WEBVTT 00:00:00.130 --> 00:00:07.506 - So we will call to order this large table working session, joint working session between the RDC and 00:00:07.506 --> 00:00:14.882 - the Bloomington City Council. Before I guess we get started, I'll just ask if Clerk Bolden, if you'd 00:00:14.882 --> 00:00:22.331 - be able to just call the roll and then we'll have just a couple of ground rules or just general level 00:00:22.331 --> 00:00:26.494 - setting and then we'll move on straight into discussion. 00:00:29.986 --> 00:00:44.273 - Councilmember Rosenberger here clarity Here so like here daily here Rollo here. Sorry here and rough 00:00:44.273 --> 00:00:47.102 - Thank you very much 00:00:48.674 --> 00:00:56.147 - And then we're also joined by our colleagues at the RDC. I don't know if you all need to do roll or 00:00:56.147 --> 00:01:03.694 - whatever, but yeah, yes, please do. So go ahead. We're just doing a roll call, so I hope you want to 00:01:03.694 --> 00:01:10.494 - entry. Rita Gassley here. Laurie McRobbie here. C. Scambaleri here. Deborah Meyerson here. 00:01:10.818 --> 00:01:17.624 - Wonderful. So thank you all for taking the time to meet with us. And thank you all for being here for 00:01:17.624 --> 00:01:24.430 - this repurpose deliberation session. As you saw on the agenda, our hopes here and hopefully will also 00:01:24.430 --> 00:01:31.570 - be joined by Flintlock Labs. And I think David Hittle will also be joining us. Our goal here is to really, 00:01:31.570 --> 00:01:36.574 - oh, there you are. David Hittle is here. The goal today is just to discuss 00:01:36.706 --> 00:01:43.015 - the reasonable conditions now with information as hopefully you all had a chance to see in the packet 00:01:43.015 --> 00:01:49.323 - surrounding potential tradeoffs that might be associated with each of these reasonable conditions. We 00:01:49.323 --> 00:01:51.550 - want to keep the conversation about 00:01:51.682 --> 00:01:58.284 - the reasonable conditions, and so lawyers are not allowed to talk, I mean, other than the lawyers who 00:01:58.284 --> 00:02:04.756 - are on the council. But we're not, just to have hopefully a productive conversation just around how 00:02:04.756 --> 00:02:11.357 - we might potentially move forward with reasonable conditions. The only other thing that I'll mention, 00:02:11.357 --> 00:02:18.024 - you all might have noticed that our former deputy mayor, former city attorney Larry Allen is here, and 00:02:18.024 --> 00:02:21.648 - we're just very grateful we've somehow convinced him to 00:02:21.648 --> 00:02:29.502 - City Council out on a part-time basis in this interim period. And so, Mr. Allen, thank you so, so very 00:02:29.502 --> 00:02:37.662 - much for your service, continued service to the city and long-suffering. So now we, I'll hand over to you. 00:02:37.922 --> 00:02:43.698 - Oh, thank you. Just, again, welcome and glad to have everybody at the table here tonight. Looking forward 00:02:43.698 --> 00:02:49.146 - to hearing from Flintlock. I know they've prepared some slides for us to look at and looking at how 00:02:49.146 --> 00:02:54.759 - we can talk about the Hopewell South PUD and focus on opportunities for housing supply, affordability, 00:02:54.759 --> 00:03:00.589 - and accessibility within the Hopewell South project. So is Hopewell or is Flintlock going to be presenting 00:03:00.589 --> 00:03:01.406 - initially? OK. 00:03:01.538 --> 00:03:07.373 - Fantastic. Okay, so if there's no objection, I think the way that we'll do this, we will ask Ali to 00:03:07.373 --> 00:03:13.441 - give sort of like a 30,000 foot overview, you know, just sort of level setting, and then we can go sort 00:03:13.441 --> 00:03:19.509 - of reasonable condition by reasonable condition. The person who's proposed it, spend a few minutes just 00:03:19.509 --> 00:03:25.461 - sort of explaining what is we're trying to achieve here. I think as we've done, but I think it's just 00:03:25.461 --> 00:03:28.670 - useful to talk about that, and then we'll have sort of 00:03:28.930 --> 00:03:36.371 - immediate response from Ali as outlined in the slides, and then RDC response, and then some discussion. 00:03:36.371 --> 00:03:43.740 - Does that seem like a good way of structuring the conversation? No objections? OK, fantastic. OK, with 00:03:43.740 --> 00:03:51.181 - that in mind then, Ali, if you're there, we would love it if you took it away. So give us a 30,000 foot 00:03:51.181 --> 00:03:58.622 - view overview here, and then we'll jump into the reasonable conditions. Let me set up my screen, Chair. 00:03:58.882 --> 00:04:06.814 - or briefly. Is it on our end or? Yeah, I can read her. We had an issue with planning commission on Monday 00:04:06.814 --> 00:04:14.372 - night that by the end of the meeting, we could no longer hear the online folks. I don't know if that 00:04:14.372 --> 00:04:22.004 - could fix between then and now. They're interesting. Can you do a mic check, Hallie? OK. Can you guys 00:04:22.004 --> 00:04:26.494 - see slides and hear me OK? Maybe on our end. Hold on. Yeah. 00:04:27.490 --> 00:04:34.311 - Okay, great. Read your favorite epic poem. Hold on. Because we can't hear you. Okay, we're going to 00:04:34.311 --> 00:04:41.609 - run through this quickly. And I've got slides that we may want to come back to. So I'll go quickly through 00:04:41.609 --> 00:04:48.225 - the slides. But I tried to include all of this in case there's questions. We are really hopeful. 00:04:48.225 --> 00:04:53.886 - Hold on, Ali. We can see the slides, but we cannot hear you still. Oh, one moment. 00:04:55.778 --> 00:05:02.906 - Yeah, just keep, if you could keep every so often saying check and then we'll tell you when we can hear 00:05:02.906 --> 00:05:09.828 - you. Turn on some jazzy music. Yeah, turn on some elevator music. Yeah, it definitely is on our end. 00:05:09.828 --> 00:05:16.819 - Thank you for your patience. I don't know what happened on Monday night, but like in the middle, like 00:05:16.819 --> 00:05:21.342 - toward the end of the meeting, suddenly it was no longer working. 00:05:30.754 --> 00:05:48.566 - I did. I was on team. It worked. Yeah. Were you not able to hear it? Oh, no. Oh. Never know. How about 00:05:48.566 --> 00:05:58.942 - now? Yeah. OK. It looks like it's working. Thumbs up? Yeah. 00:05:59.522 --> 00:06:26.398 - What was it called? The goal. Okay. What about the May apple? Okay. Okay. Thank you. 00:06:28.354 --> 00:06:46.091 - I'm going to say we will be having 830. Still nothing? The other attendees on, I mean, I'm going to 00:06:46.091 --> 00:06:54.782 - type this. Maybe you should leave and come back. 00:06:56.994 --> 00:07:06.517 - Oh the other zoom attendees can hear you well, that's interesting Yeah, no, it's definitely like Yes, 00:07:06.517 --> 00:07:16.693 - like it it happened like it was toward the end of the meeting it was like you I don't know 1045 or something 00:07:16.693 --> 00:07:18.654 - and I can't remember 00:07:18.914 --> 00:07:26.843 - who it was that was maybe going to chime in with one last thing. Can we pull her up on one of the lockers? 00:07:26.843 --> 00:07:34.402 - Oh, no. I know. It was one of the attorneys. Unfortunately, she was upstairs on Zoom. And so she just 00:07:34.402 --> 00:07:41.812 - came down and was able to give her comment in person. Well, should we, while they're trying to, oh, 00:07:41.812 --> 00:07:46.110 - oh, noise. Try now, Ali. Can you hear me now? Yay. Bravo. 00:07:46.306 --> 00:07:53.032 - We celebrate your arrival. So take it away, Ali. Okay, so I'm going to, I've got more slides than we 00:07:53.032 --> 00:07:59.758 - might need. I'm gonna run through them quickly, but I wanted to have everything here in case we want 00:07:59.758 --> 00:08:02.622 - to go back and reference or ask questions. 00:08:02.786 --> 00:08:10.133 - Our big hope too, you know, I want to also though, be really clear about where we are here. There's 00:08:10.133 --> 00:08:17.701 - been a lot of variations on some of the conditions. So we think we've done our best. Sorry, sorry. Can 00:08:17.701 --> 00:08:25.343 - you please slow down? Sorry, Ali, sorry. Thank you. Yeah, sorry. And our mics don't turn on as quickly. 00:08:25.343 --> 00:08:31.294 - But yeah, the three requests to slow down if you could. Yes, happy to. So we are 00:08:31.394 --> 00:08:38.490 - We think we've got a good, and one of the big questions was the impact of each of these conditions. 00:08:38.490 --> 00:08:45.870 - And some of the conditions have changed over time a little bit, and so we think we have a good, honest, 00:08:45.870 --> 00:08:53.534 - quick look at what the impacts are. We also want to caveat that we've not done a full iteration of redesign 00:08:53.634 --> 00:09:00.827 - with each specific variety. So there may be some of the places that we think this is the impact. 00:09:00.827 --> 00:09:08.761 - We may be, you know, when we get it all fully vetted, I'll give that caveat. We're working at a conceptual 00:09:08.761 --> 00:09:16.251 - level still with the changes. I'll flip though to the plan that is submitted in the PUD is much less 00:09:16.251 --> 00:09:18.846 - conceptual. It is fully vetted by, 00:09:18.946 --> 00:09:26.002 - Many departments, you know, we had work sessions for several months with departments and every department 00:09:26.002 --> 00:09:32.991 - has different opinions sometimes and different priorities. And so there are some things that were really 00:09:32.991 --> 00:09:39.648 - worked out based on operational and departmental requests. And so, you know, I do want to say there 00:09:39.648 --> 00:09:44.574 - is extensive coordination across internal departments taking into account 00:09:45.346 --> 00:09:52.381 - Count feedback from lenders and builders, developers in a region, engineering, fire, sanitation, planning 00:09:52.381 --> 00:09:59.150 - have weighed in on this extensively. And so the PUD plan itself is very much vetted. Our alternatives 00:09:59.150 --> 00:10:05.919 - that we're trying to quantify some impacts from conditions, I'm trying to be honest that they are our 00:10:05.919 --> 00:10:13.086 - best interpretation of our current understanding of condition and how that would impact the plan generally. 00:10:13.506 --> 00:10:21.509 - So I think we're all on the same page, right? By right, we can get 28 lots. We are trying to increase 00:10:21.509 --> 00:10:29.826 - our total number of individual units. We are trying to increase home ownership opportunities specifically 00:10:29.826 --> 00:10:33.278 - across a really wide range of price points. 00:10:33.474 --> 00:10:41.495 - We are aiming for a very broad set of homeowners and residents of the neighborhood that can find something 00:10:41.495 --> 00:10:48.542 - that fits their housing needs at various stages of life. And so the goal is, you know, really 00:10:48.866 --> 00:10:55.249 - getting to a broader range of housing solutions for many more residents of Bloomington than we could 00:10:55.249 --> 00:11:01.632 - reach with, we could have done a code compliant plan. I think we would have saved all of ourselves a 00:11:01.632 --> 00:11:08.015 - lot of meetings, but we're really trying to make something that is really impactful for the kinds of 00:11:08.015 --> 00:11:11.870 - housing that we are hearing that Bloomington residents need. 00:11:12.802 --> 00:11:18.917 - So we've got a summary of conditions in here and we're gonna go through a couple of the high level ones. 00:11:18.917 --> 00:11:24.741 - Some of these are already aligned, some of these are already passed. Some of these have some impact 00:11:24.741 --> 00:11:30.622 - that we think it's really productive for city council and for RBC to be working together on what the 00:11:30.622 --> 00:11:36.563 - trade-offs are because they're every decision, every one of these things that we've come to the table 00:11:36.563 --> 00:11:39.358 - with already and that might be added or changed 00:11:39.458 --> 00:11:46.548 - Those all have trade offs. And I think generally we want us to all be thinking about, you know, more 00:11:46.548 --> 00:11:53.638 - requirements is going to generally result in fewer homes and higher costs and fewer homes means that 00:11:53.638 --> 00:11:56.446 - the houses will need to cost more each. 00:11:56.578 --> 00:12:03.309 - But one of the things that we have been really maximizing for that we wanna be open is really baked 00:12:03.309 --> 00:12:10.106 - into, we've really optimized for the most homes possible with the widest variety of price points and 00:12:10.106 --> 00:12:16.837 - programs that we have some family homes, some senior homes and some first home buyer homes. We also 00:12:16.837 --> 00:12:22.558 - see that we, and we see this a lot in housing, we think this is not uncommon at all. 00:12:22.690 --> 00:12:30.190 - that a lot of times we can see one project and want it to solve all of these problems that we're facing 00:12:30.190 --> 00:12:37.835 - as a community and that can sometimes be challenging to meet all of them. So generally, the short answer, 00:12:37.835 --> 00:12:45.191 - one of the questions we got, the short answer that we're trying to provide is that the initial set of 00:12:45.191 --> 00:12:49.374 - conditions as written would remove approximately 14 homes 00:12:49.474 --> 00:12:55.218 - There are several interpretations of how, you know, if we lay this out in this way, we would have to 00:12:55.218 --> 00:13:00.906 - work from this existing curb cut or this existing property line. And so this is one of those places 00:13:00.906 --> 00:13:06.878 - I want to caveat. We ran this scenario on three different interpretations. We got to 14 homes each time. 00:13:06.878 --> 00:13:12.736 - There were 14 different homes in each of those assumptions, but it was a pretty consistent number. And 00:13:12.736 --> 00:13:18.594 - about seven of those units impacted are accessible, which is another thing that is being optimized for 00:13:18.594 --> 00:13:19.390 - in this plan. 00:13:19.810 --> 00:13:26.837 - The affordability condition is one that we think would be really productive to have RDC and council 00:13:26.837 --> 00:13:33.864 - talk through. That's something that we can weigh in on from experience, but also think that that is 00:13:33.864 --> 00:13:40.892 - an internal discussion that will be really helpful to have. Generally, we're both trying to provide 00:13:40.892 --> 00:13:43.070 - permanent restriction of units 00:13:43.170 --> 00:13:50.001 - of 25% of the units and we're trying to provide attainability for a much broader set of the units, around 00:13:50.001 --> 00:13:56.703 - 70% of the units, will be at or below 120% AMI at market rate at first sale. And so we're really trying 00:13:56.703 --> 00:14:03.276 - to do both and calibrating the exact numbers that are the right numbers in the project will be really 00:14:03.276 --> 00:14:05.854 - helpful conversation I think for today. 00:14:06.594 --> 00:14:12.424 - We also want to say that new construction is expensive. There's a joke in development that the best 00:14:12.424 --> 00:14:18.370 - time to build a house was 20 years ago. It's sort of like the best time to plant a tree was 100 years 00:14:18.370 --> 00:14:24.374 - ago. And so the more restriction that we're putting on there, probably the fewer units either that can 00:14:24.374 --> 00:14:30.204 - be put in there or that subsidy is required on. So we want that trade off to get discussed with RDC 00:14:30.204 --> 00:14:31.486 - and council together. 00:14:32.002 --> 00:14:38.196 - Sustainability is one that would be another one to really discuss well. We are already required to comply 00:14:38.196 --> 00:14:44.390 - with the adopted model energy code. And so this project will meet that standard and exceed that standard. 00:14:44.390 --> 00:14:49.766 - That code governs our envelope performance, our systems, our overall efficiency. And so the 00:14:49.766 --> 00:14:53.214 - core sustainability outcomes are really already addressed. 00:14:53.314 --> 00:14:59.546 - the standards are already high in Bloomington. So the condition, this is one of the ones that we think 00:14:59.546 --> 00:15:05.657 - is tricky that would be helpful to have you guys talk through because the referenced ordinance there 00:15:05.657 --> 00:15:11.768 - does reference third party frameworks like LEED or Green Globes, which are not energy codes, they're 00:15:11.768 --> 00:15:17.939 - rating systems. And so they introduce a lot of additional criteria that may or may not really be tied 00:15:17.939 --> 00:15:21.630 - to performance of the building and may not positively impact 00:15:21.730 --> 00:15:28.420 - residents in terms of reduced energy costs, ongoing reduced utility costs in the same way that working 00:15:28.420 --> 00:15:34.981 - towards an energy code or building code standard might. This is the trickiest one, this combination. 00:15:34.981 --> 00:15:41.606 - This is the one that we ran a couple of different scenarios on. We think it would be probably helpful 00:15:41.606 --> 00:15:48.101 - as well to discuss, what are the interpretations? Are we widening a sidewalk by 12 inches, which is 00:15:48.101 --> 00:15:49.790 - pretty minor as a change. 00:15:49.954 --> 00:15:55.992 - Are we saying the sidewalk is widening, but we want strict compliance with the way the transportation 00:15:55.992 --> 00:16:01.970 - code has previously been interpreted for consistency, which is something we also heard. The way that 00:16:01.970 --> 00:16:08.303 - the transportation plan has been interpreted previously is that this full 60-foot right-of-way is required 00:16:08.303 --> 00:16:14.696 - to be dedicated even when the street section itself is constructed to a narrower width, is my understanding 00:16:14.696 --> 00:16:18.366 - and what we've heard multiple times in departmental meetings. 00:16:18.498 --> 00:16:24.839 - So that 60 foot right of way, if we are optimizing for consistency with previous developments, that 00:16:24.839 --> 00:16:31.371 - has a really big impact. Whereas just the tree plot being wider or just the sidewalk being wider might 00:16:31.371 --> 00:16:37.775 - have smaller impacts, we can talk through, we ran a bunch of scenarios, we can talk through probably 00:16:37.775 --> 00:16:43.102 - high level marking up a plan if there are specific questions of if this, then that. 00:16:44.578 --> 00:16:50.725 - We do think that the transportation plan builds in a lot of flexibility in the way that it is passed 00:16:50.725 --> 00:16:56.933 - and written. And so we showed these slides previously, but the transportation plan does have a shared 00:16:56.933 --> 00:17:02.046 - street typology, which is similar to what the lanes are proposing, which is 20 feet 00:17:02.210 --> 00:17:09.234 - total pavement, 20 to 22 feet of total pavement with optional on-street parking, no center line intended 00:17:09.234 --> 00:17:15.388 - to be shared and so intended to not have sidewalks. And so there are some typologies within 00:17:15.388 --> 00:17:22.344 - the transportation plan, design parameters that give a lot of optionality to recognize that every block 00:17:22.344 --> 00:17:28.030 - is different, working around different things is really viable. The pedestrian zone, 00:17:28.258 --> 00:17:34.075 - descriptions within the transportation plan and these are screenshots from it does reference that a 00:17:34.075 --> 00:17:40.242 - sidewalk can go down to four feet wide as at the narrowest and still be ADA compliant. It also references 00:17:40.242 --> 00:17:46.175 - that the standard street installation is five feet not six feet which conflicts a little bit with the 00:17:46.175 --> 00:17:52.167 - section which we see as normal flexibility intended often through these that you've got kind of a best 00:17:52.167 --> 00:17:55.774 - case scenario when you're working from scratch and you've got 00:17:56.226 --> 00:18:02.608 - smaller standards that are allowed when reasonable. So we think that's normal and we think the flexibility 00:18:02.608 --> 00:18:08.810 - for what we're proposing exists in the transportation plan and this was very heavily vetted by planning 00:18:08.810 --> 00:18:14.536 - and engineering the proposal that you were seeing in the PUD based on these conversations prior 00:18:14.536 --> 00:18:18.174 - to submission. So we saw this one right that the we've got a 00:18:18.722 --> 00:18:25.547 - Widening our rights of way to 60 feet, which is our consistency, has about a 15% reduction in our total 00:18:25.547 --> 00:18:32.307 - number of homes. As I said, we did do a deeper dive with a couple other assumptions and found a little 00:18:32.307 --> 00:18:39.330 - variation in exactly which ones it was, but similar numbers. The biggest thing that we see in the negative 00:18:39.330 --> 00:18:45.630 - impact of potentially losing units is actually in how it impacts our accessibility percentages. 00:18:45.730 --> 00:18:53.173 - We currently are working with a 31% accessibility, 31% of homes are either universal design as defined 00:18:53.173 --> 00:19:00.543 - in the UDO or fair housing standard, which is also called an ANSI type B unit or universal, sorry, or 00:19:00.543 --> 00:19:08.130 - full ADA compliance, which is ANSI type A. And so we've got a third of our units within the neighborhood 00:19:08.130 --> 00:19:13.694 - that are accessible. We've worked with local accessibility experts to really 00:19:14.018 --> 00:19:20.573 - hone in on what is highest priority, we're working with civil engineers to make sure that all of those 00:19:20.573 --> 00:19:27.127 - 31% of homes are provided with no step entries and that any homes that can also be made visitable also 00:19:27.127 --> 00:19:33.746 - provided with zero step entries. And so that's been another big focus to optimize for. And so we would, 00:19:33.746 --> 00:19:37.182 - if we lost these units, drop our total percentages of 00:19:37.314 --> 00:19:44.784 - accessibility from 31% to 24%, which would be below the standard that we currently, I think, 00:19:44.784 --> 00:19:52.656 - have incorporated into the language in the PUD. We did run some initial versions with the 60-foot 00:19:52.656 --> 00:19:59.966 - right-of-way, and so we also can talk about what that might happen, what that might yield. 