered tonight. I do think it would probably make sense to continue this vote until
May 20th. Given that I think that at this point in time we should do final comment. If you have any
other questions please submit them to Mr. Sandweis especially given that it's already 1030.
Yeah, I'm happy to submit great additional questions in writing. Thank you. Does anyone have any problem
with that or anything to add? Great, let's do final comment Any other comments councilmember Stasberg
I was just gonna make a motion I would like to Move ordinance
Gosh I lost track of what ordinance we were on ordinance twenty twenty six oh seven to our next regular
session for a second reading on I do believe that that is the 20th of May Second there's been a motion
and a second to continue discussion for May 20th. Will the clerk please call the roll.
Councilmember, sorry. Yes. Daily. No. Rallo. No. Ruff. No. Rosenbacher. Yes. Flaherty. Yes. Stossberg.
Yes. Piedmont-Smith. Yes. Zulek. No. What is the, is that? It's five four. Five four.
Five four passes point of information. What's the motion to reconsider a vote. I'd like to change mine.
You can move to reconsider a motion that we reconsider. Second. Okay. There's been a motion to reconsider
the motion to postpone ordinance 20 26 7 to the next regularly scheduled council meeting.
Councilmember Stasberg Just as a note to vote on something tonight. We have to be unanimous about whether
or not we want to vote on it So I'm not sure that it would matter if we reconsider it because I suspect
we wouldn't have unanimity on whether or not to vote on it Thank you for making that clarification.
I withdraw my motion Great in that case the next time that we will hear ordinance 20 2607 will be on May 20th
Thank you all very much for being here. Sorry about that. Okay. I move that ordinance 2026-08 be read
by title and synopsis only. Second.
Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Given that it is after 10.30, I am going to ask the clerk
to call the roll. Can I comment before the vote? Is that okay? Since it's debatable. Just that I would,
I similarly have noted the time and would prefer not to substantively discuss any additional legislation
tonight, but I think
by introducing the next four ordinances, the UDO technical corrections, and moving them then on to second
reading, basically moving to introduce them but not discuss them tonight puts them all in second reading
posture next regular session, which is procedurally more advantageous with respect to the flexibility
of voting on things. So I think that's worthwhile to do, and so I hope my colleagues will join me in
doing that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?
Sorry, I share councilmember Flaherty's position. I'm so just like to echo that great anyone else Great.
Well the clerk that's member Stasberg I just want to know that we've had planning staff sitting over
there for four hours right now So I don't know if that makes a difference in terms of allowing them
to say whatever it is that they might want to say as part of this Well, the clerk please call the roll
Councilmember daily, yes
Rollo. Yes rough. Yes Rosenberger. Yes Flaherty. Yes Stossberg. Yes, Piedmont Smith. Yes, so like yes.
I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you Great. Thank you. That passes and I know will the clerk piece read Ordinance
2026-0 a to amend and provide technical clarity
corrections to title 20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Unified Development Ordinance. The
synopsis is as follows. This ordinance contains technical corrections or clarifications in the U.D.O.
including reference corrections removal of unnecessary wording and sinking references across the U.D.O.
There are 22 amendments proposed. Thank you. I move that ordinance 20 26 0 9.
be read by title and synopsis only. Is there a second second. Will the clerk please read. Excuse me.
All in favor please say aye aye aye. All opposed. Will the clerk please read ordinance twenty twenty six dash
20-09 to amend provide technical corrections to chapter 4 development standards and incentives of title
20 of the blooming to municipal code Entitled unified development ordinance the synopsis is as follows
This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to chapter 4 development standards and incentives.
There are 70 amendments in this petition Thank you. I Move that ordinance 2026-10 be read by title and
synopsis only second
Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed. Great. Well, the clerk please read
ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero ten to amend and provide technical corrections to chapter six
administration and procedures of title 20 of the Bloomington Municipal Code entitled Unified Development
Ordinance. The synopsis is as follows. This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to chapter six.
administration and procedures of the unified development ordinance. There are twenty seven amendments
in this petition. Thank you. I move that ordinance 20 26 dash 11 be read by title and synopsis only
second. There's been a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye aye. All opposed. Great.