00:20:00.066 --> 00:20:05.972 - This is one of the ones that I know has changed a little bit. And so we would love to hear what the 00:20:05.972 --> 00:20:12.056 - latest thinking is on width. But our position remains that maintaining the lanes at a 20-foot pavement 00:20:12.056 --> 00:20:18.199 - width as a shared street, as reflected by the transportation plan, provides a lot of flexibility within 00:20:18.199 --> 00:20:24.341 - the way that driveways maneuver in. We don't gain any real square footage in the design overall because 00:20:24.341 --> 00:20:29.598 - of our utilities. And so I think this is one that would be good to discuss, but we think 00:20:29.794 --> 00:20:37.108 - functionally remaining at a 20 foot makes a lot of sense. And that is fire code driven. I know we had 00:20:37.108 --> 00:20:44.350 - a lot of questions at council about fire code. We can run through any questions further that anybody 00:20:44.350 --> 00:20:51.951 - has here. We are somewhat providing those as fire access routes as well for those inner homes that that's 00:20:51.951 --> 00:20:54.174 - their main vehicular entrance. 00:20:55.042 --> 00:21:01.956 - So if we reduced the width of the lanes, we would need to fire sprinkler any unit that doesn't have 00:21:01.956 --> 00:21:09.007 - 150 foot max hose pull to all parts of the building, generally assumed to be starting along sidewalks 00:21:09.007 --> 00:21:16.128 - wrapping the building. And so that would mean a portion of the inner buildings here would require fire 00:21:16.128 --> 00:21:16.958 - sprinklers. 00:21:17.474 --> 00:21:22.753 - The fire sprinkler lobby is really good at telling people that they're very affordable. That has not 00:21:22.753 --> 00:21:28.241 - been our experience. Even when the pipes and heads, that really low price per square foot that you often 00:21:28.241 --> 00:21:33.572 - hear quoted is typically just the actual parts required for the pipes and the heads material only. We 00:21:33.572 --> 00:21:39.112 - often then have quite a bit of design, permit, inspection costs for those. We have sort of labor minimums 00:21:39.112 --> 00:21:44.338 - to show up to install it. Even if the house is really small and it only has a couple heads, getting 00:21:44.338 --> 00:21:45.854 - a plumber out to install it, 00:21:45.954 --> 00:21:51.905 - As you guys are probably familiar with, anytime you try to get somebody to come to your house, they 00:21:51.905 --> 00:21:57.916 - will charge a certain minimum just to come out. We typically then need a backflow preventer as well, 00:21:57.916 --> 00:22:04.403 - which is another piece of equipment. The equipment itself ranges from $500 to $2,000, and then you typically 00:22:04.403 --> 00:22:08.510 - need a larger water meter than we might put on a really small house. 00:22:08.610 --> 00:22:15.512 - And, you know, extra meter boxes, etc. So in our really small units, fire sprinklers would increase 00:22:15.512 --> 00:22:23.518 - the cost of those by, you know, 10 to 20%. So I think that would be helpful for everybody to talk through together. 00:22:23.682 --> 00:22:29.440 - And we are really intending this to be a pedestrian-focused neighborhood. So our green network is our 00:22:29.440 --> 00:22:35.254 - pedestrian routes, and those are intended to be a primary focus. Pocket neighborhoods are very popular 00:22:35.254 --> 00:22:40.898 - across the United States. They have been since the 90s. There's many built examples. There are lots 00:22:40.898 --> 00:22:46.882 - of books about them. There's lots of built examples we've given tours of. I think we've sent some photos. 00:22:46.882 --> 00:22:51.454 - They're very lovely, very residential, kind of intimate types of streets that is 00:22:51.842 --> 00:22:58.821 - not every house in the neighborhood but is a nice set of options for people if that's something that 00:22:58.821 --> 00:23:05.868 - they find desirable. Roger Street I think is one that would be good to talk in detail as well because 00:23:05.868 --> 00:23:12.985 - we may be misunderstanding the intention somewhat but when we did an initial analysis with engineering 00:23:12.985 --> 00:23:20.862 - through designing we have a portion of 714 that would require demolition to dedicate that right of way. This is a 00:23:20.962 --> 00:23:26.608 - We had a diagram that we'd sent to engineering at the beginning saying, you know, taking from center 00:23:26.608 --> 00:23:32.198 - line offsetting at the amount of width that is shown in transportation plan. Here's where that line 00:23:32.198 --> 00:23:38.180 - is the part of the building that sticking out into that is a stairwell. And so it can't be easily removed. 00:23:38.180 --> 00:23:41.310 - It's not a porch or something sort of non non required. 00:23:41.858 --> 00:23:48.086 - whether or not that building stays for some sort of use, I think is something for discussion. But if 00:23:48.086 --> 00:23:54.438 - that building is intended to be reused in any way, we think we need the section on Rogers, which again 00:23:54.438 --> 00:24:00.050 - has been coordinated extensively with engineering prior to being submitted. So our goal is 00:24:00.050 --> 00:24:06.340 - really straightforward, I hope. We want to deliver the maximum number of homes at the most attainable 00:24:06.340 --> 00:24:11.582 - price point we can in a form that is buildable and bankable and will work long-term. 00:24:11.810 --> 00:24:18.545 - And so we're committed to working together. We're excited. Everybody's in one room to refine those details. 00:24:18.545 --> 00:24:24.905 - And we think we have a framework that gets us there. So we look forward to hearing more about details 00:24:24.905 --> 00:24:31.203 - and questions to get us across the finish line. Thank you so much for that presentation. We all have 00:24:31.203 --> 00:24:37.501 - a copy of the slides as well. So if we want to go back to reference stuff, we can do that. I'm going 00:24:37.501 --> 00:24:38.686 - to propose that we 00:24:39.010 --> 00:24:46.829 - I just pulled up a list of the reasonable conditions. We have some commentary on them in the packet 00:24:46.829 --> 00:24:50.270 - materials, but wanted to propose especially 00:24:50.370 --> 00:24:56.721 - since RDC members having a chance to look at those conditions and then maybe discuss with council members 00:24:56.721 --> 00:25:02.773 - what are the primary questions that would be most relevant to discuss at this meeting about what the 00:25:02.773 --> 00:25:09.124 - conditions are and especially while Ali is here about just confirming we understand what the cost benefit 00:25:09.124 --> 00:25:15.116 - is or what the tradeoffs essentially are. Because as I understand it from the presentation that the 00:25:15.116 --> 00:25:19.550 - original plan is for the 98 units that potentially some of the conditions 00:25:20.418 --> 00:25:26.723 - might introduce again higher affordability, more transportation compliance with the plan, but could 00:25:26.723 --> 00:25:33.216 - conceivably reduce the number of units, the number of accessible units. So just to kind of get a sense 00:25:33.216 --> 00:25:39.647 - maybe of the conditions, which ones would be most useful to discuss here or if there's even questions 00:25:39.647 --> 00:25:46.204 - about what they mean. So I will just kind of throw that out. I'm directing my comments towards the RDC, 00:25:46.204 --> 00:25:50.302 - but certainly this is a conversation for everybody at the table. 00:25:58.978 --> 00:26:07.330 - Yeah, just to kind of see what would be most fruitful for discussion at this for this meeting Well, 00:26:07.330 --> 00:26:16.517 - we got 13 that we need to work with and then there's three that are top priority in regards to transportation 00:26:16.517 --> 00:26:19.774 - affordability and What's the council's 00:26:21.954 --> 00:26:28.535 - because as we look at this and we're talking about the by-ride of 28 units and we're trying to get to 00:26:28.535 --> 00:26:34.987 - 98, but we also have a UDO, a transportation plan, and an affordability component that has been put 00:26:34.987 --> 00:26:41.632 - forth with the UDO. How do we meet those conditions and still maximize the number of units? So I think 00:26:41.632 --> 00:26:47.697 - from a standpoint as we're going through this and the previous meetings I had seen dealt with 00:26:47.697 --> 00:26:49.310 - the transportation plan, 00:26:49.410 --> 00:26:55.759 - and dealt with affordability as to the top components. Thank you. I think that emphasis on intent and 00:26:55.759 --> 00:27:02.233 - principles and what we're trying to accomplish is the most important part of the focus. I just the past 00:27:02.233 --> 00:27:08.893 - month it was difficult to get substantive responses or engagement on the regional conditions while working 00:27:08.893 --> 00:27:15.491 - on them including in our public meetings because we just spent most of our time talking about the council 00:27:15.491 --> 00:27:16.798 - statutory authority. 00:27:17.314 --> 00:27:22.997 - I worry it's too late now. We are where we are. I think we could have avoided some extra work or headaches 00:27:22.997 --> 00:27:28.574 - that went into preparation for this meeting as well if we would have had more conversation or engagement 00:27:28.574 --> 00:27:33.938 - because basically all of the reasonable conditions that I've authored I think need to change in some 00:27:33.938 --> 00:27:39.250 - way. And I learned that through the substantive discussions we had at the regular session two weeks 00:27:39.250 --> 00:27:44.667 - ago. I tried to explain what I thought could change in my final comment, which ran on to five minutes 00:27:44.667 --> 00:27:46.526 - and I needed to shut up. So I did. 00:27:47.298 --> 00:27:52.899 - So I think working through the substance of these things, at least for the ones I authored, what I think 00:27:52.899 --> 00:27:58.394 - is workable, I think would change a lot about the presentation we just heard and what the implications 00:27:58.394 --> 00:28:03.782 - are. We may not have the ability to do sort of a full analysis, so to speak, tonight, but I think we 00:28:03.782 --> 00:28:09.116 - could talk at a high level about more about that. So I think what was proposed in the agenda was to 00:28:09.116 --> 00:28:14.451 - start with RC6 and work through from there and then back to the affordability. I think we should be 00:28:14.451 --> 00:28:15.998 - mindful of time also and not 00:28:16.418 --> 00:28:23.838 - lose too much time on any given one. That's it. Agreed. So do you want to take it away on six? Sure. 00:28:23.838 --> 00:28:31.331 - Yeah. So this is about electrification. So basically, the synopsis covers what you need to know. This 00:28:31.331 --> 00:28:38.824 - is consistent with what our climate action plan calls for, specifically for PUDs. It is also the only 00:28:38.824 --> 00:28:45.950 - viable pathway for building decarbonization, which is part of our goals as well, community-wide. 00:28:46.242 --> 00:28:52.900 - In Indiana, that's, you know, a tough regulatory environment to navigate. Groups like ALEC and others 00:28:52.900 --> 00:28:59.428 - and fossil fuel lobbyists have already gotten the state to preempt any code requirements that local 00:28:59.428 --> 00:29:06.151 - governments could have. So we can't do what lots of local governments and even states have done on the 00:29:06.151 --> 00:29:12.940 - coasts on this front. But, you know, our plans call for us to use opportunities that we have to develop 00:29:12.940 --> 00:29:13.854 - all electric. 00:29:15.010 --> 00:29:20.643 - My gut is that this could shift to a written commitment instead of a reasonable condition. We already 00:29:20.643 --> 00:29:26.166 - passed this reasonable condition and had sort of agreement from the administration on behalf of the 00:29:26.166 --> 00:29:31.965 - RDC that they could do that or were planning to do that. I think a written commitment could work instead 00:29:31.965 --> 00:29:37.874 - and would probably be on legally firmer footing. There's some questions. We've gotten a couple of letters, 00:29:37.874 --> 00:29:43.562 - which I've also sent to Corporation Council, from folks either at gas utilities or kind of gas utility 00:29:43.562 --> 00:29:44.446 - industry lobby. 00:29:44.546 --> 00:29:50.827 - saying that we don't think this is allowed. My sense from prior discussions with our attorneys is that 00:29:50.827 --> 00:29:57.170 - as long as it's in the context of incentives and not a requirement for any petitioner or for any person 00:29:57.170 --> 00:30:03.451 - to develop land, that it probably could be allowed. But again, I think here a written commitment would 00:30:03.451 --> 00:30:09.550 - be probably firmer footing that would be voluntary. So if the plan is still to develop in that way, 00:30:09.550 --> 00:30:13.758 - I think a shift to that mechanism would be maybe what I'd recommend. 00:30:17.506 --> 00:30:25.128 - No, I'm just facilitating I don't disagree electrification as you well know But taking into consider 00:30:25.128 --> 00:30:32.675 - into consideration what our abilities are so that we can move the housing forward Without having to 00:30:32.675 --> 00:30:40.373 - get into the litigation aspect of it in anything with a statewide lobby or the rest of it So well the 00:30:40.373 --> 00:30:45.278 - energy efficiency if it's done correctly Electrication will work 00:30:45.666 --> 00:30:52.053 - But being able to move something forward while that is tested is my only concern about it. I don't want 00:30:52.053 --> 00:30:58.256 - to get caught up in something when we're trying to house people at the lowest affordable cost, which 00:30:58.256 --> 00:31:04.950 - electrification will be the least cost in the upfront. We need to make sure the insulation and the envelopes 00:31:04.950 --> 00:31:11.398 - are done correctly. In the equipment itself, if you have efficient units and heat pumps, like also lower 00:31:11.398 --> 00:31:15.390 - operating. Properly sized equipment is the most important thing. 00:31:16.130 --> 00:31:24.048 - So I don't know how the written commitment would work in regards to what enforcement we would have I 00:31:24.048 --> 00:31:31.965 - think I think it's a great way to go about it and try to keep our affordability I think I think this 00:31:31.965 --> 00:31:40.040 - is fairly straightforward is counselor Flaherty said Ali anything you'd like to add on on this one any 00:31:40.040 --> 00:31:42.078 - other context necessary I 00:31:44.098 --> 00:31:50.404 - I have two thoughts on this that I'll share, you know, with the goal of being helpful as a city consultant. 00:31:50.404 --> 00:31:56.360 - And I think one of them is, I think you guys are thinking about this correctly, which is not, I think 00:31:56.360 --> 00:32:02.374 - there was a lot of conversation about statutory limitations. And often when we are often in a position 00:32:02.374 --> 00:32:07.454 - of discussing with cities, not just what is allowed statutorily, but, and we typically 00:32:07.586 --> 00:32:13.059 - Most of most cities that we work with tend to think about things from a very constitutional federal 00:32:13.059 --> 00:32:18.642 - level that there's, you know, which I think we talked about a little bit, and often the verbiage that 00:32:18.642 --> 00:32:23.678 - gets used on that to add this to the conversation is what is higher risk versus lower risk. 00:32:23.778 --> 00:32:30.922 - What are we more likely to be spending time defending or less likely to be spending time defending? 00:32:30.922 --> 00:32:38.138 - I think the comments I'm hearing are probably really spot on. I think it's high risk to put it in as 00:32:38.138 --> 00:32:45.282 - a requirement. My understanding is that would cause some risk. From a practical standpoint, I think 00:32:45.282 --> 00:32:48.926 - there will be some builders who would push back on 00:32:49.090 --> 00:32:54.979 - there are still a lot of builders who have really strong feelings about gas heat because they've had 00:32:54.979 --> 00:33:00.810 - trouble with heat pumps at really low temperatures. Whether or not that is factual, I think that is 00:33:00.810 --> 00:33:06.699 - something that is an education component that will be important to get wrapped into the program. But 00:33:06.699 --> 00:33:12.938 - I will also say that from the beginning, you know, departmentally in review, there was not wide discussion 00:33:12.938 --> 00:33:14.046 - of having provided 00:33:14.434 --> 00:33:20.712 - providing gas as a utility within the neighborhood. And that's something that we are seeing really broadly 00:33:20.712 --> 00:33:22.590 - in neighborhoods like this that 00:33:22.690 --> 00:33:28.863 - it's becoming more common. You have one less trench, you have one less set of meters that need to be 00:33:28.863 --> 00:33:35.096 - on the building. Induction ranges are becoming much more popular. Indoor air quality focus has really 00:33:35.096 --> 00:33:41.208 - moved to focusing on all electric buildings and we're seeing some insurance benefits to that too. I 00:33:41.208 --> 00:33:47.442 - think it's a very justifiable thing for the RDC to decide as a developer of the property that they're 00:33:47.442 --> 00:33:49.214 - not putting that utility in. 00:33:49.346 --> 00:33:57.460 - I think that's a reasonable thing we see private developers make that decision to. I agree, I think 00:33:57.460 --> 00:34:06.060 - there's probably some risk to introducing it as a statutory requirement. Any other comments or questions? 00:34:06.060 --> 00:34:14.418 - Any other comments or questions on this? I feel like it's got a reasonable common ground at this point 00:34:14.418 --> 00:34:16.446 - and if we can move on to 00:34:18.210 --> 00:34:25.005 - another condition. I have one quick question regards to it. Matt when you're talking in regards to a 00:34:25.005 --> 00:34:31.866 - the reasonable condition versus a written commitment just so I've got a good understanding in regards 00:34:31.866 --> 00:34:38.863 - to. So they're both tools that are called out in the 1500 series for planned unit developments. I think 00:34:38.863 --> 00:34:41.150 - I think the I'm not sure I have a 00:34:41.890 --> 00:34:48.397 - grasp of what's more suitable for one than another. I think actually reasonable condition 13 is another 00:34:48.397 --> 00:34:54.654 - that's come up in conversations with our recent temporary legal counsel that might be better suited 00:34:54.654 --> 00:35:00.973 - for a voluntary written commitment if there's alignment. And I think that would be less likely to be 00:35:00.973 --> 00:35:07.355 - interpreted as regulation of some kind. And for similar reasons, we'll get to that one, but there are 00:35:07.355 --> 00:35:11.422 - state preemption issues around regulation of short-term rentals. 00:35:11.714 --> 00:35:18.984 - And so the legal guidance we were getting was that written commitments would be better for both of those. 00:35:18.984 --> 00:35:25.842 - And you know city attorney or corporation council that's representing the RDC could we could have a 00:35:25.842 --> 00:35:32.769 - follow up conversation about that too. Thank you. Appreciate that. Would it be helpful to as long as 00:35:32.769 --> 00:35:38.462 - we're on the topic of sustainability to address other conditions that are related. 00:35:38.658 --> 00:35:45.639 - I'm looking at condition number seven, which is that buildings must meet one of the energy efficiency 00:35:45.639 --> 00:35:52.757 - standards contained in the UDO. Alec touched on that as well, and just interested in kind of continuing 00:35:52.757 --> 00:36:00.012 - in that theme while we're talking about this topic. Sure. Should we move on? Yeah. Let's review condition 00:36:00.012 --> 00:36:04.734 - seven so we're all on the same page. Yeah. So again, the way I think 00:36:05.218 --> 00:36:13.640 - it's probably best to approach all of these is about what the intent is. And so the intent is to really 00:36:13.640 --> 00:36:21.739 - lean into the purpose of PUDs, which is to go above and beyond what base code requires to do better 00:36:21.739 --> 00:36:29.918 - in the various ways that are reflected in our comprehensive plan and other guiding policy documents. 00:36:30.210 --> 00:36:38.615 - Generally speaking, more efficient buildings are going to save significant amounts of money in the long 00:36:38.615 --> 00:36:46.777 - term, building considerable net present value in a positive dimension. But this is one where I think 00:36:46.777 --> 00:36:54.859 - I'm very flexible or open to other approaches on accomplishing that. I also think it is, well yeah, 00:36:54.859 --> 00:36:58.334 - so we started with seeking to leverage the 00:36:59.074 --> 00:37:04.443 - the UDO itself, the incentives that we use for folks that are similarly seeking to go above base code 00:37:04.443 --> 00:37:09.759 - in order to get additional building height, for instance. And so that's where we started. I did have 00:37:09.759 --> 00:37:15.181 - a conversation with the mayor before our last regular session where she expressed concern about actual 00:37:15.181 --> 00:37:20.655 - formal certification, which was what a prior version of that had. And so I softened that to just saying 00:37:20.655 --> 00:37:25.918 - meeting, being consistent with that section of the sustainable development incentives as opposed to 00:37:25.918 --> 00:37:27.550 - actually getting it certified. 00:37:27.778 --> 00:37:34.136 - There is another building efficiency portion of the sustainable development incentives. So the one I 00:37:34.136 --> 00:37:40.493 - put in was from option two. There is an option one where it's kind of like a do multiple, like solar 00:37:40.493 --> 00:37:46.977 - ready, covered parking, some different stuff. And there is a building efficiency section in there that 00:37:46.977 --> 00:37:53.334 - could be even lower barrier and an option. And so we could talk about that. It is still, this is the 00:37:53.334 --> 00:37:54.782 - first feedback I heard 00:37:55.394 --> 00:38:03.139 - our consultant at Flintlock Lab about the, you know, just considering trade-offs with respect to code 00:38:03.139 --> 00:38:10.732 - versus certification frameworks, right? And so the question then would be also, okay, so I heard, I 00:38:10.732 --> 00:38:18.780 - think I heard the words adopted model energy code, which I think, I assume she's referring to the Indiana 00:38:18.780 --> 00:38:25.310 - current version of residential energy code. There are more efficient versions of that 00:38:26.018 --> 00:38:32.265 - The bluer states tend to adopt readily when those come out. We don't generally in Indiana where you 00:38:32.265 --> 00:38:38.700 - tend to lag. Ours aren't the worst. And some states don't even have residential building energy codes. 00:38:38.700 --> 00:38:45.072 - So they're not horrible, but they also could be better. So I do wonder if this was something that the 00:38:45.072 --> 00:38:51.568 - Council and or the RDC decided it wanted to pursue, you know, if using just a later, like a more recent 00:38:51.568 --> 00:38:53.630 - version of the efficiency codes. 00:38:54.306 --> 00:39:02.473 - that other states utilize would be a suitable alternative. That matches like what, in places that allow 00:39:02.473 --> 00:39:10.325 - home rule on this front, that matches like what municipalities often do. They have like reach codes 00:39:10.325 --> 00:39:18.413 - that align with efficiency standards that are the latest codes. So that's the context of the question. 00:39:18.413 --> 00:39:20.926 - Any questions or comments from, 00:39:21.122 --> 00:39:27.988 - RDC, of course, as well as council, but again, focus on RDC. Energy efficiency is absolutely critical 00:39:27.988 --> 00:39:34.786 - in regards to it, but when we're sitting here looking at the number of houses and the kind of dollar 00:39:34.786 --> 00:39:41.652 - we're trying to get to, we know that any of the LEED certification is going to be an issue in regards 00:39:41.652 --> 00:39:48.585 - to that. So trying to meet the Indiana energy code, while it's the minimal standard, it can be applied 00:39:48.585 --> 00:39:49.662 - additionally on 00:39:49.890 --> 00:39:56.739 - the builder's portion of it. But if we put our requirement in there where we try to change to a different 00:39:56.739 --> 00:40:03.523 - home rule state, then we're starting to muddy the water, unfortunately. I don't disagree with you, Matt, 00:40:03.523 --> 00:40:10.307 - in any capacity that the energy efficiency for the long term affordability here is very, very important. 00:40:10.307 --> 00:40:17.027 - But I don't know exactly how we meet that and then set up the requirement of those particular ones that 00:40:17.027 --> 00:40:19.870 - is above and beyond what we've already got. 00:40:20.386 --> 00:40:27.196 - I think it should be changed on a statewide level, but we're still operating under the 2008 electrical 00:40:27.196 --> 00:40:34.072 - code. So, unfortunately, it's moved slow on the state level. So, when we look at it, energy efficiency, 00:40:34.072 --> 00:40:40.948 - induction, heat pumps, they tend to work well. I'm not trying to do dialogue. I'm just trying to figure 00:40:40.948 --> 00:40:47.691 - out how to get more energy efficiency and put it into our, you know, PUD that would contain ourselves 00:40:47.691 --> 00:40:49.278 - from a cost standpoint. 00:40:49.474 --> 00:40:58.311 - to try to meet the affordability. I worked in energy efficiency and buildings and ratings for 10 years. 00:40:58.311 --> 00:41:06.977 - So I do know a little bit about this lead is not the mechanism to use for residential. This is one of 00:41:06.977 --> 00:41:12.670 - the areas that I feel like the UDO really doesn't do a good job of 00:41:13.218 --> 00:41:22.486 - delineating residential from multifamily. I will say that there are other programs out there that might 00:41:22.486 --> 00:41:31.487 - be easier to attain. One of the things that, I'll let you guys have a discussion, but just know that 00:41:31.487 --> 00:41:41.022 - I do have some information that I'm happy to share. Well, home energy rating scores are how they typically 00:41:41.506 --> 00:41:48.838 - Find out the efficiency of the buildings You could say that each home needs to have or shoot for a home 00:41:48.838 --> 00:41:51.870 - energy rating score of a hundred and still 00:41:52.066 --> 00:41:57.476 - It would be very similar to the current model energy code and or improving it. Those tests though do 00:41:57.476 --> 00:42:03.046 - add costs to the overall process. So there are ways to say that you're going to meet certain efficiency 00:42:03.046 --> 00:42:08.777 - standards with or without those tests. I think the other thing with efficiency is to be very, very careful 00:42:08.777 --> 00:42:14.133 - about the building envelope because if there's not a rigid air barrier moisture management strategy 00:42:14.133 --> 00:42:19.489 - and you have a tight building then you are just creating conditions for mold and moisture intrusion 00:42:19.489 --> 00:42:21.310 - and degradation of the buildings. 00:42:21.474 --> 00:42:28.330 - So I'm sure Ali has something to say about that, but I am more than happy to chime in with my knowledge. 00:42:28.330 --> 00:42:35.056 - How's everybody feel in regards to obtaining a home energy efficiency? It's going to add. A HERS score 00:42:35.056 --> 00:42:41.717 - will add cost. And there are no local raters in Bloomington. They will have to come from Indianapolis 00:42:41.717 --> 00:42:47.006 - to rate the homes. It's not out of reach, but just know that that does add cost. 00:42:53.058 --> 00:42:58.673 - Did you have thoughts on this one? Yeah, I'd love to weigh in here because I think it's also helpful 00:42:58.673 --> 00:43:04.510 - understanding the overall goal. The first thing that I will say is that by virtue of being really small, 00:43:04.510 --> 00:43:10.235 - these are already really efficient units by person in terms of energy use, right? A house that is half 00:43:10.235 --> 00:43:15.294 - as big requires a lot less energy to keep warm or cool. And so we have we've done a lot of 00:43:15.746 --> 00:43:21.681 - tests with builders here locally, you know, and on our own developments that we've tested in the field, 00:43:21.681 --> 00:43:27.446 - a wide variety of trying to achieve what you guys are discussing, which is how do we get good ROI on 00:43:27.446 --> 00:43:33.324 - not a huge cost add to the house, but a good impact to the overall energy efficiency. And one strength 00:43:33.324 --> 00:43:38.974 - that we have working in our favor on this project is that the plans will be provided pre-approved. 00:43:39.042 --> 00:43:45.656 - So the RDC is the client for the architectural designs and the energy designs. And the way the RFP is 00:43:45.656 --> 00:43:52.400 - intended to be issued is that the builders are agreeing in their purchase contract for the lot to build 00:43:52.400 --> 00:43:59.144 - the house as depicted in those pre-approved construction plan. And so we can get to a relatively simple 00:43:59.144 --> 00:44:03.294 - agreement in the PUD, I think, between the RDC and the council, 00:44:03.394 --> 00:44:09.822 - because we will be the ones drawing to make sure exactly the way it's being built. We're not asking 00:44:09.822 --> 00:44:16.443 - for builders to go and have somebody, some third party figure out what it is that we meant. So I think 00:44:16.443 --> 00:44:23.192 - that that is a huge strength. I'll weigh in that there, I agree on the hers rating. Modeling the houses, 00:44:23.192 --> 00:44:29.620 - right, is sort of step one. And that might be worth doing. That's a little, you know, that might be 00:44:29.620 --> 00:44:31.806 - $1,000 per house design for them, 00:44:32.130 --> 00:44:37.967 - that's modeled in a digital way to see exactly what the wall sections are and orientation and what are 00:44:37.967 --> 00:44:43.747 - our values in which place and are we hitting certain scores? And so I think the base level that would 00:44:43.747 --> 00:44:49.641 - be the simplest and easiest thing is that we do a rating digitally. I don't know off the top of my head 00:44:49.641 --> 00:44:55.421 - what that rating would wanna be, but we could look that up and we're agreeing that they will be rated 00:44:55.421 --> 00:44:56.158 - at a certain 00:44:56.290 --> 00:45:03.803 - PERS rating. Then there is an on-site blower door test that is usually $750 to $1,000 per house where 00:45:03.803 --> 00:45:11.316 - they come and actually see, you know, how airtight did they get it? Did they achieve the construction 00:45:11.316 --> 00:45:19.934 - type the way that it's designed and modeled? And so we do see, you know, that there is probably a thousand to $3,000 00:45:20.066 --> 00:45:25.835 - cost potentially per house to doing a HRS rating, but modeling the houses, we only have to do it once 00:45:25.835 --> 00:45:31.548 - for each design, and so it's not that full cost for modeling each for each house. But I think that's 00:45:31.548 --> 00:45:37.261 - a tiered way to do it. And then we've got a couple of really good details that we have tested in the 00:45:37.261 --> 00:45:42.974 - field, you know, building two floor plans side by side with different construction details. And then 00:45:43.330 --> 00:45:49.453 - doing a testing on what are the utilities running on these. And so we'll say to the single most impactful 00:45:49.453 --> 00:45:55.460 - thing that we have ever found that we can do is make sure that all of the duct work for the HVAC system 00:45:55.460 --> 00:46:01.293 - is inside the insulation envelope. It's really common practice to run all the duct work in the attic 00:46:01.293 --> 00:46:04.990 - up above the blown insulation on the ceiling because it's easy. 00:46:05.666 --> 00:46:11.468 - That's our single worst energy efficiency thing that we've ever found, and it's allowed under a lot 00:46:11.468 --> 00:46:17.270 - of these rating systems. And so that's you know things like that we can ensure in the detailing are 00:46:17.270 --> 00:46:23.188 - done correctly. The second most impactful thing that if we really want to go above and beyond, we can 00:46:23.188 --> 00:46:24.638 - look at a full exterior. 00:46:24.930 --> 00:46:30.794 - you know, rigid insulation of, you can do it in mineral wool, you can do it in foam, between the sheeting 00:46:30.794 --> 00:46:36.326 - and the siding, because then you're not getting energy transfer through the studs. And so there are 00:46:36.326 --> 00:46:41.858 - a couple of relatively simple details that paired with an air sealing, you know, upgrade during the 00:46:41.858 --> 00:46:47.556 - construction by the insulation guys, which is not high cost and is a good idea. I think we can get to, 00:46:47.556 --> 00:46:53.918 - you know, knowing the target is we want these to be more energy efficient. We want them to have a long-term focus. 00:46:54.018 --> 00:47:00.859 - I think we've got practical details that can be put into the plans and then insured through construction 00:47:00.859 --> 00:47:07.961 - with probably without a blower door rating on every house. So Ali, what I'm hearing is that we can digitally 00:47:07.961 --> 00:47:14.476 - identify these from a construction practice standpoint in order to meet that and not have to do the 00:47:14.476 --> 00:47:21.056 - thousand to $3,000 on each particular residence. It's called a plan review. It's pretty standard and 00:47:21.056 --> 00:47:22.750 - with predetermined plans. 00:47:23.330 --> 00:47:30.658 - That will assist us and make sure that we get that energy efficiency. And then you could actually potentially 00:47:30.658 --> 00:47:37.320 - model one or two to verify that it occurs. What's everybody think in regards to that? So what's the 00:47:37.320 --> 00:47:44.115 - cost? The digital aspect of your pre-approved plans would be accomplished prior to anything being put 00:47:44.115 --> 00:47:47.646 - out. So theoretically, it should function correctly. 00:47:48.610 --> 00:47:54.794 - That's right. I just have another question on that front, too, and the possibility of using Department 00:47:54.794 --> 00:48:01.217 - of Energy's home energy score as another tool instead of the home energy rating score. They're a different 00:48:01.217 --> 00:48:07.221 - scale. And the DOE home energy score in particular, I think, was introduced and meant to be simpler 00:48:07.221 --> 00:48:13.344 - and lower cost to implement. And I overall support what I'm hearing around at the planning and design 00:48:13.344 --> 00:48:16.766 - stage. We control a lot. The RDC would, as a petitioner, 00:48:16.866 --> 00:48:22.548 - And also just wondering about, like I was just trying to look up some quick things about home energy 00:48:22.548 --> 00:48:28.342 - score and what would kind of go into it. And like an example was insulation with an R value that would 00:48:28.342 --> 00:48:34.081 - match like 2021, you know, international energy conservation code as opposed to like what the Indiana 00:48:34.081 --> 00:48:40.044 - versions are now. So like it might be a useful framework to think about the opportunities for efficiency. 00:48:40.044 --> 00:48:45.726 - I don't know if anyone has experience with DOE home energy score in particular and administering it. 00:48:54.050 --> 00:49:10.110 - per design, is that with the AI automation, or is that when you're actually doing blower test on each design? 00:49:11.042 --> 00:49:16.251 - Yeah, that's the modeling. So typically people are modeling an individual house and then testing the 00:49:16.251 --> 00:49:21.409 - individual house. And so that 3000 is like your worst case scenario. The guys had to come from long 00:49:21.409 --> 00:49:26.927 - away. You're just doing it for one house. We wouldn't need to do that. We've got 16 unique plans currently 00:49:26.927 --> 00:49:28.990 - in the catalog. And so we would have an 00:49:29.186 --> 00:49:35.345 - And correct me if these numbers are wrong. I'm giving you our local company numbers the last time that 00:49:35.345 --> 00:49:41.623 - I paid for this. The testing is usually around $1,000 a plan. So testing all of the plans ahead of time, 00:49:41.623 --> 00:49:47.781 - modeling them. And so what happens, there's a little bit of back and forth between the modeler and the 00:49:47.781 --> 00:49:53.880 - architect where they may call out, we've called out fiberglass insulation. We're a few points low. We 00:49:53.880 --> 00:49:55.614 - need you to upgrade that to, 00:49:55.778 --> 00:50:01.253 - blown cellulose, which has less air infiltration, or that needs to be, you know. So there's a little 00:50:01.253 --> 00:50:06.674 - bit of calibration that happens with the modeling. It's not just proof, it is a process. And so you 00:50:06.674 --> 00:50:12.312 - can get some improvement plan by plan to make sure you're hitting your marks. So there's only 16 planes 00:50:12.312 --> 00:50:17.896 - in the catalog. So modeling all of those once, and then being able to make sure all of the details for 00:50:17.896 --> 00:50:19.902 - them meet whatever target we've hit. 00:50:20.066 --> 00:50:25.818 - might, would probably be less than $20,000. So that's a real, you know, if we're not doing blower door 00:50:25.818 --> 00:50:31.849 - tests, we're modeling them all ahead of time because we're repeating plans, that could be really efficient. 00:50:31.849 --> 00:50:37.713 - On that modeling, could it actually use the home energy, the department energy home energy rating model? 00:50:37.713 --> 00:50:43.409 - I will have to admit that I would need to look that one up. I do know that we've used to that before. 00:50:43.409 --> 00:50:47.262 - It's been a couple of years. I do remember it as being approachable. 00:50:47.426 --> 00:50:53.901 - But typically you're trying to get to an overall rating. HRS is the way that our code works. 00:50:53.901 --> 00:51:01.003 - It's a HRS score. I will have to admit I need to do some research to see how all of these interact in 00:51:01.003 --> 00:51:08.592 - detail. Is there a reason why we wouldn't do Energy Star? So from a whole home perspective, my understanding 00:51:08.592 --> 00:51:15.554 - is DOE home energy score is the kind of approach. Energy Star does have a home upgrade program, but 00:51:15.554 --> 00:51:17.086 - that's more about the 00:51:17.794 --> 00:51:23.327 - a set of measures that you can implement that are efficient. So I think Home Energy Score is the federal 00:51:23.327 --> 00:51:28.650 - government's product for building efficiency, and it looks at things like advanced installation that 00:51:28.650 --> 00:51:33.919 - go above base code. It does look at appliances. There might be limitations there, too, depending on 00:51:33.919 --> 00:51:39.189 - the role of the RDC as petitioner here versus selling lots and what you can actually control there. 00:51:39.189 --> 00:51:41.982 - So there might be some limitations that don't apply. 00:51:44.258 --> 00:51:50.865 - Specifications of appliances are something that I think we could reasonably require. It is not unusual 00:51:50.865 --> 00:51:57.535 - for a developer like the RDC as a private corporation to require a certain level of finishes, appliance 00:51:57.535 --> 00:52:03.949 - specs, et cetera, selling lots to builders. That's very industry standard. And so I think requiring 00:52:03.949 --> 00:52:10.620 - Energy Star appliances is something that absolutely could be done, which won't have a huge cost impact, 00:52:10.620 --> 00:52:11.518 - which I think 00:52:11.682 --> 00:52:18.320 - might happen otherwise, but it'll make sure people are paying attention to it. So that would be another 00:52:18.320 --> 00:52:24.830 - really low cost change. I just want to clarify that Energy Star is a home energy rating tool, and you 00:52:24.830 --> 00:52:31.722 - can have a one star to a five plus star as far as efficiency rating. That is a federal government standard. 00:52:31.722 --> 00:52:36.190 - It is often used in residential construction. It's used here locally. 00:52:36.290 --> 00:52:43.195 - So just to say that if you do land on a rating system, that's gonna be the easiest to attain here. So 00:52:43.195 --> 00:52:49.964 - from a reasonable condition standpoint, as we look on this, from a digital standpoint on a modeling 00:52:49.964 --> 00:52:56.936 - standpoint, Ali, that is something that would be done on the pre-approved plans, be done by Flintlock, 00:52:56.936 --> 00:53:04.382 - be presented as far as part of the housing plans, and then agreeing to Energy Star appliances based upon what 00:53:04.642 --> 00:53:11.786 - that is something that's reasonable and will not add additional, it'll allow minimal cost to the residences 00:53:11.786 --> 00:53:18.400 - in order to give them the most efficient thing long-term utility-wise. Okay. My experience has been 00:53:18.400 --> 00:53:25.213 - Energy Star Appliances, reasonable and easy to add. And you can find one that's still good at the same 00:53:25.213 --> 00:53:30.174 - cost as an off-the-shelf thing you would have bought at Home Depot anyway. 00:53:34.818 --> 00:53:41.460 - Thank you for that discussion. Are there any other comments or questions about this particular condition 00:53:41.460 --> 00:53:47.849 - before we move on to some of the transportation and sidewalk questions? Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank 00:53:47.849 --> 00:53:54.744 - you for those comments, and it's really helpful to kind of hear the various perspectives to get to something 00:53:54.744 --> 00:54:01.196 - that is, again, most useful for the energy efficiency as well as most cost effective for the purposes 00:54:01.196 --> 00:54:02.398 - of sustainability. 00:54:03.298 --> 00:54:09.367 - I'm just looking through and maybe it's classified under land use as opposed to transportation under 00:54:09.367 --> 00:54:14.954 - the conditions, but there's discussion about, you know, plausibly there we have standards in 00:54:14.954 --> 00:54:21.263 - the transportation plan and there's questions about looking at how to align the plan for the Hopel South 00:54:21.263 --> 00:54:27.392 - PUD with the transportation plan. I don't know if there's any, again, either questions or comments in 00:54:27.392 --> 00:54:31.838 - terms of launching a discussion on those elements as part of our meeting. 00:54:34.434 --> 00:54:42.183 - I think in the past we talked about them together, eight, nine, and 10, is that right? Go ahead, Councilman. 00:54:42.183 --> 00:54:49.719 - Again here, I think there's been differences from what assumptions were and how it was being interpreted. 