Well the clerk please read.
Ordinance 2026-11, to amend and provide technical corrections to Chapter 2, Zoning Districts,
Chapter 3, Use Regulations, Chapter 5, Subdivision Standards, and Chapter 7, Divisions of Title 20 of
the Bloomington Municipal Code, entitled Unified Development Ordinance. The synopsis is as follows.
This ordinance contains corrections and amendments to Chapter 2, Zoning Districts,
Chapter 3, Use Regulations, Chapter 5,
Subdivision standards chapter 7 definitions of the unified development ordinance. There are 28 amendments
in this petition. Thank you. I know we're going to the second ratings now. I move that resolution 20
26 0 6 be read by title and synopsis only point of order.
I don't think we need to introduce any of the second reading items, right? If we're not if if we're
not planning to subsequently discuss them tonight, they would just Simply just appear again in that
section. I withdraw my motion is that we have Substantively discussed I forget the number but 20 26.
Oh, yeah. Yeah And I mean and yeah, so I'd be prepared to vote on it tonight without
Much discussion if if if our colleagues felt the same way, but yeah, so just for the good of the order
Got it when you would like to introduce either resolution Okay in that case we will move on to it would
you I Guess I'm prior to making a motion to introduce resolution 2026 Oh five
Which is the one I've sponsored I guess if folks are willing to Share share whether whether
like councilmember. Sorry there they feel comfortable voting tonight with minimal Discussion because
we've discussed it subsequently already. I think we could if folks were willing I'd be willing to take
it up, but also don't want to give it short shrift. So Well, you we could make a motion to introduce
and then just have a roll call vote. That's fine Okay
Move we introduce resolution 26 20 2606 by title synopsis on oh Five oh five twenty six oh five apologies
second. Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll? No offense no Flaherty
Yes Stasberg I'm sorry. What are we motioning to introduce? I was out of the room when the motion was
made Resolution. Oh, no Piedmont Smith Yes Zulik no, sorry. I'll also say no. Thank you daily Doesn't
matter no Thank you. Thank you that fails would anyone else like to introduce anything?
Great. We will move on to an additional section of public comment. If you would like to speak,
please rise, sign in, and state your name for the record. Great. And if you have any comments on Zoom,
please raise your hand. Is there anybody on Zoom? Great. Thank you. Jeff Richardson. I know tonight's
earlier vote was a difficult one. It wears a lot of complexity.
A lot of improvement that could be had in the process, but you made the decision. I'm so grateful and
I want to thank you for doing your due diligence, doing your hard work and not kicking the can down
the road. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak during
this last period of general public comment on zoom?
And we will go to our council schedule. I believe there is a committee on council process meeting next
Thursday on May 21st at 4 p.m There our next regularly scheduled meeting is going to be held on May
20th at 6 30 p.m Where we will hear some of the other legislation we heard tonight again, and does anyone
else have any council member Statsburg? there's a fiscal committee meeting on Friday morning at 830
and we do have a deliberation session next week and
On the 13th on councilmember Flaherty Pedestrians no removal. Is that right? Yeah pedestrian safety
and accessibility Great Councilmember sorry, just I'm flagging and for everybody Following our resolution
around the
What was it about the jail have started some initial engagement with county council and mayor and county
commissioners with the hope of sort of setting up a all hands meeting pending some pending some what
do you call them contingencies that they need to figure out. And so that may be something that I'll
reach out fairly soon about with them with a sort of
Availability poll or something similar. So and also our job is posted if you know any lawyers who want
to be municipal lawyers Thank You councilmember Rosenberger. Thank you. I just wanted to say Councilmember
daily and I are working on a this is a she wasn't I'm saying this I am an ordinance to create a
An amendment to title 15 to have carless or the or streets with no vehicular traffic This is in part
to get Kirkwood a pedestrian zone kind of place for potentially this summer We will have it on the agenda
I think for the 20th and I do want to try to connect with everybody in the next two weeks to potentially
be have it queued up if people want to vote on it to vote on it at the first reading just because it
is a long time coming and folks are waiting on it. Great. Thank you. Anyone else. Great. In that case
we're adjourned. Thank you all.