00:54:49.719 --> 00:54:56.828 - First of all, just agreeing with prior remarks that the UDO and the transportation plan itself need 00:54:56.828 --> 00:55:02.302 - more flexibility to vary the right-of-way dedication based on whether or not 00:55:02.530 --> 00:55:07.893 - which optional components of a street cross-section you're including. So in particular, the tables in 00:55:07.893 --> 00:55:13.362 - the UDO allow for parking lanes that are optional. And so if you don't have that, the right-of-way then 00:55:13.362 --> 00:55:18.935 - becomes oversized, and that's a barrier. So we actually do need to improve our UDO and the transportation 00:55:18.935 --> 00:55:24.194 - plan on that front to allow it to vary. My intent with reasonable conditions eight and nine was not 00:55:24.194 --> 00:55:29.662 - to revert, and I don't think, it doesn't say this, but it maybe wasn't explicit to the contrary either, 00:55:29.826 --> 00:55:36.172 - The intent was not to widen the right-of-way dedication and any more either at all or any more than 00:55:36.172 --> 00:55:42.581 - is strictly required to meet the dimensional standards that are being sought for the sidewalk widths 00:55:42.581 --> 00:55:49.054 - themselves and so The right-of-way can be right-sized to what the street cross-section actually would 00:55:49.054 --> 00:55:55.590 - look like I guess as a way to think about that and so what was intended here is to do six foot minimum 00:55:55.590 --> 00:55:56.542 - sidewalk width 00:55:56.642 --> 00:56:02.877 - which is what we used on First Street when we remade that in Hopewell. It is what's required generally 00:56:02.877 --> 00:56:08.990 - by the transportation plan for this type of street, for rezones and subdivisions. With no exceptions 00:56:08.990 --> 00:56:15.286 - that I'm aware of, we do require it of every other petitioner going through a situation like this. And, 00:56:15.286 --> 00:56:18.494 - you know, opinions can vary here. I walk on a lot of 00:56:18.818 --> 00:56:24.311 - sidewalks and older infrastructure. And I think there's a really meaningful difference between a four 00:56:24.311 --> 00:56:29.911 - and five foot sidewalk and a really meaningful difference between a five and six foot sidewalk in terms 00:56:29.911 --> 00:56:35.403 - of how that functions for multiple people, for people in mobility, you know, with mobility, assistive 00:56:35.403 --> 00:56:40.788 - mobility devices. And so for a variety of reasons, I think while it might seem like we're quibbling 00:56:40.788 --> 00:56:45.150 - over 12 inches of pavement, I actually do think it matters quite a lot from both 00:56:45.410 --> 00:56:51.716 - consistency of following the same rules we require others to follow, but also actually just the quality 00:56:51.716 --> 00:56:58.144 - of the infrastructure for choices we're making that are probably gonna last 100 years. And so the upshot, 00:56:58.144 --> 00:57:04.208 - and then yeah, so I'm gonna talk about reasonable condition 10 as well, which is about a tree plot, 00:57:04.208 --> 00:57:10.271 - because they're kind of, the impact of them can be thought of collectively. So the second component 00:57:10.271 --> 00:57:13.182 - actually, so that was RC8, Y is six foot width, 00:57:13.506 --> 00:57:20.914 - sidewalk width, RC9 is proposing an eight-foot sidewalk width for the central paths that are not adjacent 00:57:20.914 --> 00:57:27.973 - to a street. I think this is consistent with what the planning staff recommendation was in the first 00:57:27.973 --> 00:57:34.961 - plan commission meeting. They were calling them multi-use paths and suggesting eight feet. Based on 00:57:34.961 --> 00:57:41.950 - development elsewhere, I feel like a wider pedestrian corridor, well, multi-use corridor, actually, 00:57:42.434 --> 00:57:50.379 - bicycles are also allowed and maybe probably we'll be using them to access the fronts of homes and porches 00:57:50.379 --> 00:57:58.547 - and things, that eight feet would help this to function a lot more like a front. And based on the renderings, 00:57:58.547 --> 00:58:05.973 - the designs, it seems like there's room for that without losing lots themselves for the eight foot. 00:58:05.973 --> 00:58:08.126 - So we could talk about that. 00:58:08.354 --> 00:58:14.494 - Reasonable condition 10 is about tree plots. So tree plots are included in almost all of the proposed 00:58:14.494 --> 00:58:21.056 - site map. The exceptions are the north side of Wiley. And again, this is an area where I believe consistency 00:58:21.056 --> 00:58:27.076 - with what we require of others is important here. I also think monolithic sidewalks, those that are 00:58:27.076 --> 00:58:33.277 - immediately adjacent to a street, are just something we consider substandard in our comprehensive plan 00:58:33.277 --> 00:58:34.782 - and transportation plan. 00:58:35.106 --> 00:58:41.156 - They exist in our community, but we don't want them to. And we want to improve them. And when you redevelop 00:58:41.156 --> 00:58:46.815 - a whole multi-block area in a rezone and with a subdivision, you would generally be required to come 00:58:46.815 --> 00:58:52.529 - into compliance on that front. And so if we did with what's actually a five-foot tree plot, there was 00:58:52.529 --> 00:58:58.468 - some confusion on that point initially, too, because one part of the transportation plan shows a six-foot 00:58:58.468 --> 00:59:04.350 - tree plot, and another shows a five-foot tree plot. So five-foot's fine. I think that's what we've done. 00:59:04.482 --> 00:59:11.581 - in places. And as far as the impact of all this, basically you would have a tree plot now on Wiley Street 00:59:11.581 --> 00:59:18.545 - where it's physically possible and not planned on the north side of the street. You would have six foot 00:59:18.545 --> 00:59:25.443 - sidewalks instead of five foot sidewalks where those sidewalks are running right along the street with 00:59:25.443 --> 00:59:32.542 - a tree plot and then next to the street. I think, again, curious for feedback on this from Flintlock, but 00:59:33.442 --> 00:59:39.638 - My gut is you don't need to lose any lots and that it just shrinks them by about a foot and a half per 00:59:39.638 --> 00:59:45.774 - lot. And so looking at block nine in particular, in the middle, on the north-south dimension, you end 00:59:45.774 --> 00:59:51.789 - up losing seven feet. That's the tree plot, which is five feet, and two sidewalks that get wider by 00:59:51.789 --> 00:59:58.226 - a foot. So if you lose seven feet on this north-south dimension, that's the biggest space loss implication 00:59:58.226 --> 01:00:03.038 - of this. What is the upshot of that? And you've basically got four rows of lots 01:00:03.394 --> 01:00:10.130 - running east-west across Block 9. So if you lose a little more than a foot and a half from each of those 01:00:10.130 --> 01:00:16.930 - lots, you've made up that seven feet of space. I don't know if that's actually exactly right or possible, 01:00:16.930 --> 01:00:23.730 - but I think discussion on that would be helpful. But my gut is you would just downsize the lots slightly, 01:00:23.730 --> 01:00:28.862 - and the homes would have slightly lower setback than they're planned right now. 01:00:29.090 --> 01:00:35.050 - I'm also a little unclear, but I think there's some flexibility in which homes get built on which lot 01:00:35.050 --> 01:00:41.185 - and all that there actually is like some autonomy for Builders to choose which one and so I assume again 01:00:41.185 --> 01:00:47.496 - That as described we don't actually have to lose any lots, but but I would be curious for some conversation 01:00:47.496 --> 01:00:53.456 - there. Thank you Ali could you bring up could you bring up that map so the public as a whole can take 01:00:53.456 --> 01:00:56.670 - a look in regards to the area that Matt's referring to 01:00:57.538 --> 01:01:07.007 - Yes, I also was going to ask is I know we're showing things that have been submitted. Can we look at 01:01:07.007 --> 01:01:16.851 - a Google Street view of Wiley that our position might be more clear if we look at Wiley? Oh, yeah, let's 01:01:16.851 --> 01:01:23.038 - go ahead and do that. I'll answer the dimensional question first. 01:01:23.138 --> 01:01:29.989 - Yes, you're absolutely right. The monolithic sidewalk on Wiley is not about dimensional constraints. 01:01:29.989 --> 01:01:37.043 - We have a setback from Wiley that is a it's the surface edge of the parking lot right now is what we're 01:01:37.043 --> 01:01:43.826 - using as a setback. And so there is space for a tree plot and a sidewalk on Wiley. And the right of 01:01:43.826 --> 01:01:50.812 - way on first is pretty oversized. And so the other reality is if we got down to the inch on that north 01:01:50.812 --> 01:01:53.118 - south block being tight, we could 01:01:53.506 --> 01:02:00.571 - you know, vacate 12 inches of right of way on first street. There's like 10 feet behind the sidewalk, 01:02:00.571 --> 01:02:07.774 - I think, you know, there's a lot of extra space behind the sidewalk. So we could shift everything north 01:02:07.774 --> 01:02:15.323 - 18 inches. If we did get tight, but I don't think that we would. The reason that we are suggesting retaining 01:02:15.323 --> 01:02:22.942 - the monolithic sidewalk on Wiley is that there is an existing row of trees on Wiley that would be impacted by 01:02:23.042 --> 01:02:29.406 - every variation of changing the sidewalk that we looked at. Wiley right now is one way. And so it's 01:02:29.406 --> 01:02:35.770 - a really low traffic, low speed street. I agree with you. We don't do monolithic sidewalks. Anytime 01:02:35.770 --> 01:02:42.325 - that we have any sort of traffic speed that is, you know, I have a four year old and a seven year old. 01:02:42.325 --> 01:02:48.816 - We walk on sidewalks a lot. We have little kids on bikes a lot. A monolithic sidewalk on a high speed 01:02:48.816 --> 01:02:51.998 - street is really unpleasant and often unsafe. And 01:02:52.130 --> 01:02:58.722 - Low speed historic streets like this often do have what we would call a monolithic or back curb sidewalk 01:02:58.722 --> 01:03:05.063 - with no space. And it can be perfectly pleasant at the right speeds. We would not have proposed this 01:03:05.063 --> 01:03:11.467 - on any of the other streets in the neighborhood, but this is our lowest speed, lowest traffic one-way 01:03:11.467 --> 01:03:17.808 - street. And in most of the aerials, a lot of residents park along the side of the street. And so you 01:03:17.808 --> 01:03:22.014 - get some natural protection on this side from the cars themselves. 01:03:22.850 --> 01:03:31.030 - Retaining the sidewalk in place on Wiley lets us keep this row of trees. We've been working on foundation 01:03:31.030 --> 01:03:38.747 - designs and porch placements that let us save this entire row of trees, which we think has a really 01:03:38.747 --> 01:03:46.078 - big impact on all of these residents, several of whom we heard from in public engagement about 01:03:46.434 --> 01:03:52.287 - preserving some of the character of their street. And so while yes, we could get a tree plot in and 01:03:52.287 --> 01:03:58.432 - we absolutely could plant new trees, I think we all are familiar with new neighborhoods that have little 01:03:58.432 --> 01:04:04.284 - three inch caliper trees. It takes a long time for them to make much of an impact. And because this 01:04:04.284 --> 01:04:10.195 - was a parking lot islands like this, we've got lots of variety of species, right? And I'm not saying 01:04:10.195 --> 01:04:14.526 - we might not lose some of the wall of evergreens, but it's a nice row of, 01:04:14.946 --> 01:04:21.583 - practical neighborhood trees that would soften the change for neighbors across the street at first, 01:04:21.583 --> 01:04:28.420 - which is why it's currently in there as this proposal. Council Member Sossberg and then Council Member 01:04:28.420 --> 01:04:35.190 - Rowe. I appreciate that. I guess I'm just, I'm also looking at this Google Street View on my computer 01:04:35.190 --> 01:04:41.961 - and that picture's from May of 2019 and I've actually driven down Wiley and I'm trying to remember if 01:04:41.961 --> 01:04:44.350 - all of those trees are still there. 01:04:44.642 --> 01:04:50.895 - because I feel like they're not all still there. Like that there are some, but not as many as is shown 01:04:50.895 --> 01:04:57.027 - on the street view. Can anybody confirm that memory for me? Because right now I just kind of want to 01:04:57.027 --> 01:05:03.522 - like get up and go drive down Wiley and then come back, but that's not practical. That's a valid question. 01:05:03.522 --> 01:05:09.775 - I just pulled up the latest one that pops up. So that's a good question. Does anybody know off the top 01:05:09.775 --> 01:05:10.686 - of their head? 01:05:13.442 --> 01:05:18.869 - I walked in recently, I don't remember, but I can't speak to the comparison either. I mean. I can't 01:05:18.869 --> 01:05:24.351 - speak to the actual count. There are less than there were in the Google map. But the question I have 01:05:24.351 --> 01:05:29.886 - in regards to it, if we're talking tree preservation in regards to it, what's the species? What's the 01:05:29.886 --> 01:05:35.368 - life of these that we're looking to do that? Because we're looking at doing a modeled community with 01:05:35.368 --> 01:05:40.958 - the best aesthetic look at the lowest cost, with the best. So the monolithic sidewalk, while it stays, 01:05:41.506 --> 01:05:47.270 - from an aesthetic standpoint, if we're in a new community at this present moment, we have the space, 01:05:47.270 --> 01:05:52.976 - you know, what's the cost, what's the cost benefit trade off to do that? I don't wanna lose a tree, 01:05:52.976 --> 01:05:58.968 - but you know, as you said earlier, Ali, you know, the best time to have planted a new tree was 100 years 01:05:58.968 --> 01:06:05.017 - ago. So what is the variety of the species and such, and when we're trying to attain this model community 01:06:05.017 --> 01:06:07.870 - that is going to outlast everybody at this table? 01:06:12.898 --> 01:06:23.420 - Dave, were you? Well, Matt, go ahead if it was relevant to Randy's comment. I think they probably all 01:06:23.420 --> 01:06:34.149 - are. I don't know. Well, I just want to make a comment. Condition 8 is simply six foot minimum sidewalk 01:06:34.149 --> 01:06:41.886 - width. Having spent a couple of decades in the council sidewalk committee, 01:06:42.434 --> 01:06:49.500 - Um, you know, our preference was always for a buffer tree plot. Um, it wasn't always available. Um, 01:06:49.500 --> 01:06:56.496 - obviously it was cost prohibitive in areas where we had to get purchase right of way and so forth, 01:06:56.496 --> 01:07:03.704 - but we, but we certainly required developers to put those tree plots in and it's kind of a shame that 01:07:03.704 --> 01:07:08.862 - we're, that, that, that we may not do it here, but, um, apart from that, 01:07:09.314 --> 01:07:16.862 - Maximizing sidewalks to six feet my mind is necessary just because it minimizes conflict between bicycles 01:07:16.862 --> 01:07:24.125 - and pedestrians and in Bloomington, of course Motorized, you know electric scooters are allowed to be 01:07:24.125 --> 01:07:31.530 - on sidewalks as well So You know if we're going to minimize conflict between pedestrians and especially 01:07:31.530 --> 01:07:33.310 - impaired pedestrians and 01:07:34.146 --> 01:07:41.632 - and motorized vehicles like scooters and bicycles and things like that. I think the greater width a 01:07:41.632 --> 01:07:49.193 - foot is minimally what we should ask for. Ellie, is there a way, just because one of the things that 01:07:49.193 --> 01:07:53.310 - had come up was potentially what tradeoffs might exist 01:07:53.442 --> 01:08:00.152 - with some of these questions and I'm just wondering, you did touch on that earlier, but just now that 01:08:00.152 --> 01:08:06.731 - we're talking specifically about these specific conditions, if you could help us with understanding 01:08:06.731 --> 01:08:13.638 - what the trade-offs might be or how we could accommodate wider PsyDocs with minimal impact on the number 01:08:13.638 --> 01:08:20.348 - of units and just help walk us through that. I think the short answer is, and let me, I'll share this 01:08:20.348 --> 01:08:22.782 - screen again so we can look at this. 01:08:23.458 --> 01:08:30.113 - My apologies, sharing in Google Slides, we've always got to start with this little box and then get 01:08:30.113 --> 01:08:37.166 - it on our slide. The additional one foot inside walk on First Street is no change. There's no dimensional 01:08:37.166 --> 01:08:43.887 - impact whatsoever. On Fairview, we think we can make it work. We get a little closer to porches, but 01:08:43.887 --> 01:08:47.614 - having looked at that, we think we're okay on Fairview. 01:08:47.746 --> 01:08:54.699 - Jackson, we have two units that it gets really tight on. We might be able to, swapping out some units, 01:08:54.699 --> 01:09:01.449 - make it work on Jackson. So Jackson is a maybe. I'll clarify too, the intention is that the RDC has 01:09:01.449 --> 01:09:08.604 - some flexibility to switch different plans on different lots, but that when they sell them to developers, 01:09:08.604 --> 01:09:14.206 - that the plan itself is fixed. And so there's some of this Tetris that can happen. 01:09:14.338 --> 01:09:22.776 - And when we went and looked at all of our scenarios, we were accounting for plans we could switch with 01:09:22.776 --> 01:09:31.296 - a smaller one in the law students. The five foot to six foot I think is achievable is the short answer. 01:09:31.296 --> 01:09:39.652 - Trade off on Wiley is purely existing trees. And one of these conditions is the trickiest, I think is 01:09:39.652 --> 01:09:44.158 - the most impactful, is shifting our internal sidewalks 01:09:44.386 --> 01:09:50.658 - from five feet to eight feet, which does have a major impact. We lose two units here that we don't have 01:09:50.658 --> 01:09:56.931 - another unit that is that dimension. Those are our two little micro units. We don't have something else 01:09:56.931 --> 01:10:03.022 - that could go back in that place. And because it's wrapping it on two sides, we would lose those two 01:10:03.022 --> 01:10:05.374 - units. We couldn't put something back. 01:10:05.474 --> 01:10:13.244 - And then our three accessible units here could be switched for a non-accessible unit, but we would lose 01:10:13.244 --> 01:10:21.238 - three accessible units. So the block 10 sidewalk going to eight feet would be really negatively impactful. 01:10:21.238 --> 01:10:28.933 - I think everywhere else, the six foot sidewalk could work. I think the eight foot sidewalk could work. 01:10:28.933 --> 01:10:34.686 - It's different character than pocket neighborhoods are typically built with. 01:10:34.946 --> 01:10:41.622 - That's not kind of the feel generally of those as they've been built elsewhere in the country. But I 01:10:41.622 --> 01:10:48.629 - think it could dimensionally be accomplished. But the block 10 eight foot sidewalk was our most impactful 01:10:48.629 --> 01:10:55.239 - for losing units and losing accessible units. Would there be any way to consider, since I hear some 01:10:55.239 --> 01:10:59.998 - of the interest in the wider sidewalks is to accommodate a mix of uses, 01:11:00.098 --> 01:11:06.569 - And since you're saying that it's the internal sidewalks that may have more limitations on the ability 01:11:06.569 --> 01:11:12.851 - to accommodate that wider without sacrificing either units or type of units, do you have a sense of 01:11:12.851 --> 01:11:19.259 - what the typical slower versus faster speeds might be on the streets in terms of where the shared use 01:11:19.259 --> 01:11:25.604 - is happening? Is the shared use happening on the sidewalk, or is it more likely that it might happen 01:11:25.604 --> 01:11:29.310 - on the street in terms of, anyway, I'm just interested in, 01:11:29.538 --> 01:11:40.676 - learning more about what anybody thinks about those questions. I wasn't going to answer that question 01:11:40.676 --> 01:11:53.342 - though. Is that okay? Yes, I was just wanting to get in a queue. It is just about the monolithic sidewalk on Wiley. 01:11:54.690 --> 01:12:00.634 - They are just dangerous by design. And it really doesn't matter what a speed might be. I mean, obviously, 01:12:00.634 --> 01:12:06.355 - if you get hit by someone going 10 miles per hour, you're most likely going to live. But if that's an 01:12:06.355 --> 01:12:12.299 - SUV, you're actually probably going to die. We've had that happen in downtown Bloomington. Someone rolled 01:12:12.299 --> 01:12:17.907 - from a stop sign and turned right and killed someone. So I don't like that. But also, I will say, I 01:12:17.907 --> 01:12:19.870 - just called planning to talk about 01:12:20.002 --> 01:12:27.638 - subdivision that I'm curious about and like this is a subdivision right this PUD is a new subdivision 01:12:27.638 --> 01:12:35.349 - and Where I wanted to put it it also needed the five foot tree plot and then the six foot sidewalk and 01:12:35.349 --> 01:12:42.835 - it couldn't fit on the property and it was a it was 100% a deal-breaker like Planning did would not 01:12:42.835 --> 01:12:46.878 - consider anything different. So I think the idea that 01:12:47.042 --> 01:12:53.660 - Like, why does the RDC get them to not put a five-foot tree plot and a six-foot sidewalk in a place 01:12:53.660 --> 01:13:00.344 - that is a deal breaker for anybody else trying to develop in the city? I do think that is a very bad 01:13:00.344 --> 01:13:07.161 - precedent. Are you following that, Andy? I'm sorry, you just look confused. OK, yes, I'm sorry. I just 01:13:07.161 --> 01:13:13.911 - want to make sure I was making sense that I couldn't even consider developing a property. And we have 01:13:13.911 --> 01:13:17.022 - talked a lot that I think that is a really bad 01:13:17.250 --> 01:13:24.732 - precedent to set and With other developments that happen trees are great. Everybody loves them when 01:13:24.732 --> 01:13:32.214 - a developer has to uproot trees and or cut them down they have to put new ones in and I get it that 01:13:32.214 --> 01:13:40.071 - they're smaller, but That's just kind of what has to happen to follow the rules and to create the safest 01:13:40.071 --> 01:13:46.206 - sidewalk possible I mean when we're talking about a tree plot and then a sidewalk 01:13:46.882 --> 01:13:53.318 - It's two buffers, right? Because people make mistakes when they're driving. And it is. You've got the 01:13:53.318 --> 01:13:59.754 - space of the five feet, and you've got the trees, and you've got this really awesome buffer where you 01:13:59.754 --> 01:14:06.379 - actually would let your kids ride a bike. I think when we have a monolithic sidewalk, most people choose 01:14:06.379 --> 01:14:12.815 - the street, and especially a four-foot sidewalk. So I think these are really important additions. And 01:14:12.815 --> 01:14:16.222 - I just want to get that out there. There's no button. 01:14:18.370 --> 01:14:24.411 - One brief additional comment. I mean, I appreciate the existing trees. I've walked the site a number 01:14:24.411 --> 01:14:30.393 - of times now. But again, we're talking about 100-year decisions. And you'll see weird little places 01:14:30.393 --> 01:14:36.494 - around Bloomington where the sidewalk is going as normal. And then it has a crescent-shaped cutout in 01:14:36.494 --> 01:14:42.535 - the sidewalk that makes it maybe not wide enough or just kind of weird, maybe a tripping hazard. And 01:14:42.535 --> 01:14:48.158 - that's because a tree was there. And we built the sidewalk around the tree. And street trees. 01:14:49.026 --> 01:14:55.782 - are amazing and we need them and we would have them here over time. But there is this temporal dimension 01:14:55.782 --> 01:15:02.216 - of like they, you know, I think that's the infrastructure and the consistency of how we enforce and 01:15:02.216 --> 01:15:08.843 - require infrastructure to be built are bigger considerations to me. I really appreciate the additional 01:15:08.843 --> 01:15:15.277 - slide on the eight foot sort of central sidewalks. I was getting the same impression from, which is 01:15:15.277 --> 01:15:18.430 - from my own look, like looking at the site plan. 01:15:18.658 --> 01:15:25.079 - I think it would still be valuable for block nine, again, because if we're trying to make this like 01:15:25.079 --> 01:15:31.627 - a front, I think you're going to have multiple uses for sure with bicycles and things that eight feet 01:15:31.627 --> 01:15:38.241 - would work better there. And if that's achievable, I would still favor that. I would be perfectly fine 01:15:38.241 --> 01:15:44.918 - sticking with six foot as the minimum for all other sidewalks, whether adjacent to a street or internal 01:15:44.918 --> 01:15:47.422 - elsewhere. And I would think that that 01:15:47.650 --> 01:15:55.175 - could be accommodated everywhere unless some of the homes are literally built to the lot lines on both 01:15:55.175 --> 01:16:03.065 - sides. So that might get us to a situation of truly not losing any lots, but would, I guess, be interesting 01:16:03.065 --> 01:16:10.590 - if that's the case. Ali, can you bring that map up again of what you're saying we're gonna lose, where 01:16:10.590 --> 01:16:14.974 - those lots will be lost by increasing the sidewalk, please? 01:16:16.706 --> 01:16:23.478 - I just want everybody to be able to see and articulate what is being discussed. And I'll weigh in a 01:16:23.478 --> 01:16:30.521 - little bit too. I think hearing such strong opinions about monolithic sidewalks generally, I think it's 01:16:30.521 --> 01:16:37.429 - worth saying Wiley Street has and lots of historic streets in Bloomington and other cities have those 01:16:37.429 --> 01:16:43.998 - both sides of the street for blocks. And so maybe that's a good flag as well that some potential 01:16:44.258 --> 01:16:50.334 - additional attention is warranted on sidewalk replacement plans in places to accomplish that. I will 01:16:50.334 --> 01:16:56.710 - say to the first comment about the lack of flexibility, I'll really very explicitly say RDC is not asking 01:16:56.710 --> 01:17:02.786 - for special permission to be the only person that's given this flexibility, although it is a PUD, so 01:17:02.786 --> 01:17:08.862 - it does have custom street sections, and so we're going through all of the extra hurdles in terms of 01:17:08.862 --> 01:17:10.366 - additional requirements. 01:17:10.434 --> 01:17:16.792 - you know, additional standards in order to do things non-typically. But I will say we very explicitly 01:17:16.792 --> 01:17:22.775 - have champions to the engineering department that we think a very strict reading of the current 01:17:22.775 --> 01:17:29.320 - transportation plan already has the flexibility to have allowed you to do a narrower tree well, to allow 01:17:29.320 --> 01:17:35.739 - you to do a narrower sidewalk, and that flexibility exists in the transportation documents, and that's 01:17:35.739 --> 01:17:40.414 - really a process decision that the city could make internally, and should, 01:17:40.642 --> 01:17:48.987 - for a broader for everybody that that could be a benefit that we're really arguing everybody should 01:17:48.987 --> 01:17:57.332 - be able to use the flexibility that is built into the transportation plan right now. Flexibility is 01:17:57.332 --> 01:18:06.011 - good, but we're hearing things on six foot sidewalks and trees. So I'm back to how many units are gonna 01:18:06.011 --> 01:18:09.182 - lose. So this diagram is just the one 01:18:09.762 --> 01:18:15.419 - foot of extra sidewalk and this does take into account the locations where we could switch a unit for 01:18:15.419 --> 01:18:21.076 - a smaller unit and so that's why we've shown it to you as you know we've got two of the units I think 01:18:21.076 --> 01:18:26.678 - that are switching from a three-bedroom to a two or from a two to a one and so we've got a number of 01:18:26.678 --> 01:18:29.950 - bedrooms that we're losing to sort of show we're switching 01:18:30.050 --> 01:18:37.930 - 11 units would be lost overall, but most of those, again, are from the eight foot width change, not 01:18:37.930 --> 01:18:46.204 - the six foot. And most of our accessible units that are impacted are from that eight foot, not six foot. 01:18:46.204 --> 01:18:54.162 - So if we had the six, oh, excuse me, Hansbelle, go ahead. Sorry, you guys are the, come on. Well, it 01:18:54.162 --> 01:18:59.678 - doesn't have to be all or nothing, right? I mean, where we can reduce 01:19:00.066 --> 01:19:08.787 - or increase the interior sidewalk to eight feet is in that center block, right? Without losing any units, 01:19:08.787 --> 01:19:17.014 - so we could do that. We could keep it narrower on the western block. We could widen the sidewalk to 01:19:17.014 --> 01:19:25.571 - six feet on Wiley and Fairview and not on the west side of Jackson. I mean, it seems like we could make 01:19:25.571 --> 01:19:27.134 - a compromise here. 01:19:31.938 --> 01:19:40.782 - Ali then respond and then back to customer clarity. Okay, I think that I I I think I have a couple questions 01:19:40.782 --> 01:19:49.708 - in a comment. So My comment I'll do that first is I think that for the sake of continuity of the neighborhood 01:19:49.708 --> 01:19:57.984 - I think that it would be important to try to keep Continuity in terms of that eight foot sidewalk say 01:19:57.984 --> 01:20:00.094 - so I think in that middle 01:20:00.578 --> 01:20:07.455 - Block nine, you said eight foot would be okay in the center section, but would eight foot also be okay 01:20:07.455 --> 01:20:14.532 - in the north-south sections? Because it looks like they're- The north section between the large buildings 01:20:14.532 --> 01:20:21.409 - looks okay, the south building we were worried about. Okay, and so if the same width could happen, all 01:20:21.409 --> 01:20:28.286 - in block nine and then block 10 would all be the same width too, but they don't necessarily have to be 01:20:28.962 --> 01:20:36.243 - like match each other as long as they internally match. Does that make sense? So that then you don't 01:20:36.243 --> 01:20:44.101 - have, just so there's like continuity. That's like the comment. I just think that there should be continuity 01:20:44.101 --> 01:20:51.310 - there. And then one of the other questions I have is, Ali, if you could explain what the light pink 01:20:51.310 --> 01:20:57.438 - Xs mean versus the dark pink Xs. Because I'm not clear about what the difference is. 01:20:58.082 --> 01:21:05.612 - Yeah, the light pinks are the accessible units and the dark pinks are the non-light, they're not one 01:21:05.612 --> 01:21:13.216 - of our three types of accessible units. Okay, and then the other kind of question I have goes back to 01:21:13.216 --> 01:21:20.672 - those existing trees on Wiley. So, assuming that there are existing trees and I know that there are 01:21:20.672 --> 01:21:21.790 - at least some, 01:21:21.954 --> 01:21:27.058 - But because of the location of where they would be, wouldn't those existing trees end up being 01:21:27.058 --> 01:21:32.592 - on individuals' properties as opposed to actually being owned by the city? And that means that whoever 01:21:32.592 --> 01:21:38.287 - actually buys those properties could just cut them down any time they want. We currently have them shown. 01:21:38.287 --> 01:21:43.982 - We're showing that we're dedicating the right-of-way. We're dedicating the typical amount of right-of-way 01:21:43.982 --> 01:21:49.086 - on Wiley so that all those trees end up in the right-of-way and then become city street trees. 01:21:50.754 --> 01:21:58.383 - So even though they're not between the sidewalk and the street, they would still count as city street 01:21:58.383 --> 01:22:05.863 - trees? They'd be in the right of way, that's right. They would be on city property, not on personal 01:22:05.863 --> 01:22:13.791 - lots. The lot line ends at, more or less if you go walk the site, the lot line ends where the old asphalt 01:22:13.791 --> 01:22:19.102 - was. And those lots would still have the 12 foot setback off of Wiley? 01:22:20.226 --> 01:22:26.300 - That's what that extra 12 feet is. The larger setback is done. We laid it out so that it can be done 01:22:26.300 --> 01:22:32.434 - as right-of-way. It can be done as setback. But yeah, that's that 12-foot strip that we're leaving is 01:22:32.434 --> 01:22:38.447 - the tree strip. Wait, but that 12-foot strip is then going to be city right-of-way? I will admit, I 01:22:38.447 --> 01:22:44.762 - think we talked about it in both directions. I would have to go back and look at what the final decision 01:22:44.762 --> 01:22:46.686 - was from engineering on the way 01:22:47.010 --> 01:22:52.404 - Lay that out. I was remembering that it was in city right-of-way. I am now remembering you're right 01:22:52.404 --> 01:22:57.961 - There's a 12 foot setback that may have changed last minute in that third revision of the PUD But they 01:22:57.961 --> 01:23:03.409 - went back a couple times back and forth about the preferred way to lay that out Okay, I guess I mean 01:23:03.409 --> 01:23:08.318 - as I said last meeting like I wanted that 12 foot setback to be in there just so that then 01:23:08.418 --> 01:23:15.314 - you, because there's not otherwise much of a front setback anywhere else. And I wanted it to match the 01:23:15.314 --> 01:23:22.343 - other side of Wiley, at least sort of, to make it seem a little bit more continuous. But that just might 01:23:22.343 --> 01:23:29.238 - be something that also needs to look at. And kind of looking at Director Hiddle right now, because the 01:23:29.238 --> 01:23:35.933 - 12 foot setback would have to be from the right of way. And so if right of way was actually all the 01:23:35.933 --> 01:23:37.406 - way past those trees, 01:23:37.506 --> 01:23:44.024 - then you would have to set back from there before you could do the house, right? I think I'm mixing 01:23:44.024 --> 01:23:50.606 - and matching. So it's measured. Those could be done in a tree preservation easement, even if they're 01:23:50.606 --> 01:23:57.254 - in the setback. OK, I think that that just needs to be looked at a little bit more carefully in light 01:23:57.254 --> 01:23:58.558 - of this discussion. 01:24:03.746 --> 01:24:10.366 - I'm going to make it real simple. Whose responsibility for taking care of the trees, trimming them, 01:24:10.366 --> 01:24:16.390 - and dealing with them? Was it the homeowners, or is it going to be the city of Bloomington 01:24:16.390 --> 01:24:23.142 - or the redevelopment? If we leave the existing trees. You don't have to answer that question. I think 01:24:23.142 --> 01:24:29.894 - that that's what nobody knows right now. What we do know is if we put new trees in, whoever it is has 01:24:29.894 --> 01:24:32.542 - a tree that should last 100 years. Yes. 01:24:34.050 --> 01:24:40.262 - with maintenance and care as opposed to who's responsible. And given the hospital site that was previous 01:24:40.262 --> 01:24:46.415 - there and it was used as a berm, there are multiple different species of trees. And I am not a forester 01:24:46.415 --> 01:24:52.331 - or could tell you what they are. But just from looking, they're not the consistency that we look at 01:24:52.331 --> 01:24:58.248 - in our street trees. Go ahead. I just wanted to say, so I think what we're looking at here, looking 01:24:58.248 --> 01:25:03.454 - at the time and just the overall context here, I wanted to summarize kind of where I am 01:25:03.586 --> 01:25:09.464 - what an updated reasonable condition would look like across these couple. I'm still in favor of tree 01:25:09.464 --> 01:25:15.807 - plots everywhere that's physically possible, including on North Wiley, six-foot minimum sidewalks site-wide, 01:25:15.807 --> 01:25:21.626 - including internal sidewalks, and eight-foot where that's possible. And I think we had a little bit 01:25:21.626 --> 01:25:27.038 - of a hard time understanding here. A six-foot sidewalk shouldn't lead to any lot loss unless 01:25:27.298 --> 01:25:33.787 - Lot currently is planned with a home literally on the lot line on both sides and there's literally no 01:25:33.787 --> 01:25:40.276 - give and in those cases I'm guessing the unit could be swapped out But I'm happy to like follow up on 01:25:40.276 --> 01:25:46.701 - all that like off like after this meeting to like actually work out the details Because yeah, I know 01:25:46.701 --> 01:25:53.190 - we've got the other RC's to get you Where possible and then who and who would determine in the in the 01:25:53.190 --> 01:25:54.526 - reasonable condition 01:25:54.978 --> 01:26:01.100 - I think it might not be physically possible with the existing building on Block 10, at least for a portion 01:26:01.100 --> 01:26:06.821 - of it. And we encounter that with some regularity. First Street that we rebuilt west of the B Line. 01:26:06.821 --> 01:26:12.543 - There's a brick, I think it's a small commercial or multifamily building there. We did a monolithic 01:26:12.543 --> 01:26:13.630 - sidewalk for about 01:26:13.922 --> 01:26:19.661 - Whatever it is 40 feet adjacent to the building because of the grade It just wasn't possible and then 01:26:19.661 --> 01:26:25.570 - we went back to with a tree plot on 1st Street So right at first in the beeline in the northwest corner, 01:26:25.570 --> 01:26:31.366 - and so if that was needed in block 10 for instance That's what it was meant to address. Yeah, and then 01:26:31.366 --> 01:26:37.161 - who would Like who gets to adjudicate where it was possible or not possible Interpretation in the city 01:26:37.161 --> 01:26:39.806 - engineer. Okay. Yeah, okay. Okay. Thank you. I 01:26:42.562 --> 01:26:49.087 - Also, in the interest of time, I am not planning to advance or the reasonable condition related to lanes. 01:26:49.087 --> 01:26:55.244 - I think my opinion is still that we'd be better served by smaller alleys. And I think with advanced 01:26:55.244 --> 01:27:01.461 - planning, there were ways to do that that wouldn't have increased costs a lot. And we kind of worked 01:27:01.461 --> 01:27:07.741 - through those, though, with the fire chief last two weeks ago. And I think at this stage of the plan, 01:27:07.741 --> 01:27:11.742 - it's probably not feasible. And I don't think strictly necessary 01:27:11.938 --> 01:27:17.504 - The intent with it was to try to make sure we weren't losing lots and could accommodate the 01:27:17.504 --> 01:27:23.736 - other infrastructure. So if we can basically accommodate the other infrastructure anyway, then I would 01:27:23.736 --> 01:27:29.726 - say that reasonable condition could go away. Thank you. As a note about that reasonable condition. 01:27:30.978 --> 01:27:37.978 - Going back to the streetscapes that Ali shared earlier, which aren't on my screen right now, when she 01:27:37.978 --> 01:27:45.252 - talked about the lanes essentially being shared streets, there's also a note on that that then the target 01:27:45.252 --> 01:27:52.252 - speed is only 10 miles an hour. So if the lanes are having a targeted speed of 10 miles an hour, they 01:27:52.252 --> 01:27:59.252 - need to be designed such that that is the targeted speed. And right now, they are just straight shots 01:27:59.252 --> 01:28:00.350 - between houses. 01:28:02.274 --> 01:28:09.151 - there will certainly be people going far faster than 10 miles an hour right now. So I'm not sure how 01:28:09.151 --> 01:28:15.892 - that needs to be accommodated somehow, whether it should be a reasonable condition to do something 01:28:15.892 --> 01:28:22.769 - engineering-wise in terms of design to ensure that those lanes are limited as shared streets per the 01:28:22.769 --> 01:28:29.374 - transportation plan to a target speed of 10 miles an hour. I don't know if that's something that 01:28:30.210 --> 01:28:37.774 - is a reasonable way to kind of shift that reasonable condition. We have not typically found speeding 01:28:37.774 --> 01:28:45.338 - problems within alleys like this. We end up with a lot of 20 foot alleys in our work because of fire 01:28:45.338 --> 01:28:52.902 - code. And because you have so many driveways with people pulling in and out, and because they're not 01:28:52.902 --> 01:28:53.950 - contiguous at 01:28:54.338 --> 01:29:01.705 - another street, you can't speed down 600 feet of one to get up enough speed. We typically see those 01:29:01.705 --> 01:29:09.073 - have an approachable drive distance naturally. It's really hard to turn in there and get up to much 01:29:09.073 --> 01:29:16.514 - speed before you're slowing down again for the other end. I'm not saying no crazy teenager will ever 01:29:16.514 --> 01:29:19.166 - try it, but those typically do have 01:29:19.266 --> 01:29:27.285 - you know, decent operational, and that exists in lots of this kind of development nationally, you know, 01:29:27.285 --> 01:29:35.304 - by lots of people. Excellent. Go ahead, and then we should move on. I'm always hitting the button like, 01:29:35.304 --> 01:29:44.094 - hello, hello, hello, okay. I do think it might be interesting, as Hopi said, if that's okay that I call you Hopi. 01:29:44.258 --> 01:29:51.766 - To look at a reasonable condition for slowing speed, the PUD on South Dunn Street has nine foot alleys 01:29:51.766 --> 01:29:59.202 - and they had to add speed bumps because people were driving too fast in a nine foot alley. So I don't 01:29:59.202 --> 01:30:06.783 - know if Bloomington is unique. I don't think so about speeding in alleys. But we could go look at that. 01:30:06.783 --> 01:30:12.542 - Does the RDC have any opinion on that type of reasonable condition in terms of 01:30:13.186 --> 01:30:19.954 - designing those lanes in such a way as the target speed is 10 miles an hour. Quick question for our 01:30:19.954 --> 01:30:26.790 - consultant here. So tell, give us an idea of what we see, you see nationally in regards to how we do 01:30:26.790 --> 01:30:33.220 - it, because speed bumps are a pain, but you know, especially if we're dealing, huh? They work, 01:30:33.220 --> 01:30:39.582 - they work. Or do you do speed dips? Is there any other solutions that you've seen previously? 01:30:40.546 --> 01:30:46.989 - Are we going to be the first tables are the new one that everybody's doing, you know, poured integrally 01:30:46.989 --> 01:30:53.246 - into the concrete is typically the way that we see those done. We we could end up with some level of 01:30:53.246 --> 01:30:59.440 - pavement change is sometimes a way that we do it. Although the downside of that is then you end up, 01:30:59.440 --> 01:31:04.830 - you know, with pretty significant additional cost. You know, the difference in asphalt 01:31:04.994 --> 01:31:13.629 - or concrete and anything else is pretty significant. And so cost change is the biggest limitation to 01:31:13.629 --> 01:31:22.349 - that. We also just see enforcement as one of the things that can be most impactful. Speed cameras and 01:31:22.349 --> 01:31:31.838 - really aggressive ticketing can often get everybody in the habit of slowing down even more than a speed table. 01:31:32.834 --> 01:31:39.456 - So enforcement of it, you know, post the speed and then enforce that via existing mechanisms. Potentially 01:31:39.456 --> 01:31:45.890 - right there next to the police station can be another way to do that. Okay, Council Member Softer. I'm 01:31:45.890 --> 01:31:52.512 - not sure that enforcement in Bloomington will actually work out, but are we, legally I think neighborhood 01:31:52.512 --> 01:31:58.884 - streets have to be 25 miles an hour. Can we actually sign something that's only 10 miles an hour? I'm 01:31:58.884 --> 01:32:01.758 - kind of looking at Director Hiddle right now, 01:32:01.954 --> 01:32:09.380 - I'm not sure who would be the best person to answer that, because the engineer's not here. If not, is 01:32:09.380 --> 01:32:16.734 - the shared street design speed not enforceable that's in the transportation generally? Well, I think 01:32:16.734 --> 01:32:24.670 - that that's where it's through street design. It's designed using speed bumps or other things, and what I've 01:32:24.994 --> 01:32:32.175 - heard during some of the Greenway meetings last year was that then they just wouldn't have a speed limit 01:32:32.175 --> 01:32:39.289 - sign. It would be one of those recommended speed signs in terms of whatever thing it was on. But that's 01:32:39.289 --> 01:32:46.333 - where enforcement would, I think, be challenging. And that's like an Indiana State thing. I think that 01:32:46.333 --> 01:32:47.838 - Indiana State doesn't 01:32:48.514 --> 01:32:53.933 - I think neighborhood roads, I think, have to be 25 miles an hour. I really wish that Director Seabor 01:32:53.933 --> 01:32:59.351 - was here right now, but he's on vacation. Is it fair to say that we can, I mean, that's something we 01:32:59.351 --> 01:33:05.091 - can all talk about in terms of, I mean, general reasonable condition that says, you know, some enforcement 01:33:05.091 --> 01:33:09.598 - around speed and let that to engineers who could decide the best design to do that? 01:33:10.466 --> 01:33:16.105 - Fantastic. So should we move on? I'm mindful. I mean, I think the one that we wanted to spend the most 01:33:16.105 --> 01:33:21.634 - time talking about was permanent affordability. And so have we satisfied all of yours? Well, there's 01:33:21.634 --> 01:33:27.164 - reasonable condition 12. I think it could be very brief. It could share a high level here. Go ahead. 01:33:27.164 --> 01:33:33.022 - Please do it. And 13 that I suggested, short-term rentals, might be better suited as a written commitment. 01:33:33.022 --> 01:33:37.566 - Number 12 was about Roger Street. In the absence of much substantive conversation, 01:33:38.242 --> 01:33:45.410 - at the stage this was drafted and it not having been updated since, what needs to change is the right 01:33:45.410 --> 01:33:52.648 - of way dedication part of it. I think what's planned right now in the PUD is 31 feet from center line. 01:33:52.648 --> 01:33:59.676 - That would work and accommodate a 10-foot drive lane, 5-foot park lane. No, yeah. Is it no parking? 01:33:59.676 --> 01:34:05.438 - No, bike lane, that's it. 10-foot drive lane, 5-foot bike lane, 5-foot tree plot, 01:34:05.602 --> 01:34:11.489 - 10 foot sidewalk. So 10 foot sidewalk is what's required on the general urban street topology. It's 01:34:11.489 --> 01:34:17.553 - what we built in Hopewell already to the north of this on Roger Street. And that does get the sidewalk 01:34:17.553 --> 01:34:23.735 - within about a foot or so of the existing building. Again the right of way is already planned at a width 01:34:23.735 --> 01:34:30.270 - to accommodate this. I did talk to the city engineer about it who agreed that it is physically possible to put 01:34:31.042 --> 01:34:36.532 - those dimensional standards. So the right-of-way is smaller than what's in the transportation plan. 01:34:36.532 --> 01:34:42.297 - That's that modulation of right-of-way dedication that we do need in our UDO and need updates to reflect 01:34:42.297 --> 01:34:47.953 - that. But the street components, the 10-foot drive lane, the five-foot bike lane, five-foot tree plot, 01:34:47.953 --> 01:34:53.443 - 10-foot sidewalk, we don't have to compromise on those. We can build what's called for in our plans 01:34:53.443 --> 01:34:58.110 - within the planned right-of-way dedication. And again, the sidewalk gets relatively, 01:34:58.242 --> 01:35:04.216 - pretty close to the existing building for that short stretch of 15 feet or whatever it is, that little 01:35:04.216 --> 01:35:10.131 - bump out in the building. But I don't think that's unique in an urban setting. We have sidewalks that 01:35:10.131 --> 01:35:16.105 - are a foot or two from the existing police station, which I know is a potential use here. And actually 01:35:16.105 --> 01:35:21.962 - going to building edges of all over downtown. So I think that's feasible and the intent. And I would 01:35:21.962 --> 01:35:27.646 - update this to reflect that existing planned right of way dedication and just the dimensions that 01:35:29.122 --> 01:35:35.316 - So I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but if there's any clarifying questions. Can I ask a clarifying 01:35:35.316 --> 01:35:41.173 - question, Ali? In the models, when you come up with 11 to 14 units less, et cetera, et cetera, was that 01:35:41.173 --> 01:35:46.804 - assuming that we did all of the reasonable conditions? Or was that sort of on a case-by-case basis, 01:35:46.804 --> 01:35:50.014 - like as you were showing with the sidewalk question? OK. 01:35:50.242 --> 01:35:56.289 - Okay, so. We thought all of them was 14. We thought just the one feet of extra width was 11. Got it. 01:35:56.289 --> 01:36:02.277 - And then the Rogers question, I think the trade off there is losing all of the public parking along 01:36:02.277 --> 01:36:08.384 - Rogers. If I'm understanding the description of that street section, I think that's where those extra 01:36:08.384 --> 01:36:14.431 - feet are coming from, is we would lose all the parking spaces. No, no, there's no planned parking on 01:36:14.431 --> 01:36:18.622 - Rogers there. It's just the bike lane, I believe. I can double check. 01:36:18.946 --> 01:36:26.046 - Where the space is coming from is what would just otherwise be like grass remaining in that part of 01:36:26.046 --> 01:36:33.289 - the right-of-way. Our street section that we were currently showing has 10-foot lane from centerline, 01:36:33.289 --> 01:36:40.603 - parallel parking, and then an 8-foot sidewalk, which is called out in the transportation plan as being 01:36:40.603 --> 01:36:47.774 - acceptable width as a shared use path for limited stretches when needed to accommodate around tight. 01:36:47.906 --> 01:36:54.290 - So I think that's what's in the PUD right now is that street section. I can clarify, which was matching 01:36:54.290 --> 01:37:00.428 - the general urban street typology is what I was talking about as opposed to, yeah, what's proposed. 01:37:00.428 --> 01:37:06.689 - Yeah. Yeah. So I think just the trade off there is the parking, which would be used likely for public 01:37:06.689 --> 01:37:12.949 - use. I don't believe there is parking on that block of. Can you bring that up, Ali? Because we've got 01:37:12.949 --> 01:37:17.246 - a little discussion in regards to what the parallel parking and then. 01:37:17.890 --> 01:37:25.365 - And the section, if we actually look at the PUD proposal, the section of Rogers Street has the drive 01:37:25.365 --> 01:37:32.914 - lane, the bike lane, the tree plot, the sidewalk. There is no parking on either side of Rogers in the 01:37:32.914 --> 01:37:33.950 - PUD proposal. 01:37:34.722 --> 01:37:39.639 - Yeah, my apologies. I was looking at this exhibit when we first made this exhibit for the end. I was 01:37:39.639 --> 01:37:44.604 - sitting and looking at the screen. When we were looking at this exhibit that we made for engineering, 01:37:44.604 --> 01:37:49.861 - when they asked what the typical would be, we did have parallel parking there. You are correct. Engineering 01:37:49.861 --> 01:37:54.778 - has already removed that and moved it into the wider sidewalk. So my apologies. I was looking at the 01:37:54.778 --> 01:37:59.646 - wrong slide. So just to clarify. As I said, there were a lot of calibration rounds we went through. 01:38:00.066 --> 01:38:07.816 - So just to clarify, and this is reasonable condition 11, right? That reasonable condition 11 is 12, 01:38:07.816 --> 01:38:15.412 - sorry. That reasonable condition 12 is already essentially considered. It's a five foot sidewalk. 01:38:15.412 --> 01:38:23.239 - Five foot, okay, okay. But the effect that Ali was saying is no longer, is now a moot point. Is that 01:38:23.239 --> 01:38:29.982 - what I've heard? The engineer confirmed for me that it fits with the 10 foot sidewalk. 01:38:30.530 --> 01:38:36.277 - The cross-section that I described which matches the general urban street typology does fit I believe 01:38:36.277 --> 01:38:42.025 - miss Thurman was just communicating Oh the idea of a wider sidewalk being planned for now, but that's 01:38:42.025 --> 01:38:47.941 - not what's in the PUD right now The PUD calls for a five-foot sidewalk in the Rogers cross-section right 01:38:47.941 --> 01:38:53.576 - now. Excellent The clarification needs to be that that would be adapted into a 10-foot in that area 01:38:53.576 --> 01:38:59.774 - and it only gets us close to the 714 building. Yeah, it's Okay, should we move on to permanent affordability? 01:39:00.802 --> 01:39:07.139 - We are targeting 830 and so let's let's move on to permanent affordability. So we've got two conditions 01:39:07.139 --> 01:39:13.354 - that have been on five actually. So just for oh it's just for OK. I suppose we could reconsider five. 01:39:13.354 --> 01:39:16.766 - Well that's fine. I just appreciate that clarification. 01:39:17.250 --> 01:39:24.240 - So the main condition apparently that is on the table is that would require at least 50% of hopeful 01:39:24.240 --> 01:39:31.231 - units or properties to remain permanently affordable with affordable homes of proportionate in size 01:39:31.231 --> 01:39:38.221 - to embed your mix to market rate homes and comparable in quality and appearance. Now one question I 01:39:38.221 --> 01:39:42.206 - have is what's the income target for that affordability? 01:39:45.250 --> 01:39:55.792 - What is on the RC right now is 35% for households earning at or below 120% AMI and then 15% of total 01:39:55.792 --> 01:40:01.950 - units reserved for households earning at or below 90% AMI. 01:40:08.930 --> 01:40:17.712 - you'd like to add as the sponsor comes from Mr. Stossberger? I guess something I would like to add is 01:40:17.712 --> 01:40:26.322 - potentially an anchor is that this PUD is working under an older version of the UDO and the updated 01:40:26.322 --> 01:40:33.726 - version of the UDO requires a PUD to have 25% of units at 90% AMI. So for any PUD now 01:40:34.338 --> 01:40:42.658 - being considered. That is what is necessary. This does not get to that level. It only has 15 percent 01:40:42.658 --> 01:40:50.895 - of units at the 90 percent AMI and then a much more flexible 35 percent at 120 percent AMI. I guess 01:40:50.895 --> 01:40:59.215 - what I want to add about the 120 is that is pretty much the household income where people can buy on 01:40:59.215 --> 01:41:00.862 - the regular market. 01:41:01.154 --> 01:41:10.917 - Somebody looking at a house in this PUD can also buy a house some homes for sale right now in Prospect 01:41:10.917 --> 01:41:18.974 - Hill Sure, I'll also just add kind of philosophically and and also going back to the 01:41:19.106 --> 01:41:27.519 - to the original PUD report with those originally, as proposed, approximately 71% of the units are affordable 01:41:27.519 --> 01:41:35.470 - under 100% AMI in terms of that sheet. So we're not even asking for as much as is being presented. And 01:41:35.470 --> 01:41:43.266 - I think that the key difference there is the permanent affordability piece. And for me, it's kind of 01:41:43.266 --> 01:41:45.118 - philosophical of going, 01:41:45.218 --> 01:41:51.518 - City this is a city resource. This is a taxpayer resource and one of the 01:41:52.002 --> 01:41:58.164 - things that we've been presenting or being presented with is this idea of people being able to buy in 01:41:58.164 --> 01:42:04.145 - in very affordable ways and gain equity and move up the economic mobility scale. And I personally, 01:42:04.145 --> 01:42:10.308 - philosophically, just don't think that we should use city tax dollars for that purpose. And so that's 01:42:10.308 --> 01:42:16.470 - why I think that they should be permanently affordable through some kind of limited equity, something 01:42:16.470 --> 01:42:21.968 - or other. There are several suggestions on the table or thoughts on the table about how to 01:42:21.968 --> 01:42:28.910 - Create this permanent affordability And I I just I think that that's really important to do and I mean 01:42:28.910 --> 01:42:35.852 - if right now they're affordable essentially They're affordable at the market rate that they would sell 01:42:35.852 --> 01:42:42.659 - at simply because they're small Right small small houses on small lots then then we should make sure 01:42:42.659 --> 01:42:47.646 - that through time they continue to have that affordable mark by somehow a 01:42:47.746 --> 01:42:54.520 - Limiting basically the inflation on these and and this is where I'm not exactly sure the mechanism to 01:42:54.520 --> 01:43:01.360 - do that But I feel like it should be possible to do that especially through some of the limited equity 01:43:01.360 --> 01:43:05.278 - kind of models that have been being talked about so that's 01:43:06.434 --> 01:43:12.567 - I have expressed various flexibility around that 50% number in the past few weeks, but in the last couple 01:43:12.567 --> 01:43:18.352 - of weeks, I'm really like, you know, if they're market rate affordable right now, then in 10 years, 01:43:18.352 --> 01:43:24.196 - they should also still be market rate affordable, and that somehow we should make sure that 10 years 01:43:24.196 --> 01:43:30.097 - from now, they are, that they have an outpaced inflation, that they haven't, you know, so that we can 01:43:30.097 --> 01:43:32.990 - guarantee not just the first homebuyer is getting 01:43:33.154 --> 01:43:42.838 - Something affordable and attainable but the next one and the next one and the next one Smith and then 01:43:42.838 --> 01:43:53.282 - we'll have to hear from Ali So one thing I'd like to better understand At the outset is so the administration 01:43:53.282 --> 01:44:02.302 - has has said that they would do 25% of total units of permanent affordability Is would that be 01:44:02.530 --> 01:44:09.959 - In addition to the naturally affordable units that are already listed where you have dedicated, committed 01:44:09.959 --> 01:44:17.037 - to 50 percent, I know the table we have says 71 percent, but in the text of the ordinance it says at 01:44:17.037 --> 01:44:24.325 - least 50 percent of the homes would be naturally affordable to home buyers at or below 100 percent AMI. 01:44:24.325 --> 01:44:31.614 - That is in the text of the ordinance. The 25 percent long-term affordable units, would that be a subset 01:44:32.034 --> 01:44:48.224 - of the 50% naturally affordable. I mean, I kind of assumed that, but I just wanted to clarify. So Anna 01:44:48.224 --> 01:44:50.110 - is nodding. 01:44:50.530 --> 01:44:57.018 - Yes, I do believe that the 25 percent would be included in that. And part of where we landed was based 01:44:57.018 --> 01:45:03.318 - on having some flexibility since we don't exactly know what it's going to cost to build these units 01:45:03.318 --> 01:45:09.680 - right now. You know, we are in a geopolitical environment where prices are going up every day and as 01:45:09.680 --> 01:45:10.814 - oil prices go up, 01:45:10.882 --> 01:45:17.296 - So are the materials. And so it's hard to make a commitment to something that we don't exactly have 01:45:17.296 --> 01:45:24.352 - a price tag on. We also don't know how much of these other reasonable conditions are going to be implemented. 01:45:24.352 --> 01:45:30.959 - And all of it is a math problem. So there is some flexibility in there for a reason. Not that we don't 01:45:30.959 --> 01:45:37.950 - all want as many affordable units as possible. And I think that if you also read some of the text in what we 01:45:38.242 --> 01:45:45.306 - proposed for affordability, too. There was some language in there about limiting the amount of equity 01:45:45.306 --> 01:45:52.300 - that somebody could earn. But I think we also have to understand that homeownership is about lifting 01:45:52.300 --> 01:45:59.226 - somebody out of poverty. That is their number one source of wealth building, period. So to say that 01:45:59.226 --> 01:46:04.766 - they should not ever earn equity in their home or appreciation is also a fizzle 01:46:04.866 --> 01:46:11.690 - philosophical question too, because that does keep people down from economic mobility. And I'm not saying 01:46:11.690 --> 01:46:18.256 - that I want somebody to profit significantly off something, but they should have some mobility that's 01:46:18.256 --> 01:46:24.951 - part of homeownership. But 100% on board with affordability in every way. Ali, I think maybe you should 01:46:24.951 --> 01:46:26.110 - chime in on this. 01:46:27.554 --> 01:46:33.046 - I know that there is a structured portion of our scope which is developing the exact mechanism of that 01:46:33.046 --> 01:46:38.379 - affordability with RDC, which we're working through PUD to know what the standards are first before 01:46:38.379 --> 01:46:43.925 - we get there. But I do know that there's quite a bit of work that we are trying to maintain flexibility 01:46:43.925 --> 01:46:49.524 - to be able to define that when we know how many units we have and when we know exactly what can be built 01:46:49.524 --> 01:46:50.910 - and what the timeline is. 01:46:51.042 --> 01:46:57.567 - I will say too, I think Anna's making a really good point, that we're only limiting the amount of equity 01:46:57.567 --> 01:47:03.844 - that can be gained by a homeowner in this neighborhood to our affordable buyers, which also has some 01:47:03.844 --> 01:47:10.556 - tricky connotations. We do have some larger family homes and throughout Bloomington and across the country, 01:47:10.556 --> 01:47:14.782 - the thing we see the most built of is larger, more expensive homes. 01:47:15.010 --> 01:47:21.074 - They make more money for a builder. They're easy to permit. Your neighbors get less mad when you build 01:47:21.074 --> 01:47:27.080 - them. We typically see less opposition from neighbors with large single-family homes on a larger lot, 01:47:27.080 --> 01:47:33.203 - which then is more expensive. Those homes are not capped in equity that can be gained from a homeowner. 01:47:33.203 --> 01:47:37.854 - And I think there is a good argument that single-family homes zoning generally 01:47:38.018 --> 01:47:44.847 - has created a really tough situation for housing generally that we are only getting more expensive houses 01:47:44.847 --> 01:47:51.417 - than we can afford and only people who can afford to buy those then get the benefit of all the equity 01:47:51.417 --> 01:47:57.988 - increases. And so I do think it's a more complicated question than do we want homes to be affordable? 01:47:57.988 --> 01:48:04.559 - Obviously we're going to great lengths to try to get as many affordable homes here as possible. Thank 01:48:04.559 --> 01:48:06.814 - you so much, Commissioner Cassidy. 01:48:07.522 --> 01:48:14.071 - I was just trying to separate down what we agree or have to look at as our percentage of affordability 01:48:14.071 --> 01:48:20.429 - and then our permanent affordability years. I mean, from an administration and RDC, we've discussed 01:48:20.429 --> 01:48:26.978 - the 25%. We all want to go more than that, without a question, as far as the affordability percentage, 01:48:26.978 --> 01:48:33.399 - but to try to get something in the context of the PUD to say, meet the current UDO standard, because 01:48:33.399 --> 01:48:37.214 - our current PUD says 15%, and that was just a timing issue. 01:48:37.378 --> 01:48:45.064 - So with that is my standpoint my understanding is everybody is good with at least the 25 percent so 01:48:45.064 --> 01:48:52.750 - we can get that we want more but we have to set something in the PUD that at least is an attainable 01:48:52.750 --> 01:48:56.286 - basis and then to them to a that piece of it. 01:48:56.674 --> 01:49:03.270 - to make sure we get an agreement or something we can all live with the minimum amount. We want more, 01:49:03.270 --> 01:49:10.062 - never question. And then from an affordability standpoint, that permanent affordability into a 50 year, 01:49:10.062 --> 01:49:17.245 - 99 year time frame to do it and how the equity is shared. There's basically three components, the percentage, 01:49:17.245 --> 01:49:23.841 - the affordability time frame, and then how we determine anything from a shared equity on that 25% up 01:49:23.841 --> 01:49:25.278 - on the affordability. 01:49:25.794 --> 01:49:33.789 - I'm trying to just break it down in three parts so we can get a good contextual aspect of what needs 01:49:33.789 --> 01:49:42.100 - to be put into the PUD ordinance. Well, I think another variable or maybe just a different way of saying 01:49:42.100 --> 01:49:50.491 - what Commissioner Cassidy was saying is looking at the number of households we help overall with taxpayer 01:49:50.491 --> 01:49:54.686 - dollars. So we can help 49 households or we can help 01:49:55.234 --> 01:50:03.632 - hundreds of households over the next 100 years. So that, I think, that is a persuasive argument for 01:50:03.632 --> 01:50:12.030 - me. Even though each of those households would have limits to the equity that they would gain, they 01:50:12.030 --> 01:50:20.427 - would still all be helped by taxpayer dollars, by our investment. And that does seem, for lack of a 01:50:20.427 --> 01:50:25.214 - better word, more fair to me to spread out that benefit. 01:50:25.314 --> 01:50:33.700 - into future generations of homeowners, rather than just say, hey, now we have, you know, well, I guess 01:50:33.700 --> 01:50:41.354 - the way that with the 25% we would have, 24, there would be 24 households, no, 25 households, 01:50:41.354 --> 01:50:49.577 - I don't know, something like that, that we would say, you know, help just with their first purchase, 01:50:49.577 --> 01:50:54.462 - and then after that, the next people who purchase that home 01:50:54.818 --> 01:51:03.570 - are not gonna have our assistance. So it's like, oh, you're the lucky 25 and you get to have the income 01:51:03.570 --> 01:51:11.986 - limited housing, but further down the road when you sell it, the next person, we're not helping any 01:51:11.986 --> 01:51:20.486 - more people out of poverty, we're not helping any more first time home owners after that. Thank you, 01:51:20.486 --> 01:51:22.590 - Council Member Stasberg. 01:51:23.202 --> 01:51:28.757 - I also want to say that there that there's this middle ground between like Renting and then being able 01:51:28.757 --> 01:51:34.367 - to get as much equity out of your home as possible because when you rent I mean every month you're just 01:51:34.367 --> 01:51:39.922 - like Giving money to somebody else to another entity to another person and you're never gonna see that 01:51:39.922 --> 01:51:45.531 - again but when you own you are gonna see that again even if you sell the home for the exact amount that 01:51:45.531 --> 01:51:46.718 - you bought it for and 01:51:47.298 --> 01:51:53.880 - four years before, you're still going to get back essentially all of that rent money. So it is this, 01:51:53.880 --> 01:52:00.723 - or all that mortgage money, there is this, it is like an intermediate step. And I'm not of course saying 01:52:00.723 --> 01:52:06.654 - that there shouldn't be any increases on this because of course there's natural inflation. 01:52:06.754 --> 01:52:12.351 - But I mean, our housing costs have outpaced inflation in Bloomington for God only knows how many years 01:52:12.351 --> 01:52:17.893 - at this point. And so through this making this permanently affordable, and part of what I'm saying is 01:52:17.893 --> 01:52:23.436 - like, let's not let the cost of these houses outpace inflation in the way that might be being done in 01:52:23.436 --> 01:52:28.869 - other areas. So that then it's limiting how much more somebody could sell it for. They might not be 01:52:28.869 --> 01:52:34.521 - able to sell it for market rate. They might have to sell it for a little less than market rate, because 01:52:34.521 --> 01:52:35.390 - market rate has 01:52:35.618 --> 01:52:44.314 - gone up so much. But that homebuyer is still getting something from it. They're still getting this benefit. 01:52:44.314 --> 01:52:52.365 - They're still getting back that money that they've put into it by paying that mortgage. And so that 01:52:52.365 --> 01:53:01.142 - still is lifting people up and out of a less stable housing situation and a less stable financial situation. 01:53:01.142 --> 01:53:04.926 - Councilmember Zerota-Sambarga and then Robert. 01:53:05.378 --> 01:53:11.382 - I was just going to piggyback on that. I think from Grounded Solutions, the stat is 70% of people who 01:53:11.382 --> 01:53:17.386 - first buy permanently affordable buy their next house market rate, which to me is the stair step that 01:53:17.386 --> 01:53:23.390 - I find so amazing and so exciting. I think the point is to get folks to market rate home purchases in 01:53:23.390 --> 01:53:29.453 - their lifetimes. I will say, too, just keep in mind that these houses are very small. So we're looking 01:53:29.453 --> 01:53:34.398 - at 250 square feet, which might, of course, not fit on those two little properties. 01:53:34.690 --> 01:53:40.422 - but these are very much like starter homes, and they're very similar to house sizes and Prospect Hill, 01:53:40.422 --> 01:53:46.264 - and I think there will be, I mean of course someone could live in one of these homes forever, and people 01:53:46.264 --> 01:53:52.107 - do live in 600 square foot homes forever, but these I think are meant, I mean I think the administration 01:53:52.107 --> 01:53:57.950 - calls them workforce, for workforce housing folks, particularly young professionals, and a lot of times, 01:53:58.402 --> 01:54:05.781 - What happens is folks then move have a kid or two kids and nobody can really fit anymore in 600 square 01:54:05.781 --> 01:54:13.304 - feet or not that many people and so they they do head out to a different neighborhood right or something 01:54:13.304 --> 01:54:20.540 - so I think to looking at the like the nature of and like the purpose of These homes that potentially 01:54:20.540 --> 01:54:28.062 - they are a first home and not potentially a last home I think that is good for this conversation as well 01:54:30.018 --> 01:54:37.626 - It's been a good conversation. I agree I think Councilman Rosenberger and Stossberg put it very well 01:54:37.626 --> 01:54:45.158 - that I think that it doesn't preclude obviously I mean we all want people to build equity when they 01:54:45.158 --> 01:54:52.991 - purchase a home And that can be realized on what one pays on the principle so I think that the the good 01:54:52.991 --> 01:54:58.942 - way to frame it is this step between rental where you surrender everything and 01:54:59.426 --> 01:55:06.491 - to something, you are building some equity, but you don't maybe don't gain everything, the market value 01:55:06.491 --> 01:55:13.419 - that you might have. And then as a starter home, and then that is a stair step to something else. And 01:55:13.419 --> 01:55:20.280 - we ought to maximize the number of people benefiting from that. So the long-term affordability to me 01:55:20.280 --> 01:55:25.918 - is very important. And if we can't do it here, where is it going to happen? Right? 01:55:26.274 --> 01:55:35.144 - I mean this to me is the place to prototype this and make it work. So I'm in agreement. Just raise a 01:55:35.144 --> 01:55:44.541 - point that I'd like to share which is I definitely agree and and sympathetic to the idea of using publicly 01:55:44.541 --> 01:55:52.094 - owned land for permanent affordability. I want to just note that one way I think this 01:55:52.770 --> 01:56:00.648 - may be accomplished through the Hopewell South PUD is that because of these smaller units, that's creating 01:56:00.648 --> 01:56:08.157 - its own natural affordability. Again, they are lower price points. There are administrative layers to 01:56:08.157 --> 01:56:16.035 - having externally non-market affordability, which I'm not advocating against. I'm just noting that there's 01:56:16.035 --> 01:56:20.158 - who's gonna administer it, how it's gonna be monitored, 01:56:20.482 --> 01:56:26.440 - It's just an extra layer that, especially if it's permanent, that needs to be sustainable over time. 01:56:26.440 --> 01:56:32.398 - So on the other side of that, in terms of the market, naturally market-based, I'm just going to note 01:56:32.398 --> 01:56:35.230 - that for many years, until the Great Recession, 01:56:35.490 --> 01:56:42.318 - Condominiums were an important source of housing affordability people could have owner occupancy but 01:56:42.318 --> 01:56:49.214 - because of the nature of the condominium ownership and structure tended to Basically be a lower price 01:56:49.214 --> 01:56:56.245 - point and those in most cases were not again subsidized units, but they were a naturally occurring form 01:56:56.245 --> 01:57:03.005 - of market-based affordability and I'm just going to make a case for discussion that I feel that the 01:57:03.005 --> 01:57:04.222 - city investing in 01:57:04.322 --> 01:57:10.821 - what the Hopewell South PUD is in the mix of housing types, especially smaller housing types that are 01:57:10.821 --> 01:57:17.574 - more inclined to stay at a market rate of affordability, as folks were saying, a starter home, et cetera. 01:57:17.574 --> 01:57:24.073 - Just to consider that, even though, again, condominium development still is something that needs, and 01:57:24.073 --> 01:57:30.445 - I'm not talking about locally, I'm just talking about nationally, that's a need to deal with how to 01:57:30.445 --> 01:57:33.694 - make that more available, again, as a market type. 01:57:34.178 --> 01:57:41.398 - until we get to that point the kind of mix of housing types that are being offered in the Hopewell South 01:57:41.398 --> 01:57:48.412 - PUD offer an important naturally occurring affordability that I just don't want to underestimate that 01:57:48.412 --> 01:57:55.357 - and I'm sure Ali can speak more to that too. So there's both the housing types but even that this is 01:57:55.357 --> 01:58:00.446 - meant to be a prototype whether it's for other development in Hopewell or 01:58:00.546 --> 01:58:07.180 - other options for other parts of the city that if we can get this right and can replicate that, it's 01:58:07.180 --> 01:58:13.946 - also the supply issue. These types of housing are not being readily built on the market now and that's 01:58:13.946 --> 01:58:20.646 - where the public investment is coming from of making it possible to build these smaller housing types 01:58:20.646 --> 01:58:27.543 - that meet that natural price point on the market. And to the extent that we can expand that supply again 01:58:27.543 --> 01:58:29.054 - by having a successful 01:58:29.154 --> 01:58:35.786 - prototype that can be replicated adding to the supply then creates less pressure on the scarcity of 01:58:35.786 --> 01:58:41.822 - housing that of course we know then contributes to the escalating costs. So I just want to 01:58:42.306 --> 01:58:49.849 - help folks understand that, yes, there's room for looking at how subsidy and permanent affordability 01:58:49.849 --> 01:58:57.318 - can be part of that. And I don't want to underestimate that, but there are just additional hoops to 01:58:57.318 --> 01:59:05.010 - jump through to make that possible. And so not to underestimate the capacity of what the existing plan 01:59:05.010 --> 01:59:10.686 - provides just as market design-based affordability. Excellent point. Sorry. 01:59:11.298 --> 01:59:18.488 - I just got photos from Wiley Street. I got a little distracted. Thank you to the resident who just sent 01:59:18.488 --> 01:59:25.609 - me photos from Wiley Street. In response to that, though, I think that that's, I mean, one of the kind 01:59:25.609 --> 01:59:32.799 - of questions that I had that I never had a chance to ask as well, I mean, in terms of the 25% of units, 01:59:32.799 --> 01:59:40.542 - like which units were going to be permanently affordable, and then the mechanism that was going to be used was, 01:59:40.962 --> 01:59:46.702 - what I've been told, things that are not deed restrictions, like none of them are going to 01:59:46.702 --> 01:59:53.009 - be deed restricted, that Director Killian-Henson has been exploring other options for it, and so my 01:59:53.009 --> 01:59:59.569 - thought on the others is that we wouldn't necessarily have to have any different programs in place than 01:59:59.569 --> 02:00:06.192 - what is already being done, and if they're already like affordable at market rate, then I mean, wouldn't 02:00:06.192 --> 02:00:09.598 - necessarily have to step in with much subsidy at all, 02:00:09.730 --> 02:00:17.235 - that it would really just be this oversight kind of piece of you're going to sell this at market rate, 02:00:17.235 --> 02:00:24.812 - like this is the maximum that you could sell it for. And I guess the other piece of that is making sure 02:00:24.812 --> 02:00:31.953 - that whoever buys it falls into the income level that we're targeting. But once again, that also, 02:00:31.953 --> 02:00:39.166 - I mean, if we're already going to have programs in place for those first 25%, I'm not sure that it 02:00:39.330 --> 02:00:45.886 - adds any more of that kind of overhead. And that is a question, though, that I have. It's like, well, 02:00:45.886 --> 02:00:52.379 - if we're not doing deed restrictions, then there has to be something that's ongoing. And how exactly 02:00:52.379 --> 02:00:58.871 - are we going to do that as a city? Because that's a whole separate arm of council's oversight is the 02:00:58.871 --> 02:01:05.363 - long-term financial piece of that, whether it's staffing, whether it's actual subsidy of funds going 02:01:05.363 --> 02:01:07.934 - into things. And that's a question that 02:01:08.034 --> 02:01:16.892 - that hasn't really been answered thus far? Yeah, I mean, again, I think it's a good point. But even 02:01:16.892 --> 02:01:25.838 - if there's not, let's say, subsidy between kind of aiming at a certain target income and what market 02:01:25.838 --> 02:01:33.278 - rate, let's just say market rate, is the sustainable option for that income target, 02:01:33.570 --> 02:01:40.879 - In terms of even having the oversight, you still need the compliance and monitoring part of it if that's 02:01:40.879 --> 02:01:47.979 - being built into it. And that's an additional cost and layer of administration, which I'm not writing 02:01:47.979 --> 02:01:55.219 - off. I'm just trying to pull that out as something that is still part of it, even if it's not an actual 02:01:55.219 --> 02:01:59.326 - cash or soft second kind of subsidy. Commissioner Cassidy. 02:02:00.162 --> 02:02:06.951 - I was trying to understand where you're coming from, Isabel, because we want to make long-term affordability 02:02:06.951 --> 02:02:13.366 - for multiple people, not a situation where it's one and you hit the lottery. This is a situation where 02:02:13.366 --> 02:02:19.656 - percentage-wise, trying to identify, because the components I was talking about, and to Hopi's point 02:02:19.656 --> 02:02:25.884 - of how that works out, since we are dealing with the land use on the PUD at the present moment, and 02:02:25.884 --> 02:02:29.310 - what we discussed is the mechanisms that have to occur 02:02:29.890 --> 02:02:36.373 - if we can agree on percentages and then either a sliding scale or the amount at 90% or 80% AMI, and 02:02:36.373 --> 02:02:43.245 - then work back to how we get to that permanent affordability. I don't know if I'm making sense in regards 02:02:43.245 --> 02:02:49.922 - to it, but I'm just trying to get it to that point where we know that we want consistency of long-term 02:02:49.922 --> 02:02:57.118 - affordability for at least a minimum of the 25 units, whichever units they happen to be at the present moment. 02:02:57.250 --> 02:03:03.317 - natural occurring affordability based on size and construction costs and the fact that we should the 02:03:03.317 --> 02:03:09.564 - city has to set the example and that's as Councilman role put it we're the this is if it doesn't happen 02:03:09.564 --> 02:03:15.691 - here where else is it going to happen but taking that how the conditions to get to that affordability 02:03:15.691 --> 02:03:21.939 - are left after we determine the land use basis based on our 13 reasonable conditions to be able to have 02:03:21.939 --> 02:03:24.702 - that discussion but move these others forward 02:03:25.506 --> 02:03:34.113 - Because we all want permanent affordability. We want minimum 25% maximum 100% But that 90 that you do 02:03:34.113 --> 02:03:42.720 - that based on correct me if I'm wrong at least 25% at 90% of AMI That's the new and that's what we've 02:03:42.720 --> 02:03:46.686 - had the discussion on and somewhat agreed to I 02:03:48.290 --> 02:03:55.455 - Put in flexibility because we don't understand what the reasonable conditions that have been proposed 02:03:55.455 --> 02:04:02.831 - will do to our price tags yet and Just to be very clear. It's highly unusual For us to even be targeting 02:04:02.831 --> 02:04:04.798 - a price point at this point 02:04:05.474 --> 02:04:12.076 - Most builders that would come before you for a PUD for land use would not have any idea. So I think, 02:04:12.076 --> 02:04:19.005 - again, based on material costs that are changing, based on what regulations you guys are going to impose, 02:04:19.005 --> 02:04:25.737 - how do we get to the math problem? We don't know until you tell us what reasonable conditions you guys 02:04:25.737 --> 02:04:32.862 - are going to adopt. Then we can do the math and say, OK, here's what we can actually build and for how much. 02:04:33.666 --> 02:04:40.257 - Other than that, that's really why we put the flexibility in there. Not because we want to target 120% 02:04:40.257 --> 02:04:46.912 - AMI, but because we need some flexibility to understand the math. We've talked about what the mechanism 02:04:46.912 --> 02:04:53.311 - to protect that long-term affordability is. And you've heard from experts in the industry that tell 02:04:53.311 --> 02:04:59.710 - you what we've experienced, which is deed restrictions don't work. They're very hard to administer, 02:04:59.710 --> 02:05:03.358 - and it's hard to get a mortgage on them. So if we could, 02:05:03.554 --> 02:05:10.442 - just continue the conversations about the silent second mortgages with the right of first refusals. 02:05:10.442 --> 02:05:17.468 - They work. They work in other communities. They work in our community currently. It's what Habitat is 02:05:17.468 --> 02:05:24.425 - using. It's not unheard of. We're not just making this up. It is well known to be an option, whether 02:05:24.425 --> 02:05:26.078 - it's in our UDO or not. 02:05:26.306 --> 02:05:33.449 - ownership, this is really the avenue that we need to move towards if we want to protect affordability 02:05:33.449 --> 02:05:40.453 - long term. But as far as the actual percentages, it's really hard to say we're going to target only 02:05:40.453 --> 02:05:47.526 - 90% or only 80% or only 100% when we don't know what that equation is right now. I would say all. So 02:05:47.526 --> 02:05:55.230 - within the current reasonable condition as framed, my colleagues have given a couple of, they said, you know, 02:05:55.458 --> 02:06:01.776 - for you all to decide from a couple of different options. And I suppose, correct me if I'm wrong, Council 02:06:01.776 --> 02:06:07.797 - Member Stasberg and Council Member Rosenberger, that there's some combination of those would also be 02:06:07.797 --> 02:06:13.817 - feasible. And so I guess the question is, are there within the flexibility that's already built into 02:06:13.817 --> 02:06:19.837 - the reasonable condition, are there tools that you don't see available to you? Because what you just 02:06:19.837 --> 02:06:21.566 - described is they've already 02:06:21.762 --> 02:06:28.433 - added that as one of the options. If deed restriction is viewed as not the best choice, then go to second 02:06:28.433 --> 02:06:34.852 - mortgages or write a first refusal. You've all outlined exactly that in the... I remember seeing that 02:06:34.852 --> 02:06:41.397 - in the reasonable condition. I saw that we would have to come back to you all for approval for whatever 02:06:41.397 --> 02:06:46.494 - the mechanism is, which we're gonna end up back in the same exact spot, which is 02:06:46.754 --> 02:06:53.050 - Homes that can't be financed because we can't agree the other Michael. Could I ask, I mean, if the tension 02:06:53.050 --> 02:06:58.935 - point is the coming back versus, I mean, just so that we're negotiating on the right thing. I mean, 02:06:58.935 --> 02:07:05.055 - if it's, OK, we've given you the right toolkit, but we don't want to have to go through a whole process 02:07:05.055 --> 02:07:11.116 - of coming back to council, OK, then maybe we can build some stronger frameworks into how that decision 02:07:11.116 --> 02:07:15.294 - is made or something like that. Or is the question that you don't have 02:07:15.650 --> 02:07:20.116 - the right tools, right? So is it we don't want to come back to council about this, or is it that we 02:07:20.116 --> 02:07:22.974 - don't have the right tools available to us in terms of choices? 02:07:24.098 --> 02:07:30.216 - Because I think they've listed out four or five different ways that they're happy with. We specifically 02:07:30.216 --> 02:07:36.275 - said deed restrictions, because that's what's already in the UDO, ground leases, community land trust, 02:07:36.275 --> 02:07:42.570 - because that's also something that's being done. And then we said, or other legal mechanism to be approved 02:07:42.570 --> 02:07:48.511 - by the council. And one of the reasons why we said it to be approved by the council is, at least for 02:07:48.511 --> 02:07:53.982 - me, is to make sure that there is that flexibility to keep on exploring those other options. 02:07:54.306 --> 02:08:01.301 - because as the fiscal body separate from the land use PUD part, we need to know how it's going to work 02:08:01.301 --> 02:08:08.161 - in terms of actual city finances, in my opinion. And so that's where it's like, how is this actually 02:08:08.161 --> 02:08:15.564 - going to work? And so if there's some other way to do that, at this point, we've been having this discussion 02:08:15.564 --> 02:08:16.990 - for longer, so maybe 02:08:17.122 --> 02:08:23.721 - there's already more of an outline of exactly how silent second mortgages are gonna work. Who is gonna 02:08:23.721 --> 02:08:30.384 - be the holder of the silent second mortgage? Those are the kinds of questions that I have as the fiscal 02:08:30.384 --> 02:08:36.854 - body of Bloomington. Is the RDC gonna be the silent second mortgage? Those are the questions I have, 02:08:36.854 --> 02:08:43.261 - so that's why it was like come back to council with more details about how these other programs are 02:08:43.261 --> 02:08:44.606 - actually gonna work. 02:08:44.834 --> 02:08:51.877 - We already administer silent second mortgages all of the time with our down payment and closing cost 02:08:51.877 --> 02:08:58.920 - programs. So we have a ton of affordable programs that already use it. And then I see Council Member 02:08:58.920 --> 02:09:06.242 - Flaherty next. Would it be useful to expand the list of things that are considered under this reasonable 02:09:06.242 --> 02:09:13.286 - condition? So they're setting a sort of minimum amount of permanent affordability, and then would it 02:09:13.286 --> 02:09:14.750 - be better instead of 02:09:14.946 --> 02:09:21.712 - you know, that fourth category being, and that very thing come to us, including, you know, moving that 02:09:21.712 --> 02:09:28.346 - to six or seven things, or maybe just five, and then with the option of, you know, and we're willing 02:09:28.346 --> 02:09:35.112 - to consider other things as well, or something like that. Feel free to answer, and then Council Member 02:09:35.112 --> 02:09:40.958 - Feather. I'm not 100% sure that I understand what the question is. If we're saying that, 02:09:41.410 --> 02:09:47.904 - The toolkit is deed restrictions and community land trusts or long-term ground lease. Or second mortgages. 02:09:47.904 --> 02:09:54.581 - As long as that other piece is in there, I think that that's fine. I think that there's also other mechanisms 02:09:54.581 --> 02:10:00.772 - that could be brought up eventually. So as long as we're spelling out that the right of first refusal 02:10:00.772 --> 02:10:06.174 - and the silent second are part of that toolkit, then I don't see that there's a problem. 02:10:07.042 --> 02:10:12.069 - That's very helpful, thank you. Councilman Flaherty. Yeah, briefly note, I think this is in the same 02:10:12.069 --> 02:10:17.246 - vein. To me, the reason why we need to approve it, either now or in the future, is because we're asking 02:10:17.246 --> 02:10:22.423 - to do something that isn't in code. We're asking to deviate from the UDO. And from where I sit, we just 02:10:22.423 --> 02:10:27.500 - can't approve it if we don't know what that is. We just do need to know. And it's even OK to not know 02:10:27.500 --> 02:10:32.777 - now. But we're giving some options now. And if we come back later, we just amend the reasonable condition 02:10:32.777 --> 02:10:36.510 - and the PUD. We did that with the Rolato when there needed to be a change. 02:10:36.674 --> 02:10:41.909 - So I don't think it's unreasonable. And yeah, also totally open to adding other things right now. 02:10:41.909 --> 02:10:47.411 - To me, it's about just knowing what it is, or if we don't know now, knowing the future and having that 02:10:47.411 --> 02:10:52.807 - formal approval and making sure that it meets what the intent is here. That it's not just a right of 02:10:52.807 --> 02:10:54.142 - first refusal, but like, 02:10:54.466 --> 02:11:00.988 - Obligation to exercise it for instance so that we actually do maintain the councilmember Pima Smith 02:11:00.988 --> 02:11:07.509 - and then Okay, go ahead first then yeah, I just wanted to follow up on my notes in terms of so like 02:11:07.509 --> 02:11:14.227 - what you would need is the tool of silence that could mortgage and write a first refusal and then also 02:11:14.227 --> 02:11:18.270 - having the possibility of others, but it's just those two and 02:11:19.874 --> 02:11:26.717 - I mean, that seems very right. I mean, that's. Yeah, I would want more specific information about how 02:11:26.717 --> 02:11:33.426 - silent second mortgages are already being done by the city and how that would then be done for this 02:11:33.426 --> 02:11:40.470 - Hopewell area. And then similarly, right of first refusal, how that would be done. I mean, part of right 02:11:40.470 --> 02:11:47.313 - of first refusal is that then what would the RDC basically be saying? Like, yep, we're gonna buy this 02:11:47.313 --> 02:11:48.990 - property. And then like, 02:11:49.250 --> 02:11:55.430 - Understanding more about how the funding of that would work and you don't have to answer that right 02:11:55.430 --> 02:12:01.672 - now But that's that's the kind of things like to put those on the list That's what I want to know in 02:12:01.672 --> 02:12:07.976 - terms of how it's gonna work. Yep. I'm councilman Smith and Zulick I'd like to step back for a minute 02:12:07.976 --> 02:12:14.218 - and and this is relevant to understanding the importance of a long-term affordability, so if I let's 02:12:14.218 --> 02:12:17.246 - just do a scenario, let's say I buy a b-bomb and 02:12:17.442 --> 02:12:27.845 - Okay, 560 square feet, $184,800. I know those are just very general estimates at this point. I assume 02:12:27.845 --> 02:12:38.045 - that the RDC, in order to make this attractive to a builder, is gonna either give away that land or 02:12:38.045 --> 02:12:47.326 - sell it at a very low price. Is that a true assumption? We have not discussed that at all. 02:12:48.194 --> 02:12:55.461 - So how can these sale, how can you have any ballpark idea of the sale prices of these homes if you don't 02:12:55.461 --> 02:13:02.936 - know what they're gonna pay for the land? And I can probably help with that question. We've in our internal 02:13:02.936 --> 02:13:10.064 - modeling for affordability, we have assumed that we are tying land or lot price as a percent of future 02:13:10.064 --> 02:13:17.470 - sale price, which is really typical for the way that builders and banks and appraisers would look at that. 02:13:17.538 --> 02:13:23.373 - And so the larger, more expensive homes would pay a larger dollar amount, right? We're not tying the 02:13:23.373 --> 02:13:29.209 - dirt sale to a price per square foot because the builder is required to buy the lot and then build a 02:13:29.209 --> 02:13:35.160 - specific house. We're instead of doing a flat price, price per square foot for land, which is a normal 02:13:35.160 --> 02:13:40.995 - way people do it sometimes. We're instead doing a different normal way, which is a capped percentage 02:13:40.995 --> 02:13:43.422 - of eventual sale price as the land price. 02:13:43.490 --> 02:13:50.075 - There also has been some discussion, this is in no way a commitment, this is the program, but this is 02:13:50.075 --> 02:13:56.530 - an idea that will be part of vetting this with the RDC. There's an idea that we could make the land 02:13:56.530 --> 02:14:03.567 - sale dollar number, which typically you're gonna say is about 20% of the value of the cost max, so somewhere 02:14:03.567 --> 02:14:10.410 - between 15 and 20 is industry standard. You can make the cost of that due at the sale of the home instead 02:14:10.410 --> 02:14:12.734 - of at the beginning of the project. 02:14:12.866 --> 02:14:18.423 - So the RDC could carry that land cost through construction, which would bring down the amount of equity 02:14:18.423 --> 02:14:24.087 - a builder would need to bring to the project, which would broaden the number of people that could develop 02:14:24.087 --> 02:14:29.644 - them. They need less cash to the bank in order to be able to pay for the land and then borrow the money 02:14:29.644 --> 02:14:35.148 - for construction. And then at closing, that land sale would be paid to the RDC, and then the RDC would 02:14:35.148 --> 02:14:39.102 - be in a position to four qualified home buyers take the value of the lot, 02:14:39.202 --> 02:14:46.222 - and roll it into a soft second or home down payment assistance or some other kind of mechanism 02:14:46.222 --> 02:14:53.981 - of affordability. And so there's some ways that I think the land value and land sale can then ultimately 02:14:53.981 --> 02:15:01.666 - benefit the home buyer, but also broaden the pool of people that we're able to bring in to build these. 02:15:01.666 --> 02:15:07.134 - OK, so I guess what I'm concerned about is if there's any kind of subsidy 02:15:07.394 --> 02:15:15.476 - to create these what we're calling naturally affordable homes because they're so tiny, then that subsidy 02:15:15.476 --> 02:15:23.866 - goes away when the first homeowner sells it to somebody else, right? Unless we have permanent affordability. 02:15:23.866 --> 02:15:32.025 - But the difference in price of what the first person pays for the B-bomb, what I'm paying for the B-bomb, 02:15:32.025 --> 02:15:37.182 - and then in five years, what I can get for that B-bomb is gonna be 02:15:38.082 --> 02:15:46.171 - Big difference because I won't have whatever subsidies are in place to enable the builder to build in 02:15:46.171 --> 02:15:54.340 - this with this financial scheme Am I making any sense here? I would say could I say and I think that's 02:15:54.340 --> 02:15:58.622 - a brilliant I think a brilliant point necessary point 02:15:58.914 --> 02:16:05.100 - I think it's a relevant point for us to bring up on the 22nd and we can continue having these conversations. 02:16:05.100 --> 02:16:10.832 - Given the time, I think that it would be really useful, particularly there's a handful, both council 02:16:10.832 --> 02:16:16.678 - members and members of the RDC who haven't either chosen to or had a chance to chime in, so would love 02:16:16.678 --> 02:16:22.410 - to give them an opportunity to say some things. And then if there's just any sort of final feelings, 02:16:22.410 --> 02:16:28.199 - reflections that we'd like to share going into our meeting on the 22nd, obviously we're not voting on 02:16:28.199 --> 02:16:28.880 - this today, 02:16:28.880 --> 02:16:36.408 - if we chose to vote on it on the 22nd. And so is that okay, Council Member Pumas-Smith? Okay. 02:16:36.408 --> 02:16:44.497 - So would love, Council Member, Commissioner Scambillary, if you had anything that you'd like to add. 02:16:44.497 --> 02:16:52.586 - No, thank you. Thank you for this discussion. This is tremendously helpful. And I'm grateful for all 02:16:52.586 --> 02:16:56.190 - the thought that I have heard put into this. 02:17:01.058 --> 02:17:09.188 - Most of the flexibility I feel around this project comes in terms of things that don't cost us units, 02:17:09.188 --> 02:17:17.318 - that don't limit the number of people we can help. I heard it characterized that way earlier tonight, 02:17:17.318 --> 02:17:25.448 - and I love characterizing it that way, the number of people we can help. Some of the physical changes 02:17:25.448 --> 02:17:28.158 - to the environment do concern me. 02:17:28.258 --> 02:17:34.168 - in that regard because of what they will affect, particularly in terms of accessible homes, because 02:17:34.168 --> 02:17:40.255 - I think that's a great enough need in this community, and there are very few incentives to build those 02:17:40.255 --> 02:17:46.224 - kinds of dwellings, so I think that's important. I appreciate especially what Director Hanson shared 02:17:46.224 --> 02:17:52.193 - about the kinds of tools we need to have in our toolkit for affordability. I think all of us believe 02:17:52.193 --> 02:17:57.630 - in the importance of affordability and lasting over time, but the tools we use to get there 02:17:58.050 --> 02:18:05.329 - are what's important. They need to be sustainable. They need to work with those who are seeking mortgages, 02:18:05.329 --> 02:18:12.199 - those who are seeking loans from banks and from other entities. So, again, having that silent second 02:18:12.199 --> 02:18:19.341 - mortgage, having the right of first refusal, having those tools in the toolkit are going to be critical, 02:18:19.341 --> 02:18:21.246 - I think. Thank you so much. 02:18:23.202 --> 02:18:30.792 - Thank you for going first because I see I mean seriously I think you laid out a lot of my concerns as 02:18:30.792 --> 02:18:38.382 - well and I first also want to thank the council for Come allowing us to come together tonight to talk 02:18:38.382 --> 02:18:45.823 - about this because it's I've learned a lot just listening to the discussion and hearing more detail 02:18:45.823 --> 02:18:52.222 - on what your concerns actually are I Tend to approach these kinds of things in a more 02:18:52.642 --> 02:19:00.155 - perhaps abstract way and a big picture way. My concern, like everyone else's, is we get as many people 02:19:00.155 --> 02:19:07.596 - housed at an affordable cost as possible. I also find I'm very attracted to the idea of experimenting 02:19:07.596 --> 02:19:15.109 - with something that's a little different because, and part of this comes from the experience of having 02:19:15.109 --> 02:19:22.622 - sat through multiple rounds of proposals to build parts of Hopewell and they simply have not been able 02:19:23.138 --> 02:19:31.199 - to build anything that's affordable. We have to do something different in order to get there. And I 02:19:31.199 --> 02:19:39.421 - think the idea of taking a neighborhood approach gives us a lot of ways to bring some design elements 02:19:39.421 --> 02:19:47.482 - in in a consistent way that I think is gonna make the experience of living there really attractive. 02:19:47.482 --> 02:19:52.318 - So I think though at the same time there's clearly a lot of 02:19:52.450 --> 02:19:59.400 - detail that we have to be able to work out and we want to do it in a way that says has a little bureaucratic 02:19:59.400 --> 02:20:05.776 - overhead as possible the backing and for thing I agree with too but but I think where we need to do 02:20:05.776 --> 02:20:12.279 - that we should do that last thing I'll say is that and I think Ali you opened with this is that every 02:20:12.279 --> 02:20:18.846 - community certainly Bloomington has multiple goals for housing and no one development is going to meet 02:20:19.426 --> 02:20:26.513 - Necessarily is going to solve all of those problems with all those goals. We have a lot of other Areas 02:20:26.513 --> 02:20:33.531 - in the city that need to be attended to some of those are already see concerns. They're all you know, 02:20:33.531 --> 02:20:40.481 - they're everyone's concern on some level So it is part of a larger system and flow of housing in the 02:20:40.481 --> 02:20:47.774 - city, too. So again not We're gonna have to make some compromises to get where we want to go for this and 02:20:48.130 --> 02:20:55.438 - but it feels to me like a big step forward. Thank you so much. Councilmember Zulek or Councilmember 02:20:55.438 --> 02:21:02.746 - Daley. Thank you and thank you to the lovely members of the Redevelopment Commission for joining us 02:21:02.746 --> 02:21:08.958 - today. It was nice to hear some of the thoughts that you put forward. All I will say 02:21:09.282 --> 02:21:17.039 - this is I did include the silent second mortgages and write a first refusal in my reasonable condition 02:21:17.039 --> 02:21:24.571 - which was number five which unfortunately failed on I think it was April 1st but it also included a 02:21:24.571 --> 02:21:32.328 - proposal for a full and final affordability structure to be proposed to the council prior to the first 02:21:32.328 --> 02:21:36.094 - home sale so two sponsors of reasonable condition 02:21:36.226 --> 02:21:43.507 - But we're happy to collaborate if you're interested. Thank you Councilmember Daley I don't really have 02:21:43.507 --> 02:21:50.577 - very much to add tonight. I was coming in tonight as a fact-finding mission in my brain and Mission 02:21:50.577 --> 02:21:57.646 - accomplished. I think first of all, I'm grateful for the RDC for being here and for contributing to 02:21:57.646 --> 02:22:04.574 - the conversation for the city staff that was here tonight I think I think tonight showed a lot of 02:22:04.898 --> 02:22:13.412 - progress and really good listening from everybody and contributions from everybody who spoke. So I feel 02:22:13.412 --> 02:22:21.844 - encouraged. I think I learned a lot about what is possible that I thought maybe might not be possible. 02:22:21.844 --> 02:22:30.604 - But I also think I feel really clear now on some of the parameters that need to be set in terms of keeping 02:22:30.604 --> 02:22:34.206 - some affordability, which is, as I've said, 02:22:34.594 --> 02:22:41.440 - Before about this project that is our number one goal is to get as many people housed at a rate that 02:22:41.440 --> 02:22:48.217 - can Continue on you know, so the permanent affordability is something that I Really do want to make 02:22:48.217 --> 02:22:55.334 - sure that we we have something in place moving forward for that because just like councilmember Piedmont 02:22:55.334 --> 02:23:01.502 - Smith said we don't just want like a few lucky winners who win the lottery and then that's 02:23:02.210 --> 02:23:09.231 - That's it. We want this to continue on in our community. That's that's the purpose of this in my eyes. 02:23:09.231 --> 02:23:16.388 - So thank you very much. I'm looking forward to you know our future conversations and building from here. 02:23:16.388 --> 02:23:23.272 - Thank you. Council member rough. Did you want to add anything. You also just the last point that was 02:23:23.272 --> 02:23:30.974 - made speaking to the microphone. So the last point is made by Council member Smith sort of illustrates to me how 02:23:31.074 --> 02:23:41.817 - This is complex, and we all need to have a more thorough understanding of all the levels of complications, 02:23:41.817 --> 02:23:52.660 - just the last point being the pricing of lots and lots that are going to be market rate, even the naturally 02:23:52.660 --> 02:23:57.278 - occurring affordable units that we are saying 02:23:57.442 --> 02:24:04.537 - are naturally occurring affordable, because they're going to be smaller and streamlined in the process. 02:24:04.537 --> 02:24:11.428 - But there's still going to be market rate, my understanding. And the idea that if it's going to be a 02:24:11.428 --> 02:24:18.455 - market rate unit, there should be market rate for the price of the lot, the land, it seems like. Maybe 02:24:18.455 --> 02:24:25.345 - it's more complicated than that. But that came up just sort of at the very end. And that's something 02:24:25.345 --> 02:24:26.846 - I need to understand. 02:24:27.106 --> 02:24:33.861 - Just that alone is something I need to understand better, as well as a lot of the other things that 02:24:33.861 --> 02:24:41.020 - were discussed tonight. And this idea that we need to be headlong, rushed, and hurried in any way, shape, 02:24:41.020 --> 02:24:47.775 - or form on this project, which we hope will serve the community and the needs of the community, not 02:24:47.775 --> 02:24:54.530 - all the needs, as you said, but serve the needs of the community for generations, we hope, is worth 02:24:54.530 --> 02:24:55.678 - the time to take 02:24:56.258 --> 02:25:02.967 - to go through this and get this as right as we can possibly get it. And it is difficult and challenging 02:25:02.967 --> 02:25:09.417 - and time-consuming. But that's, to me, that's what we have to do. So thanks. Thank you so much. And 02:25:09.417 --> 02:25:15.933 - Director Hiddle, also, you haven't had a chance to say anything, anything you'd like to add. I don't 02:25:15.933 --> 02:25:20.190 - think I have anything more to add. I echo the sentiment that very 02:25:21.058 --> 02:25:28.858 - I don't have much more to add. I echo the sentiment that it felt like very productive conversation. 02:25:28.858 --> 02:25:36.814 - And I think, as has been stated, good listening, which is nice. Thank you. Thank you so much. OK. You 02:25:36.814 --> 02:25:45.160 - don't all have to say anything, but any final thoughts that would be additive before the 22nd from anyone? 02:25:45.160 --> 02:25:48.670 - I just want to thank everybody for the time. 02:25:48.930 --> 02:25:54.730 - Further communication discussion and dialogue so that we get to a reasonable place that moves things 02:25:54.730 --> 02:26:00.472 - forward for the citizens of Bloomington, Indiana Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Cassidy This is 02:26:00.472 --> 02:26:06.215 - incredibly helpful. I am emailing all of you with an update on what I'm planning for the reasonable 02:26:06.215 --> 02:26:12.072 - conditions That I have drafted six through twelve if you have feedback about those Please get back to 02:26:12.072 --> 02:26:17.470 - me ASAP as I'll try to get those in the pocket by Friday for And even if not if you get it on 02:26:17.890 --> 02:26:24.119 - You know, Monday would be useful too, but better by Friday. Any other comments as we close? I will just 02:26:24.119 --> 02:26:30.588 - thank you all for a productive discussion tonight. I feel it was really helpful to break down some barriers 02:26:30.588 --> 02:26:36.637 - and to really get into the details and things. And certainly there's more to do. It's not like we're 02:26:36.637 --> 02:26:42.746 - done, but I feel like it's really opened the gate to moving the project forward. So I appreciate your 02:26:42.746 --> 02:26:45.022 - contributions to that, and thank you. 02:26:46.274 --> 02:26:53.552 - Thank you all a little later than we expected. But with the technical difficulties, also thank you to 02:26:53.552 --> 02:26:59.902 - Ali, to the wonderful staff, to Katz. And let's do this again sometime. We're adjourned.